[OPE-L:7192] Re: Re: Re: Re: fundamentalism

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 14:12:24 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 
>>  ...
>>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 

Riccardo, why the hell is Jerry criticizing Kliman for pursuing 
hermeneutics as an end itself while saying such a pursuit has all the 
relevance to Marxism as personal gardening and then invidiously 
comparing Kliman to those (presumably real) Marxists who are truly 
concerned about understanding and struggling against the dynamics of 
real world capitalism?

Kliman is not on the list, we have already lost several valuable 
members such as Alejandro over the Kliman issue, yet Levy decides to 
relaunch criticism of Kliman. And that criticism is ad hominem.

Levy needs to put a stop to it. There was no reason to criticize 
Kliman; there was no justification for Levy to give his hypothesis of 
why Kliman is so difficult for other Marxists (presumably the real 
Marxists who unlike Kliman are interested in comprehending and 
struggling against real capitalism) to communicate with.

Levy acted totally inappropriately. I want Alejandro, John Ernst, 
Massimo, Paolo G, Alan and god knows who else back on the list and 
this won't happen as long as Levy is lauching unprovoked ad hominem 
criticisms against Kliman.

It is time for Levy to step down. It's that simple.

>	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.

No Riccardo, I said Levy's criticism was absurd. He said that the 
conveners were looking for the answer when all the programme says it 
that each participant will provide an answer.

>	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.

Yes, I would like Foley, Screpanti, Alejandro, Paulo and Massimo to 
participate on this list. And Alejandro and Paulo are unlikely to 
return unless we put the Kliman issue behind us. Which is why Levy's 
recent criticism of Kliman was out of line not because he criticized 
Kliman but because Levy's criticism of Kliman was in fact ad hominem.

>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 

Fine but they are good questions. The conveners want to settle those 
issues. The experts who are attending seem happy to speak to them. 
They are also broad questions.
But I don't care about this. I want Alejandro in particular back on 
the list, and this won't happen when the moderator makes stupid 
criticisms of his comrade.

>  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.

Levy's criticism is not serious; it's petty. THE answer, A answer?! 
The programme does not say THE answer.
Levy is in a petty battle; the moderator needs to rise above it. He 
did not. Levy should step down.


>	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