From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 09:17:24 EST
[I apologize to others on the list for the following reply. I realize
that it is a mistake to respond to him (see, I can admit to making
mistakes) , but sometimes certain things just need to be said.
Now is such a time, imo.]
*****************
> What is insulting?
In the rest of the world, the following is insulting. In the world
of Rakesh Bhandari it is not.
> Now my question is how did RD come to know of HG's work and
> why did she fail to admit her debt. To the first question, she was
> either Shoul or she read Shoul or she read Grossmann.
> As for the latter question, she could not admit her debt for two
> reasons: she was anti Stalinist and she wanted to appear as the
> fount of all wisdom as a leader of an organization, cult, etc.
The above is presented _without a shred of evidence_. Instead, we
are told that it is "obvious." The "similarity" between Dunayevskaya's
understanding of _Capital_ and Grossmann's is "overwhelming ... easy
to support. It screams out in fact." Indeed, it is "easily done." But,
this evidence is _not_ presented. Instead, we are simply told to read
several writings by RD and then --
"You tell me whether this is essentially identical to Grossmann's
interpretation."
In Rakesh Bhandari's pop world of psychology, one can on the
basis of alleged similarity, deduce _intent_. He must obviously
know her life quite well to leap to such a deduction. An additional
beauty of his insult is that it can not be proven to be false since
RD, luckily for he, is dead. Raya Dunayevskaya has approached
the bench of Rakesh and without evidence being presented against
her has been judged guilty by Rakesh the Prosecutor, Rakesh
the Judge, and Rakesh the Jury. There was, after all, no need for
a trial since the charges against her are -- according to the Prosecutor,
the Judge, and the Jury -- "obvious" and "overwhelming."
Prosecutor, Judge, Jury. And "scholar" !!! Is there a faculty in any
graduate school anywhere which would accept such a claim without
evidence? Is there a scholarly journal anywhere which would publish
an article with his insults of RD? I think not. Even mainstream
bourgeois social scientists have _some_ standards.
*****************
> Is there anyone else on this list who has read Grossmann's work,
> all of Shoul's work and most of RD's work? If not, then I am the only
> one who has some basis to talk about this.
Rakesh Bhandari alone "has some basis to talk about this." This
is not because others have not read Dunayevskaya, Grossmann, and
Shoul -- but because he is the self-appointed expert on Grossmann.
The fact that other scholars of Grossmann have not come forward and
supported his interpretation/insult does not bother him one whit.
The fact that no one on OPE-L has come forward and supported him
(despite the fact that _many_ have read RD and HG -- and some have
also read BS -- indeed, there are quite a number of listmembers who
have published articles which refer to their writings) does not
bother him for he knows the Truth of the matter because he is the
Authority on Grossmann and it is "obvious." [One recent comic
moment happened when the Authority claimed that Michael H hadn't
seriously considered Grossmann: evidently, the Authority was
unaware that Michael had published several pieces which referred to
Grossmann.]
He writes above that RD "wanted to appear as the fount of all
wisdom as the leader of an organization, cult, etc." Yet, we can
no more hold RD responsible for the zeal of her supporters than
can Rosa Luxemburg be held responsible for the zeal of Lyndon
La Rouche or Grossmann be held responsible for the zeal of Rakesh
Bhandari. One can only hope that others will not dismiss the writings
of Grossmann because of their post-humous guilt by association with
Rakesh. Grossmann's writings deserve a better fate.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EST