From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Mon Aug 27 2007 - 18:10:05 EDT
Jerry, My first point is that whatever Kliman said about OPE-L you where in no way forced to publish that on the OPE-L, that was entirely you choice. My second point is that you should not have made that choice, because it was easily foreseeable that would do no good - neither in the short nor the long run. But let's stop this particular discussion here. The really interesting discussion as pointed out by - as David L. is the issues raised by Kliman's book and the TSSI. I am of the opinion that Kliman's book is a serious, scientific work, and I'll return to the issues related to my evaluation of Kliman's book in a separate posting. Regards Anders >Anders and others: > >Please recall that *I* didn't drag the expression "Levy's defamation Den" >into the discussion here. Kliman did when he included that expression in >a message to Paul Z, which Kliman clearly wanted to see published on >OPE-L. > >Please do note that in describing OPE-L as "Levy's Defamation Den" and >"OPE-HELL" (the latter was included by him in a discussion page of an >online encyclopedia: a _very_ public site!) he is not merely insulting >me: he has insulted every member of OPE-L, including yourself. > > >You asked a question previously: > > > > Isn't Andrew Kliman's book a serious, scientific work, deserving > > > serious treatment? > >And I answered as follows: > > >No, from what I've read, it's not a serious, scientific work. It's a > >piece of propaganda (which in my opinion wouldn't have been published > >unless it was part of the Raya Dunayevskaya book series). But, that's > >my opinion which you are free to agree or disagree with. > >I have a right to my opinion about the merit (or lack thereof) of Kliman's >book just as you have the right to your opinion. Do you not agree? It >seems to me that if you can make what I view as a controversial claim >about his book (i.e. that it is an allegedly "serious, scientific book") >then I have the right to challenge it. Or are we only entitled to say good >things about Kliman's writings? > >As for David's comment, I beg to differ. I think we should take the >totality of a person's published writings into consideration and that >includes writings on blogs, etc. That means that alongside considering >the issues that you listed we should also take note of what he has written >elsewhere, e.g.: > >"I ain't working on Piero's Farm no more!" > >(an insult to Sraffa and surplus approach theorists everywhere! He >compares Sraffa to an owner of a slave plantation! ) > >and > >"The economists have only corrected Marx in various ways, the point is to >interpret him ... correctly". > >(which should be, in my opinion, called "The First Thesis of Dogmatism".) > >I am doing no more or less than holding him to account for what he has >written. If Anders or Paul C or Riccardo want to defend these kinds of >statements, that is their right. If anyone wants to write something >positive about the merit of Kliman's writings, go ahead. By the same >token, I and others have the right to be critical of those writings. > > >The issue here is simply one of allowing for a critical discussion. No >one has told you that you can't have high regard for Kliman's book. Don't >tell others, including myself, that we can't differ with that >perspective. > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT