Answer to Louis and Farewell
glevy at acnet.pratt.edu
glevy at acnet.pratt.edu
Sun Nov 19 16:40:58 MST 1995
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.
[Answer to Louis follows]
> By the way, John, who
> I'm acquainted with, will get a copy of this over on the PEN-L so he can
> speak to you himself about his lack of sophistication.
This is one of the reasons I am leaving this list. I am *so* tired of
answering distortions and misrepresentations. I *did not* say anything
about Foster's supposed "lack of sophistication" and Louis *knows it*. If
Louis does not realize that different books are intended for different
audiences and have different "scholarly" content, then I will not bother
to teach him. The *problem* is that he does know this and he (like so
many before him) twist my words into something other than what was *in
fact* stated. I do not have the time to deal with people who behave in
such a bad faith sectarian manner.
> OK, not a Trotskyist. Fine. An analytic-Marxist,
> perhaps, to infer from your inquiry about the linguistic philosopher
> Wittgenstein? If you are an analytic-Marxist, as John Roemer is, then I
> suppose it wouldn't do much good to refer you to Soviet history. If you
I am not an "analytical Marxist" and Louis *knows* it (that is, if he
knows *anything* about "analytical Marxism"). He goes on to say that he
doesn't have much time or inclination to discuss the "LOV." Had he known
anything whatsoever about AM or had he read *any* of my posts on threads
related to political economy, he would know that AMists reject the "LOV"
and I do not reject Marx's understanding of value. Bad faith. Distortion.
Bullshit. That's all Louis is good for. He claims to "infer", but, he
knows (unless he is a *complete* idiot), that was not stated or intended
in my post on Wittgenstein.
> Louis: Context is everything. I didn't know you from the man in the moon.
> All I know is that I got what boiled down to a very patronizing "grading"
> of my paper from a complete stranger. Furthermore, you told me that I was
> talking about the problem of industrialization and not the problem of the
> NEP. I interpreted this, correctly in my opinion, as a statement that I
> didn't really know what I was talking about at all.
If you don't know me from a "man in the moon", then you haven't been
listening since I have revealed much about my life to this list. You seem
to forget the *encouraging* private message that I sent you. You seem to
forget how, when you were personally attacked in a vile manner a few
months ago, I came to your support. That's a big problem with you -- you
don't listen and you don't remember.
> How dare you? I've been keeping my looniness a complete secret and
> you have the nerve to spill the beans to the list. (Hey, everybody, I
> might be a nut but you know I love you all the same.)
You think you are funny. You are not. You need help. If you do not
believe me, then check the marxism archives. You will discover an
amazingly consistent pattern of irrationality (which, as Scott knows, I
was able to predict). You are out of control and you *admitted* it yesterday.
> (Now one of the Gerry Levy "Marxist political economy" e-mail list members
> confided to me yesterday that people are starting to complain over your
> control over the list.
Louis tried this tactic on PEN-L recently. He claims to have received
private messages which later, upon challenge, he is not able to
substantiate. I have no more time for his lies. He is a worthless lying
sectarian -- period.
> By the way, I am deeply proud of being a computer programmer.
You are proud of being a computer programmer. Fine. What's all this
"Professor Levy" bullshit, though? You are an anti-intellectual to the
core. You are an anti-elitist [pretentious, condescending, mediocre]
> How can professors live
> with themselves when so much of their life is involved with grading
> people. Some people take to it, I guess....
I don't grade people, I grade exams and papers. There is a difference. I
only gave you a grade [B-] for your paper yesterday, because you falsely
claimed that I had graded it beforehand. You wanted a grade and I gave
you what you honestly deserved. If I had to grade you as a person and as
a Marxist, then the grade would have been much lower.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism