No problem, Drewk. Be my guest.
You may be aware that I was sent a few limited archival materials that involved an exchange between you and one other list member, at his request, but I assume that you had to approve as well.
Frankly, I don't understand what the big deal is about keeping these archives secret. Is Jerry hoping to make a bunch of money (or receive all kinds of academic glory) by publishing them, or selections therefrom, someday? Barkley Rosser On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:00:22 -0400 Andrew Kliman <Andrew_Kliman at email.msn.com> wrote:
> Doug, Jerry Levy is sailing on his boat, off the Connecticut
> coast, all summer.
>
> I happen to be on OPE-L, and I'm shocked that Barkley has been
> kept off. But not surprised; this has happened with a *lot* of
> people. I don't think post-Keynesianism has anything to do with
> it; Steve Keen, a PK, was a founding member of OPE. It probably
> does has something to do with the fact that you're a white
> American male, and that he was trying to hold numbers down at one
> point, but it may also have something to do with the D-word (I
> couldn't figure out what Doug's D-word was, but I mean the D-word
> as in "nonlinear d----- systems").
>
> In any case, right now the list is dead -- 26 posts in July (and
> little of that was substantive), none so far in August. Unlike
> the recent death of Marx, I suspect this one isn't greatly
> exaggerated.
>
> As for the OPE-L archives, Barkley is absolutely right to protest
> that he and everyone else are not privy to them. Alan Freeman
> and I,
> especially, have been fighting for a *long* while to open them
> up, but to no avail. One vote against constitutes a veto.
>
> This is a real shame because, unlike the value theory debate of
> the 1970s and early 1980s, about which a lot was written that was
> readily available, we now have a debate that has been fought
> behind closed doors, with little in the public domain. And it's
> a very significant debate, because it threatens to consign a
> century of Marx-critik to the dustbin of history. As Barkley has
> surmised, what's at issue is internal (in)consistency. The way
> I'd put it is that the key matter is whether Marx's value theory
> can be interpreted in a way that makes it internally consistent.
>
> Mind if I forward your post as the first OPE-L post of August,
> Barkley? (I'll delete your first paragraph, so it won't seem
> inflammatory.) People on OPE-L should be aware that they're
> under the spotlight on the archives thing -- and from *serious*
> people. (BTW, you could probably get to see the archives by
> special request, but I think there might be some objections to
> your citing or quoting anything.)
>
> Ciao
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu