Re: (OPE-L) Rakesh's suggestion

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Sun May 16 2004 - 20:26:20 EDT

>Who does this important admin job is not a major political issue. As is
>often the case it is difficult to find administrative competence adequate to
>the task. OPE-L has found it in Jerry.

I have indicated political sides to these administrative tasks.

>In case the more fractious members do perceive political or theoretical
>discrimination, we have an advisory committee.

Which is dysfunctional.

>TSSers left of their own accord in the course of a lot of unpleasantness
>about presentation and tone dressed up as amjor political issues. Despite
>the fact that there are various people (not confined to TSSers) who to my
>ear have a distinctly unpleasant tone, I would like to see all those who
>have left coming back. This is just because we otherwise miss out on all the
>theoretical issues that Rakesh raised, and others.

Right the question is one of debate. If we have Mongiovi and Mohun
critiquing TSS in the journals, then we should have TSS here. You may
want to choose Levy over Kliman in issues of manners, but the point
is that people are submitting real responses to Kliman's work, not
Levy's or mine. The job of the moderator should have been to keep
those debates on this list, not to antagonize Kliman  needlessly and
pointlessly as Levy obviously did in my opinion. Out of all that
debate, did Levy ever force himself back on substantive issues, e.g.
the methodology of comparative statics or the determination of the
transfer of value from used up means of production or the measurement
of surplus in physical or value terms.

And I'm not the only who thought Levy was needlessly inflaming the
debate. Why can't we have a list of the people who quit in protest of
Levy's moderation? Was Julian Wells a disruptive force? Are we
impoverished without Alejandro? Of course.

However great a job one may think Levy is doing, the time has come
for a fresh start. I made a suggestion for a moderator to the
advisory committee. I never heard back. The person whom I suggested
is very critical of TSS, but I believe has the temperament to keep us
focused on real debates. Levy has had his go at; let someone else try.

>I see no reason for mixing up a review of past useful debates and
>opportunities foregone with bureaucratic clap-trap about rotating
>administration. (Just to show that my tone can sometimes slip!)

I obviously don't think it's clap trap. What made your tone slip?


>Michael Williams
>Harrow Business School (E3.09)
>Watford Road
>HA1 3TP
>tel: 020 7911 5000 #4563
>fax: 020 7911 5931
>Home tel: 023 80768641
>Home Fax: 0871 242 5819
>mobile: 07906 172655
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>  Gerald A. Levy
>>  Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 6:24 PM
>>  Subject: (OPE-L) Rakesh's suggestion
>>  >  I am sure that most of those OPE-L'ers who are thankful or
>>  moderately
>>  > thankful for your administration would agree that nine
>>  years from any
>>  > one person is enough, that administration should be
>>  rotated, and that
>>  > the advisory committee should appoint someone new.
>>  Rakesh:
>>  You are sure, are you?
>>  Why don't we let list members *speak for themselves* without
>>  replies from *either one of us*?  That is, I think you would
>>  have to agree that list members will be more forthcoming in
>>  stating their perspectives if they know that _both_ of us
>>  will read what they write without our responding immediately
>>  to what they wrote.  I propose that we _both_ are silent on
>>  this question for *one week* while we _listen_ to what others think.
>>  *** Rakesh has suggested that the Advisory Committee appoint
>>  a new coordinator.  Who agrees with that suggestion?  Why or
>>  why not? ***
>>  In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT