[OPE-L] Andrew Kliman's wikipedia article on TSSI

From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Tue Apr 10 2007 - 11:02:12 EDT

Hi Alejandro,

It's cool. I'm quite happy actually if Andrew Kliman writes his bit on TSSI,
I mean he's the authority, though my own style is a bit less pugnacious, and
more grateful of other views (I am usually very grateful of other views). I
just don't have the same kind of missionary zeal. And to be honest, I have
not yet read Kliman's book to which I referred, which I am still keen to do,
even although, as a socialist, I usually tend to avoid Marxists like the
plague these days. In fact, I am going to order it today.

Asa far as I know, Dave Laibman the guitarist is a different person from
David Laibman the economics professor, so a disambiguation page should be
made. I hold David Laibman the economics professor in high regard, he's a
good man, and I hope to discuss with him one day, if I live long enough (I
just quit smoking, which should lengthen my days if this keeps up). I don't
know Dave Laibman the guitarist.

It is not true, as Paul Zarembka contends, that edits in wikipedia are
totally anonymous. You can usually trace the address of the person making
the changes, and trace all the specific changes he or she has made. For
example, my address is and if you check that, you can see all
the changes I ever made.

What Andrew Kliman did was, that he edited the TSSI wiki article a lot of
times in one session, as is shown by the editing record. But you could also
simply write the article offline, and then insert it in one go, which is
really what should happen.

Suppose Paul Zarembka hated the "capital accumulation" article in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation (to which I contributed
quite a bit as can be verified from the record). Well, what he could do, is
write another article, titled for example, "Marxist theory of accumulation
of capital" which would exist side-by-side with the firstmentioned article,
and could be crossreferenced. Discussion could then take place on the talk
page, e.g. about if the two articles should be merged, and how.

In reality, wikipedia is a whole lot more flexible than critics believe,
because it almost always provides yet another option to put your own valid
meanings across. The limit is really your own imagination and inventiveness.
Of course, this implies an attitude quite foreign to many "little Marxist
Hitlers" who consider that there is a Right and a Wrong way to think, a
Correct and an Incorrect way, which should be stipulated in advance of any
meaningful discussion, or be a precondition for any discussion to take place
at all. The Hitlers want to make the rules, for others to obey. The
inventive people use the rules to do their own thing.

I have written quite a few Marxian entries in wikipedia (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jurriaan), simply because I found the
existing entries were rather terrible, and wikipedia is heavily used, so, if
you can refer all the people that access it to at least a halfway correct
understanding of Marx and his interpreters I think that you are doing well
already - the treatment of Marx is so mangled and godawful in the social
sciences, I often wish I had never heard of Marx at all. Of course, all of
my entries are eternally open, and susceptible, to change - but most of them
have stayed pretty much as they were, suggesting that they weren't so bad


Even my friends say to me sometimes
And make out like I don't understand
You know what they say,
They say, "daddy you're a fool to cry"
You're a fool to cry
You're a fool to cry
And it makes me wonder, why...
I'm a fool, baby
I'm a fool, baby
I'm a certified fool, now
I want to tell ya
Gotta tell ya, baby
I'm a fool baby
I'm a fool baby
Certified fool for ya, come on
I'm a fool
I'm a fool
I'm a fool

- Rolling Stones, "Fool to Cry"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT