From: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
Date: Fri Oct 26 2007 - 19:17:22 EDT
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Levy's Defamation Den From: "Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com> Date: Fri, October 26, 2007 7:58 pm To: "Anders Ekeland" <anders.ekeland@online.no> Cc: "Paul Zarembka" <zarembka@buffalo.edu> afreeman@iwgvt.org glevy@pratt.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Anders, I didn't tell Paul Zarembka that he *couldn't* reproduce my message verbatim, but I didn't expect him to do so. I was just hoping he would convey the gist--the fact that I deny his implied accusation against me and the basis for my denial. (I was also hoping for an on-list apology, which never came. Nor a private apology, nor a "thank you for setting the record straight," nor even a reply to my message.) But this is unimportant. Please understand that the outrage over the *expression* "Levy's Defamation Den" is a smokescreen meant to divert attention from the *substance* of my allegation--the list is indeed a defamation den. Subsequent attacks have *completely confirmed* this characterization of mine. And contrary to what has been repeatedly claimed in the LDD, the recent spate of defamatory attacks began *before* I used the expression. My use of the expression "Levy's Defamation Den" was in fact a *response* to Zarembka's implied accusation against me and to Levy's bolder defamatory attack. See the messages reproduced below. It is noteworthy that, in the LDD, there was much consternation over my (apt) use of the (apt) term, "Levy's Defamation Den," but there wasn't even a HINT of denunciation or indignation over his prior defamatory comments--which were the cause of my characterization: "Modesty is not one of the virtues of the author or his theoretical tendency, IMHO." "The author - and Alan Freeman - have lost all perspective on the relative importance of their theoretical endeavors, imo. They are in serious need of a reality check." Etc. After my message to Zarembka was sent to LDD, no member of it demanded that Levy apologize to me, nor even that he retract his false and defamatory accusation. At least this didn't happen on-list. Please bear in mind that the archives of LDD are public, but the victims of defamation on that list are prevented from defending themselves there. I consider it exceedingly improper, always, to fight theoretical/political battles by attacking opponents personally. But it is not only exceedingly improper, but also exceedingly COWARDLY, to publicly impugn the reputation of one's opponents in places where they don't have the opportunity to defend themselves. (I hope you will consider this before writing anything of a personal nature on LDD.) I'm sorry if you think this is part of my alleged "polemical style." It isn't. I am truly *outraged* by what has been taking place at LDD, especially other people's tacit endorsement of, or tolerance for, Levy's (and Bendien's and Laibman's, etc.) behavior. Please note that Levy has been thrown off the Capital and Class e-mail list for his vile attacks against Alan Freeman and me--he accused me of advocating cannibalism, among other things!--and a public apology was issued to us by the members of the CSE Executive Committee. *That* is proper behavior. Anything short of that is tacit approval of defamation. I am *certain* that there are members of LDD who know about his attacks on us elsewhere and his removal from the Capital and Class e-mail list, yet he remains on the list, indeed its leader. Please feel free to share this message with the members of "Levy's Defamation Den." (Yes, you may do so verbatim, if you wish. Or you can replace "LDD" with "that most valuable Marxist economics e-mail list, OPE-L." ... This "issue" is nonsense, a diversion from the fact that public space is being used to attack people personally, and in an exceedingly cowardly manner, because they can't defend themselves, and other people are letting this happen.) I am sending this also to Paul Zarembka and Alan Freeman, and to the personification of Marxian economics. Andrew ===== Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU) Date: Sat Aug 18 2007 - 16:10:49 EDT Next message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] "Reclaiming" Marx's "Capital"?" Previous message: paul bullock: "Re: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels" In reply to: Ian Wright: "[OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage" Next in thread: Paul Zarembka: "Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage" Reply: Paul Zarembka: "Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ] The title "Reclaiming Marx's 'Capital'" makes me uncomfortable. Is not the subtext for such a title itself a claim that the author knows exactly what 'Capital' is about? Are we so insecure in our understanding of 'Capital' as a work of living scientific research? Why not something more modest like "An Interpretation of Marx's 'Capital'"? Paul Z. *** Re: [OPE-L] "Reclaiming" Marx's "Capital"? From: glevy@PRATT.EDU Date: Sat Aug 18 2007 - 16:48:20 EDT Next message: Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels" Previous message: Paul Zarembka: "Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ] Hi Paul Z: > The title "Reclaiming Marx's 'Capital'" makes me uncomfortable. As well it should! > Is not the subtext for such a title itself a claim that the author knows > exactly what 'Capital' is about? Yes. > Are we so insecure in our understanding of 'Capital' as a work of living > scientific research? It depends on who you mean by "we". > Why not something more modest like "An Interpretation of > Marx's 'Capital'"? You have to consider the source. Modesty is not one of the virtues of the author or his theoretical tendency, IMHO. You do recall the discussion we had about allegedly "Copernican" advances in theory and "Marx's Marxism", don't you? Hark! Do you hear the sound of milions of proletarians on the march saying that "Marx was correct" - after all - about the "transformation problem"? The author - and Alan Freeman - have lost all perspective on the relative importance of their theoretical endeavors, imo. They are in serious need of a reality check. In solidarity, Jerry *** Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU) Date: Tue Aug 21 2007 - 10:25:22 EDT Next message: paul bullock: "Re: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels" Previous message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels" In reply to: Paul Zarembka: "Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage" Next in thread: Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ] Andrew provided the following response to me. I hadn't known of the subtitle. Paul Z. _______ "The title "Reclaiming Marx's 'Capital'" makes me uncomfortable. "Is not the subtext for such a title itself a claim that the author knows exactly what 'Capital' is about?" Nope. I would have called it _Reclaiming Marx's "Capital" from the Myth of Inconsistency_, but that was too long. So the latter part became a subtitle. Early in Chapter 1, I explain the exact sense in which the book seeks to reclaim "Capital." The section (from pp. 2-3) is copied below. Please feel to share this message with the members of Levy's Defamation Den. Andrew ========== 1.2 What This Book Is (and Isn't) About [...]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT