STOP THIS RIGHT NOW. On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 10:23:44AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > Eric has now switched his thesis from "RRPE did not put a ban on > Kliman because of his politics" to "a RRPE ban does not constitute > suppression because Kliman was free to publish elsewhere." Not very > fast footed work. Devine continues to imply that much should not be > made out of the rejection of a single paper but that's not the > question which is why did RRPE decide it never wanted even to > consider a paper by Kliman. > > Eric writes: > > > > Even if RRPE decided never to > >publish anything written by, say, Milton Friedman, this would not constitute > >suppression as RRPE would not stop Milton from publishing somewhere else. > > > Well let's say RRPE had a ban on Friedman and Kliman. Why those two? > Two answers suggest themselves. > > i. RRPE will not publish articles by a man shorter than 5'7'' > > ii. RRPE will not publish anything from the right or very much from > the so called far left; unlike say Capital and Class it is a social > democratic journal whose basic political economy combines the neo > Ricardian theory of distribution with a radicalized Keynesian or > Kaleckian theory of effective demand (unlike mainstream Keynesians > RRPE puts more focus on better domestic and global income > distribution and more aggressive public works in generating the > effective demand needed for full employment). In fact that is what > radical political economics is both theoretically and programatically > (or all that it can be rationally be)--so why should RRPE allow in > authors and papers (except on rare occassions) that do not attempt to > develop but spit out irrational diatribe against radical political > economics as so defined? > > Won't driving Kliman out put RRPE on its way to becoming the > theoretical wing of the American Prospect and all that respectability > that it implies? > > This is America after all, and a radical academic journal cannot > survive with a Marxist orientation; a social democratic, neo > Ricardian and radical Keynesian one has a chance though. > > Isn't this the issue? > > Irony of ironies though. I have not read Shaikh's work on the > contemporary US economy--Doug refers to it often--but would it not be > interesting if the strongest case for the strong long term growth > that can undergird bottom up income growth and make manageable good > sized govt deficits can be made on the basis of Marxian value > categories, e.g., stabilization of OCC, reduction in what Foley calls > production and realization lags as a result of better technology and > thus lower interest costs, cheaper raw material costs as a result of > the globalization of the economy, etc. > > What happens if the shallowness of this recession indicates that we > (or at least Americans) are in a long wave upswing a strong case for > which can also be made on the basis of Marxian value categories? > > Then the road to social democracy and peace with capitalism goes > through Marxian value theory. > > > > > > > > > >How exactly does RRPE "prevent or prohibit" anyone from publishing their work > >in another journal? > > You have changed the question. > > Rakesh >
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
