Michael Heinrich : Value, fetishism and impersonal domination

Рет қаралды 6,404

Күн бұрын

13 March 2014 @ MaMa, Zagreb
INTRO : Mislav Žitko [00:00 - 02:55]
TALK : Michael Heinrich [02:55 - 58:40]
Center for Workers' Studies (CRS / radnickistudiji.org) organized a lecture of Michael Heinrich on March 13, 2014, at MaMa. The lecture dealt with Marx's theory of value, and was also meant as an announcement of the forthcoming Croatian publication of Heinrich's invaluable monograph An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital.
Marx's value theory is no pure economic theory -- it is a social theory. It aims at the difference between pre-bourgeois and bourgeois socialization, which Marx captures with the concept of fetishism. The social relations of producers appear as the social characteristics of objects. Thus the character of the prevailing relations of domination too changes: personal relations of domination and bondage are replaced by objective relations of domination. This domination of objective relations is by no means mere ideology, but neither is it without alternative.
****
Michael Heinrich is Professor of Economics at Hochschule für Technik und Ökonomie, Berlin, Germany. He is managing editor of PROKLA: Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft [PROKLA: Journal of Critical Social Sciences], and author of An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital (Monthly Review Press, 2012), Die Wissenschaft vom Wert [The Science of Value] (1999).
mi2.hr/en/2014/03/michaela-hei...

Пікірлер: 5

@kennethhemmerechts6837 2 жыл бұрын

More Walue theory please

@marcacio 2 жыл бұрын

I love this man

@GoogleIdentity331 2 ай бұрын

You know he is trolling when he refers to "value theory" (pronouncing it "walue") as a "valuable insight" (pronouncing it correctly) in a single sentence.

@bjrnhagen4484 2 жыл бұрын

Marx's religious upbringing really shines through in his thinking. At the heart of Marx is materialistic mysticism. Just as in religion, in Marx, we are alienated too, and Marx's salvation is to reunite ourselves with the forces of production in order to realize our true selves. The purpose of work, Marx declares, is not the production of things, but the production of man. His analysis is characterized by operating within the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy, where the mind does not play the dominant role, but materialistic factors that operate mechanically and deterministically. Which, among other things, precisely gives us the labor theory of value. Of course, Marx is not alone in operating within the Cartesian framework. John Locke, for example, has a labor theory of property. Marx's thinking largely consists of a string of floating abstractions that can be juggled in all directions until we get a constellation where all the bits and pieces fit together. Which gives Marx's philosophy an adaptability where any facts, or lack thereof, can either be explained or explained away. Which is also reflected in the fact that people can not agree on what he is really talking about, which in turn, is a parallel back to religion with all their interpretations and sects.

@kshproductions7996 Жыл бұрын

what a laughably pseudo-intellectual attempt to dismiss Marx. Do you even understand what the mind-body dualism is? It's not when 'the body operates primarily and relegates the mind' or whatever nonsense you'd like to conjure up. Descartes' mind-body dualism posited that the immateriality of mind distinguished it as something that is both separable from and independent to the body, which is perceived as purely extended in space, meaning that mind and body are two distinct substances. What Marx does is quite literally the exact *opposite* of mind-body dualism, which is to show how the mind and body both arise from the material being of man in relation to his environment, both evolutionarily and socially. Marx's materialism posits that what distinguishes man from other creatures is precisely that, rather than being purely subjected to nature in its immediacy, we are both objects and subjects to it, that is, we are able to change it to suit our needs, and in that process, change ourselves aswell, because our relation to ourselves, the external world, and others, is never given from birth, is always the product of our being as social beings in relation to our external world. There is no crass 'determinism' or 'mechanism' save for the strawman you've conjured up to parrot the same ignorant talking points. Your bringing up of Locke does not offer any explication as to what you're trying to prove either. Yes, Locke had a homesteading principle in which one is allowed to take from the 'god-given' common land through their labor. What about it? And there is no 'religion upbringing' within Marx, save for the early developing upon the Young Hegelians critique of it. Do you think alienation is just a concept religion created, and that, before it, people were not alienated from anything? That there was this kind of complete unity before religion somehow just 'invented' the concept of alienation, and all the sudden, the world was separated? Alienation does not arise out of pure thought, it always has a relation to man's material and social existence. Religion is one way that seeks to account for and explain this alienation, while Marxism is yet another. That is the core of *all* social theories and philosophies that seek to understand humans as an self-conscious and therefore existential being. Religion ontologizes most forms of alienation and suffering as inherent in the material world, finding resolution in only heaven. Marx posits that many of these arise from social conditions rather than being inherent and ameliorable rather than something one must endure through in order to seek salvation. Neither does Marx promise a utopia like heaven where all our problems are solved as human beings and there is nothing left to solve or do. You simply project religion into Marxism and, lo and behold, witness that Marxism promises a secular heaven! Truly, what a revelation.