zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:59:02
On 10/20/99 at 02:32 AM, "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> said:
>>Mike, If I understand you correctly this is a new conclusion of yours,
>>about "scholarly integrity", that you had no beef against Lapides before
>>you read his new book (other than the disagreement about Marx).
>Paul,
>I am sending you separately a copy of my S&S piece (and will make that
>available to anyone else who isn't a subscriber). As you will see, it was
>quite critical of Lapides--- as is my critique of Felton Shortall in
>Historical Materialism #3 (to which he has responded) and my critique of
>Robert Brenner in the forthcoming issue of HM. However, while I
>criticised "theoretical lapses", the question of scholarly integrity was
>not posed (as it is not in these other cases). Indeed, the main focus of
>my comment was to try to take the discussion further and to emphasize the
>importance of the Grundrisse and the 1861-3 Manuscript for Marxist
>scholarship.
Mike,
Thanks a lot for forwarding your 1993 S&S paper which I'll read, and also
reread Lapides "Is There a 'Missing Book' on Wage Labor?" in his *Marx's
Wage Theory in Historical Perspective*.
I take from your reply that you have no "scholarly integrity" beef against
Lapides OTHER THAN his failure to cite and response to this 1993 S&S
article of yours, i.e., that "quite critical" is not the same ball of wax
and occurs all the time on this list (as one example). I'm just trying to
fully understand the charge, the "j'accuse", which is being leveled
against Lapides, which I believe is unprecedented on this list (Jerry, am
I correct on this?). I have heard such a charge against, e.g., Milton
Friedman, among my neoclassical colleagues, but that is a different story.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:32 EST