Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
you know Louis, that tenure and job security protects incompetence and laziness among the few. But it also protects those of us who chose to attack the orthodoxy and the mainstream crap. Take away that protection and you destroy us. I have spent my life writing and researching in support of labour and left-wing organizations. What allowed me to do this was the institution of tenure. Why would you deny us intellectural and occupational freadom? Paul Date sent: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:00:30 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:35883] Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing? Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Hoover: What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea? I have no idea. It just popped into my head like any other outrageous thought. In any case, here's what a friend of mine, who teaches at a funky NYC community college and who attended Domhoff's panel, had to say: --- Good letter. I happen to have attended the panel at which he spoke, and no one in the audience or on the stage agreed with him. He's obviously become another complacent ex-Marxist academic sucking on the public tit (be it teaching at a state school or getting federal grants), teaching one or two courses a year for a six figure salary, attracting good graduate students though his previously good name. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
RE: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:35859] Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing? I think with the killing of people in Iraq, Palestine, we don't need to center on personalities. That's what I was saying: petty attacks on Domhoff and the like are distractions (at best). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now!
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Please, let's cool it. There are more important things going on now. Do we really need circular firing squads? On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:09:10PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael. The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal that can be read at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm. What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history. Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of flaming David Harvey or not honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the free and open exchange of ideas. In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints about ad hominem, etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not about Domhoff, it is about me. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Let's everybody chill out. Louis' participation in this latest round has been constructive. We needn't have matters degenerate as they have at times. right now there's a war on. Can everyone here be nice to each other over things that don't matter? Louis has actually beeing trying to do that. As for all of you, Poof! I put a spell on you . . . of Comradeship! jks Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: And who is centering on personalities? Now it's Domhoff, added to a long list of ad hominems, including Jim O'Connor and David Harvey - three radical scholars who've done really fine work. This kind of spurious even-handedness is deeply unfair Michael.The only thing I ever wrote about David Harvey is in the URPE journal that can be read at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/Harvey_Indian.htm.What happened between me and Jim O'Connor is ancient history.Henwood has complained numerous times privately to Michael Perelman about my presence on the list. He cannot stand the fact that I am here. He would like to exclude me because my version of Marxism and his own--such as it is--clash. But instead of answering me about David Harvey or whatever else, he accuses me of "flaming" David H! arvey or not honoring the decorum of PEN-L. This kind of exclusionary attitude should be condemned by anybody serious about the use of the Internet for the free and open exchange of ideas.In point of fact, the letter to Domhoff was not only accepted by the moderators of PSN, it was read by the subscribers with no complaints about "ad hominem", etc. PSN has over 800 subscribers and is the primary voice of leftwing sociologists on the Internet. The furor here is not about Domhoff, it is about me.-- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.orgDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Michael Hoover: What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea? I have no idea. It just popped into my head like any other outrageous thought. In any case, here's what a friend of mine, who teaches at a funky NYC community college and who attended Domhoff's panel, had to say: --- Good letter. I happen to have attended the panel at which he spoke, and no one in the audience or on the stage agreed with him. He's obviously become another complacent ex-Marxist academic sucking on the public tit (be it teaching at a state school or getting federal grants), teaching one or two courses a year for a six figure salary, attracting good graduate students though his previously good name. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: RE: G. William Domhoff replies...The whole thing?
Domhoff names names in the structure without conceptualizing it adequately. It's a much more "American" way of going at the issue. At the other extreme, people conceptualize the structure elaborately but do not name any names. Though each has its advantages and disadvantages, a blend of both is best. Joel Blau Michael Hoover wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/21/03 11:52 AM Devine, James wrote: Instead of being pelted with petty personal attacks, Domhoff should be given credit for doing excellent research to produce his books. What for? Professors are paid to do excellent research. whatever gave you above idea?re. domhoff, his study of social backgrounds of powerful white men was significant contribution to wright's 'power elite' theory in indicated further interlocking directorate of such types...still, if origins of this theory were leftist, it wasattractive and popular enough to be appropriated bypolitical right via dye's 'irony of democracy' notion that "masses are asses" such that it is 'responsible elite' that guarantees democracy as well as more generalized rightist claim of 'eastern liberal establishment'... michael hoover
