I am trying to have this go just to you, but maybe it will go to all of lbo-talk. In any case, I think further discussion of this should go off list between you and me and until I know that it is I would prefer not to get into the details of whose discussion with you I have a few bits of. I am glad to hear that Jerry is not one of those arguing for keeping the archives secret. Frankly when I got really annoyed about this (aside from Jerry on another list denying that I had been kept off for the reasons he had told me had kept me off for), was when I saw a paper somewhere in which somebody referenced an OPE-L archival discussion. Excuse me, but I find it offensive to cite sources that are not publicly available. Barkley On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:20:25 -0400 Andrew Kliman <Andrew_Kliman at email.msn.com> wrote:
> Barkley wrote:
> "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."
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu