Michael Heinrich?

[QueerVanguard]

So I get my value theory straight out of I.I. Rubin and I think it's pretty solid. Then comes Michael Heinrich who is the head of the MEGA project http://mega.bbaw.de/ translating shit from German that has never been published before, saying Marx's labor theory of value has been misinterpreted and the correct way is value FORM theory and Marx never had a theory of crisis. This guy has flipped Marxism as it has been understood from the beginning on its head and I'm just wondering if this is the correct reading of Marx.

Anyone have any thoughts on any of this or on Heinrich?

[DOOM]

Don't know very much about him, as my knowledge about the Neue Marx-Lektüre is still very shallow.
Though in my opinion rejecting every indication of a marxist theory of crisis as Engelist influence or misinterpretation is..well a little bit radical.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Don't know very much about him, as my knowledge about the Neue Marx-Lektüre is still very shallow.
Though in my opinion rejecting every indication of a marxist theory of crisis as Engelist influence or misinterpretation is..well a little bit radical.

He doesn't do this though. He has noted that 'worldview marxism' came from Engels but because Engels had to respond to every aspect of Dühring's worldview, but he also notes that Engels said that the point of that wasn't to construct a new worldview. Heinrich also says that criticism of 'worldview marxism' don't make every single statement by Engels, Kautsky, Lenin etc. false, but that those statements have to be judged individually.

Anyway, at OP. I think Heinrich and other NML authors are very useful and among the few writing about Marx' critique of political economy that are actually worth reading.

[QueerVanguard]

can anyone explain this turds revision of the LToV?

[QueerVanguard]

can anyone explain this turds revision of the LToV?

No one?

[Faust Arp]

Heinrich is a blight upon the earth. I admittedly don't know much about his theories (which are way more elaborate than a mere critique of the LToV, but I've seen the practical results of some of them. Here in Serbia, there's a group of hardcore Heinrichians mostly centered around the academic, student scene, who, based on his works, uphold the tenet that ideology is non-existent and the sole thing upholding capitalism is the fact that everyone, including the working class, has concrete material benefits from it. Also the working class is equally "capitalistic" as the bourgeoisie. When I asked one of them how is it then possible to transcend capitalism without falling into accelerationism or hardcore determinism, he just couldn't answer.

Also during last autumn's/winter's occupation of the Faculty of Philosophy (due to their belief that the radical right is somehow an authentic political expression of the working class in present conditions) they cheered for allowing literal neo-Nazis to infiltrate the movement and openly cooperated and hung out with them, all while seeing anti-fascist as a threat to the movement.

Fuck that noise, I say.

[DOOM]

Heinrich is a blight upon the earth. I admittedly don't know much about his theories (which are way more elaborate than a mere critique of the LToV, but I've seen the practical results of some of them. Here in Serbia, there's a group of hardcore Heinrichians mostly centered around the academic, student scene, who, based on his works, uphold the tenet that ideology is non-existent and the sole thing upholding capitalism is the fact that everyone, including the working class, has concrete material benefits from it. Also the working class is equally "capitalistic" as the bourgeoisie. When I asked one of them how is it then possible to transcend capitalism without falling into accelerationism or hardcore determinism, he just couldn't answer.

Also during last autumn's/winter's occupation of the Faculty of Philosophy (due to their belief that the radical right is somehow an authentic political expression of the working class in present conditions) they cheered for allowing literal neo-Nazis to infiltrate the movement and openly cooperated and hung out with them, all while seeing anti-fascist as a threat to the movement.

Fuck that noise, I say.

Sounds weirdly interesting. You got more on them?

[Guardia Rossa]

Heinrich is a blight upon the earth. I admittedly don't know much about his theories (which are way more elaborate than a mere critique of the LToV, but I've seen the practical results of some of them. Here in Serbia, there's a group of hardcore Heinrichians mostly centered around the academic, student scene, who, based on his works, uphold the tenet that ideology is non-existent and the sole thing upholding capitalism is the fact that everyone, including the working class, has concrete material benefits from it. Also the working class is equally "capitalistic" as the bourgeoisie. When I asked one of them how is it then possible to transcend capitalism without falling into accelerationism or hardcore determinism, he just couldn't answer.

Also during last autumn's/winter's occupation of the Faculty of Philosophy (due to their belief that the radical right is somehow an authentic political expression of the working class in present conditions) they cheered for allowing literal neo-Nazis to infiltrate the movement and openly cooperated and hung out with them, all while seeing anti-fascist as a threat to the movement.

Fuck that noise, I say.

There are Morenists in Brazil that support Israel and the Free Syrian Army, claiming that they are bringing Capitalism to less-developed peoples and that it precedes a socialist revolution. If they knew even a little about history...

(Ironically, there is a thread of a Übermensche claiming that studying history sucks, let's make poems)

Never doubt on the non-existing of barriers to the contradictions of the cheap, 21th century revisionism

[DOOM]

There are Morenists in Brazil that support Israel and the Free Syrian Army, claiming that they are bringing Capitalism to less-developed peoples and that it precedes a socialist revolution. If they knew even a little about history...

(Ironically, there is a thread of a Übermensche claiming that studying history sucks, let's make poems)

Never doubt on the non-existing of barriers to the contradictions of the cheap, 21th century revisionism

They must have a bizarre picture of what the middle east looks like.

[#FF0000]

Heinrich is a blight upon the earth. I admittedly don't know much about his theories

Sounds like you don't have much to say, then.

[motion denied]

I'm a bit drunk, mind you.

As far as I can remember Heinrich says that the LTRPF cannot be proven or disproven, i.e., that Marx failed to substantiate this theory because he could not prove that the rate of surplus value will augment less than the organic composition of capital + 1 (remember that equation: (s/v)/(c/v)+1). Many take the production of relative surplus-value as a counter-acting factor, but Heinrich says it is so only under certain circumstances: in fact, he argues, relative surplus-value is presupposed if we talk about the rising organic composition of capital. Moreover, if given sector (let's say 1, means of production) has such a rise on productivity, it's safe to say that another sector (2, means of consumption [not sure if it is the name in English]) has its total value decreasing, thus causing the value of the variable capital (wages) to decrease as well, not necessarily causing the rate of profit to fall.

He then goes on to argue that it is probable that Marx dropped the LTRPF altogether by the 1870s, given his third attempt (plan) to write a critique of political economy and lack of mentions to the LTRPF on letters.

[motion denied]

Oh yeah, he also says Marx could not have elaborated a theory of crisis without first taking into account credit and interest-bearing capital. A supposedly theory of crisis based on the LTRPF occurred because of an unfortunate edition of Marx's manuscripts by Engels.

[edwad]

^ that sounds about right based on what ive recently read by david harvey on the subject (https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/harvey-on-ltrpf.pdf).

admittedly, i haven't looked more into this side of the debate but i certainly have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose the tssi camp and this potentially offers a way out, even if it's got a cloud of controversy surrounding it. eventually i'll get heinrich's introduction to capital, but ive already got more than a hundred other books on my bookshelf begging to be read so it'll have to wait.

- edit -

theres a bit of irony in this due to my recent tendency change

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Marxist economist Shane Mage has critiqued Heinrich http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/response-heinrich-defense-marxs-law/

Also Guglielmo Carchedi, whose work is normally pretty solid and who gave a talk at the Communist University event in the UK this year, has produced a critique of Heinrich relating to arguments people have mentioned in this thread. It can be viewed at http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/critique-heinrichs-crisis-theory-law-tendency-profit-rate-fall-marxs-studies-1870s (http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/critique-heinrichs-crisis-theory-law-tendency-profit-rate-fall-marxs-studies-1870s/)

[Dave B]

The problem I think with this kind of thing is people don’t employ the scientific method; and I mean the real scientific method not the pseudo scientific method.

That involves, the real scientific method I mean, creating an idealised or if you like simplified model which however is tightly defined with precise criteria and premises etc.

Expressing the model algebraically.

Then worrying or addressing the situations that don’t fit in order to ask why and/or wonder if the model is after all a load of shit and/or an incomplete description etc etc.

Eg Newtons or Galileo’s laws etc don’t work on earth with falcon feathers and hammers; but on the moon in a more idealised situation they did.

The equation



P` = (s/v)/(c/v)+1)


Is derived algebraically from Karl’s

P` = (s)/ [c+v]

P` = (s/v)/(c/v)+1)

is a brilliant, illuminating yet simple schoolboy transformation done first I think by Sweezy in the 1950’s?

It must be to the utter embarrassment of the algebraically challenged Marxist community that it took 100 years to discover it!


Unfortunately it is flawed particularly when the rate of profit and more importantly the change in the rate of profit is concerned because what it is derived from;

P` = (s)/ [c+v]


Is flawed, the problem is with ‘c’.

The rate of profit is the amount of unearned income you get from invested money/ capital.

What it does and how it does it is initially of no initial importance; that’s how the capitalist think about and they run the show.

So I invest £100 in something or other and get £10 a year back out of it and my rate of profit is 10%.

‘c’ however, as Karl defined it, was the value of raw material and stock etc as well as the depreciation of fixed capital (machines) , in a turnover or in other words a week, excluding the value of the unconsumed fixed capital.

Where I work I think it is a seminal example of the idealised Marxist industrial model as a tendency ie lots of machines, robots and few workers.

Week one we have say £100 million in machines, and £1 million in raw materials etc

Week 2 we have £99.8 million in machines, given 10% annual depreciation of capital;which apparently the rule of thumb value the bean counters come up with.

(£0.2 million difference)

And still have £1 million in raw materials etc

I t doesn’t matter jack shit in that respect whether ‘c’ is £1million in week one or maybe £1.2 million in week two or whatever.

My capitalist employers sensibly calculate their profit mostly on profit on the invested fixed capital, and the denominator, ie machines and the £100 million or £99.8 million etc

In fact v isn’t that important either really as weekly wage bill if that is how you want to look at it might be £1million say?


So in real life; which Fred corrected in Vol 3 as a pragmatic capitalists ;

P` = weekly profit/ [£99.8 million? + £1.2million (stock etc) + £1million (wages)]

According to Karl it was;

P` = weekly profit/ [£1.2million (stock used spindles etc)? + £1million (wages)]


Do the sums, not the same answer!


This is where the scientific and standard mathematical/algebraic approach kicks in and we do this kind of thing all the time.

‘c’ actually should be fixed capital (Fc) plus ‘c’.


So;

P` = (s)/ [c+v]


Becomes;

P` = (s)/ [Fc+c+v]

Let;

Fc +c = C

And

P` = (s)/ [C +v]

Divide by v;

P` = (s/v) / [C/v +1]


As s/v is rate of exploitation or s`;


P` = s`/ [ C/v +1]

But this isn’t the end of the story because this produces an incremental ‘s’ that has to have a home.

If the capitalists class just consume the s and piss it all up against the wall, all well and good.

But if they throw a proportion of it back into the system it will affect next weeks equation.

They could off course just double up and use it to replicate the existent situation ; two factories etc or ‘C’ and twice as many workers or v.


In which case the rate of profit would remain the same.

However doubling up on C in order to in fact reduce ‘v’ as they do; eg 'robots in China', which is kind of an empirical analysis, has a somewhat different effect.


There are caveats I think.

There isn’t necessarily a remorseless process by which ‘new’ commodities have to be produced with an increasing ratio of machines, accumulated dead labour to human effort or labour power.

And the ‘price’ of fixed capital can crash to scrap value due to crises and even the evolution of technology which translates into ‘socially necessary labour time value’.