v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0
LEVY’S ONGOING CAMPAIGN OF THREATS,
ATTEMPTED INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT,
AND VILIFICATION
A. As I noted in “Levy Reneges on Agreement,” Jerry Levy began to resume his campaign of threats and attempted intimidation in the “PS” to the message that reneged on the agreement with me he had earlier made:
From : Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent : Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:54 PM
To : "Andrew Kliman" <andrew_kliman@msn.com>
CC : […]
Subject : no agreement after all
Mr. Kliman,
I do NOT agree to and categorically reject the clause at the end of the following statement.
> (3) I have removed the statement about you from the homepage
> of my website as well as the Stop Character Assassination page
> (though they were accurate and truthful).
Sincerely, Jerry Levy
PS: haven't you forotten about something?
B. This slightly veiled threat was then followed by:
From : Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent : Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:13 PM
To : "Andrew Kliman" <andrew_kliman@msn.com>
CC : […]
Subject : Re: no agreement after allThe answer to the question you haven't asked is below.
> Mr. Kliman,
>
> I do NOT agree to and categorically reject the clause at the
> end of the following statement.
>
> > (3) I have removed the statement about you from the homepage
> > of my website as well as the Stop Character Assassination page
> > (though they were accurate and truthful).
>
> Sincerely, Jerry Levy
>
> PS: haven't you forotten about something?
the video of April 29.
( emphasis added)
In other words, Levy is threatening to try to harm me by making use of an alleged video. Notice that Levy also sent these threats to a third person he CC’ed , whose address I have removed.
C. I did not respond to either of these messages. Levy then sent the following:
(emphases added)From : Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent : Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:48 AM
To : "Andrew Kliman" <andrew_kliman@msn.com>, […]
Subject : reply
Mr. Kliman,
The issues under discussion have not been resolved yet.
We _failed_ to reach an understanding on the wording of an agreement because you included "(though they are truthful and accurate) " under (3) below.
Hence, _there is no agreement between us_.
I stand ready, however, to conclude the discussion and come to an agreement.
For this to happen, *you must agree by 9 AM Wednesday to delete "(though they are truthful and accurate)" from (3) and not add to or change the rest of the proposed agreement*.
I, of course, reserve the right to use the video and/or transcript of the two of us at the April 29 anti-war protest in Manhattan at a time (or times) and place (or places) of my choosing. I will only be bound, _should we come to an agreement_, not to use the video in a way which is "uncomplimentary". There are, of course, many ways that I could to others without making any "uncomplimentary" statements about you, etc. (e.g. "Video of Andrew Kliman at April 29, 2006 Anti-War Protest in Foley Square").
If you can live with the above paragraph, then we need say no more about it. If you want some _further_ agreement concerning the possible uses (or non-uses) of the video then I will require _additional_ concessions on your part.
Should you wish to come to such an agreement, then you _will_ -- as a sign of good faith and a first step -- post on the MeltdownIII mailing list a message which:
a) includes a *retraction* of your May 14 message to that group.
b) includes an *apology* to the group, Loren, and -- especially -- myself.
c) includes a short *statement* to the effect that your previous message was misleading and that you behaved on April 29 in a manner that you now understand to be inappropriate.
d) includes a *promise* to the group, and to myself, that you will never again confront other activists and radicals in such a inappropriate manner.
e) includes a *request* that I accept your aoplogy .
You will do the above *by 9 AM Thursday* (tomorrow morning) -- should you wish to come to an understanding about the use or non-uses of the video.
I ask that you immediately acknowledge receipt of this message.
Sincerely, Jerry Levy
> (1 ) You never again post or send, to any list or individual, or
> upload to any website or blog , any uncomplimentary statement,
> question , or other communication about me, nor about any person,
> organization , project, or cause on the basis of their association
> with me, either directly or indirectly. In turn, I will never
> again post or send, to any list or individual, or upload to any
> website or blog , any uncomplimentary statement, question, or other
> communication about you, nor about any person, organization,
> project , or cause on the basis of their association with you, either
> directly or indirectly.
>
> (2 ) You never again speak to, nor gesture to or about me.
> In turn, I will never again speak to, nor gesture to or about you.
>
> (3) I have removed the statement about you from the homepage
> of my website as well as the Stop Character Assassination page.
Note that this message attempts to intimidate me by repeatedly threatening me. Levy makes clear that he will try to harm me by making use of the alleged video or alleged transcript – whenever and however he wishes – unless I do what he says.
Note, moreover, that the agreement he and I concluded prohibits any “uncomplimentary” communications about the other. Levy’s claim that his use of the alleged video or alleged transcript would not be uncomplimentary is patently false and ludicrous! It is crystal-clear from his message that he is threatening to make use the alleged video or alleged transcript in a conscious and calculated attempt to harm me.
D. I did not respond. An hour later, Levy repeated his threats and attempted intimidation in the following “corrected” version of his threatening message:
From : Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent : Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:49 AM
To : "Andrew Kliman" <andrew_kliman@msn.com>, […]
Subject : Re: reply (corrected)
In the paraghraph that begins "For this to happen", the weekdate has been corrected to Thursday (tomorrow).
Mr. Kliman,
The issues under discussion have not been resolved yet.
We _failed_ to reach an understanding on the wording of an agreement because you included "(though they are truthful and accurate) " under (3) below.
Hence, _there is no agreement between us_.
I stand ready, however, to conclude the discussion and come to an agreement.
For this to happen, *you must agree by 9 AM Thursday to delete "(though they are truthful and accurate)" from (3) and not add to or change the rest of the proposed agreement*.
I, of course, reserve the right to use the video and/or transcript of the two of us at the April 29 anti-war protest in Manhattan at a time (or times) and place (or places) of my choosing. I will only be bound, _should we come to an agreement_, not to use the video in a way which is "uncomplimentary". There are, of course, many ways that I could make the video and/or transcript available to others without making any "uncomplimentary" statements about you, etc. (e.g. "Video of Andrew Kliman at April 29, 2006 Anti-War Protest in Foley Square").
If you can live with the above paragraph, then we need say no more about it. If you want some _further_ agreement concerning the possible uses (or non-uses) of the video then I will require _additional_ concessions on your part.
Should you wish to come to such an agreement, then you _will_ -- as a sign of good faith and a first step -- post on the MeltdownIII mailing list a message which:
a) includes a *retraction* of your May 14 message to that group.
b) includes an *apology* to the group, Loren, and -- especially -- myself.
c) includes a short *statement* to the effect that your previous message was misleading and that you behaved on April 29 in a manner that you now understand to be inappropriate.
d) includes a *promise* to the group, and to myself, that you will never again confront other activists and radicals in such a inappropriate manner.
e) includes a *request* that I accept your aoplogy .
You will do the above *by 9 AM Thursday* (tomorrow morning) -- should you wish to come to an understanding about the use or non-uses of the video.
I ask that you immediately acknowledge receipt of this message.
Sincerely, Jerry Levy
> (1 ) You never again post or send, to any list or individual, or
> upload to any website or blog , any uncomplimentary statement,
> question , or other communication about me, nor about any person,
> organization , project, or cause on the basis of their association
> with me, either directly or indirectly. In turn, I will never
> again post or send, to any list or individual, or upload to any
> website or blog , any uncomplimentary statement, question, or other
> communication about you, nor about any person, organization,
> project , or cause on the basis of their association with you, either
> directly or indirectly.
> (2 ) You never again speak to, nor gesture to or about me.
> In turn, I will never again speak to, nor gesture to or about you.
> (3) I have removed the statement about you from the homepage
> of my website as well as the Stop Character Assassination page.
(emphases added)
E. I still did not respond. The next day, Levy sent another message that, once again, repeated his threats and attempted intimidation (by copying them). It also told me “Time’s Up,” in an attempt to warn me of the dire consequences that will befall me because I did not cave in to Levy’s threats and attempted intimidation.
From : Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent : Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:09 AM
To : "Andrew Kliman" <andrew_kliman@msn.com>, […]
Subject : Re: reply (corrected)
Time's Up.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
To: "Andrew Kliman" <andrew_kliman@msn.com>; <annenewyork@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: reply (corrected)
> In the paraghraph that begins "For this to happen", the
> weekdate has been corrected to Thursday (tomorrow).
>
>
> Mr. Kliman,
>
> The issues under discussion have not been resolved yet.
>
> We _failed_ to reach an understanding on the wording of an agreement
> because you included "(though they are truthful and accurate)" under
> (3) below.
>
> Hence, _there is no agreement between us_.
>
> I stand ready, however, to conclude the discussion and come
> to an agreement.
>
> For this to happen, *you must agree by 9 AM Thursday to
> delete "(though they are truthful and accurate)" from (3) and
> not add to or change the rest of the proposed agreement*.
>
> I, of course, reserve the right to use the video and/or transcript of
> the two of us at the April 29 anti-war protest in Manhattan
> at a time (or times) and place (or places) of my choosing.
> I will only be bound, _should we come to an agreement_, not
> to use the video in a way which is "uncomplimentary". There
> are, of course, many ways that I could make the video and/or
> transcript available to others without making any "uncomplimentary"
> statements about you, etc. (e.g. "Video of Andrew Kliman at
> April 29, 2006 Anti-War Protest in Foley Square").
>
> If you can live with the above paragraph, then we need say no
> more about it. If you want some _further_ agreement concerning
> the possible uses (or non-uses) of the video then I will require
> _additional_ concessions on your part.
>
> Should you wish to come to such an agreement, then you _will_ --
> as a sign of good faith and a first step -- post on the MeltdownIII
> mailing list a message which:
>
> a) includes a *retraction* of your May 14 message to that group.
>
> b) includes an *apology* to the group, Loren, and -- especially --
> myself.
>
> c) includes a short *statement* to the effect that your previous
> message was misleading and that you behaved on April 29 in a
> manner that you now understand to be inappropriate.
>
> d) includes a *promise* to the group, and to myself, that you
> will never again confront other activists and radicals in such a
> inappropriate manner.
>
> e) includes a *request* that I accept your aoplogy .
>
> You will do the above *by 9 AM Thursday* (tomorrow morning)
> -- should you wish to come to an understanding about the use
> or non-uses of the video.
>
> I ask that you immediately acknowledge receipt of this message.
>
> Sincerely, Jerry Levy
>
> > (1) You never again post or send, to any list or individual, or
> > upload to any website or blog , any uncomplimentary statement,
> > question, or other communication about me, nor about any person,
> > organization, project, or cause on the basis of their association
> > with me, either directly or indirectly. In turn, I will never
> > again post or send, to any list or individual, or upload to any
> > website or blog , any uncomplimentary statement, question, or other
> > communication about you, nor about any person, organization,
> > project, or cause on the basis of their association with you, either
> > directly or indirectly.
>
> > (2 ) You never again speak to, nor gesture to or about me.
> > In turn, I will never again speak to, nor gesture to or about you.
>
> > (3) I have removed the statement about you from the homepage
> > of my website as well as the Stop Character Assassination page.
(emphases added)
F. As I mentioned, my only response until now (June 13, 2006) has been to send Levy a letter in which I called upon him to abide by the agreement we had made. That letter was sent as an e-mail attachment on May 25.
G. A friend of mine immediately received the following harassing communication from Levy:
From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
To: [… ]
Subject: Mr. Kliman's email
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:43:45 -0400
Ms. […]:
Did your spouse tell you about the email he sent to me today and the nature of the attachment to that mail?
I will have the attachment examined and if there is anything which is not appropriate and/or if my computer has been damaged in any way as a consequence of receiving that attachment then I will act accordingly.
Please instruct your spouse not to send me any further email.
Sincerely, Jerry Levy
----- Original Message -----
From: " Drewk " <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com>
To: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: agreement
> You will probably want to open the attached file immediately.
< snip >
She replied as follows:
From: […]
To: <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:34 PM
Subject: Your email
Mr. Levy ,
This is to demand that you cease and desist from
1. sending e-mail messages to me with the purpose of annoying and/or alarming me;
2. defaming Dr. Kliman to people, organizations, lists, or any other entities, an activity which you are continuing to engage in; and
3. harassing Dr. Kliman in any way.
Very truly yours,
[…]
DAMNED STRAIGHT!!
H. Next, Levy sent the following harassing message to TWO OTHER other colleagues of mine, and TWO GROUPS with which I have had some association, plus someone I don’t know at all.
Subject: what would you do? From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Date: Thu, May 25, 2006 2:11 pm
To: "H[…]
"L[…]
Cc: "E[…]
new-space@mutualaid.org
arise@newsandletters.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
H[…] and L[…]:
If another Marxist (someone who has harassed you repeatedly over the years) sent you an email with an attachment which damaged your personal computer (by installing unwanted and destructive files and system command changes), what would you do? What do you think I should do under these circumstances?
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: To: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: agreement
> You will probably want to open the attached file immediately.
< snip >
I deny the unsubstantiated, false, and defamatory charges Levy made in this message. (He may think they are not defamatory because he doesn’t name me, and because he insinuates rather than stating openly, BUT THE LAW SAYS OTHERWISE.) I have NOT harassed him repeatedly over the years, and the computer from which I sent my letter is protected by the latest Norton Internet Security system. All outgoing messages are screened before they are sent, including the one I sent him, and a routine system scan performed by Norton Internet Security the following day revealed that everything was good.
I. Levy then sent a follow-up message to all of the above parties, in response to a reply by the one that I don’t know.
Subject: Re: what would you do?
From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
Date: Thu, May 25, 2006 7:01 pm
To: " H[ …]" L[ …]
" E[ …]
Cc: " E[ …]
new-space@mutualaid.org
arise@newsandletters.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
E[ …]:
I don't know. What I do know is that when I tried (unsuccessfully) to open the attachment (which was labeled "L, Lev, 5.25.06.doc" and was 35.9K in length) my computer said that it was installing new hardware (!) and updating my system settings! When I then looked in my "Windows" file in my hard drive I saw that 12 file folders had been installed that weren't there before today! It is _possible_ (as H[ …] suggests) that the sender did not write "You will probably want to open the attached file immediately"
and that I could have been unintentionally sent the virus.
When we get together (which we were planning on doing anyway) you can look at my computer for yourself. You're the computer expert.
In any event, you have answered my question: before I decide what to do I have to determine what exactly happened and why.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
> Are you sure that this was intentional and not the result of someone
> else having a virus which automatically emailed you to spread the
> virus?
> You will probably want to open the attached file immediately.
I have heard nothing further about this. Levy has failed to substantiate his prior allegation. But he has also failed to retract it and apologize for having made it as part of his ongoing campaign of character assassination against me.
J. Levy then launched ANOTHER attack against me, on the “decadence” e-mail discussion list. His false and defamatory allegations were refuted – quite brilliantly – by two other listmembers , especially Mike, who exposed not only the falsity of Levy’s allegations against me but also his DESPICABLE MOTIVES. I reprint the entire exchange below. [Boldface interpolations in brackets are mine.]
Way to go, Mike (and Chris)! Down with character assassination!
[I deny Levy’s false and defamatory allegation that I said that “we should be” defenders of Marx. I deny Levy’s false and defamatory allegation that I take “for granted that some _authority_ (Marx) had the answer to that question and all we need to do is interpret his works ‘correctly.’”]From: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 8:22am( PDT)
Subject: Re: History of Decadence Theory?
Mike ,
Have you asked yourself whether there are certain perspectives which claim to be Marxist which are an indication of decadence _within_ the socialist movement (and, therefore, should be included within a history of decadence theory)?
Consider the following slogan:
"The economists have changed Marx, in various ways; the point is to interpret him correctly".Wouldn't you say that this is a decadent and dogmatic perspective? Shouldn't "the point" _still_ be to understand and change the world? If "the point" has morphed to interpreting Marx correctly, is it a Marxist point or a religious one?
Jerry
From: "Chris […]
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 10:22am( PDT)
Subject: Re: History of Decadence Theory?
There is a certain peculiarity to this "intervention". In this context it appears directed at myself and/or IP, which I say because Mike and I and IP have been the direct and indirect parties to the conversation, and because Jerry made exactly this kind of comment against me and re: Mattick on the Meltdown list, very recently, although maybe this is implicitly also aimed at Kliman, et al who have been tarred with the same brush and in whom Mike has a serious interest; none of the above people or their ideas, based on previous experience, are likely to make Jerry very happy. However, as much as we all wish Jerry happiness, his complaint strikes me as invalid and as undermining the possibility of discussion on this already quite quiet list.
From his point of view, we should accept Jerry's appropriation of Marx not as a reading or an interpretation. He has no correct or incorrect interpretation of Marx because he has no "interpretation", he merely applies the toolkit Marx left us to "reality" (reality is of course a funny way to refer to the statistical data generated by corporations, states, universities, economists, think-tanks, etc.) The effect of Jerry's comment is to attempt to short-circuit a discussion of presuppositions around the theoretical content of Marx's work, especially those presuppositions with which Jerry agrees. Jerry is trying to avoid a discussion of his interpretation of Marx He doesn't want to discuss this, he wants us to discuss "reality" and quantitative economic phenomena, which appear to him to self-evidently be the same thing. I don't know if this is Jerry's intent, but it is the effect.
Needless to say, Jerry's objection 'outs' his comment as an objection based on an interpretation. And it is fair game in any open discussion and the attempt to short-circuit a discussion of these presuppositions (one may refer to this level of discussion in any number of ways: second-order theorizing, metatheory , etc.) is a reflection of his interpretation and a defense of it by attempting to exclude positions critical of his presuppositions (which may be shared by people with whom he otherwise has a variety of disagreements.) This even though he is quite familiar with the value-form theory folks like Michael Williams, CJ Arthur, Geert Reuten, etc., who have a regular and respected presence on his own OPE-L list, and who represent a position not far from my own.
I could bother to defend my own interest in concrete phenomena, but it is a mistake to take Jerry's comment seriously at that level because that level of his argument amounts to nothing more than baiting. What is more important is that on this list not only are questions that assume the validity of a decadence theory at stake, but the veracity of the concept of decadence is also at issue. This list is supposed to be concerned with whether or not we are in a period of decadence and what that would imply.
I should hope it is clear that such a discussion of necessity involves the debate of Marx's (and anyone else who made a contribution to these questions, like Mattick , Grossman, Mandel, Pannekoek , Luxemburg, etc.) ideas, what we understand Marx to have been saying and what that means for our analysis.
I do however commend his other point. I just happen to think that Marxist political economy should be treated as the bourgeois appropriation of Marx, as anti- thetical to Marx's work. MPE is, in that sense, most certainly Marxist and as Mattick quite poignantly stated the matter, Marxism is the last refuge of the bourgeoisie.
In my opinion, for communists the issue is to appropriate Marx's work as part of the contribution to the elaboration of communist theory, as a theory not of how capital works, but a critique of capital and all of its fetishized forms, a theory which aids in the breaking up of the apparent solidity of bourgeois society's self-representation.
Our sole aim is the destruction of all relations in which humans subsist as degraded beings, as means instead of as ends. If our theoretical work is not part of that process, then what is its point? To claim to have a more refined and accurate quantitative measurement of value? To "predict" economic crises? And what do the latter have to do with the former?
Chris
[…]
From: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 11:00am( PDT)
Subject: Re: History of Decadence Theory?
Chris ,
I did not direct my question towards you. But, since you have replied anyway, perhaps you could answer my question. Do you disagree with my interpretation of the meaning of the slogan below?
> MPE is, in that sense, most certainly Marxist and as Mattick
> quite poignantly stated the matter, Marxism is the last refuge of
> the bourgeoisie.
I think, rather, that for some Marxism has become a refuge for dogmatists. For some it has become a substitute for religion. Instead of being (like the Jesuits) the "defenders of Christ", these people see themselves as "defenders of Marx" (as the author of the slogan below once said that we should be). I think this issue goes straight to the heart of what this list is about: are we to _critically_ consider different perspectives on decadence or are we to take it for granted that some _authority_ (Marx) had the answer to that question and all we need to do is interpret his works "correctly"?
Jerry
> "The economists have changed Marx, in various ways; the
> point is to interpret him correctly".
From: [Mike]
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 0:49pm(PDT)
Subject: Dear Jerry
Dear Jerry,
I should have known that you would bring your bullshit over to this mailing list after having made yourself look like an idiot on Meltdown. You assume that because Loren has not made a rule against slandering others on this list that you should be fine slandering Andrew here. I hope and recommend that Loren bans you immediately here, given the fact that you've already been warned precisely for this type of behavior. But we'll see.
Unfortunately you seem to think that defending Marx against allegations of internal inconsistency, allegations which have completely stunted the development of Marx's critique of political economy for over 100 years, is dogmatism. You seem to be entirely ignorant of the fact that the real dogmatists are those who continue to claim that Marx's theory has been proven internally inconsistent.
[Yes!]
Fortunately, I can say with great certainty that this list will miss nothing from your exclusion. All you have to add are occasional annoying questions about trivial issues (your recent exchange about vampires on OPE-L being particularly embarassing for you, I would imagine) and slandering Andrew.
It's sad that someone who never has ANYTHING to say (and having read the bulk of the OPE-L archives, I assure everyone on this list that in 10 years worth of discussion I have not read even ONE comment from Jerry that could qualify as "intelligent" or even "insightful") is attacking Andrew, one of the most intelligent Marxists I have ever met, who helped me a lot with understanding Capital and Marx's critique of political economy, and contrary to what Jerry may tell you, is an extremely nice person so long as you don't talk incessant shit on online mailing lists.
Mike
From: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 2:23pm( PDT)
Subject: Dear Mike
> You assume that because Loren has not made a rule against
> slandering others on this list that you should be fine slandering
> Andrew here.
I demand that you show us the slander or retract that outrageous claim immediately. I most certinly did NOT slander him: the slogan was HIS OWN and appears at HIS homepage. What I had to state about the _perspective_ embodied in that slogan was no in way " slandering" of anybody. On another list, btw, everybody seems to agree (so far ) that it is a dogmatic (and bad) slogan.
> Unfortunately you seem to think that defending Marx against
> allegations of internal inconsistency, allegations which have
> completely stunted the development of Marx's critique of political
> economy for over 100 years, is dogmatism.
Read the slogan. It had nothing to do, per se, with charges of internal inconsistences in Marx. Read it (and, btw, tell us what you think of the rest of that page!)Jerry
PS1
>> (your recent exchange about> vampires on OPE-L being particularly embarassing for >you, I would imagine)
Not at all. I welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight.
> is an extremely nice person so long as you don't talk incessant
> shit on online mailing lists.
Todd Eaton is the one who is the nice person (NB: I didn't write "person"). He's a good guy and a tireless and dedicated activist ; I've known him for awhile. He certainly doesn't
deserve "to be Eaton alive! ".
[I deny Levy’s false and defamatory allegation that my First Thesis on Marxian Economics -- "The economists have changed Marx, in various ways; the point is to interpret him correctly" – “ha[s] nothing to do, per se, with charges of internal inconsistences in Marx.” This might seem like a minor point, but Levy absolutely MUST suppress the CONTEXT of the First Thesis in order to try to transform my fight against suppression into its opposite, dogmatism, as part of his campaign of character assassination against me. This campaign serves the interests of the “Marxist economists” who want to continue to suppress Marx’s critique of political economy in its original form.]
From: [Mike]
Date: Sun May 28, 200"6 2:44pm( PDT)
Subject: Re: Dear Jerry
> > You assume that because Loren has not made a rule against
> > slandering others on this list that you should be fine slandering
> > Andrew here.
>
> I demand that you show us the slander or retract that outrageous
> claim immediately. I most certinly did NOT slander him: the slogan
> was HIS OWN and appears at HIS homepage. What I had to state about
> the _perspective_ embodied in that slogan was no in way " slandering"
> of anybody. On another list, btw, everybody seems to agree (so far)
> that it is a dogmatic (and bad) slogan.
This is just laughable. You come on here saying that Andrew's perspective represents decadence within the socialist movement and that he is religiously devoted to Marx. The fact that you phrased your attack in the form of a question changes nothing except the fact that you, as an anal-retentive piece of shit, can try to wiggle your way out of claims that what you say about Andrew is slander. The purpose of your post is obvious. You have served to disrupt discussion and debate on this thread to further your own agenda against Andrew. That is absolutely unacceptable on this mailing list.
[Touché!]
> > Unfortunately you seem to think that defending Marx against
> > allegations of internal inconsistency, allegations which have
> > completely stunted the development of Marx's critique of political
> > economy for over 100 years, is dogmatism.
>
> Read the slogan. It had nothing to do, per se, with charges of
> internal inconsistences in Marx. Read it (and, btw, tell us what you
> think of the rest of that page!)
This only shows your own inability to read. The slogan originally comes from Andrew's speech on The Production of Internal Inconsistencies By Means of Simultaneous Valuation, which is stated explicitly on his webpage. Thus it is obviously a reference to the debates surrounding the alleged internal inconsistency of Marx's theory. You should PROVE that Andrew is ONLY interested in interpreting Marx, or SHUT UP. The fact that Andrew has written so much on this issue DOES NOT AT ALL PROVE THAT THIS IS THE ONLY THEORETICAL AREA THAT ANDREW IS INTERESTED IN.
It is apparently unthinkable to someone as small-minded as yourself that the correct interpretation of Marx has anything to do with changing reality. But that is YOUR problem, not Andrew's. It does not at all show a study of Marx for the sake of studying Marx, disconnected from any desire or attempt to transform reality.
As Andrew pointed out the last time you ran your mouth on the Meltdown list, your attempted character assassination serves ONLY to get people not to listen to what Andrew has to say. This is just as clear on this list, since you have attempted to disrupt any discussion of TSS (among other things) and seem to be attempting get people to disassociate from Andrew.[Right.]
Again, that is unacceptable on this mailing list. It is also unacceptable outside this mailing list, but at least here it is possible to get rid of you.
MikeFrom: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 3:24pm( PDT)Subject: Re: Dear Mike
Mike: You show, by your remarks, that you don't know what slander means: you charged me wrongly with what you -- in fact -- have just done (twice). No need for you to apologize.
Jerry
From: [Mike]
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 3:49pm( PDT)
Subject: Re: Dear Jerry
Dear Jerry,
Again, your problem seems to be a lack of reading comprehension.
According to Merriam- Websters ' online dictionary :
Main Entry: slander
Function: noun
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
Compare your statement:
"Wouldn't you say that this is a decadent and dogmatic perspective? Shouldn't 'the point' _still_ be to understand and change the world? If "the point" has morphed to interpreting Marx correctly, is it a Marxist point or a religious one?"
The implication is that the only thing that Andrew is interested in theoretically is the defense of Marx and that Andrew no longer wants to change the world. As I pointed out, this is simply not true. Hence false charges and misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation. Hence, slander.[Right.]
But this is really beside the point. You're attempting to create a debate around whether or not you have technically slandered Andrew. You have not addressed the fact that you are diverting discussion away from substantive issues (namely, decadence theory) in order to further your agenda against another list-member. Which is why you should be banned.
[NICE exposure of Levy’s use of diversion as a stratagem.]
Mike
From: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 7:57pm( PDT)
Subject: Re: Dear Mike
> Again, your problem seems to be a lack of reading comprehension.
> According to Merriam- Websters ' online dictionary:
> Main Entry: slander
> Function: noun
> 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which
> defame and damage another's reputation
> Compare your statement:
> "Wouldn't you say that this is a decadent and dogmatic perspective?
> Shouldn't 'the point' _still_ be to understand and change the world?
> If "the point" has morphed to interpreting Marx correctly, is it
> a Marxist point or a religious one?"
Mike:
Where is the "utterance of false charges or misrepresentations " above ? YOU are the one lacking in reading comprehension. *QUESTIONS* are neither false charges nor misrepsentations .
> Which is why you should be banned.
So long as we know who is trying to suppress whom.[This is preposterous. Protecting innocent people against defamation, so that they can speak and write freely, is NOT suppression. It is the very opposite of suppression!]
As for the subject of DECADENCE (which is what this group is supposed to discuss) :
Is the following STATEMENT an indication of DECADENCE in the socialist movement or not?
"HE SHOULD BE EATON ALIVE!"
Or, do you think that a proposal that someone should be canabalized alive is OK if it is written by a "Marxist"?
Answer those questions -- if you dare.
Jerry
[I deny Levy’s false and defamatory charge that I proposed cannibalism. I did not write “eaten,” I wrote “Eaton.” And I did not suggest a preferred species (wolf, or tiger, or human, etc.) to do the Eaton. Get it, Levy? YOU SHOULD BE LEVY ALIVE!]
From: [Mike]
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 8:34pm( PDT)
Subject: Re: Dear Jerry
> Mike:
>
> Where is the "utterance of false charges or misrepresentations"
> above? YOU are the one lacking in reading comprehension.
> *QUESTIONS* are neither false charges nor misrepsentations .
Wow, Jerry. You're really digging yourself into a nice neat little hole. All I need to do is put on the finishing touches. I'll help you out.
In an earlier post, you said:
"I think, rather, that for some Marxism has become a refuge for dogmatists. For some it has become a substitute for religion. Instead of being (like the Jesuits) the "defenders of Christ", these people see themselves as "defenders of Marx" (as the author of the slogan below once said that we should be). I think this issue goes straight to the heart of what this list is about: are we to _critically_ consider different perspectives on decadence or are we to take it for granted that some _authority_ (Marx) had the answer to that question and all we need to do is interpret his works 'correctly'?"
This is NOT a question. You specifically claimed that for people like Andrew, Marxism is a substitute for religion. As I said, this is a false and malicious accusation. You can try to wiggle out of this all you like but I'm afraid this one sticks, Jerry.
[Touché!]
It seems that when I said you were an "anal-retentive piece of shit" I was correct. You attempted to save yourself room for denial of the accusation of slander and character- assassination, but in your desire to defame Andrew, you slipped up.
In addition, your questions were not innocent questions but had clear implications that everyone here is surely able to recognize. Your rhetorical questions were of an defamatory nature.
[Right.]
It's rather silly to say that banning you from one of your many mailing lists is "suppression." Defamation should not be tolerated on a discussion list.
> As for the subject of DECADENCE (which is what this group is supposed
> to discuss ):
>
> Is the following STATEMENT an indication of DECADENCE in the
> socialist movement or not?
>
> "HE SHOULD BE EATON ALIVE!"
>
> Or, do you think that a proposal that someone should be
> canabalized alive is OK if it is written by a "Marxist"?
>
> Answer those questions -- if you dare.
Spare the melodrama Jerry. I "dare" answer your questions.
First off, it is rather childish of you to claim that you are attempting to initiate discussion on "decadence." What you're attempting to discuss is rather different from what everyone on this list signed up for, despite the fact that you use the same word for it.
Secondly, Andrew posted the evidence in his dispute with Eaton online, for everyone to see and decide for themselves. Andrew has been very reasonable in that dispute, contrary to yourself who defames Andrew on mailing lists at every opportunity. Andrew did not bring his dispute with Eaton onto this mailing list, you did.
But this should be enough. I don't see any need to further flood the e-mail list with refutations of Jerry Levy's inanities, and I'm sorry that this has taken up so much space, but I think it's necessary to combat Jerry's continuous defamation of Andrew.
[Yes. Damned straight!!!!]
Mike
From: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com
Date: Sun May 28, 2006 9:02pm( PDT)
Subject: Re: Dear Mike
> In an earlier post, you said:
> "I think, rather, that for some Marxism has become a refuge for
> dogmatists. For some it has become a substitute for religion.
> Instead of being (like the Jesuits) the "defenders of Christ",
> these people see themselves as "defenders of Marx" (as the author
> of the slogan below once said that we should be). I think this
> issue goes straight to the heart of what this list is about: are
> we to _critically_ consider different perspectives on decadence or
> are we to take it for granted that some _authority_ (Marx) had the
> answer to that question and all we need to do is interpret his
> works 'correctly'?"
> This is NOT a question. You specifically claimed that for people
> like Andrew, Marxism is a substitute for religion.
Mike :
Not quite. Read it again.
Are you denying that for some Marxism is a substitute for religion? If so, then you're probably the ONLY Marxist that I know of who would make such a denial. There are LOTS of Marxists for whom Marxism is a substitute for religion.
btw , if one person saying that Marxists [economists, specifically] are "the last refuge of the bourgeoisie" is OK, why is it that when someone suggests that dogmatism is the last refuge for some Marxists that's not OK?
> As I said, this is a false and malicious accusation.
Accusation? You mean the "defenders of Marx" comment? Well, that was witnessed by a room full of people at an IWGVT mini-conference. It's not an "accusation"; it's a factual statement. LEARN the difference.
> It seems that when I said you were an "anal-retentive piece of
> shit" I was correct.
I can see you have tried to avoid malicious name-calling and take the high road.
> > Is the following STATEMENT an indication of DECADENCE in the
> > socialist movement or not?
> > "HE SHOULD BE EATON ALIVE!"
> > Or, do you think that a proposal that someone should be
> > canabalized alive is OK if it is written by a "Marxist"?
> > Answer those questions -- if you dare.
> Andrew posted the evidence in his dispute with Eaton online ,for
> everyone to see and decide for themselves.
Wow!!!! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE FOR:
"HE SHOULD BE EATON ALIVE!"
YOU COULDN'T EVEN CONDEMN A SUGGESTION OF CANIBALISM BY ONE MARXIST AGAINST ANOTHER! Is that how you understand "Marxist-Humanism"?
At least you've convinced me that you're not worth talking to: I've seen for myself what sort of "principles" (or lack thereof) you have.
Jerry
[Again, I deny the false and defamatory charge that I said that “we should be” defenders of Marx. And I once again deny the false and defamatory charge that I proposed cannibalism. I did not write “eaten,” I wrote “Eaton.” And I did not suggest a preferred species (wolf, or tiger, or human, etc.) to do the Eaton. Get it, Levy? YOU SHOULD BE LEVY ALIVE!]
K. This was followed by still more character assassination of me, thinly veiled as a discussion of issues, on the “decadence” list. As I noted, Levy may think that he has skirted the law against defamation by not naming me and by insinuating rather than stating openly, BUT THE LAW SAYS OTHERWISE.
Re: "the economists ...."
Posted by: "gerald_levy1973" Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com gerald_levy1973
Date: Wed Jun 7, 2006 5:18 am (PDT)
Loren and others;
Issue #1:
An irony: "the economists", according to the slogan below", have only changed Marx in various ways. Chris Arthur is _not_ an economist, though. But, Freeman and Kliman _are_ economists. If one were to then take the slogan literally, it would mean that Freeman and Kliman along with all of the other economists have "only changed Marx". The issue, then, is that the slogan is self-contradictory if put forward by an economist -- whether a Professor of Economics or an Economist employed by the […] or any other economist.Issue #2:
What does it matter if a theorist "diverges from Marx"? Is "the point" to understand Marx "correctly" or is it to understand and change the world? Of course, understanding Marx is part of that project -- since we must critique _ALL_ existing thought. "de omnibus dubitandum" means that we must doubt _all_ and that _INCLUDES_ Marx's thought. The issue here is whether we are to adopt a truly critical, revolutionary, and ANTI- AUTHORITARIAN perspective. The alternative is to accept on faith that all of the answers for understanding the capitalist world lie hidden, like undiscovered treasures, in the thought of one (deceased) person (Marx).
Issue #3:
Why do Freeman and some others seek to defend Marx from criticism? _If_ Freeman "rightly challenged" Arthur on the point below, _then_ wasn't it also -- EVEN MORE! -- right to challenge someone who says that Marxists should be "defenders of Marx"? I'd say that the claim that we should be "defenders of Marx" is FAR more important to challenge that what Freeman challenged. Who ON EARTH can speak FOR Marx and say what is the one "correct" understanding of "Marx's Marxism"?
Issue #4:
Is it possible to investigate whether capitalism is becoming _more_ decadent through an interpretation of Marx's texts? To determine whether capitalism is decaying at an increased level requires that we investigate _contemporary_ developments, does it not? Of what importance, if any, are topics such as the "transformation problem" to the subject of decadence _unless_ they are an indication of _ideological_ decay?
[NB: There is nothing above -- by the standards of any Internet list or group anywhere -- which would be viewed as "personally abusive".]
Jerry
> > > 7. Mike wrote: "there are some value-form
> > theorists who
> > > acknowledge that they diverge from Marx (Reuten)
> > and some who
> > > seem to think that they are following Marx
> > (Arthur)."
> > > Not any more. At the Historical Materialism
> > conference in London in
> > > November, Arthur stated that he had tried to make
> > sense of Marx's
> > > views, but he had finally realized that it
> > couldn't be done,
> > > because Marx's views are incoherent. Alan Freeman
> > then rightly
> > > challenged Arthur to restate the point as follows:
> > he (Chris
> > > Arthur) couldn't succeed in making Marx's views
> > > make sense -- which doesn't mean that it is
> > impossible, or that
> > > others of us haven't made them make sense.
> > >
> > > The economists have changed Marx, in various ways.
> > The point is to
> > > interpret him -- correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrew Kliman
I deny the false and defamatory allegations about me that Levy made in this message. (I repeat, Levy is guilty of defamation despite the fact that he didn’t name me – he DID append a snippet of what I wrote, thereby making clear who he was attacking):
- I do not “seek to defend Marx from criticism.” (I seek to defend his work against some specific false allegations of internal inconsistency levelled against him by the “Marxist economists” and others. That is NOT what Levy wrote, or intended, as his context makes abundantly clear.)
- Once again, I deny having said or written that Marxists “should be” defenders of Marx.
- I deny having said or written that there is “one ‘correct’ understanding of ‘Marx's Marxism.’”
I call upon Jerry Levy to RETRACT, and PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE for, these and his other FALSE AND DEFAMATORY statements about me!