Michael Heinrich: Capital & Crisis - Actuality of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy in 21st Cent.

13.5.2019., Cinema Europa, Zagreb, Croatia
12th Subversive festival "Europe on the Edge - Towards New Emancipatory Imagination"
Moderated by: Stipe Ćurković
Michael Heinrich: Capital and Crisis - the Actuality of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy in the 21st Century
The first volume of “Capital” appeared more than 150 years ago. However, it didn’t just
picture capitalism of 19 th century. Marx didn’t want to present a certain period of capitalist
development, he claimed to present the capitalist mode of production in its “ideal average”,
i.e. the core of capitalist relations, which are connected with any form of capitalism. I will
discuss this claim especially with regard to value, money, crisis and class relations.
Michael Heinrich was Professor of Economics in Berlin. He published several books and
articles on Marx’s Critique of Economics. His Introduction in the three volumes of “Capital”
was translated in many languages, also in Croatian. Last year appeared the first volume of
“Karl Marx and the birth of Modern Society”, a three-volume Marx-biography and study of
the development of Marx’s work, English and French translations of this book will come
soon.
- - -
Michael Heinrich: Kapital i kriza - aktualnost Marxove kritike političke ekonomije u 21. stoljeću
Prvi tom Kapitala objavljen je prije više od 150 godina. Međutim, u njemu nije naprosto prikazan kapitalizam 19. stoljeća. Marx nije želio prikazati određeni period kapitalističkog razvoja, već je tvrdio da predstavlja kapitalistički način proizvodnje u njegovu „idealnom presjeku“, tj. jezgru kapitalističkih odnosa, povezanih s bilo kojom formom kapitalizma. Razmotrit ću ovu tvrdnju osobito s obzirom na koncepte vrijednosti, novca, krize i klasnih odnosa.
Michael Heinrich je profesor ekonomije iz Berlina. Objavio je više knjiga i članaka o Marxovoj kritici ekonomije. Njegov uvod u tri toma Kapitala preveden je na mnoge jezike, između ostalih i na hrvatski. Prošle je godine objavljen prvi od tri toma knjige Karl Marx and the birth of Modern Society, biografije Karla Marxa i studije o razvoju Marxova rada. Englesko i francusko izdanje knjige bit će objavljeno uskoro.
subversivefestival.com/sf19/m...

[@SkriptaTV]

next lecture from Heinrich's 2019 visit to Subversive festival: kzbin.info/www/bejne/enuaZmx9otp4n6c

[@freekpeet]

Thanks so much for the upload. Great lecture, Heinrich's Marx reading feels right on the money. If you recorded his next lecture/discussion mentioned in the end of the clip, that upload would be highly appreciated!

[@SkriptaTV]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/enuaZmx9otp4n6c

[@egorka2201]

Very important lecture. Very intriguing thinker please spread the word.

[@avonjohn3393]

This brilliant lecture enlightens us to understand how the current world functions and encourages us to act for the better future.

[@oddjam]

Fascinating and enlightening

[@thomaskelly1686]

Also please upload this other discussion mentioned at the end I'm too excited

[@SkriptaTV]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/enuaZmx9otp4n6c

[@v3student]

Thanks. Very complex field of study.

[@thomaskelly1686]

Thanks so fucking much for sharing this!

[@superKOEImania]

The 2008 crisis hasn't really ended. Certain nations like Greece and most of the working class in USA and western Europe still live under its consequences

[@johnsmith5139]

fascinatory. simpely fascinatorie.

[@JulioHuato]

Counter posing an ideal to an empirical average is perhaps an appropriate first step. But then one has to interrogate where any ideal and any empirical category may come from. There is a mutual interdependence between them. The empirical average may be a more immediate, closer to the concrete unexplained phenomenon, category, while the ideal one is more mediated and organized in the mind, the result of a deeper reflection, but we should not give the impression that Marx pulled his view of capitalist (self re-) production from sheer speculative sources and that the ideal average he aimed to present in Capital was without empirical, historical ground. Just saying.

[@cellissmo9393]

An ideal condition is literally a condition where specific setbacks or contexts aren't even considered. A truly ideal interpretation begins with and ends in the ideal, completely separating, in the process, its analyses from all specific premises of concrete development, however indirect, because it never relied on them or took them into account in the first place. When criticizing the capitalist mode of production, Marx never intended to end with a critique of das French capitalism or das English capitalism but with a critique of Das Kapital (pun kinda intended), which precluded him from starting anywhere but there, which in turn dismisses all claims that there might be traces of specific historical influences in his thinking. And if you want to question Marx's sincerity in identifying nothing but an average that is incontrovertibly ideal, well... I really don't think you should.

[@abrambadal8997]

Not to forget that in modern capitalist society , the workers being rendered to complete ' submition ' to capitalist agents in more complexe developed relations of production and more globalized production too, cannot be imagined as ' equal ' legally any more to capitalist legally , and by far being further diminished and triple exploited by capitalism , imperialism and neo-fascist relations , virtually legalized completely too , and who is dominated by state and administrative bureaucracy of capitalism or ' much chained ' to capitalism and more diminished even by domination of Fictitious Kapital productioin laws increasing production fetichism and poverty , much more complicated by capitalist oppressive forces of raw force and domination on the whole apparatus or neo-production mecanisms and created and replacement of republics reduced to State-banks out of state submission in over-indebtedness of State-bank relations to globalized and fictitious production of Kapital domination on previous capitalism existing before 1973 !!!! etc.... ! Workers are indeed , virtually treated less than 'serfs' of Feudalism , in big cities put in bankruptcy and in the country side completely faced with suicides too ! ! ! Total MADNESS !

[@abrambadal8997]

Therefore only fighting capitalism or critics are not ENOUGH ! WE HAVE TO EXIT CAPITALIST RELATIONS NOW made possible after 1990 as a certainty in ANY CONDITIONS IMMEDIATELY inorder to have a complete and practical ALTERNATIVE WE CAN CONSTRUCT NOW !

[@gonzogil123]

28:50min Yeah, the slave/feudal societies aufhebung into another version. Instead of the imperialist exploiter having to use military force to invade someone else´s land, and force people into slavery (that is to say: they gravitate towards others to force them into slavery) what they did was to make the means of production the sole property of the feudal class, and in such a way people would gravitate towards them "freely" and offer themselves as objects for sale to be exploited.

[@KattenJonsson]

That last guys question was way to long

[@obscureredtheoryaudiobookc5456]

Wow he has gray hair now compared to last time he visited!

[@jackri7676]

ze subtitle

[@nthperson]

None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights associated with access to and control over nature. In terms of labor and capital goods, nature has a zero cost of production. Nature is provided to humans for our use and survival. Almost alone among the great political and economic thinkers, the American Henry George presented a cogent argument for a labor and capital goods basis for property. Nature is, George argued, the commons from which all wealth is produced. Nature is the source of private wealth but is not legitimate private wealth. The ideal structure for accessing any part of nature is under a competitive bidding system for a leasehold interest issued by the community or society. Note that government is, then, the agent of the community and society for administrating such as system. As deeds to nature had already become a widespread norm, George argued that a second-best approach was for government to collect from every "owner" of land (broadly defined to include such natural assets with an inelastic supply as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value. This would serve as the fund with which to pay for democratically agreed upon public goods and services, which the potential for an annual citizen's dividend to be distributed. The term that best described the principles embraced by Henry George is "cooperative individualism". Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org

[@laurabriones7417]

you ok bro?

Lol it seems your Henry George proposes the most simplistic form of classical liberalism. You do know Marx theory talks about how labor, through private property, dwells into alienation of humans between their objects of production-consumption as well as within themselves, right?

[@edraptor6188]

read the grundrisse and capital and you will see that marx far exceeds George's analysis of nature as a factor of production

[@kunalvm]

Lot of critique.. but lack of alternatives. A huge matter not discussed here is that people are diferent, and that is a main cause of all problems. There are people with enterpeneurship and Drive.. and on the other side people Who are lazy and procrastinate. Also there are socially inteligent people and dumb people.. so there is your main problem. Everyone is different as It is their potential utility to society.

[@1519kyle]

Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE, Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement, Berlin kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWqpdXykmpyAb9E