Re: from Rakesh

["Xxxx Xxxxxx" <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
> From: Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: marxmail <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: from Rakesh
> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:20 PM
>
> [ from  Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) ]
>
> Louis:
> You failed to mention that it is now established that in order to
> wreck my employment chances you submitted a dossier which though
> putatively made of my posts included one I did not write, one which
> was taken out of context.

Lou already said that you called Malcom X  fascist and made inappropriate
remarks about the founders of MR, such as Paul Sweezy. I would assume that
a person, who behaves so _unstrategically_  just before the process of
hiring, pays the price later on.


> You also chose the two posts out of the 50
> or so which I wrote about race which could be used to question the
> depths of my anti racist commitment.

I know. You play the race card so effectively, even to the extend of
calling blacks fascist!


 I was told by not one lawyer that
> I could have successfully sued MR for having used that dossier in its
> decision over whether to hire me.

Decision to hire or not to hire depends on the place to hire you, not on
your lawyer. You are personalizing issues here. Based on your publication
record, and the assessments of the people in the hiring committee, you were
not qualified for the job. You had better face it.

 >That would have created considerable
> trouble for Yates, and would have brought pain to Magdoff who was
> already suffering from very bad health. I decided not to sue MR. I did
> not want to bring Yates (an expert on labor law who was circulating a
> potential employee's email comments that he had not even taken the
> time to verify!) or Wood down; and most of all, I did not want Magdoff
> to suffer. I of course think MR made a big mistake in not hiring me.


wow! what a bold statement this is. who do you think you are that MR should
have hired you?  any publication record? any scholarly research? any
_completed_ dissertation?  any political experience in the mass movement?


> As for the present debates about the origins of capitalism, Mark
> Jones' posts are not be missed; he is erudite and as pleasing a
> stylist (often for sheer bravado of his hyperbole) as there is on the
> internet. But you are about 30 years behind the debate. Jones' is not;
> he already knows that Brenner's and Wood's sterile formalisms about
> free labor had been critiqued by Jairus Banaji in the early issues of
> Capital and Class and then in the Journal of Peasant Studies (Banaji
> is also a compelling critic of worlds system and dependency theory in
> my opinion). As for Blaut's idea that Mughal India had the same
> trajectory as feudal Europe before the conquest of the Americas, I
> don't think it will stand up to the research of Harbans Mukhia.

instead of preaching us about Eurocentricism, why don't you write a
scholarly article on India and publish it somewhere?

 >But
> this is the kind of debate I would have supported as editor.

You can not be an editor of any publishing company with such
_unprofessional_  manners, let alone MR.

the bottom line is that the person, Doug Henwood, who supported your hiring
so deliberately also threw you off his list a month ago when you called him
a racist, besides other things.


> I
> certainly would not have prioritized publishing you over Mukhia,
> Banaji or Mark Jones, but surely you know this--and isn't this why you
> went to the trouble of villifying me.
>

You are so being jealous of Lou that you don't know what you are talking
about. Neither Lou nor Mark takes you as their reference point, so they
won't even take the trouble of villifying you.  Paranoid jerk!


Mine

> Rakesh


>