>Re [7l75-6]: > >Rakesh (or should I say Bhandari?): I don't care. > >You need to read more carefully what I write. > >In solidarity, Jerry > > >> I think one of the problems with our communication is that the *focus* >> of our concerns has been different: for Kliman, his _primary >> research focus_ has, to date, been hermeneutic; First you have misrepresented your own quotation. This putative independent clause did not end with a semi colon--why did you put that there?-- but a comma which was itself preceded by a parenthetical expression. What you meant to convey can only be grasped by the contrast that you were making, so what followed the comma is thus an integral part of the putative independent clause which you now set apart by a semi colon that did not appear in the original. This is what you wrote, and note that unlike you I quoted the entire sentence. You make it seem that you have quoted the main idea of your sentence by using a semi colon. If you had ended the setentence with a comma or ellipses, it would have been clear that what you are saying in the quoted indepedent clause may not be clear outside the context of the rest of the sentence. It's a subtle but dishonest trick. I feel sorry for you. >In other words, >Kliman has been mainly focused on what is essentially a *history of >political economy question* (i.e. what is the interpretation of Marx's >quantitative theory that is the most consistent and has the best textual >evidence when placed in the context of Marx's overall theory?), >whereas many other Marxists are focused on comprehending and >struggling against the dynamics of capitalism.. This is a dishonest and untrue and irrelevant and petty criticism of Kliman: Kliman's interest in the putative hermeneutic question is wrapped up in his efforts to comprehend and struggle against the dynamics of capitalism of which I would imagine he does no less than most Marxists on this list. Even his most theoretical writings on the FROP attempt to put the focus on the struggle against capitalism in the exploitation of living labor in the abode of production. So I did read carefully the entire sentence and the entire nuisance post that you did write. You implied that unlike Marxists who are interested in struggling against and understanding the dynamics of capital, Kliman is bogged down in the world of hermeneutics, but there is no proof and no reason for your accusation that Kliman gets bogged down in hermeneutics as end in itself (which is certainly what you implied) as opposed to the reason of comprehending and clarifying the struggle against the dynamics of capitalism. In that post you also mocked what you took to be Kliman's main focus as having the same relevance for Marxism as personal gardening. This was all simply mean spirited. It is of course possible that you do not understand what you yourself write and imply. For my purposes you had already proven to me in the exchange about slavery that you do not in fact abide by the rules of rational argumentation. This only cements the case. I am quite glad that your moderating power is now shared by others. Given your ethics and heart condition, you should excuse yourself. Bhandari
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT