[OPE-L:6743] Re: Unsubscribe; Information on RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 14 2002 - 13:04:15 EST

Paul Z,
I urge you to reconsider mostly out of selfish reasons. I have 
learned a great deal from your reconstruction and defense of 
Luxemburg's theory of accumulation and your careful attempt to 
specify just what accumulation is. The list would be greatly 
impoverished by your absence.

I have no beef against Alan Freeman or Jerry Levy--in fact I have had 
more disagreements with Jerry than Alan F or Andrew K on this 
list--and I would very much hope that at some point Alan and Jerry 
will all again be engaged in discussion, each drawing from his 
analytical skills and mastery of the Marxist tradition  and learning 
from each other in the process.

Yes, there is a danger that emails we write will be circulated to 
wreck job chances. No one on this list knows this better than I. But 
in my case the emails were fabricated; I think we all have to 
understand any email we write has the possibility either by accident 
or by intention of entering the public domain.

And Alan most certainly allowed Jerry to circulate his plan to 
organize a  boycott of OPE to the OPE list. And I can't see anything 
in this email that could prejudice an employer against someone as 
brilliant as Alan.

Alejandro says that Alan's permission was akin to that a beaten wife 
gives to her abusive husband. With all due (and great) respect for 
Alejandro, this is absurd. Alan himself was quite clear that part of 
him wanted his true anger at Jerry regarding the re admission of 
Kliman to be known to OPE-L, so Alan explicitly left the decision to 
circulate his call for a boycott in Jerry's hands.

It is true that Alan said he would prefer that it not be circulated, 
but as list co-coordinator I say that it was not in bad faith that 
Jerry could understand Alan to be divided about whether the message 
would be circulated. In fact Alan underlined that there was nothing 
in it that he would not say in public.

Jerry did not include the names of the people to whom Alan's call for 
a boycott was circulated, and this was Alan's main concern. It seems 
to me that Alan was trying to organize people offlist to support his 
campaign for the reinstatement of Kliman and Jerry then tried on list 
to rally support for the way in which he was proceeding with the 
question of Kliman's reinstatement. And let it be known that Jerry 
was more willing to waive conditions for Andrew's reinstatement than 
some of the rest of us were. I don't think Alan or Andrew ever 
realized that Jerry was in many ways a softie on the issue.

I think it is good for the list that we know how alienated the TSS 
school feels and how difficult it has been for Jerry to balance 
Alan's requests with the demands of other OPE-l members. Let us 
support each other at least at the existential level.

Would any of us have done a better job moderating this dispute than 
Jerry? Jerry went against other listmembers in agreeing to the most 
minimal conditions for Kliman's reinstatement. It is probable that 
most of us would have given up long ago.

As comrades, I think we should what we can reasonably do lessen the 
alienation of the TSS school--the real difficulties that it 
faces--and the burdens on Jerry and attempt to being anew, though I 
continue to be put off by Andrew at times in the course of 
discussion. I have had greater problems with Gil.

Jerry seems to me to let bygones be bygones. All he wants of new 
members and readmits that they be bound by the same list rules as 
existing OPE-L members are. Andrew need not make an apology, Jerry 
need not make an apology.

Paul Z, I urge you to remain as the list would suffer greatly from 
your absence; I urge you to use your standing and authority to 
request that Alejandro and Alan  return as well.

Let me do some specific reply.

>Please 'Unsubscribe' me, effective: noon, Saturday, March 16.
>Jerry referred to "threats against the list",

Yes, I would not describe Alan's call for a boycott a threat against the list.

>  and baiting each of us to
>ask for a private message falling into his hands.  If we asked, we become
>part of the theatre. If we asked, we may find difficult an 'out.  So, we
>accept the problem as being that of an inside saboteur among our members.
>Yet, what could be "threats against the list"?

Jerry is referring to Alan's desire to organize a boycott of OPE-L in 
protest to the difficulties in the reinstatement of Andrew Kliman.

 From my perspective, Kliman does have a perfectly reasonable offer 
from Jerry on the table to rejoin the list. I helped to word the 
offer. The offer involves no apologies. This was Jerry's ideas. If 
Jerry were not coordinator, he would have been the most insistent one 
for an apology. But he has done a marvelous job serving as a 

That Kliman is not taking it seems to me the source of the problem. 
And I do not understand why Alan is blaming Jerry for this or wanting 
to deprive all of us of TSS contributions on account of what seems to 
me Kliman's intransigience. The TSS perspective is very valuable; 
Kliman's contributions are very valuable.

So let us be done with this.

Andrew can make the request for the readmit as I have laid out. 
Andrew will be readmitted; there will be no loss of face for anyone.

And then you, Alejandro, Alan, Ted can rejoin.

Please urge Kliman offlist to accept  the Levy/Bhandari (minimal) 
conditions for re-admit.

>   Jerry has the only power
>over who's on the list (optionally choosing some to consult).
>  1) Is the listserver at Chico State College threatening the list?  No.
>  2) Are the capitalists on to us -- multiple options here?  No.
>In fact, even from the incitement itself [OPE-l:6672] we know we are safe,
>... except from ourselves.  We go on.  Enticement ("leading on by exciting
>desire") wins.  Its win reflects on our political savvy.  It is a loss for
>the movement we are to represent.
>If this is not enough, consider entrapment.  When asked [OPE-L:6713], "was
>the original email sender told TO WHOM you have forwarded the mis-sent
>email"?, no answer was forthcoming from Jerry [OPE-L:6718]. Thus, a
>private, mis-sent email is now seemingly in hands unknown to the original
>sender, perhaps being further passed around, and damaging reputation and
>livelihood, probably in ways never to be known.  (To reply that requester
>names have to be kept confidential would beg the question of having
>started this whole secret process in the first place.)

Again Alan was quite divided about whether the note should circulate. 
He could have told Jerry not to circulate it; he could have presented 
Jerry with a rewritten version for the purposes of circulation. But 
he did not. He left it in Jerry's hands.

Now Jerry decided to go public with this. Why? Well, why not ask 
Jerry offlist to explain his motives?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST