>Rakesh, you have recounted in your post maybe half a dozen arguments that
>have made you feel aggrieved. I suspect nobody else matches that record.
So I must be the source of the problem? And if so, how?
Did you or did you not chastise Phillips for a totally unjustified
attack on me? Did you or did you not say something when Devine said
all smart people recognize that Marx was wrong about what he thought
were the most important developmental tendencies? Did you or did you
not say something when Schwartz launched ad hominem criticisms
against value theorists?
Did or did you not find Sawicky's views on trade and the US as Robin
Hood obnoxiously ethnocentric?
Have you ever explained why Henwood was never able to get himself
both to understand why most third world trade unionists oppose the
linkage between trade and labor rights and to recognize that to many
the US union backed anti sweatshop movements is probably a move in
the direction of a protectionist system with which to replace the MFA?
What's your explanation for why you tend to reprimand me and not
others, given the record above?
Do you deny that you are ethnocentric?
Do you yourself understand Devine's explanation for why and at what
point imbalances become too imbalancing for accumulation to be
sustained?
Yes, I bring heat on myself because I challenge the smug social
democratic, ethnocentric leftism that passes for radical thought.
Do I think Phillips' response was justified? No. Not at all. In fact
I think with his harkening back to the great days of white Canadian
social democracy was implicitly a racist reponse.
Do I think Devine may be right about his critique of so called
orthodox Marxism? I certainly do not rule out that he is indeed
right. As I said, I do not have good direct evidence for my view.
Matters are far from settled. I have been challening Fred that a low
profit rate does not mean a slow down in the rate of accumulation
(and quoted Hollander!), and do not rule out the possibility against
orthodox Marxism that we are indeed in the early stages of an
upswing. I do not want to be an orthodox crisis theorist. I welcome
and want all criticism.
Do I think value theorists have fended off the alternative neo
Ricardian theory? No. I think both traditions are viable, and I am
not overwhelmingly certain that Steedman like critiques are false. As
I said, we have to deal with joint production and negative values.
Do I think Sawicky's views on trade were ethnocentric? Yes. Do I
think Henwood's coverge of trade suffered from ethnocentric blinders
and naivety as to the goals of the US unions? Yes. Do I think Henwood
is a racist. No. Were the kinds of criticisms that I was making of
Sawicky and Henwood after Seattle idiosyncratic? To think so one
would have to be quite ignorant of world politics. As I said, they
got off easy because the Internet is American dominated, and I am a
fellow American.
Why do I think you single me out for reprimand?
Well you know my answer.
Rakesh
>I don't have any problem at all with your ideas. I just don't think that
>personal arguments have any business here.
>
>On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 01:56:31PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>> 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 e
