Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage]]

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Mon Aug 27 2007 - 15:57:37 EDT

> 1) Whatever A. Kliman have written about OPE-L there is no reason to
> drag that into OPE-L.

Anders and others:

Please recall that *I* didn't drag the expression "Levy's defamation Den"
into the discussion here.  Kliman did when he included that expression in
a message to Paul Z, which Kliman clearly wanted to see published on

Please do note that in describing OPE-L as "Levy's Defamation Den" and
"OPE-HELL" (the latter was included by him in a discussion page of an
online encyclopedia: a _very_ public site!) he is not merely insulting
me: he has insulted every member of OPE-L, including yourself.

You asked a question previously:

> > Isn't Andrew Kliman's book a serious, scientific work, deserving
> > serious treatment?

And I answered as follows:

>No, from what I've read, it's not a serious, scientific work.  It's a
>piece of propaganda (which in my opinion wouldn't have been published
>unless it was part of the Raya Dunayevskaya book series). But, that's
>my opinion which you are free to agree or disagree with.

I have a right to my opinion about the merit (or lack thereof) of Kliman's
book just as you have the right to your opinion.  Do you not agree?  It
seems to me that if you can make what I view as a controversial claim
about his book (i.e. that it is an allegedly "serious, scientific book")
then I have the right to challenge it. Or are we only entitled to say good
things about Kliman's writings?

As for David's comment, I beg to differ. I think we should take the
totality of a person's published writings into consideration and that
includes writings on blogs, etc.  That means that alongside considering
the issues that you listed we should also take note of what he has written
elsewhere, e.g.:

"I ain't working on Piero's Farm no more!"

(an insult to Sraffa and surplus approach theorists everywhere! He
compares Sraffa to an owner of a slave plantation! )


"The economists have only corrected Marx in various ways, the point is to
interpret him ... correctly".

(which should be, in my opinion, called "The First Thesis of Dogmatism".)

I am doing no more or less than holding him to account for what he has
written.  If Anders or Paul C or Riccardo want to defend these kinds of
statements, that is their right. If anyone wants to write something
positive about the merit of Kliman's writings, go ahead.  By the same
token, I and others have the right to be critical of those writings.

The issue here is simply one of allowing for a critical discussion.  No
one has told you that you can't have high regard for Kliman's book.  Don't
tell others, including myself,  that we can't differ with that

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT