I hope soon to respond more fully to Mat Forstater, Jim Devine, and Justin Schwartz. Now there's no time.
So for now, let me just try to refocus attention on the central reason why I say there's suppression of Marx by the Marxist and Sraffian economists. Everyone else in the discussion seems to be avoiding it, or maybe some people still haven't gotten it. So here goes. In his latest attack on me, Justin Schwartz leaves out and does not respond to the following (I wrote it in response to him yesterday): "I have nothing against alleging internal inconsistency WHEN it is true; WHEN one can prove it. But when one alleges it without proof, that is an ideological attack and effort to suppress. Certainly when the proofs of internal inconsistency have themselves been disproved -- as they have in the case of Marx -- and yet one continues to make them, or refrains from setting the record straight, it is quite clear that what is involved is an ideological attack on and effort to suppress the guy." The matter is straightforward. And no, Justin, it has *nothing* to do with whether one "agrees" or "disagrees" with the "criticisms" of Marx his critics make. School X alleges that some tenet of School Y is internally inconsistent, or invalid due to logical error. X alleges that the internal inconsistency, or logical error, has been proved. Thus far we have no reason to believe that these allegations constitute an ideological attack or effort to suppress. However, School Y now *disproves* the alleged proof of internal inconsistency or logical error. This doesn't mean that Y criticizes X's views. It means that Y demonstrates that X has not proved what it said it proved. At this point one might begin to suspect that X's allegations constitute an ideological attack and effort to suppress. But hey, X could have made an innocent error. Or there may be an error in Y's disproof. So at this point, I for one wouldn't suspect an ideological attack or effort to suppress. But now ... Y's disproof stands the test of time. School X does a lot of criticizing of Y's views, a lot of name-calling, etc., but it fails to overturn the disproof. And yet, School X does not concede that its claim to have proven internal inconsistency or logical error is false. It throws up all sort of smokescreens, like criticizing the views of School Y, name-calling, etc., in order to divert attention away from whether or not it claims to have PROVEN internal inconsistency or logical error are true or false. Some members of X continue to allege internal inconsistency or logical error -- now of course without any proof. Some still go around repeating the claims that internal inconsistency or logical error have been proved. Others are more tricky and cautious, but they too refrain from correcting the historical record, by retracting their false claims to have proven logical error or internal inconsistency. At *this* point, it is completely clear that X is engaged in an ideological attack on and suppression of Y. Right? Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta! J'accuse. Andrew Kliman
