Sidenote, the last issue of CNS I saw has O'Connor's new intro to a new
edition of The Fiscal Crisis of the State. Haven't had my morning cuppa joe
so I forget if Michael Keaney has a preface too or exactly what his
contribution is.
Michael Pugliese
P.S. I took two classes from Jim. Sure he could be gruff and sometimes he
mumbled but, what a genius.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keaney Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:21 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:12175] Ellen Meiksins Woody Allen
> Louis P. writes:
>
> There is peer review and there is peer review. If you are part of the old
> boy's network, you don't have to worry about being published. For example,
> Ellen Meiksins Wood decided that John Bellamy Foster's tribute to Paul
> Sweezy was unpublishable. She was overriden because of his long-standing
> ties to Magdoff and Sweezy and she got canned herself. The in-grown
> character of publications like Science and Society, MR, New Left Review,
> etc. is largely a product of the kind of social networking that tenured
> professors and established journalists have cultivated for many years. The
> same sort of log-rolling goes on in other circles as well, from academic
> departments to the literary world.
>
> =====
>
> But not Marxist computer programmers? What you report here is unavoidable
> and probably rightly so. As social animals we tend to congregate within
> certain communities that feed us and enable us to contribute. Openness to
> the views of others can just as readily be interpreted as "selling out" or
> "betraying" the cause, whatever that may be. One person's sectarianism can
> be another's solidarity. Singling out academia (and including Monthly
> Review, of all publications, within that) as a special case works only
with
> respect to the scientistic pretensions of some professors who would have
> everyone believe that they are immune to such conventions.
>
> =====
>
> To crack into this world is a Kafka-esque venture, especially for those
who
> don't have the proper credentials. For example, I am friendly with Paul
> Buhle who is probably the most respected and prolific historian of the US
> left. Paul wanted me to write a guest column for him in Jim O'Connor's
> journal. I supplied 4 different articles, all of which were tip-top. (One
> finally made it into Foster's journal). But they were all rejected for no
> good reason. The same thing goes on at MR. I can tell you one atrocity
> story after another about articles that were much better than those that
> ordinarily get published because the people submitting them were not
> celebrities.
>
> =====
>
> Come off it. You're a bigger celebrity than most of these guys. Are you
sure
> you weren't simply trying to push the envelope by incorporating a few
jokes
> or digs, like you did with Wallerstein?
>
> What constitutes "better"? Is there not a case that subscribers to MR, for
> instance, should be able to rely on a certain view (or amalgam of views)
> being articulated consistently? I can imagine the howls of protest were
> Sweezy and Magdoff suddenly to give space to pomo analyses of contemporary
> US media rather than those regularly served up by Robert McChesney, for
> instance.
>
> You might say that, as a member of an editorial advisory board, I have a
> vested interest in defending the process. I do, to the extent that I would
> like my students to have access to good quality scholarship that
challenges
> and informs in a manner that they themselves should emulate. I do also, to
> the extent that I don't want to see RRPE awash with junk that will reduce
> further its already depleted subscriber numbers. But I can also see the
> problems of katheder residue that you highlight. The brusque manner in
which
> contributions can be treated is often thoughtless and very discouraging.
But
> I recall your brush with CNS, and I know Jim O'Connor's style myself.
> Personally I think he's trying to be helpful, and I believe he is also
> conscious of the need to reach beyond the confines not only of academe,
but
> also orthodox Marxism, however that may be construed. Maybe it comes
across
> differently, but I don't believe for a second that Jim would have
terminated
> any of your contributions with the extreme prejudice that sometimes passes
> for peer review.
>
> Michael K.
>
