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

From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Mon Aug 27 2007 - 18:10:05 EDT


My first point is that whatever Kliman said about OPE-L you where in
no way forced to publish that on the OPE-L, that was entirely you choice.

My second point is that you should not have made that choice, because
it was easily foreseeable that would do no good - neither in the
short nor the long run.

But let's stop this particular discussion here.

The really interesting discussion as pointed out by - as David L. is
the issues raised by Kliman's book and the TSSI.

I am of the opinion that Kliman's book is a serious, scientific work,
and I'll return to the issues related to my evaluation of Kliman's
book in a separate posting.


>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