OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE-L] Raya Dunayevskaya Myths and Legends

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:17:24 -0500
 Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[I apologize to others on the list for the following reply.  I realize
that it is a mistake to respond to him (see, I can admit  to making
mistakes) , but sometimes certain things just need to be said.
Now is such a time, imo.]


You can admit to making mistakes? Really. Proof?

You said that RD did not accept HG's method of
successive approximations. Then why in her 1947 piece
did she refer to the third volume as Marx's closest
approximation to the concrete.
Now Paul Z says he did not notice a similarity
between HG and RD on Luxemburg. Well RD says
that Luxemburg did not understand the level
of abstraction of the reproduction schema and that
her underconsumptionism is nonsensical. These
are HG's two main criticisms. Why does Paul Z
not note a similarity?
You Jerry have not yet responded to my absolutely
true claim that RD proposes a FROP/shortage of SV
theory of crisis in Marxism and Freedom. Where
did this theory come from?
Note that I am having to type this in again because
you refuse to respond to these stubborn facts.
RD's economics were essentially HG's.
Now disprove that, or admit that you are wrong.

Rakesh



                            *****************

What is insulting? 


In the rest of the world, the following is insulting.  In the world
of Rakesh Bhandari  it is not.


Now my question is how did RD come to know of HG's work and
why did she fail to admit her debt. To the first question, she was
either Shoul or she read Shoul or she read Grossmann.
As for the latter question, she could not admit her debt for two
reasons: she was anti Stalinist and she wanted to appear as the
fount of all wisdom as a leader of an organization, cult, etc.



The above is presented _without a shred of evidence_. Instead, we
are told that it is "obvious."  The "similarity"  between Dunayevskaya's
understanding of _Capital_ and Grossmann's is "overwhelming ... easy
to support. It screams out in fact."   Indeed, it is "easily done."   But,
this evidence is _not_  presented.  Instead,  we are simply told to read
several writings by RD and then --

"You tell me whether this is essentially identical to Grossmann's
interpretation."

In Rakesh Bhandari's pop world of psychology,  one can on the
basis of alleged similarity, deduce _intent_.    He must obviously
know her life quite well to leap to such a deduction.  An additional
beauty of his insult is that it can not be proven to be false since
RD, luckily for he, is dead.   Raya Dunayevskaya has approached
the bench of Rakesh and without evidence being presented against
her has been judged guilty by Rakesh the Prosecutor, Rakesh
the Judge, and Rakesh the Jury.    There was, after all, no need for
a trial since the charges against her are -- according to the Prosecutor,
the Judge, and the Jury --  "obvious"  and "overwhelming."

Prosecutor, Judge, Jury.  And "scholar" !!!  Is there a faculty in  any
graduate school  anywhere which would accept such a claim without
evidence?    Is there a scholarly journal anywhere which would publish
an article with his insults of RD?  I think not.  Even mainstream
bourgeois social scientists have _some_ standards.


                                *****************

Is there anyone else on this list who has read Grossmann's work,
all of Shoul's work and most of RD's work? If not, then I am the only
one who has some basis to talk about this.



Rakesh Bhandari alone "has some basis to talk about this."  This
is  not because others have not read Dunayevskaya, Grossmann, and
Shoul -- but because he is the self-appointed expert on Grossmann.
The fact that other scholars of Grossmann have not come forward and
supported his interpretation/insult does not bother him one whit.
The fact that no one on OPE-L has come forward and supported him
(despite the fact that _many_ have read RD and HG -- and some have
also read BS -- indeed,  there are quite a number of listmembers who
have published articles which refer to their writings) does not
bother him for he knows the Truth of the matter because he is the
Authority on Grossmann and it is "obvious."  [One recent comic
moment happened when the Authority claimed that Michael H hadn't
seriously considered Grossmann: evidently, the Authority was
unaware that Michael had published several pieces which referred to
Grossmann.]

He writes above that RD  "wanted to appear as the fount of all
wisdom as the leader of an organization, cult, etc."   Yet,  we can
no more hold RD responsible for the zeal of her supporters than
can Rosa Luxemburg be held responsible for the zeal of Lyndon
La Rouche or Grossmann  be held responsible for the zeal of Rakesh
Bhandari.  One can only hope that others will not dismiss the writings
of Grossmann because of their post-humous guilt by association with
Rakesh.  Grossmann's writings deserve a better fate.

In solidarity, Jerry

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]