Date: 	Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:10:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Discrimination and the OPE list


Jerry replies my criticism on the secluding of scientific discussion in the
OPE-list by claiming:

>Juan's got it all wrong

Do I? Let's see:

>Perhaps Juan doesn't remember that the collaborative work project that
>became OPE-L was *publicly* announced on the marxism list on 8/6/85 and on
>PEN-L (the Progressive Economists Network) on 8/9/95. *Anyone* who
>*volunteered* to be part of that project at that time was accepted.

If 8/9/85 should be read as August 8 1995 (I wonder what Chris Burford
would think about Jerry's unconscious need to legitimate the procedures
followed to create the OPE-list by giving them the patina of time, by
mistaking two times 1985 for 1995 in the same post), Jerry posted the
following to the Marxism list:

> Putting aside the question why this has been the case for the moment, let
> us ask: what would be the *first step* towards advancing Marxist economic
> theory?
>
> Let me suggest the following:
>
> Let's start with what Marx wrote about his original plan for _Capital_
> (which is discussed in Rosdolsky's _The Making of Marx's 'Capital'_), and
> see whether we can develop an *outline* that attempts to trace logically
> the topics that remain to be studied in greater depth and their sequence
> (say beginning with Book 3, Part IV).
>
> I don't think that we will be able to come to an agreement about a single
> such outline (given our different understandings of value and method),
> but why can't we attempt to form such an outline even if it means that we
> might generate a number of separate outlines?
>
> Perhaps this task could be undertaken as a sub-project by different
> groups of like-minded people. Whether sub-groups attempt to initiate
> the generation of such an outline or whether it should be a list
> activity, I think there are *many* list members who would view such a
> project as a worthwhile endeavor.
>
> Perhaps, the above procedure is too simple. Yet, in my view, it is better
> than letting the current state of inertia continue. If anyone likes my
> idea and would like to discuss more concretely how we could initiate this
> task, please send a message to me directly.  I will then see if we can
> jointly develop a workable plan for how to proceed.

Is this "would like to discuss more concretely how we could initiate this
task ... I will then see if we can jointly develop a workable plan for how
to proceed" the "public announcement" of such a concrete thing as the
OPE-list? A very short exchange followed Jerry's post, and three members of
the list publicly agreed with him in that something should be done. Since

> Over 3.100 posts have been written on OPE-L ...

we must assume that, either a) these three plus Jerry flood the OPE-L with
posts, b) a crowd came from the PEN-L during those days, or c) "exclusive
invitation" does have a lot to do in the formation of the OPE-L.

After that short exchange, the most absolute silence about something as the
OPE-L followed. Jerry didn't feel any necessity of announcing such a
transcendent event as the foundation of the list itself, that only happened
a month later:

>OPE-L
>since it was founded on 9/5/85

Only several months later, a first comment on the OPE-L appeared here (Marxism):

>Perhaps Juan does not recall that I reported at length on OPE-L on the
>marxism list earlier this year.

I don't have the complete 1996 archives, and since we are here in a 36
hours general strike, I will be able to check them through the internet
only on monday. But, was it an invitation to enter the list or only just a
late report? A very late report indeed, for a discussion list whose
politics exclude anyone that has not been in it from its beginnings. Or,
more precisely according to Jerry's words, that has not been _accepted_ by
some unnamed gatekeeper, from its beginnings.

"And thy who have been called but did not listen, should pay for thy
original sin by being excluded from the OPE-list for all the eternity" (or,
at least, until Jerry would start to be best remembered). Unless you have a
good friend inside that can get you an indulgence with Saint Peter or you
are raised to the level of the apostles for your dids, as we will see in a
minute. (I know, I know, my biblical English is even more limited than my
current one)

I've developed in my previous post how closing into the "peer" controlled
academic fields of what started as open discussions on science as the
necessary concrete form of ruling conscious revolutionary action, is
ideologically presented as having no political meaning. Jerry summarizes
now with a clarity I will never be able to achieve, this ideological claim:

>(1) In order to maintain serious and engaged levels of discussion ...the
>list size should be kept relatively small.
>(2) The rationale for the above is well-known to any student or teacher
>-- it concerns the relation of class (list) size to the ability of members
>of the class (list) to seriously engage each other in discussion. In a
>sense, we are similar structurally to an ongoing seminar and everyone who
>has ever taken part in a seminar will know that seminars have to be kept
>relatively small.
>(3) There is also a relation between list size and *volume*...

Scientific seriousness, how many political crimes have been committed in
your name!

>(4) Given the above, new members have only been admitted where: a) a
>person comes highly recommended from a list member; and b) where the
>admission of someone would help fill possible "gaps" in the list (e.g.
>international representation, gender, "schools of thought" [among
>Marxists], "areas of expertise", etc.).

The Argentine oligarchy has a very exclusive club, the Jockey Club. New
members have only been admitted where: a) a person comes highly recommended
>from a club member; and b) where the admission of someone would help fill
possible "gaps" in the club (e.g. international representation [foreign
ambassadors], top politicians, etc.). Any member can reject the admission
of a new one by anonymously dropping a black ball in a sac. Yet, they don't
need to cover their arbitrary criteria under any rationale. They just call
them "Privileges of The Founders".

Marx himself wouldn't have qualified for a late entrance to the OPE-L in,
let's say, scrambling a little more Jerry's figures, 1859. No good contacts
at all in the academic world. No published material on political economy to
be academically recognized for ("The learned and unlearned spokesmen of
German bourgeoisie tried at first to kill 'Das Kapital' by silence, as they
had managed to do with my earlier writings." Marx, "Afterword to the second
German edition of Capital, Progress Publishers).

Yet, I have nothing to worry about concerning my own admission to the
OPE-L. In the first place, which higher recommendation could I aim at,
other than Jerry's own: (from a post dated 9/95)

>I do not believe that Juan is "wacky" -- I believe he is sharp, *very* sharp.
>Even if his prose may appear to Ken as a "disease", we still have the
>responsibility to take his ideas seriously.

And I accomplish more than one aspect in requisite b), too, as Jerry
himself can testify.

Jerry starts to talk about himself in third person:

>(b) Jerry never said that he planned to leave the marxism list and form
>    "his own one." Firstly, OPE-L is not his "private" list. Secondly,
>    OPE-L was formed long before I left the marxism list and joined m2.

To begin with, Jerry is quoting me in a quite inaccurate way. What I said was:

>This was exactly the sort of argument Jerry used by the time he was, most
>probably, building his private (that this is what something exclusive is,
>in the most strict sense of the word) list.

What Jerry strictly said in the Marxism list on November 19, 1995, under
the subject "Answer to Louis and Farewell," was:

***
I deeply regret that I will have to uns*bscribe from this list. I have
gained much from my association with this list and will miss many of you
(including, but not limited to, Lisa, Chris B., Scott, Hinrich, Chris S.,
Jon, Leo). Some others are not mentioned because I am on several other
mailing lists that they are members of. More than any other reason, I do not
have the time now to participate.  Beyond that, I do not have the time or
patience to deal with what passes for "marxism" on this list.

I have confidence that this list will improve. When it does (and when
someone I know and trust informs me of that fact), I will be pleased to
return. Until then, I bid you adieu.

In solidarity,

Jerry
...
***

As everybody knows here, November 1995 has no relation with the split of
Marxism 2. But it is rather close to September 1995, "the time he was, most
probably, building his private (that this is what something exclusive is,
in the most strict sense of the word) list. It seems that Jerry's calendar
is completely scrambled when it is about the secluded formation of the
OPE-L. Let alone Jerry's memory; but I'm sure he is too young to be losing
it and needing the rest of us to remember him his ins and outs the Marxism
list.

>My apologies to all for burdening m2 with matters that have no relevance
>for *this* list.

On the contrary, as I developed in my previous post, these matters have
complete relevance for the present and the future of *this* list.

>If anyone wants to know more about OPE-L, I suggest you contact me
>personally by e-mail.

What follows from here on is both a personal message to Jerry as the
moderator of the OPE-L and the continuation of my message to the list.
That's why I'm cc it to Jerry's address.

I opened the public discussion about the OPE-L being an expression of a
process towards restoring to academia the monopoly on scientific exchange,
after its initial open nature in the internet, because I consider it a
political matter. On doing so, I was aware I was risking my personal
chances of becoming a member of that list, since my membership depends on
an unilateral decision from the authorities of the list I'm questioning for
its exclusive policy. But I consider that the public decision you in
representation of the OPE-L will take now about the concrete point that
follows, is an essential part of what is at stake.

I'm here formally requesting my admission to the OPE-L. I base this
solicitation in the many precedents you and other members of the OPE-L have
on my scientific research work, which directly deals with the subjects the
OPE-L is about (Including my "Capital's Development into Conscious
Revolutionary Action; A Critique of Scientific Theory," a copy of which you
requested from me last year).

In case my solicitation is rejected, I expect you will make me know which
concrete requirements according to the list standards for an invited new
member I don't fill (apart from that of being favored with an invitation,
obviously).

Juan Inigo
jinigo-AT-inscri.org.ar



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---