Re: (OPE-L) Re: Advisory Committee

[Jurriaan Bendien <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>]

I want to keep on the good side of both Rakesh and Jerry, both of whom have valuable and thoughtprovoking ideas from which I've learnt a lot. I wish I had the time they have to read all the literature...  Before we get tangled into an internecine dispute though, let's keep firmly in view what we have in common, and how we can pursue our shared goals in the best way.

 

If Jerry doesn't do it, who does do it, and would they do it better ? That is really the question. But it's difficult to figure out exactly what the disagreement consists in, beyond hunches, is it really about style of work, or is it about aims, or what ? Reasons for throwing out an existing organisational form are:

 

(1) it no longer advances us towards shared goals for one reason or another, or

(2) there exists another organisational form which more efficiently advances us towards shared goals, and can replace it.

 

But these possibilities must be proved with argument and evidence, not merely mooted. Otherwise, we are merely disorganising ourselves through a dispute that leads nowhere.

 

Apart from these queries, I don't really want to get involved in this topic further, because as I see it, it distracts from the real purpose of the list, which was to pick up the story where Marx left off and continue the project that he started in the modern, contemporary situation.

 

Best to all,

 

Jurriaan

----- Original Message -----

From: dashyaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:57 PM

Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: Advisory Committee

Rakesh appears to be digging a larger and larger hole for himself. Rakesh stop digging! Jerry has kept this list going though thick and thin and I for one am grateful to him. Rakesh's arguments are not serious because they have no useful practical consequences, other than a vague liberal position  that someone else should do the job because Jerry has been doing it a long time. I am not impressed by such a position because it  nearly always hides some other real unstated standpoint.

It is really sour grapes for Rakesh to argue that those supporting Jerry have differences with him. I suppose I do as well but so what! You cannot expect us to take such arguments seriously. We have to be practical! No one has really been prevented from airing their views on this list in a reasonable form, least of all Rakesh.


David Yaffe





At 08:57 17/05/04 -0400, you wrote:

> Before your one week of silence on the issue of the list itself  .
> [...], please let us know whom  is on the Advisory Committee
> and how they are selected.

Paul Z and others:

The current membership of the Advisory Committee (AC) consists
of Allin Cottrell (cottrell@xxxxxxx ) and Fred Moseley
(fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ).  Alfredo Saad-Filho had been a
member of the AC but resigned that position in December.

There is no specified term for AC members.  Both Fred and Allin
have many other professional and other responsibilities and I'm
sure at some point that they would like to be relieved.

Decisions about adding members to the AC are made on the
basis of consensus between the AC and myself.   In all matters
(except where the conduct of an AC member or myself is being
investigated) we are committed to arriving at decisions by way
of consensus.

We had recently discussed adding someone to the AC but that
comrade hasn't replied yet.

In solidarity, Jerry

PS: Fred informed me yesterday that he will be leaving for
S. Korea today for two weeks and will not be available to
participate in AC discussions during that time.