103. A Companion to David Harvey's Companion to Marx's Capital w/ Mark | Critisticuffs

[@Abcxyz-n6j]

it would be really interesting to hear Mark's thoughts on another prominent marxologist - Michael Heinrich's - works as well, I wonder if he delved into that stuff and what his opinion on Heinrich's interpretations.

[@readingK1slowly]

This is Mark! I said in the podcast that I don't always agree with Heinrich, but that he's a serious reader of Capital : Main disagreement is that he bends the stick too far in reaction to those people who do think there is something special about labour per se that creates value. He denies any physiological aspect to abstract labour, I think making it so abstract a term as to lose content. Abstract labour strips the specific nature of concrete labour, but it is still based on the negative aspect of labour, toil. The effort that went into one commodity measured against the effort society marshalls to produce all commodities. Whether/how much of that effort counts is still a social determination, value is as Heinrich does emphasise a social substance, but to completely sever the link between the fact that human effort has taken place and value turns abstract labour into an empty abstraction I think.

[@Abcxyz-n6j]

@@readingK1slowly thank you so much for prudent reply, I really appreciate your perspective. sorry to bug you again, but I have recently encountered this quite well received article called 'Capitalist Production and Social Form: The Paradox of the Value-Form Paradigm' by Michael Posner and Maya Gonzalez. I haven't delved into it properly yet myself, but I wonder if you're familiar with their criticism of Marx's value-form theory and do you agree with their arguments/have any opinions on that? Many thanks.

[@readingK1slowly]

@@Abcxyz-n6j Hi again - tbh it'll take me a while to properly read the article (too much in the pile already) but from a very quick glance they make a common criticism usual against the out-and-out value-form people (Heinrich, Backhaus, Reichelt), that for them value is created in exchange. I am in partial agreement with the critique, related to what I said about Heinrich. They place too much emphasis on the exchange, and can obscure the fact that real effort underlies abstract labour. I don't want to say they are 'wrong' in the sense that value would exist without commodities being measured against each other in exchange, but 'creation' is the wrong description of what happens at exchange I think. It's more like a social assessment of the labour carried out, conceived of as labour as such rather than concrete labour - does it count as part of social labour, and if so to what extent...

[@Abcxyz-n6j]

​@@readingK1slowly Thank you so much for reply, really appreciate that

[@goodluck5642]

Mark’s Capital… nice

[@rcmrcm3370]

Ouch, that intro where you're reluctant to discuss politics. So much for the academic class having a roll in the revolution.