[OPE-L:7185] Re: Re: Re: fundamentalism

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 06:33:44 EDT

At 20:01 -0700 15-05-2002, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

>No it wasn't. I meant what I said--your criticism of Kliman was  out 
>of line: it was false, petty and mean spirited. In fact it was a 
>flame, and I recommend that you be reprimanded by list coordinators.
>  ...

>This list needs a fresh start, you need to submit your resignation. 
>We have Fred, Allin and Alfredo to moderate the list. Perhaps a TSS 
>person can be added.

Dear Jerry and Rakesh,

	I love you both, and I'm amazed of what's going on. Wev 
started from one bad way of debating (Vitale), after then we had 
others (mine it's a PARTIAL position, not the Truth: I refer to 
Giussani), but yours last mails are incredibly other examples. And I 
dislike  these two phrases of rakesh, which are horrible.

	I really do NOT understand this obsession. Well, let us 
acccept that Jerry's representation of Andrew was unfair, in the 
sense of being wrong. At this point one may intervene saying that 
indeed Kliman's hermeneutics has diufferent content/aims etc. than 
Jerry was implying. All that should be requested is a justification 
of one's claim, and the possibility for others to replicate. That's 

	Regarding of the serious debate in Rome, I don't understand 
your position, Rakesh. The book which will be presented is very 
important (though there, btw, my positions are presented in a 
ridicoulous manner). I am reallly sorry I can't go (I received the 
information too late to change my University committments). But then 
you seem to imply that nobody can present criticisms of the format of 
the day. And if I do that, of course, somebody will say that I have 
"acrimony". I don't understand one cannot put forward a different 
perspective about that.

	Mine, in short, is the following. The day should present the 
book, well, I personally intend presentations in a different manner: 
the book is there, readers come and present their impressions to the 
authors and public, who answers. Here we have the WHOLE morning to a 
presentation to the public of the theses of the book (whicch are 
already there, in print), and MID-AFTERNOON of debate, opened and 
closed by Vasapollo-Kliman and Freeman. In this mid-afternoon there 
is section for the politicians. Well, I'm Italian, I know them, most 
personally. May I suggest that 4 in 5 knows very, very little about 
the transformation problem or whatever you call it (and the fifth, 
Alfonso Gianni, I doubt could reasonably intervene on the four 
questions, which are really TECHNICAL, though he made the error in a 
book with Bertinotti, the Italian communist leader, to heavily quote, 
and positively, my writings on this stuff: this doen not mean that he 
is responsible for what I say, and viceversa). So we have mid-mid 
afternoon for people like Screpanti, Foley etc, who may of course, 
answer the four questions posed by the Laboratory. Again, I find very 
unusual (though, of course, legitimate) that a debate in a 
presnetation of a book is pre-orientated with a set of questions. Me, 
for one, would answer no to the first two questions. The relevant 
point for me is that THOSE four questions do not catch the real 
problematic side of Marx (why value represents ONLY labour; why value 
as a representation of labour is by Marx linked to the 
money-COMMODITY). Starting from these DIFFERENT questions, answering 
them so that the labour theory of value is still maintained, one has 
to rethink the way the 'transformation' is done (going towards a 
Foley-Duménil solution plus a class real wage as given). Well, how 
could I say that if obliged to spend my ten-fifteen minutes answering 
what are for me minor questions? Only from my qyestions, I could give 
a reaction to that book ...

	So, of course, that in Rome will be a serious debate. I don't 
see why one cannot put forward  a serious disagreement.

	Again: please, stop the mails in which people over-react.

Riccardo Bellofiore
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
Via dei Caniana 2
I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
e-mail:   bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it
direct	  +39-035-277545
secretary +39-035 277501
fax:	  +39 035 277549
homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT