[OPE-L] "that most valuable Marxist economics e-mail list, OPE-L"

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