Re: (OPE-L) old and new publishing technologies

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Levy wrote:

> It could also be _made into_ a relevant and substantive point (which I
> did on another list).

Which you did not do at the time. Do remember your history of
insubstantive and snide criticisms of TSS--a viewpoint not shared by
many serious scholars. See dust jacket of the volume.

Many of the contributions have been published in some form elsewhere.
Roberts' contribution seems to be a seriously new development though
it builds on his contribution to Callari and Ruccio, Postmodern
Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory. If one has followed the
value theory journals, she will be familiar with the contributions by
Freeman, Kliman, Moseley, Ramos, Perelman, Laibman, etc. They have
all already intervened in the debates in a timely and stimulating
fashion. It's great that all this work has been brought together in
one volume. It's a summary of a debate over the last decade.

It's sad that the book is expensive; it's sad that Henryk Grossmann
and Max Adler have never been fully translated. There is much
sadness. But I am happy that something is available. So should Mr.
Solidarity. By the way, there is inter library loan and there are
copying machines. Over the years, that's how I have come to get
copies of key works, e.g. (Jurriann may be interested) Witt Hansen's
work on historical materialism.

> These substantive points are criticisms of the _publishing industry_
> which utilizes what has become an increasingly obsolete technology.
> They suggest that the future -- and, to a large extent, the present --
> of scholarly contributions is *digital*.  They suggest that we -- i.e. the
> list -- should again consider publishing a scholarly electronic journal.

Well since you have driven off this list the whole TSS school--which
several scholars appreciate more than you do--they won't be
contributing to this electronic journal of yours, will they?

> >  Good. Then if you do not seek it, announce your resignation.
>
> I will resign when I believe such a move would be good for the list and
> when there is a suitable replacement. I won't resign because _you_ want
> me to.  In fact, each time _you_ raise this issue increases my resolve to
> continue as coordinator.


I would think that nine years of coordinating would increase your
resolve to step down. There is bound to be frustrations with anyone
over that period of time. I would like for your posts to be queried
in terms of their ethics of solidarity by someone with the
administrative power that you have monopolized. I would like someone
else to have the same influence on who is admitted to this list or
not. It's healthy to rotate. It would probably be good for you too,
but that's beside the point. Step down.

Rakesh