From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat Oct 27 2007 - 17:57:01 EDT
Better late than never, addressing Andrew as well as the list, I thank him
for his message to me of August 18, 2007 providing partial clarification of
the titling of his book.
I don't feel a need for apologizing for my being concerned about the
titling of the book in question. Andrew may choose to call my concern an
accusation, but in a similar circumstance (say, for someone doubting that
9-11-2001 has a "hidden history"), I doubt would have.
Paul Z.
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
video summary from Snowshoe Films at http://snowshoefilms.com
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
--On 10/26/2007 7:17 PM -0400 ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU wrote:
>
> ---------------------------- 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