Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 10:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> Subject: M-I: Case-study in moral blind spots Jerry Levy's high-mindedness on marxism-international stands in stark contrast to his miserable, chauvinistic posture on marxism-thaxis. His slur on an Argentinian subscriber named Juan Inigo shocked a whole number of people into condemning him. None of the people cited below have a record of run-ins with Levy. One of them, Hans Despain, is a professor at the University of Utah who has a reputation for evenhandedness and civility. Another, Jon Beasley-Murray, is one of the founders of the Marxism Spoons list. Let this record weigh in your mind as you listen to Levy's constant appeals to higher standards of behavior on the M-I list. There is nothing more disgusting than a hypocrite, is there? Levy is a particularly sleazy brand of hypocrite: an anti-Stalinist who makes allowances for "Stalinists" he is cozy with; a prosecutor of "hate speech" who is not above racial slurs. The rest of us, myself most especially, have been guilty of pecadillos or sins at one time or another. Most of us have the ability to recognize when we do something wrong. That is part of having social relations, even in cyberspace. What is unique about Levy is that he cries loudest about the need for moral purity, but who when called to order by others, refuses to acknowledge his own culpability. Louis Proyect 1. Jerry Levy dubs Juan Inigo a "Argentinian accountant": Juan Inigo: <snip> > Mainstream economics is not just mainstream economics. It is mainstream > _vulgar_ economics. As such, it is the opposite to the production of the > scientific cognition about the simplest forms of the present-day general > social relation. Its reason of existence is the production of the > apologetics of capitalism, and therefore, of the very negation of science: > ideology. Only an inverted "law of value" can be pushed out into vulgar > economy and become a "credible version" from its point of view. Levy: Is there *anyone* today in the _entire world_, other than the Argentinian-accountant-genius Herr Inigo, who is a Marxist who has written on the subject of political economy? Perhaps Juan will be so kind as to tell us the _specific names_ of these individuals? 2. Juan Inigo takes offense at Levy's slur: In the paroxysm of his name naming practice, Jerry needed to refer to me by using four successive terms, in what everybody knows is not a mere identification, but is intended to have a derogatory meaning. Of course I'm an Argentine. But only someone deeply instilled with the prejudice of national superiority can use other person's nationality in a derogatory structure. This is the second time I have to point out Jerry's national narrowness. Being an accountant was a necessary step in my personal development. Jerry's derogatory use of this condition takes me back many years ago when I was a student of political economy (after my graduation as an accountant). Many of the students of political economy, and rather all of them I was associated with, defined themselves as being left-wing and, rather, Marxists. Many were members of the PC, PCR, PRT, PO, left- JP and other left political groups (I suppose the acronyms will sound familiar to many members of this list, specially after placing the P of party at the end; JP stands for Juventud Peronista). And all of us were studying political economy with no aim other than giving our political action a scientific support. Therefore, all of us agreed we would lead our lives towards the scientific research in political economy as a necessary concrete form of our political action. In this context, some of my mattes used to look down on the immense majority of accountancy students that surrounded us: "Look at these guys, they have nothing in their minds but the idea of making money with their profession." I used to make them fill rather uncomfortable by replying: "Remember I'm an accountant myself." The typical reply was "Yes, but you are certainly not a _typical_ accountant." Unfortunately, my mates were _typical_ political economy students. A couple of them became along their bureaucratic careers under-secretaries of the national (nobody would claim socialist or communist) government. The most derogatory one towards accounting students became the government's "negotiator" (it would be funny, if it didn't hurt) of the Argentine external debt, and is today an associated with Brady. Some of them are high-level staff members at the WB and similar institutions. All of these guys have probably made much more money and enjoyed a much comfortable life than most of their contemporary accountants. The rest of my mates became different sorts of bureaucrats, some satisfied with their doings, some very frustrated with them, or just went to work in other fields not related with political economy for a better pay. Only two of us made scientific research as a necessary concrete form of political action the axis of our lives. Yes, I the "accountant," and my comrade Luis, with whom we worked together since then and shared many good and bad times in sticking to this task. And when I say bad times, I really mean it. It was particularly during those bad times that being an accountant granted me the possibility of going on with my research on the concrete forms of capital. And being an accountant enabled me to advance over this concrete forms with much more clarity than that pure political economists use to enjoy, as it became clear in my discussion with John Ernst on the Marxism-list last year about moral wear and the concrete determinations of value and price, and my developments concerning the concrete determinations of the profit rate and its measurement in reply to Shortall's text earlier this year. So when I see a USA academic bureaucracy Tenured Professor of Political Economy that is unable to make the least contribution to a substantiated discussion on economic forms, as Jerry here, trying to give "accountant" a derogatory meaning, I only need to reply him: sure, and not a bit shamed of being (rather, having been) one. I told my family someone was calling me a genius: they haven't stopped laughing yet. Jerry concludes his prejudiced unhappy string by calling me "Herr". Herr? Perhaps Jerry doesn't know that in Argentina we speak Spanish, not German. Perhaps Jerry never noticed that Marx and Engels used the term "Herr" just because they were writing in German (and about Germans, and only sometimes mocking the treatment that was usual at that time). Coming today in an English text from this self-appointed Guardian of the Key of the Chastity Belt of Political Economy it is just another expression of the pedantry he uses to hide his incapacity for producing by himself any substantiated argument. Now, replying to Jerry's emptiness is in itself a complete waste of time. Opposite to that emptiness in every sense, stand David Brown's exhaustive questions about political economy, vulgar political economy, Marxism, etc., brought up exactly by the same part of my previous post that inspired Jerry's "all you need is name(s)." I will address them directly (although perhaps not covering all the specific matters inherent in David's post) as soon as possible (provided my computer resists its upcoming final fail for some more days). But this post actually is the first step of my reply to David. Given the structure of his questions, I believe he is already able to recognize in this post some concrete forms about whose necessity his questions are about. 3. How Levy would feel if he was called an "American-Jewish-academic" Perhaps it would be best all around if Jerry admits Juan into ope-l so that Jerry can occupy his own (rather than our) space for his more than disingenuous broadsides against Juan (how disingenuous everyone I believe will appreciate if someone were to call Jerry an "American-Jewish-academic", assuming for argument's sake that the guess about the Jew part is correct), and Juan's increasingly testy responses. The moderators could perhaps play their role here and advise accordingly, instead of letting what is rapidly becoming a slanging match between a spoilt child who tries to let himself out by pretense and disingenuousness and someone quick to rise to the bait, who only gets more angry with the disingenuousness, instead of ignoring it. Thanks Khay Jin 4. Hans Despain: "not only nationalistic, it is usually racist." i for one very much appreciate Juan's contributions, and certainly do not take offense to his critiques of other marxist economists. For it seems to me that he is on to something (i want to think more about his critique of the neo-Ricardians). My time is very short at the moment, but i will mention my critique of Juan (which is meant to be academic and engaging, rather than personal and nullifing of his voice) would center on his tendency to want to argue that there are really no important epistemological debates, and that ontology is easy and straight forward (for the moment my broad cryptic critique is all i have time for). Finally, and as an aside, when Jerry wrote: "Argentinian-accountant-genius Herr Inigo" i understood this as a slur, whereby i too take offense to it (at best it is nationalistic). "Genius" and "Herr" are admittly sarcastic, and i find it hard to belief "Argentinian" and "accountant" were merely statements of fact tacked onto the sarcasism. Even if they were, Jerry would be wise to understand that it is all to easy to interpret his slur has suggesting that an "accountant" is not doing for good political economy. And that it is bad habit and very prominent practice of Americans with U.S. citizenship to ([un]consciously) hold the (idological) belief that all countries with predominantly non- Anlgo citizens are less than themselves. Moreover, not only is this practice nationalistic, it is usually racist. So Jerry can claim that he meant nothing but a statement of fact, but in that so many "other" U.S. Americans use this type of name calling as a racist slur, Jerry would be wise to offer an apology. hans d. 5. Jon Beasley-Murray: "Why can't you simply apologize and leave it be." Jerry, why can't you simply apologize and leave it be? You get more disingenuous and more dislikeable the more you protest your supposed honesty, sincerity and indignation. a) why the insult anyhow? b) if someone calls me an "English dolt" (say), I take it that the "English" is more than a factual qualifier of a general insult, but is in some sense part of that insult. Equally, if someone calls me a "small-minded graduate student" (say), then I would equally tend to think that the idea of small-mindedness is more than contingently attached to the idea of graduate student in the speaker's utterance. Take care Jon Jon Beasley-Murray Literature Program Duke University 6. Jon Beasley-Murray replies to Levy's defense. On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Gerald Levy wrote: > It may have been an unnecessary and gratuitous qualifier, but it was no > more an instance of national chauvinism than expressions like "German > revolutionary" [Marx] or "Mexican peasant revolutionary" [Zapata] or > "US-railroad labor organizer-socialist" [Debs]. Try "slow-witted German revolutionary," "lazy Mexican peasant revolutionary" or "corrupt US-railroad labor organizer-socialist" in which the attempt is to create and profit by a more general stereotype. "Oh, but I wasn't trying to suggest that all Germans were slow-witted, all Mexicans lazy or all US labor-organizer-socialists corrupt. No, no, no. These were but factual qualifiers." Take care Jon Jon Beasley-Murray Literature Program Duke University 7. Hans Despain: "Damaging to the health of this community" i have given up attempting to point out to Jerry that his slur was nationalistic, and has racist implicitions. i was not sure about this when i first read it, but now having read Jerry's attempts of a defense i am (myself) convinced of its intention. i do not think that Jerry meant his slur to be nationalistic and racist, i mean consciously he rationalized this away. However, Jerry's harassment of various list members running across three (marxist) lists has had the tendency to silence voices. It is precisely this result, which makes (for example) Juan's "slurs" qualitatively different from Jerry's. As i said in a previous post, i immediately found Jerry's slur of Juan offensive. But at the same time i had not made up i mind about the intention behind it. i have now. Jerry began an attempted to silence Juan, by exploiting a slur which could, but need not be taken as nationalistic or racist. i will not detail the process of this conculsion. But rather i would like to point something out to Jerry. A concern Jerry and i both shared, was the health of the dicussion which would emerge on the marxist list which we subscribed. In all due respect, Jerry has posted nothing of substance for a very long time. He has rather proceeded to flame various members, in various ways. i am not sure what drives this, but it has become very damaging to the health of this community. Juan's comments, even *if* they were misguided or wrong, carried with them great substance, and a geniune intent to engage in debate and discourse. Anything beyond this present in Juan's posts came in his personal defense. There is nothing wrong in suggesting that some economist is taken in by the same *appearences* of mainstream thought, hence may be vulgar. Especially when Juan takes the pains to explain this, and not merely to assert it (which of course does not necessarily mean he is correct). Although i do not expect to have the last word on this (who could with Jerry), i do think we should move beyond it. i would like to suggest that Jerry take a look in the archive with respect his personal posts, (since at least the beginning of thaxis) and reflect on the personal criticisms and flaming that he has lodged against members. And maybe try to post something with a bit more substance. i do not take pleasure in making these points to Jerry, but i found it very strange, that no one came to Juan's defense on this matter. Whereby, Jerry suggested that this proved there was nothing nationalistic or racist about his slur. i believe that people hesitate to confront Jerry because of his tatics to flame and silence voices. There is a qualitative difference between a critique to engage debate and a flame to drive someone into silence. It is this that many of us are taking issue with, and trying to point it out to Jerry. Already i am quite discouraged by the sparks and stops with respet to the discourse on thaxis, and will continue to become more silent if there is not a qualitative change. There have been a number of discussions of substance which i have both participated and (at times) attempted to initiate. i charge Jerry with having *not* attempted either, rather his participation has tended to negate both the discourse and individual voices. hans 8. Gene Grabiner: Levy is uncivil at the least. List members: Frankly, the appellation, "Argentine-accountant-Herr..." and its defense on r. Levy's part strike me as uncivil at the least. And his subjectivity, as in "I didn't mean" or "I am not a national chauvinist" etc. is irrelevant. The phrase is out there. I don't wish to belabor the point, but there must be civility and debate over substance, not fulmination and personalism. And, if list members cannot so act, why should they even participate? Gene Grabiner --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005