From: Michael Schauerte (mikeschauerte@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Fri Nov 16 2007 - 23:07:49 EST
I wasn't planning to post anything to the list until I finished the (interminable) translation I am working on, but I want to simply register my protest to the way Rakesh has been treated. I do not know the long history of the feud, but if this post gets the response "he started it" I would pay it about as much mind as when my 5 year old daughter me "she started it" when she retaliates in a childish way (which is natural enough in her case) to something her younger sister did. So excuse me for not reading all of the relevant posts over the past few years, but I am just basing this comment on the "crystal clear" resignation letter of Ajit and his accusation that Rakesh "has been st[al]king" him "for years." This is a serious accusation, however figuratively it may be intended. For anyone "googling" Rakesh to find out more about him might come across this accusation and would naturally have doubts about his character. And this could also have repercussions for his career prospects, so Ajit should be more careful (to say the least) before throwing around such accusations. But when I read his resignation letter looking for evidence to back up these charges, I found nothing at all. The only "crystal clear" thing to me was that Ajit was overreacting. In fact, Ajit comes across very badly in that letter. To say that Rakesh was "pretending to be sometime[s] writing independently" or "taking the cover of somebody else's response to me" to "write nasty things aobut what I had written" just sounds silly. And then to say that "Straffa" is a codename for Ajit (and use that opportunity to say that Rakesh doesn't no anything about Straffa) only makes him look sillier. Are you telling me that in addition to all of the other restrictions placed on Rakesh, he should not have been allowed to discuss the ideas of Straffa either?! (And what is so bad about having your ideas or Straffa's ideas criticized in the first place?) And speaking of restrictions, Rakesh was given no opportunity to reply to these, frankly, hysterical accusations. The part of that letter that really made me question Ajit's judgment was that he also brings in Louis Proyect for abuse as a "failed scholar" along with Rakesh (not that Proyect ever claimed to be a "scholar"--successful or otherwise--in the first place), and informing us that he left pan-L because of Proyect. I would be curious to know what the exact reason was. If it was just that Proyect criticized his ideas, then I think he was overreacting then just as he seems to be doing know. Or was Proyect "stalking" him? (whatever that word means in Ajit's mind) If Ajit was treated badly by Rakesh in the past I am sorry for him but I do not see how such past treatment can justify the abuse he has leveled at Rakesh in that letter and elsewhere which I know has caused Rakesh a good deal of distress, which is only made worse by not having a chance to properly defend himself. I'm sorry that my first post in months is regarding this argument rather than something more edifying. I have basically finished the translation (and nearly finished my introduction) of the Samezo Kuruma book (actually 2 books in one) tentatively entitled *Marx's Theory of the Genesis of Money. *I'm not sure when (or even if) it will be published but if anyone would like to have a look at it contact me off-list and I can send you the Word file. Yours for Comradely Discussion (and I mean that sincerely!), Michael Schauerte
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:03 EST