From: kjkhoo-AT-pop.jaring.my Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 21:29:59 +0800 Subject: Re: M-I: Same old crap about Peru At 12:58 pm +0800 5/3/97, Paul Zarembka wrote: * Louis, Did you actually study the document you forwarded? Have a look * just at the bibliography, reproduced below. Now compare that to actual * citations IN THE TEXT to the bibliography. NO. 4, 12, AND 14 are * extensively cited, NO. 1 is cited once. That's it, for the portion of his * speech you forwarded to the list. * * Now look at the each citations carefully. NO. 4 and 12 are old books from * the Stalin period. Except for his own citation to himself in (1, 1994) * and numbers (5, dated 1983) and (7, no date), everything else is even * earlier in time than the Stalin-era books and not about Peru. * * Compare that to just ONE CHAPTER in THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN * RUSSIA written by Lenin for his and his party's own preparatory period and * look at his extensive contemporary citations. <snip> * Adolfo Olaechea did]". On this point I could not agree more (but not the * way you meant it) and invite you to read my article on Venezuela with Juan * Pablo Perez Sainz if you are interested in Latin America. By this post, P Zarembka has vindicated Mark Jones' and others' judgment on him. Rather than providing a critical analysis of Adolfo Olaechea's analysis, he resorts to comments about bibliographic citations! What does that prove? On that score, Samuel Huntington would be correct on everything - just look at his bibliographies and citations. And worst of all, in response to something about Peru, P Zarembka invites us to read himself on Venezuela, presumably full of footnotes and bibliographic citations - is that what truth consists of: copious footnotes and citations? KJ --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005