Re: [OPE-L] Bloody Capital and Dead Labour Cultural Studies

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed May 03 2006 - 11:40:11 EDT

>  > >Well, why don't you tell the list what your "suspicions"  are?
>>  That you cannot admit that your criticism of
>>  Neocleous' interpretation of the vampire metaphor is misplaced.
>>  That you can't admit that you are wrong, offbase, etc. Here
>>  are my suspicions, and we see them confirmed once again.
>You certainly know how to dance around an issue.  The
>two of us -- and some others --  know that your "suspicions" concern
>something else, something more.

Well you cannot admit error. And you have not responded to my
specific criticisms of your weird criticisms of the vampire metaphor.

>>  Was it a waste of time to bring to the list's attention to Neocleous'
>>  paper? At least now we know what you were criticizing back in
>>  October.
>You can't criticize a paper that you are unaware of.

And I am supposed to trust you on this one? Sure.

>I was unaware of Neocleous's paper (or other writings) in October.
>But,  you already knew that ... or, at least,  you knew that you
>had not a single scrap of  evidence to the contrary.  We now know
>that you are  willing to repeat a silly, unfounded and ad hominem
>claim  without any evidence.

Oh please do remember Jerry, the stories you fabricated
against me for your own advisory committee.  Should we rehash for the list
this whole incident?  I would be happy to.

But why do you think you would have any credibility as a honest
person with me?

>It's really quite simple: if you think someone has done something
>improper or unethical, BRING US PROOF OR SHUT UP.
>Obviously you didn't learn your lesson from the discussion on
>Dunayevskaya and Shoul and their relation to Grossmann.

Whoever Dunayevskaya was--and this I cannot prove, I shall admit,
though I do think this is a pseudonym--she should have
admitted Grossman's priority
on questions of falling profit rate, distinction between mass and
rate of profit,
on method of successive approxmations, on the abstract nature of the
repro schema
and Luxemburg's misuse of them, on the critique of underconsumption
once she became aware
of Grossman's work through Rosdoslsky. I obviously think she knew of
it before then.
But even on that assumption she did not....

But for political and cult reasons the Marxist Humanists cannot admit their
debts in political economy.

Do you agree that this is a problem? If not, why not?

I don't have a criticism of Shoul on this because she highlighted above debts.


>In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT