From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Oct 20 2007 - 14:38:57 EDT
> To Anders: I'm curious--what do you find objectionable about my RRPE > paper? I concede that it is highly critical of TSSI, and that it > expresses > its disagreement in strong terms. But when I was writing it I tried very > hard to address issues of substance in a careful & respectful way. In the > end I found no merits in the position I was critiquing: but does that in > itself mean that I was not constructively engaging with the TSSI > position? Gary: You did read "Replicating Marx: A Reply to Mohun" by guess who (_Capital & Class_, 2006), didn't you? (it's available online: search under the title) He wrote: "Mohun's is the first critique of the TSSI to address the interpretive controversy in a serious, methodical way". I guess that means that your critique from his perspective isn't even worth chopped liver. Talk about dismissive! It means literally that -- according to Kliman -- your critique either was not serious and/or not methodical, and/or not concerned with the interpretive controversy. This same comment was directed at every other author (other than Simon) who wrote a critique of the TSSI! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT