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