Hmm. I don't remember this at all. Once in the past, stuff I wrote on OPE-L was sent without my knowledge to someone not on the list, and another time, stuff was sent after I had agreed in principle only, without any concrete proposal having been made to me. It is possible, however, that I've forgotten in this case. So, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd appreciate it if you could fill me in on some details if and when you have time.
Again, I'm completely in favor of an open list and open archives, but not this selective enforcement.
Barkley: "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?"
No. Jerry himself is in favor of open archives. He's been getting heat from outside about the elitism of the whole thing, and has mentioned this as a reason for opening them up (since I'm not allowed to disclose what has been said on the list, let me make clear that I'm referring to an off-list discussion with him).
It was my understanding, when I joined, that the reason for a closed list was just to keep out some Marxism-list crazies, or that type. Closed archives were not mentioned. But it seems that some people thought they were joining a kind of private club. A couple of them are blocking the opening of the archives. Jerry has allowed the issue to be posed as one of intellectual property rights, so one negative vote constitutes a veto.
Now, there is some legitimacy to the idea that people who wrote private posts should be allowed to keep them that way. However, this is not the whole story by any means. I don't remember any *decision* to close the archives, so I question whether these posts are in fact private. Moreover, those of us who wish to make our own posts public are prevented from doing so, because we quote and characterize others' remarks. I regard this as a violation of our rights. Finally, were it only a matter of keeping things private that were said in the past, then people would agree to opening the archives from now on. But some of them haven't done so.
So what is really behind all this? It seems that it is the desire to maintain a private club, to be able to say things without being held accountable for them. I'm not talking about gossip and personal remarks; it's not that kind of list at all. The discussions are very serious. So why do they want privacy? Well, it may be just that they want the freedom to write without having to compose with the care that one needs to exercise when publishing something.
But I think there's something beyond this, namely that the record will show that the refutations of the charges of Marx's internal inconsistency have withstood all challenges. Most Marxist economists do not want to acknowledge that Marx's value theory is internally coherent. As you may have surmised from the panel we had in February, they don't even like discussing the matter.
I believe the reason for this is that their theories differ from Marx and are even opposite to his in some cases (e.g., with respect to how technical change affects profitability). This is cool. No problem there. The problem is that they do not want to say so. They want to have their cake and eat it too -- that is, to differ from Marx but nonetheless claim that their own theory is a completion or correction of his, even though it arrives at rather different conclusions. What is distressing about this is that it *denies legitimacy* to Marx's own theory, which acknowledgement of theoretical disagreement does not.
So what has taken place, IMO, is that there's been a continous call for open, public acknowledgement that Marx's theory is internally coherent. This call has been accompanied by various arguments and demonstrations. They have been challenged repeatedly, but the challenges have not succeeded in disproving the claims to have refuted the allegations of internal inconsistency. Yet still no acknowledgement has been forthcoming. And I now believe it never will.
I, of course, am partisan, so I do recommend that you get other views. And, of course, other members of OPE-L who are subscribed to lbo-talk can speak for themselves.
Ciao
Drewk
Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman Home: Dept. of Social Sciences 60 W. 76th St., #4E Pace University New York, NY 10023 Pleasantville, NY 10570 (914) 773-3951 Andrew_Kliman at msn.com
"... the *practice* of philosophy is itself *theoretical.* It is the *critique* that measures the individual existence by the essence, the particular reality by the Idea." -- K.M.