/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17982275]

What does /lit/ make of Marxologist Michael Heinrich and the growing Heinrichian movement?

[Anonymous No.17982654]

>>17982275
Probably garbage like every other “Reading Capital” book. JUST READ MARX YOURSELF!

[Anonymous No.17982758]

who?

[Anonymous No.17982783]

>>17982758
Michael Heinrich. The best reader of Marx alive today.

[Anonymous No.17982818]

Reminder that every single person who uses twitter is a gay FAGGOT

Don't shill your social media circlejerk here tranny

[Anonymous No.17982965]

Michael Heinrich resuced my dog from my house when it was on fire and explained the law of value afterwards in very clear and easy terms

[Anonymous No.17983003]

Based

[Anonymous No.17983014]

Before this post there were no more than two unique posters in this thread

[Anonymous No.17983047]

>>17983014
it says 7 unique IPs on my 4chanx script

[Anonymous No.17983220]

>>17982818
I use it to laugh at cringe girls putting what they feel is profound shit in their bio with my buddy while we are drunk.
Do i count?

[Anonymous No.17983229]

>>17983220
Yes but you’re literally a faggot because I know you’ve sucked him off

[Anonymous No.17983239]

>>17982275
I hate anything dealing with Marxism

[Anonymous No.17984063]

>>17982275
Literally saved Marxism from shitty cuckshottian and klimanian interpretstions.

[Anonymous No.17984301]

>>17984063
t. New Age Marxist

[Anonymous No.17984943]

>>17984301
cope and seeth worldview "marxist"

[Anonymous No.17984984]

>>17983239
why

[Anonymous No.17984988]

Very little, almost nothing

[Anonymous No.17985093]

>>17984943
based

[Anonymous No.17985296]

>>17984063
care to briefly explain how?

[Anonymous No.17985394]

>>17982275
Leftists love to talk about the abstract domination of capital or vague omnipresent forms of structural oppression but s soon as you start talking about concrete actors wielding power in documented ways to further their interests then suddenly you are a conspiracy theorist and an antisemite

[Anonymous No.17985406]

>>17985394
right wingers love to talk about abstract "leftists"

[Anonymous No.17985408]

>>17985394
Lmao anti-semitism really is the socialism of fools. You do not have the mental capacity to understand how much of your life is determined by the actions of abstract processes, so you have to invent grubby little hook-nosed devils to whom you can attribute your very accurate feelings of being systemically buttfucked. It's exactly the same thing as american liberals who think the issues of capitalism begin and end with 'corporate greed,' and if only we could get more black women CEOs who cared more about the environment, then our problems would be solved. The inability to think evaluatively about the effects of systems except in terms of the moral qualities of the people involved in them is a dead giveaway of an absolute bottomwit.

[Anonymous No.17985479]

>>17985408
this

[Anonymous No.17985542]

>>17984984
because no democratic economic system has been able to compete with authoritarian and oligarchic systems on a provincial, national , or global scale and pretty well every example of authoritarian or oligarchic Marxism has been measurably worse than Capitalist ones. That doesnt mean I'm a free marketeer or a libertarian I believe in a mixed economy and certainly Marx isnt without his fair criticism of Capitalism, but come on now he's nothing to base the entire system on
>>17985408
thanks for the hot take kike. I noticed you went right for demeaning the anti-semite comment and said nothing about general conspiracy as if the entire society isn't run by capital owners and political rent seekers grouped into various private societies and social circles that range from non-Jewish to specifically Zionist. The inability to evaluate the real individuals involved in the abstract system and how that both effects the system and its outcomes is top tier brainlet territory

[Anonymous No.17985568]

>>17985406
What where is he wrong

[Anonymous No.17985582]

>>17985394
>>17985408
I have seen both these posts verbatim before, are these bots?

[Anonymous No.17985679]

>>17982783
I'm pretty sure Michael Heinrich isn't Jehu.

[Anonymous No.17985808]

>>17982783
>reader of Marx
>reader
>of Marx
Are you people insane? Marx lived 800 years ago, why the fuck would anyone read him? People don't read Darwin to understand biology, you know.
Of course Marxism is just a quasi-religion, but still.

[Anonymous No.17985837]

>>17985406
No.

[Anonymous No.17985848]

>>17982275
typical jewish religious torah study.

[Anonymous No.17985852]

>>17985296
No.

[Anonymous No.17985867]

>marx
return to your incel forum already

[Anonymous No.17985881]

>>17985406
duh, because they tebd to take up this nebulous spot of some authority, but not top of the chain. its not 4 chan anonymous stuff, but still being under the more concrete Soroses. The people who punch out newsarticles and middle management.

[Anonymous No.17985883]

>>17985568
no such thing as "leftists" anyone who self identifies as one is a moron grifter who wants to obfuscate politics for their own gain

[Anonymous No.17985914]

Is there literally any benefit of reading commentaries on Marx over Marx himself? He's a pretty straightforward writer so I don't really think that there's a ton of subtlety to miss. It feels like the only reason these commentaries exist is because people are too lazy to read thousands of pages of 19th century economics. Not that I really blame them tho.

[Anonymous No.17985976]

>>17985914
Yes there definitely is. Especially since so many people misread him, read him out of context, know nothing about his development and jump straight to his big works, all the misconceptions people have of him before they read him (like the so called "labor theory of value), etc. Heinrich is really good at putting Marx into context and his own biography. This is what makes him one of the best readers of Marx. In fact he is working on a multivolume biography of Marx right now where he charts his intellectual development. Here is a short article by him that you should read.
https://mronline.org/2017/11/17/150-years-of-capital-with-no-end-in-sight/

[Anonymous No.17986540]

bump

[Anonymous No.17987038]

no one in this thread has ever opened a book except those poster who opened culture of critique only to put it down because it was long

Heinrich is great and I found reading him invaluable, especially after reading postone

[Anonymous No.17987077]

>>17982275
Oh yes, the thing we really need is more people "reading", tweeting, and making circle-jerks
Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.17987093]

>>17985976
>misconceptions people have of him before they read him (like the so called "labor theory of value)
He explains this on like the 3rd page of capital volume 1, why are you scare quoting it

[Anonymous No.17987233]

>>17987093
Marx does not have a labor theory of value

[Anonymous No.17987244]

>>17985394
Leftists are controlled opposition. Remember, 75% of the people identifying as Marxists are rich people at universities you couldn't afford. They despise the working class and their parents finance their lifestyles. They are not your friends, they are the tools of the state to subvert working class movements.

[Anonymous No.17987248]

>>17985394
This retard wants to act if the "Jews" are concrete actors who all sit in a room and plot white genocide.

[Anonymous No.17987263]

>>17987093
>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
Honestly nonsense like this is inexcusable in this day and age, literally EVERYTHING Marx, Engels and most of the people they were directly responding to are freely available in searchable databases such as marxists.org.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

[Anonymous No.17987264]

>>17987233
If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common
property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone
a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same
time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no
longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out
of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the
mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful
qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various
kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but
what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in
the abstract.
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial
reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended
without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human
labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as
something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there
remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in
the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of
our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of
commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For the present, however, we have to consider
the nature of value independently of this, its form.

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has
been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured?
Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The
quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its
standard in weeks, days, and hours.

[Anonymous No.17987267]

>>17985976
People are trying way too hard to save Marx when history has condemned him.

[Anonymous No.17987272]

>>17987264
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour
spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be,
because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the
substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The
total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities
produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power,
composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any
other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as
such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an
average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to
produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill
and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably
reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The handloom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that,
the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social
labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of
labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.9 Each
individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.10
Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be
produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of
any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the
production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour
time.”11

[Anonymous No.17987280]

>>17987233
Socially necessary labor time isn't a labor theory of value?

[Anonymous No.17987290]

Marx did not have a labor theory of value he had a value theory of labor. I get this from Diane Elson who asked the very important question “what is Marx's theory a theory of?” and the answer she came to is that when Marx talks about value, he’s not coming up with a theory of prices which locates labor as their prime determinant (a theory-of-value which posits labor as its source/substance, ie, a labor theory-of-value) but instead mostly takes the notion of value itself as it’s found in classical political economy (and this is done through what Sam Chambers highlights as a genealogical critique) in order to consider, in a reversal of the Ricardian problem, what value means for labor (a theory-of-labor which focuses on how it is affected by value, ie, a value theory-of-labor). so instead of the classical concern for the regulation of prices by labor-time, Marx is trying to understand how labor itself is regulated by value via the violence of abstraction, domination by time, etc. If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different. Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average which compels the laborer to keep pace with the rhythm of the machine and the constantly increasing tempo of the market.

[Anonymous No.17987303]

>>17987264
>A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it.
I mean this is not exactly ambiguous

[Anonymous No.17987326]

>>17987303
>>17987272
Is this not socially necessary labor time (SLVT), and would this be Marx's labor theory of value?

[Anonymous No.17987336]

>>17987326
see>>17987290

[Anonymous No.17987359]

>>17987326
Isn't that just a long winded way to say capitalism turns labor power into a commodity?

[Anonymous No.17987394]

>>17987359
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17987412]

>>17987244
Most of the people that identify as communists are working shitty retail jobs.
> Remember, 75% of the people identifying as Marxists are rich people at universities you couldn't afford
Anyone who says this is just extremely deranged and detached from reality (which is basically every rightist). Academia and universities are actually extremely conservative. If you were under the impression that they were vehemently progressive or even socialist-- well, they certainly work hard to cultivate that image. but it's all big business private ownership and federal defense dollar

[Anonymous No.17987414]

>>17987290
That is the standard reading of Marxism as I've read it. Capital is not a guide, it is a presentation of capitalism at its most abstract, as if all its implicit tendencies were raised to their highest point of self-expression and allowed to work together without any cluttering influences from empirical reality. It's a critique of capitalism and the relations that structure our knowledge of economics, relations which are generated by capitalism, not an a priori description of economics, ideal or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.17987432]

>>17987412
The universities are hedge funds owned and operated by business criminals who use the progressive activist culture of the universities as a front for their crimes. They also buy into the front when they send their own children to those same schools, because the moneyed elites are obsessed with status.

I don't know when you went to college but the dominant campus atmosphere since the '60s and '70s has been weak liberal leftism posing as radical leftism. That is exactly how the establishment absorbed the left, by turning it into a luxury good and status commodity for rich people. The two aren't contradictory. That is the critique.

[Anonymous No.17987446]

>>17987394
I don't understand - why is that such a big deal though? I knew that without ever reading Heinrich.

[Anonymous No.17987471]

>>17982654
No it's way better and corrects a lot of mistakes previous guides have made. It's as much an intervention as an introduction

[Anonymous No.17987496]

>>17987093
It's called "A Critique of Political Economy". Why would you take the very first concept he explains at face value

[Anonymous No.17987510]

>>17987336
how does that contend with the explicit statement here>>17987303 'has value only because of human labour'

[Anonymous No.17987519]

>>17987496
Are you implying his description quoted above is meant as a demonstration of a misguided definition, and not the definition he himself bases his system on?

[Anonymous No.17987687]

Postone's essay on antisemitism
http://libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-national-socialism-moishe-postone

[Anonymous No.17987715]

>>17987687
>What characterizes the power imputed to, the Jews in modern anti-Semitism is that it is mysteriously intangible, abstract, and universal. It is considered to be a form of power that does not manifest itself directly, but must find another mode of expression.

[Anonymous No.17987741]

>>17987715
according to that chart, only 45% of those senior executive positions are staffed by jews. what do you think the other 55% are like?

[Anonymous No.17987754]

>>17987741
Not sure!

[Anonymous No.17987772]

>>17987754
>harvard is 1,200% jewish
my god

[Anonymous No.17987773]

>>17982275
His intro to Capital is 2/3 synopsis 1/3 interpretations and critique of other Marxists. If you want a thorough and good understanding of Marx's theory of value read I. I. Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value. He makes very few mistakes and doesn't have to do this ridiculous Marxology that focuses on marginalia to justify a point.

[Anonymous No.17987793]

>>17987754
It's tracking overrepresentation.

Nothing wrong with Jews, it's just weird for any minority to be so dominant and influential in any other people's country. That's hardly a conspiracy theory. I wouldn't want a small minority of whites ruling over Egyptians either. It's colonialism. Jews are the last great colonial empire.

[Anonymous No.17987848]

>>17987754
That graph is fake - there's no original source for it

[Anonymous No.17987854]

>>17987772
that means 12 times overrepresentation

[Anonymous No.17987861]

>>17987793
Again, with the shitty JPEG image with no source or no way to confirm any of the claims.

[Anonymous No.17988021]

>>17985394
I hate righties because they have no interest in correcting the system, their problem is that they aren't the ones running it.

I have no problem admitting the 1% is very jewish but I do have a problem with your solution being remove the jews so you can be there instead. Hating the successful and wanting to help the disadvantaged are two very different things. Let's not pretend they aren't. I feel the same amount of disdain for lefties who are obsessed with killing people in power and have no plan of what to do next if they hypothetically managed to kill every billionaire and do nothing else structurally or culturally.

[Anonymous No.17988049]

>>17988021
>I hate righties because they have no interest in correcting the system, their problem is that they aren't the ones running it.
I basically want a Denmark welfare state with sensibly closed borders

[Anonymous No.17988127]

>>17988049
I want to shoot you in the head faggot

[Anonymous No.17988152]

>>17988127
Aren't you people for letting the capitalist state take away your guns?

[Anonymous No.17988202]

>>17985408
semitic hands typed this out

[Anonymous No.17988242]

>>17988202
seethe

[Anonymous No.17988247]

>>17988152
I believe our welfare programs should give free Hi-Points and ammo retailers should be eligible to accept EBT.

[Anonymous No.17988264]

>>17985408
Based non-reactionary

[Anonymous No.17988265]

>>17988049
>Denmark welfare state

Yikes. Some Nordic systems are OK, but Denmark takes too much from its people.

[Anonymous No.17988266]

>>17988247
Unironically the state should provide a firearm to every citizen and require them to maintain it and practice with it

[Anonymous No.17988270]

>>17988152
Only DSA libshits want gun control

[Anonymous No.17988275]

>>17988266
Hoxhapilled

[Anonymous No.17988292]

>>17988275
Also Switzerland, more or less.

[Anonymous No.17988293]

>>17985394
>you start talking about concrete actors wielding power in documented ways to further their interests then suddenly you are a conspiracy theorist and an antisemite
The problem is not who wield power. It's about power itself.
Also, the difference between a rich shareholder, and a factory worker, is not abstract.

[Anonymous No.17988295]

>>17988152
actual leftists are very pro-gun rights. I'm not a marxist, but Marx was pro gun.

In America, gun policy is a retarded argument, like many policy arguments, used to attract single-issue voters.

[Anonymous No.17988301]

>>17988266
I agree with the sentiment but not for requiring them to maintain and practice it because nobody should be coerced into doing anything by the state. Getting a standardized rifle for free upon request would be based though.

[Anonymous No.17988335]

>>17987715
>>17987754
>>17987793
Do you really base your politics on PNGs from a saimese cooking board? This is commentary I'd expect from my retarded meth addict uncle during the 4th of July

[Anonymous No.17988346]

>>17985408
>The inability to think evaluatively about the effects of systems except in terms of the moral qualities of the people involved in them is a dead giveaway of an absolute bottomwit.
+1
It's because the mainstream thinks like this, but in an opposite way (anti-racism, feminism, gay culture). So the internet contrarian revert the mainstream, and thinks himself smart and original. When all he did, is reverting the mainstream thought. But it is still the same nature of thought. Only on the opposite pole. The difference is only in degree, not in nature.

[Anonymous No.17988385]

>>17988346
I've heard the term "reactionary" thrown around but what you've described is how I've understood it.

I had "clever" stances when I was 14 on /b/ and Newgrounds which were nothing but a rejection of the mainstream. I think it's a trap the internet has set for many people. Debate and critical thinking are discouraged in exchange for sensation and conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.17988419]

>>17988021
>I hate righties because they have no interest in correcting the system, their problem is that they aren't the ones running it.
Hitlerians unironically want to take over the jews, in order to replace the jews. That's basically what happened with 1930s anti-judaism. The jews, who were useful during the early middle age, doing usury (which was forbidden to christians) and huckstering, importing precious fabrics and spicies from the middle east, became redundant. When industrial Capitalism took over, jews became useless. So the small goyim bourgeoisie became to resent them, and the jews lost their protection from kings and nobility (indeed, king taxed jewish usury, and nobility were happy to buy imported stuff from jews, as well as borrowing them money in order to keep their living standards when needed).
Hitlerism is about getting rid of people who were becoming useless, not about people who were oppressing. In any case, usury and huckstering wasn't banned during Hitler's era. Only jewish huckstering was forbidden.

[Anonymous No.17988429]

>>17988419
Usury was absolutely never useful

[Anonymous No.17988480]

>>17988385
>Debate and critical thinking are discouraged in exchange for sensation and conspiracy.
Only way to avoid this is to read the classics, then discuss about it. The whole information in today's era is an echo chamber. This include the internet sadly. By reading old classics, you escape the echo chamber.

[Anonymous No.17988494]

>>17988480
You can find endless stuff in the classics that is called reactionary today, so idk about that.

[Anonymous No.17988503]

The Trinity

[Anonymous No.17988521]

>>17988429
Say this to the feudal lords who borrowed money from the jews in order to keep their lawish lifestyle. Usury is a contract, and it takes two people for it to work. In any case, today, every goyim can do usury. So it's by far not a jewish specificity.
To add on this, if you ban usury, it is done through devious means, like paying "rent", instead of "interests". Which is just the same thing, with a different word. Hypocrisy. It's basically what islamic finance is about. Disguised usury.

[Anonymous No.17988565]

>>17988494
Reaction is wanting to go back to a status quo ante. It's thinking the solution lies in the past. It's stupid because the past was already dysfunctional. On the other hand, evolution in a better direction is better.

[Anonymous No.17988594]

>>17982275
>Capital
gay shit, "Marxian economics", "marxism", cult-like exegesis
>Manuscripts of 1844
real shit, philosophy

[Anonymous No.17988644]

>>17988565
Was the evolution of the late Roman Empire a better direction?

[Anonymous No.17989116]

bump

[Anonymous No.17989152]

>>17982275
Marx is the best interpretation of Marx