Given the purpose of N&B's work, it seems worthy of some sort of response. They are trying to address some central issues and problematic concepts within political economy.
To name just a few: Is Marx's value theory vital to his body of thought? Is that theory meant to explain prices? Is that theory meant to explain accumulation? Does it succeed in explaining prices and/or accumulation? If it does not, what does explain prices and accumulation?
D.T. Cochrane
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am predisposed to be uninterested because I took the time to read some of
> the early self-promotional materials he sent to the list - a list he
> doesn't
> participate in but regularly advertises himself on - and found the
> characterization of Marx's work and the perspective w/r/t the role of
> "power" in Marx to be completely unrecognizable... I think I may even have
> posted a "what the heck, this seems to be predicated on a remarkable
> misreading of Marx" response, a reaction that garnered no reply from Nitzan
> or a defender of his work (but maybe I held my tongue/pen/fingers, I don't
> remember and don't feel like searching the archives).
>
> Since you asked, maybe there's been no response, defense or critique
> because
> N&B come from such a different place that Panitch, other colleagues and I
> (?
> not that I have any legitimate claim to a status such as Panitch's or that
> of other folks I've met at York) that we wouldn't know where to start (and,
> therefore, figure we have other things to do)... the very reaction Leo
> reports Nitzan gave Panitch when the opportunity to review some of Leo's
> work was presented. Or maybe, given Leo's explanation of his travels last
> Spring and the structure of the recent conference, no explicit request has
> been made or converstation beyween 0f juxtaposition of perspectives has
> been
> suggested, scheduled and played out. I, of course, have no idea.
>
> Most of all, I found Kourkoulakos' letter not to reflect well on him (and
> found it easy to wonder whether - not assume - the open letter might not
> have been his idea) and I found Panitch's response to reflect even worse on
> Kourkoulakos (since the response Panitch gave could, presumably, have been
> gleaned by a conversation with Nitzan, a look at the conference schedule
> and/or, a conversation with Panitch or the others openly accused of
> uncollegial, or implicitly accused of intellectually fearful, failure to
> publicly engage Nitzan's work). I also couldn't figure out why Nitzan
> would
> want to encourage the list to see Kourkoulakos that way or how he could
> fail
> to anticipate that others might read the exchange the way I did...
> particularly because I'd expect its widely known that a significant number
> of us know and respect Leo quite a bit for his intellectual openness and
> collegiality.
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:51 AM, D. T. Cochrane <dtc at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
> > Why are you predisposed to be uninterested in Nitzan & Bichler's work?
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > 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
>