Given what you consider a response from Panitch disfavourable to Nitzan, why is Nitzan's decision to publicize the letter a knock against him?
Despite having published a provocative book about a year and a half ago, one which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions in the works of other political economists, including some of his colleagues, there has been no response, defence or critique. Kourkoulakos is questioning this silence.
D.T. Cochrane
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> All I can say is that - already predisposed to be uninterested in Nitzan's
> work - this only intensifies it. What a supercilious, superior and snotty
> first letter from Kourkoulakos, what an enlightening response from Panitch
> and what a mystery that Nitzan thought this worth sending along -
> particularly without commenting in a manner that would help us understand
> more of what's going on behind the letters. Perhaps most stunning of all,
> is the implicit suggestions that Marx was either right or wrong, that Marx
> either wrote about economics OR economics and politics, that these were
> issues not already debated for 125 years and that Panitch and others didn't
> already have clear stances on them. It's as if everything from Gramsci to
> Harvey, from Benjamin to Offe - much less all the debates around these
> issues - didn't exist.
>
> My favorite unremarked moment is when Panitch tells us that Nitzan has
> stated (at least in one exchange about one part of one text) that his work
> is so qualitatively different from Panitch's that Nitzan wouldn't know
> where
> to start in addressing it... true or not, it is striking that Nitzan in
> sending this along to us doesn't comment on it, or how it might have some
> bearing - in addition to Panitch's explanation of why he wasn't at last
> spring's seminar and how the conference last week was presented to him AND
> it was scheduled - on the implicit accusations Koukoulakos makes about
> Panitch et al., avoiding (out of fear?) addressing what Koukoulakos appears
> to believe is Nitzan's excellent - or at least provocative work.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Jonathan Nitzan <nitzan at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
> > Open letters from Stefano Kourkoulakos and Leo Panitch
> >
> > On October 29-31, the Forum on Capital as Power held a three-day
> conference
> > at York University, dedicated to the subject of “Crisis of Capital,
> Crisis
> > of Theory.” Below is an open letter from Stefanos Kourkoulakos. It was
> sent
> > a day before the conference to Professors George Comninel, David McNally,
> > Leo Pantich and Jonathan Nitzan who were to participate as Faculty Guest
> > Speakers at the event. The letter is followed by a reply from Leo
> Panitch.
> > Both texts are posted with the permission of their authors.
> >
> > FULL TEXT: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/303/
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Recent additions and updates to the Bichler & Nitzan Archives:
> > http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/perl/latest
> >
> > Free to repost and circulate with due attribution under the Creative
> > Commons License (attribution-noncommercial-no derivative). To
> unsubscribe,
> > reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject field.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Jonathan Nitzan
> > Political Science
> > York University
> > 4700 Keele St.
> > Toronto, Ontario, M3J-1P3
> > Canada
> > Voice: (416) 736-2100, ext. 88822
> > Fax: (416) 736-5686
> > Email: nitzan at yorku.ca
> > Website:http://bnarchives.net
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>