Re: [OPE-L] Raya Dunayevskaya Myths and Legends

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 11:20:44 EST

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:17:24 -0500
  Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote:
> [I apologize to others on the list for the following reply.  I realize
> that it is a mistake to respond to him (see, I can admit  to making
> mistakes) , but sometimes certain things just need to be said.
> Now is such a time, imo.]

You can admit to making mistakes? Really. Proof?

You said that RD did not accept HG's method of
successive approximations. Then why in her 1947 piece
did she refer to the third volume as Marx's closest
approximation to the concrete.
Now Paul Z says he did not notice a similarity
between HG and RD on Luxemburg. Well RD says
that Luxemburg did not understand the level
of abstraction of the reproduction schema and that
her underconsumptionism is nonsensical. These
are HG's two main criticisms. Why does Paul Z
not note a similarity?
You Jerry have not yet responded to my absolutely
true claim that RD proposes a FROP/shortage of SV
theory of crisis in Marxism and Freedom. Where
did this theory come from?
Note that I am having to type this in again because
you refuse to respond to these stubborn facts.
RD's economics were essentially HG's.
Now disprove that, or admit that you are wrong.


>                             *****************
>> What is insulting?
> In the rest of the world, the following is insulting.  In the world
> of Rakesh Bhandari  it is not.
>> Now my question is how did RD come to know of HG's work and
>> why did she fail to admit her debt. To the first question, she was
>> either Shoul or she read Shoul or she read Grossmann.
>> As for the latter question, she could not admit her debt for two
>> reasons: she was anti Stalinist and she wanted to appear as the
>> fount of all wisdom as a leader of an organization, cult, etc.
> The above is presented _without a shred of evidence_. Instead, we
> are told that it is "obvious."  The "similarity"  between Dunayevskaya's
> understanding of _Capital_ and Grossmann's is "overwhelming ... easy
> to support. It screams out in fact."   Indeed, it is "easily done."   But,
> this evidence is _not_  presented.  Instead,  we are simply told to read
> several writings by RD and then --
> "You tell me whether this is essentially identical to Grossmann's
> interpretation."
> In Rakesh Bhandari's pop world of psychology,  one can on the
> basis of alleged similarity, deduce _intent_.    He must obviously
> know her life quite well to leap to such a deduction.  An additional
> beauty of his insult is that it can not be proven to be false since
> RD, luckily for he, is dead.   Raya Dunayevskaya has approached
> the bench of Rakesh and without evidence being presented against
> her has been judged guilty by Rakesh the Prosecutor, Rakesh
> the Judge, and Rakesh the Jury.    There was, after all, no need for
> a trial since the charges against her are -- according to the Prosecutor,
> the Judge, and the Jury --  "obvious"  and "overwhelming."
> Prosecutor, Judge, Jury.  And "scholar" !!!  Is there a faculty in  any
> graduate school  anywhere which would accept such a claim without
> evidence?    Is there a scholarly journal anywhere which would publish
> an article with his insults of RD?  I think not.  Even mainstream
> bourgeois social scientists have _some_ standards.
>                                 *****************
>> Is there anyone else on this list who has read Grossmann's work,
>> all of Shoul's work and most of RD's work? If not, then I am the only
>> one who has some basis to talk about this.
> Rakesh Bhandari alone "has some basis to talk about this."  This
> is  not because others have not read Dunayevskaya, Grossmann, and
> Shoul -- but because he is the self-appointed expert on Grossmann.
> The fact that other scholars of Grossmann have not come forward and
> supported his interpretation/insult does not bother him one whit.
> The fact that no one on OPE-L has come forward and supported him
> (despite the fact that _many_ have read RD and HG -- and some have
> also read BS -- indeed,  there are quite a number of listmembers who
> have published articles which refer to their writings) does not
> bother him for he knows the Truth of the matter because he is the
> Authority on Grossmann and it is "obvious."  [One recent comic
> moment happened when the Authority claimed that Michael H hadn't
> seriously considered Grossmann: evidently, the Authority was
> unaware that Michael had published several pieces which referred to
> Grossmann.]
> He writes above that RD  "wanted to appear as the fount of all
> wisdom as the leader of an organization, cult, etc."   Yet,  we can
> no more hold RD responsible for the zeal of her supporters than
> can Rosa Luxemburg be held responsible for the zeal of Lyndon
> La Rouche or Grossmann  be held responsible for the zeal of Rakesh
> Bhandari.  One can only hope that others will not dismiss the writings
> of Grossmann because of their post-humous guilt by association with
> Rakesh.  Grossmann's writings deserve a better fate.
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 00:00:01 EST