ANDREW KLIMAN

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 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0

JERRY LEVY, MALICIOUS LIAR

In May 2006, I wrote to the Meltdown III e-mail list about Jerry Levy’s attempt to destroy my reputation.  I noted that “this is a ‘personal matter’ only in the sense that he has chosen to resort to personal attacks in order to accomplish his aims. His character assassination in fact arises out of the broader effort of the ‘Marxist economists’ to suppress Marx’s critique of political economy in its original form.”

I also noted that, on this page of my website, “I will demonstrate his reckless disregard for the truth, and demonstrate that his actions serve the interests of the ‘Marxist economists’ who seek to continue the suppression of Marx’s critique of political economy in its original form. In contrast to Levy, who attacks people in situations where they cannot defend themselves, I will publish any and every reply of his, on the same page of my website (unless it defames an individual, engages in redbaiting, or is diversionary, racist, sexist, or homophobic).”

I shall begin with the first point:

LEVY’S RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH

In a May 2, 2005 post to the “aut-op-sy” list, entitled “Re: Kliman’s New SPACE Harasses Brecht Forum” [sic -- and sick] (https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/aut-op-sy/2005-May/004067.html), “Gerald_A_Levy” wrote:

Kliman in many ways represents the ANTI-THESIS of ‘Open Marxism’.

A recent example of Kliman’s ‘pluralism’ was the paper he presented at the 2004 meetings of the Eastern Economics Association: ‘LIES, DAMNED LIES: SCREPANTI’S CRITIQUE OF MARX’

If Ernesto Screpanti is a ‘damned liar’ because he has a different interpretation of Marx than Andrew Kliman, what do you think his AK’s perspective is on autonomist interpretations of _Capital_?

(Actually, the title was “Lies, Damned Lies, and Screpanti’s Critique of Marx.” It recalls the saying “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.”)

Levy charges that I called Screpanti a “‘damned liar’ because he has a different interpretation” (my emphasis). It would indeed be very anti-pluralistic to do so.

But I did not do so. My title suggests that Screpanti’s critique of Marx -- not his interpretation -- is equivalent to a “damned lie.”

And the reason I suggested that his critique is equivalent to a “damned lie” was not that I disagreed with him. Rather, Screpanti falsely alleged that he had “proved” that Marx’s theory of exploitation was “logically inconsistent” when in fact he had not proved any such thing. I maintain that everyone familiar with the issues, including Screpanti himself, would know that he had provided no genuine proof. He was simply resorting to the usual rhetoric of the physicalists against Marx.

If you want to see my argument and supporting evidence, I’ll send you my “Screpanti vs. Marx on Exploitation: A comment,” published in the April 2006 issue of Review of Political Economy. This is the very same paper as “Lies, Damned Lies, and Screpanti’s Critique of Marx,” under a different title. Believe me, you will not find there even the slightest hint that Screpanti is a “liar” because he has a different interpretation of Marx.

So Levy falsely accused me of something that I did not do.

Might this have been an innocent mistake? No.

Note that Levy did not attend the conference session at which I presented the paper. Nor did he request a copy of the paper! So he had no way of knowing what the paper said, nor what the words “Lies, Damned Lies, and Screpanti’s Critique of Marx” referred to.

Yet Levy nonetheless took it upon himself to attack me, all over public space (I downloaded his post -- more than a year after it was written -- from a listserv to which I do not subscribe) for something that I did not do, and to level a charge against me for which he had absolutely no evidence. Note that in his characterization of what I wrote, he quotes nothing from my paper, offers no support for his characterization, and even fails to get the title right. It is very difficult to believe that he had read the paper when he made his false and slanderous accusation. I do not believe it.

No, Levy recklessly disregarded the truth in order to pursue his campaign of character assassination against me. As I shall show in a subsquent installment, this campaign of character assassination arises out of a broader effort of the “Marxist economists” to suppress Marx’s critique of political economy in its original form.

I call upon Jerry Levy to retract his false and slanderous charge that I called Screpanti a “damned liar” because I disagree with Screpanti’s interpretation of Marx.

I call upon Jerry Levy to confess that he made this false and slanderous charge even though he did not attend the conference session at which I delivered the paper, and even though he did not request the paper from me.

I call upon Jerry Levy to inform readers that they can obtain my paper, and thus read my actual charges against Screpanti -- not Levy’s false and slanderous characterization of my charges -- by reading it in the April 2006 issue of the Review of Political Economy (Volume 18, no. 2), under the title “Screpanti vs. Marx on Exploitation: A comment,” or by requesting a copy from me by writing to akliman@pace.edu.

I call upon Jerry Levy to apologize for making his false and slanderous charge, and to promise that nothing like it will happen again.

I call upon Jerry Levy to publicize the retraction, confessions, information about my paper, and his apology on the list on which he made his false and slanderous charge (aut-op-sy), and on the OPE-HELL list (aka OPE-L), where he made a similar charge a year earlier.

As I noted above, while Levy “attacks people in situations where they cannot defend themselves, I will publish any and every reply of his, on the same page of my website (unless it defames an individual, engages in redbaiting, or is diversionary, racist, sexist, or homophobic).”

I await his reply -- and the retraction, confessions, information about my paper, and his apology.

NEXT PAGE:  LEVY FAILS TO REFUTE CHARGES 

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 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0 v=0