Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 07:20:12 -0800 (PST)
From: ALI KADRI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Indeed it was harmful because it was ahistorical; it
generalised an immediate manifestation of history into
a rule of historical development. There is a certain
rigidity that belongs more to
"but the main left scholars retreated into either
atheoretical social history during the 1980s or policy-wonking
consultancies during the 1990s. Most dropped their faddish radical
proclivities in due course. 'From the grassroots to the classroots'
is how we mock our older ex-neomarxist
Indeed it was harmfull because it was ahistorical, it
generalized an immidiate manifestation of history into
rule of historical development. There is a ceratin
rigidity that belongs more to physics than to social
science. This case pertains more to the Latin American
structurlist school than it
Indeed it was harmful because it was ahistorical; it
generalised an immediate manifestation of history into
a rule of historical development. There is a certain
rigidity that belongs more to physics than to social
science. This case pertains more to the Latin American
Structurlist School than it
