>CNS strikes me as fairly eclectic, and there are clearly a few contributors
>who get past whatever ideological screening Jim allegedly employs. Why not
>try to respond to (I presume) Hughes by simply tackling his points one by
>one.
>
>Michael K.
Because neither CNS, nor MR, nor Science and Society has a letters section.
And even if they did, they wouldn't begin to accomodate the kind of detail
that is necessary to refute the likes of Hughes. In fact, there is
something of a culture clash going on right now with PEN-L. I am probably
the only Marxist who not only identifies strongly with Blaut's critique but
takes the trouble to do additional research. As I stated, Wallerstein
wanted me to submit my last reply to Wood/Brenner, but I told him that I
was simply not interested in dealing with print journals any longer. Now,
since we can presume that Wood is probably reading PEN-L because she
responded to my initial post this go-round, why won't she join in the
discussion? The answer is obvious. It is beneath her. David Harvey was on
PEN-L for a while as well and while discussion was swirling around his
messed-up book on ecology, he just stood on the sidelines lurking and
sniffing at the rabble. The Internet requires you to not only think on your
feet, but to be able to withstand heavy doses of sarcasm and bluntness.
These sensitive souls are just not up to it. That is why I have a lot of
respect for Brad DeLong even though I find his politics detestable. Even
though he is high up on the Berkeley totem pole, he is not above joining in
what Jim Blaut called our "food fights."
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
