Sept. 17, 1994
Dear PEN-Lers, Sept. 17, 1994
For some time I have been reading my e-mail, but I am unable to
catch up. There are letters still from April-May-June-July-August. I
suppose, once a week at internet is not enough. The following topic is
important enough to pass it up without saying anything.
I have been reading my mail about the name change in URPE for
some time. Some letters had good points, but many were totally
irrelevant with respect to the question. The question was: whether URPE
name should be changed or not. If it is to be changed why and to what
purpose. If not, why do we keep the name. In many of these letters you
can't find straight answers.
This is not the first time that URPE name change has become an
issue. It was discussed in the early 1980s when I was in the editorial
board of RRPE and Hugo Radice(?) mentions the one in the late 1980s when
he was on the board. Any time URPE has membership problems a quick
solution was sought in the name change.
Name change reminds me a practice in Turkey, as well as in many
less developed countries. Whichever a party wins a mayoral race (or comes
to power) attempts to change street names and town names to appeal to
their supporters (This practice confuses mail-delivery, and if you see a
new map and not aware of the name change you will see many towns that you
knew are no longer there.) We also witness country name changes in
Africa and Asia. This reminds me an underdeveloped mentality. I for one
strongly oppose to a practice of name change for the following reasons:
As indicated above, it adds to confusion and beaks historical
continuity. Those who founded URPE gave the name that now has a history
of identification. How would you like to change your name every ten years
when you are in a crisis? Name recognition takes very long time.
Hundreds of people contributed to the reputation of URPE name and they
have created a credible trade mark for URPE to be recognized and
respected. In one stroke you want to eliminate all of that. Look around,
how many journals or organizations change their names even though their
names may not have "sex" appeal. Also look around, those few changed
their name, what "success" have they had? For example, take a look at
Socialist Revolution, Insurgent socialist, (Canadian) Studies in
Political Economy. Have they created an avalanche of new members?
URPE was founded by diverse groups, most of whom were economists
and a few of those were Marxist and revolutionist. Most of the members
were the people who belonged to "intelligentsia." And today, the
membership of URPE is still the same heterogeneous as it was founded.
URPE was an umbrella organization and still is today. URPE is not Marxist
organization, is not revolutionary grass root organization, not
socialist, not reformist, not, not, not. . . . But URPE is all of them.
To push URPE to any sectarian political line or group will negate its
history and existence. There are already many such fragmented or
sectarian organizations. There is no point making URPE like one of them.
If enough people desire to form a new organization, I'll join them, and
still keep my membership in URPE.
After we settle this name issue, we can tackle with other
concerns that are eloquently expressed by some PEN-L writers. These many
be summarized as:
1. the goal of the organization;
2. concerns for younger members' tenure and CV:
3. Quality and nature of articles in the RRPE.
The first is implicitly answered in my above explanation. There
cannot be a single goal or narrow goals for an organization that whose
members are diverse like ours. Remember that URPE is an umbrella
organization for diverse individuals who come together to exchange their
ideas, views, and experiences to enrich us. Nothing in URPE prevents us
doing other work or functioning in other groups in different capacity. We
each can pursue our own separate objectives elsewhere as well as work in
URPE and share our experiences in URPE. URPE can be a voice for many
diverse individuals working toward a common goal: betterment of humanity.
We may differ in our tactics, but not in goal. As members get older there
is a change in their tactics too. Life and experience is sometimes brutal
teacher. Therefore, it is not surprising to see our graying members
getting interested more in environmental and health care topics.
Concerns for our younger members. We must not be "condescending
in our attitude toward the problems of younger comrades," as one comrade
said. Because we have not experienced certain difficulties in getting
tenure etc. does not mean that those obstacles are not present in real
life. Every one's condition and situation is different, and therefore we
must not be judgmental toward others. Many comrades offered fruitful
ideas for our younger members, such as: they need not write organization
name on their CV. Or they might submit their work to other left journals
whose titles may not be "revealing" as the RRPE. Those young members can
still participate in URPE and grow with us.
As for the quality and the nature of articles in the RRPE. This
issue is extremely important and difficult. Some writers expressed
concerns for the excessive use of quantitative tools, lack of real world
problems or applicability, etc. I think these are valid criticisms and I
believe something ought to be done about it. This is where our
credibility lies as a left organization. With these kinds of writings,
how could we move toward a better future society that is an alternative
to the present one? We can't be a credible organization if our writings
have no relevance to people whose lives we want to change? I share the
concerns of many who complain the use of "esoteric" techniques, since
these techniques serve no one except the writer's self image in some
circles. We, the leftist writers, have a message and purpose in our
writings, and convey it to the reader. If the reader doesn't get it, then
the writer fails. Many people's letters in PEN-L are testimony to this
aspect. I witness this kind of complaints in mainstream journals as well,
like AER, EJ. Many well-known economists, including some Nobel laureates
criticize the level of mathematics, abstractness, devoid of reality, etc.
used in leading journals. What must we do about it in URPE? This concerns
all of us, particularly the editorial board of the RRPE. The board may
place a limit on the use of mathematical sophistication or exclude those
articles from consideration altogether, on the ground that they are not
relevant to URPE readers or the real world problems, etc. I think, the
credibility of URPE depends on our work, the quality and usefulness of
our analysis. Genuine alternative analysis, an analysis that helps and
guides practitioners need to be struggled for. Only these would give
credence to URPE.
I have some proposals to make RRPE more useful to readers. RRPE
in each issue should have sections for (a) policy oriented articles, (b)
correspondence, (c) a corner for non-academic/non-economist, and (d) a
section for invited article from leading figures in their fields.
Before I end this letter, I would like to say something about the
future alternative. The future alternative that we want to create cannot
be created without the active participation of working class. Without
them we can accomplish nothing. We have to walk with them to change the
present into the future alternative. And that alternative is socialism.
I wrote these lines as I listened to revolutionary folk songs.
Forgive me if I am carried away by the music or by Jim Craven's quote
from Bertolt Brecht.
A luta continua,
Fikret Ceyhun
Dept. of Economics
Univ. of North Dakota
University Station, box 8369
Grand Forks, ND 58203
