From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net>
Subject: Rectitude not saccharine Was: Absolute and relative surplus
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:56:32 +0300


Some remarks about this debate.

One, Hugh's comment against Richard is totally out of place, unfair,
unconstructive. This much I agree with Lou (G). 

I realise that the terminology in this debate does get "technical" at times,
but there is no way around this. I try, whenever possible, to provide
definitions, to clarify, to repeat, to summarise. However, there are
subjects that one must give some individual effort to be able to understand,
to criticise and to contribute.

Lou (G) says:
>>Of course it is,  Hugh, but that is the whole point,  is it not,  to take
>>fairly simple--"elementary"--concepts and, through the competent employment
>>of purple prose and obscure jargon,  render them inapprehensible to all but
>>a handful of fellow pedants?

Actually, the problem is not "purple prose and obscure jargon". For example,
I have tried, to the best of my ability, to avoid using the terminology of
the "regulation" school (A.Lipietz et. al), whose terminology often
dominates debates about regimes of accumulation, but is often obscure for
the uninitiated. I'm trying to state my case using basic Marxist concepts.
This debate can't be put forth in a more digested form.

>>Richard's self-deprecating remark--if it is indeed genuine--is touching in
>>its naivete.    Even now,  I suspect,  his "congratulatees"  are snickering
>>over his drooling,  ill-advised "apology."    

No we aren't. Hugh has made remarks I have disagreed with above, but you
can't assume that me, Rakesh, Rahul or anyone else is. In fact, I took
Richard's comments seriously, as a reminder to try to make it as
apprehensible as possible. One can't summarise the whole theory of Marxist
economics in a mailing list. 

>>He will learn--if he sticks
>>around long enough--that the real "apology" for the Marxism list is due,
>>not to those who hold high their intellectual pretensions,   but, rather,
>>from those whose committment to Marxism and social change goes no further
>>than technical gibberish and superficial arguments.

Lou, the subject is not just technical gibberish and superficial arguments.
We are trying to debate what "neo-liberalism" is, what brought it about,
what are the main dynamics, what is the change between this era and the
"welfare state" era. This has profound consequences both for
"underdeveloped" and imperialist countries. (Including Peru, I should add
since that country was also one of the main showcases and experimental
grounds, as was Chile and Turkey and Mexico).

You might have meant the remark against Hugh, but you should separate the
issues. You can't Lump an unwelcome remark with the debate itself, and claim
you see "technical gibberish". In fact, there isn't enough of it. 

As for Rahul,

What you are doing is just fueling the fire. These two sentences I've qouted
below as an example are aimed to anger, and get people to respond. Besides
the attitude problem, you should consider the fact that it will damage your
reputation for more sophisticated and tasteful subtlety as they are too
obvious. 

>Or taking digs at people who haven't yet
>realized what a bellum omnium contra omnes this list really is.

>Was it Zeynep and Rakesh who were supposed to be "snickering," or have I
>missed something? Rakesh definitely doesn't seem to be the type to do that.

(For anyone who doesn't yet know Rahul, let me expose. The first sentence
will invite a response for the Latin quote, because he got such a response
for a French phrase in the sexism joke, and the last one is really crude, as
it is aimed to prompt people into saying that "No, Zeynep won't snicker
either".)

Zeynep



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---