Seems to me that the exclusion of Marx on the part of
mainstream economists is overdetermined, since the
political/ideological project of which Marx's economic
analysis forms a part is so unpalatable (witness Keynes's
peculiarly uncomprehending reaction to Marx, at the same
time as Kalecki was drawing "Keynesian" conclusions from his
reading of Marx's reproduction schemes).
But I think Alan is right that the _excuse_ for dismissing
Marx is provided by the alleged logical flaws in Marx's
transformation. There are (at least) two Marxian reactions
to this. One is to claim that there are no such logical
flaws (TSS). Another is to say that the whole
"transformation" issue is overblown -- because the classical
notion of the equalization of the profit rate is misguided
(Farjoun and Machover, and on this list, Paul Cockshott and
myself) -- so that even if there are logical flaws in Marx's
transformation they are, in the end, not particularly
important.
My guess is that if mainstream economists were forced to to
assess the TSS analysis as the revised standard version of
what Marx "really" meant, their reaction would be that while
they _had_ taken Marx's analysis to be contentful but wrong,
they would now take it as contentless, and at least equally
dismissable. (What they would say if forced to assess the
Farjoun & Machover position as revised standard Marxism, I
do not pretend to know.)
Allin Cottrell