Michael, What exactly is so objectionable about this message?
I raise several questions: have reason and academic respectability been equated with a demonisation of Marx's value and crisis theory? Does the the ban on Kliman serve as indirect evidence of such a conflation by many radical economists? Does Marx's value theory provide the foundation for a bullish outlook on American capitalism? And what is your problem with me? Phillips erupts on me in an abusive post, you never publically chastise him. But you chastise me. Devine starts crying because I think he is selectively misusing the word fascism and then blames me for mis representing his theory of the exact sources of instability--did anyone else follow him? Moseley didn't. But you get mad at me for challening Devine after he bombatiscally tells us that "intelligent people" know that Marx got it wrong on his most fundamental points about developmental tendencies. Which implied what about me?! But of course you don't see this insidious comment as the cause of my problems with Devine. It must be something that I said and did. Justin started hurling ad hominem comments at me, but you never said a word to him. You blame me for my debate with Henwood, though you don't stop and think that to other darkies (especially non American ones) Henwood and Sawicky may indeed seem ethnocentric in the way that they understand global trade. After all, Sawicky thinks America is Robin Hood, and Henwood never got himself to understand why the majority of trade unionists are opposed to the linkage between trade and labor rights. And Henwood and Sawicky got off easier on the American dominated internet since they only had to respond to a fellow American like me. How ethnocentric are you? The America you grew up in rural PA is no more even if it seems that way in Chico. Sorry Michael. Why is that when the question of oil economics came up, I seemed to be the only one who remembered Bina's work though Bina had been a co-editor (I believe) of RRPE with many of you? I mean how ethnocentric and racist are the RRPE editors? The American left is not a pretty thing from where I look. Fight imperialism, fight racism. Rakesh >STOP THIS RIGHT NOW. > >On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 10:23:44AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >> Eric has now switched his thesis from "RRPE did not put a ban on >> Kliman because of his politics" to "a RRPE ban does not constitute >> suppression because Kliman was free to publish elsewhere." Not very >> fast footed work. Devine continues to imply that much should not be >> made out of the rejection of a single paper but that's not the >> question which is why did RRPE decide it never wanted even to >> consider a paper by Kliman. >> >> Eric writes: >> >> >> > Even if RRPE decided never to >> >publish anything written by, say, Milton Friedman, this would not >>constitute >> >suppression as RRPE would not stop Milton from publishing somewhere else. >> >> >> Well let's say RRPE had a ban on Friedman and Kliman. Why those two? >> Two answers suggest themselves. >> >> i. RRPE will not publish articles by a man shorter than 5'7'' >> >> ii. RRPE will not publish anything from the right or very much from >> the so called far left; unlike say Capital and Class it is a social >> democratic journal whose basic political economy combines the neo >> Ricardian theory of distribution with a radicalized Keynesian or >> Kaleckian theory of effective demand (unlike mainstream Keynesians >> RRPE puts more focus on better domestic and global income >> distribution and more aggressive public works in generating the >> effective demand needed for full employment). In fact that is what >> radical political economics is both theoretically and programatically >> (or all that it can be rationally be)--so why should RRPE allow in >> authors and papers (except on rare occassions) that do not attempt to >> develop but spit out irrational diatribe against radical political >> economics as so defined? > > >> Won't driving Kliman out put RRPE on its way to becoming the >> theoretical wing of the American Prospect and all that respectability >> that it implies? >> >> This is America after all, and a radical academic journal cannot >> survive with a Marxist orientation; a social democratic, neo >> Ricardian and radical Keynesian one has a chance though. >> >> Isn't this the issue? >> >> Irony of ironies though. I have not read Shaikh's work on the >> contemporary US economy--Doug refers to it often--but would it not be >> interesting if the strongest case for the strong long term growth >> that can undergird bottom up income growth and make manageable good >> sized govt deficits can be made on the basis of Marxian value >> categories, e.g., stabilization of OCC, reduction in what Foley calls >> production and realization lags as a result of better technology and >> thus lower interest costs, cheaper raw material costs as a result of >> the globalization of the economy, etc. >> >> What happens if the shallowness of this recession indicates that we >> (or at least Americans) are in a long wave upswing a strong case for >> which can also be made on the basis of Marxian value categories? >> >> Then the road to social democracy and peace with capitalism goes >> through Marxian value theory. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >How exactly does RRPE "prevent or prohibit" anyone from >>publishing their work >> >in another journal? >> >> You have changed the question. >> >> Rakesh >> > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
