Michael Heinrich: The Unwritten Capital: Marx's Research During the 1870s

[@johnramsko4535]

Thanks for the upload! Michael Heinrich's contribution to marx theory I find invaluable and his tireless, yet reflected and highly versatile approach on the subject to be very commendable, regardless of the inevitable disagreements that arise.

[@Hist_da_Musica]

I like his work but the whole "Hmmmm actually you are all wrong because you don't have access to this little paragraph Marx wrote in a napkin once" thing is very annoying.

[@lpgx9132]

Why is it annoying? Should Marx Interpretations ignore yet to be published work?

[@nabilabboud659]

Thank you for uploading the video. Can you please share a link to the english translation of the notes of the original text of Marx on the theory of Interest Rates that Dr. Heinrich alluded to in his talk when he mentioned that the actual chapters in Volume III, about that subject, were rewritten by Engels and they might have caused some confusion. Thank you.

[@Comrade_Zaz]

17:31 where ?

[@russelldean2085]

I’m currently reading Dr Heinrich’s ‘How to Read Marx’s Capital’ - an excellent close reading of Capital Volume One. Question: if socially necessary labour time represents - simplistically - the average cost of keeping a worker alive in helping to produce a commodity for exchange is that socially necessary labour time also not reflected in an average price for that labour, I.e. food, lodging etc. What I’m driving at here is a certain potential circularity of argument here where socially necessary labour time generates the value of a commodity in exchange but where the socially necessary labour time also has a price?

[@amitavaganguly4352]

Kindly upload the next half of this programme with the "Monday" evening lecture 4.4.22. Thanks in advance.

[@swhopkinson]

I am not sure but I think "Michael Heinrich: Capital & Crisis - Actuality of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy in 21st Cent." on this channel is the one. But be good to confirm.

[@SkriptaTV]

already uploaded: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5jRi3Sid9WHaJY

[@stavroskarageorgis4804]

If we *assume* that capital *accumulation* manifests itself in a *rising* organic composition of capital advanced, such that an increasing portion of the *increasing* capital advanced is *constant* capital, it is by identity *impossible* for the rate of profit (on total capital advanced) to increase. *Only* an increasing organic composition of a *NOT* increasing total capital advanced *can* result in or even simply co-exist with an increasing rate of profit on total capital advanced.

[@driesvanc8764]

If there is no tendency of profit to fall, is there any hope for revolution?

[@Isoviaergatis]

Regarding the last question, Anwar Shaikh though does convert national income accounts (NIA) into Marxian categories. He in fact has come up with a method to conduct such a process.

[@stavroskarageorgis4804]

The meaning of "ideal average" remains nebulous. "Average" is, in itself, nebulous enough if it refers to a variable that cannot have either an arithmetic or geometric mean. If by "average" one real means "typical", then the addition of "ideal" results in a special version of "ideal type", the "theoretical ideal-type" (not the Weberian, neo-Kantian, 'historical' ideal type).