Mat Forstater wrote: "Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study of Marx?"
What is _Marx After Sraffa_? What is the "transformation problem"? What is the "Okishio theorem"? What's all the stuff about "correcting" or "completing" Marx? In the courses you took in which "internal inconsistencies" or "logical errors" on Marx's part were alleged, was equal time, or even any real consideration, given to the literature which disproves the proofs of these allegations, or otherwise presents the other side? Was there any balance on the faculty? How about even debates with invited speakers? Is there any balance on the editorial boards of these people's journals? Do they try to make their conferences representative? I am not impressed by the fact that Marx appears on someone's reading list. That's a fig leaf, and he's dead so he can't challenge them. Only living pro-Marx authors can. Is that challenge given a real hearing? I will have a lot more to say about this, but I'd like to hear your response first. Andrew Kliman -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Forstater, Mathew Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23411] RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Some questions Since when do Marxists and Sraffians suppress Marx or the study of Marx? All of my Marxist and Sraffian teachers (e.g., Shaikh, Gordon, Garegnani, Eatwell) promoted the careful study of Marx. They always provided logical and textual evidence for their interpretations and disagreements, though one might not be convinced by their arguments. I'll admit they were dogmatic (in differing degrees), but they did not suppress study of or discussion about Marx in the classroom or in research. Drewk writes: The reason his work is part of an ideological attack on, and effort to suppress, Marx's ideas in their original form is that Roemer, like the rest of the Marxian and Sraffian critics of Marx, DOES NOT pose his disagreements as disagreements. He *doesn't* say: "here's what Marx thought, here's why I don't like it, or here's the evidence against it, and here's my own view. We have our view; Marx has his." That would be the honest, principled thing to do. Roemer & Co. instead say that Marx's own theories are illegitimate, unworthy even of being seriously considered, not even possibly correct. They cook up false "internal inconsistencies" that they and other then use to legitimate the suppression of Marx's ideas from classrooms, bookshelves, and journals, including journals of radical economics.
