[Marxism] Michael Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers

Dogan Gocmen dgn.gcmn at googlemail.com
Wed Jun 11 04:35:51 MDT 2008

Angelus Novus:
> Dogan Gocmen:
>> Michael Heinrich argument against dialectical and 
>> historical materialism
> Concepts never mentioned by Marx, incidentally.  I
> guess that makes Marx a social democrat as well.
The terms in this exat formulation may have not been used, but the 
concepts are well used by Marx and Engels. What is the whole argument of 
German Ideology about or going back to the Critique of Hegel's 
Philosophy of Rights.
>> his argument to refer to state as an neutral 
>> institution
> What a joke.  You have obviously never read Heinrich
> on the state.  If you can't even give an effort to
> represent someone's arguments accurately, a discussion
> is a waste of time.
You are right it is waiste of time to try to examine anything. A 
scietifically mined person would first examine his/her arguments 
critically rather than defend zealously positions.

In Mr. Heinrich's book *Critique of political Economy: An Introduction* 
there is a chapter entitled: *The State and Capital*. The whole argument 
of this chapter is directed against the concept of base-superstructure 
of Marx and Engels. Ther he says:

"Under state measures there are also mostly measures from which poor 
population layers profit. Such measures are interpreted by the defender 
of instrumental state understanding purely as conssesions, as method, 
for keeping quiet of the supressed and exploited. The /*critique of the 
state*/ is understood by the defender of this understanding in 
particular as */unmasking /*[critique]: The */neutrality /*of the state 
should be proved to be a seeming one. The critique of the state refers 
then in particular to the each use of the state, but not to the state 
and politics as social forms." (p. 205)

This is a passage from the book you translate. So please explain to the 
list as an expert of Mr. Heinrich's work to which purposes this passage 
has been put down.
>> The claim that there is a break between early and 
>> later works of Marx in the sense that they
> contradict > each other
> Who is talking about "contradiction"?  The
> _problematic_ of late Marx is completely different
> than the early Marx.  Notions in the Parisian
> Manuscripts about a "human essence" do not emerge in
> the later works at all, and the "alienation"
> problematic is discarded completely.
You seem to know much about Marx literature. This is issue was and is 
discussed in terms of contradiction between Marx's early and later work 
as you seem to imply above as well. Marx never discarted the concept of 
"human essence". This is a phenomenological failure. As to the concept 
of alienation: Marx indeed replaced this term for exploitation because 
it is a vague term and used nowadays by social democrats as well as by 
conservative demagogues.
> It's not a question of "contradicting each other",
> it's about abandoning one line of inquiry to pursue
> another.  If I stop studying comparative literature
> and pursue the study of physics, that doesn't mean
> that physics contradicts literature, it means that the
> questions I am posing are entirely different.
Well this does not apply to Marx just because he did not changed his 
subject of study (see above).
> This will be my last post on this subject unless you
> give a minimal effort to actually read Heinrich and
> represent his arguments accurately.  
If my presentation is not accurate enough or even wrong please present 
us the right ones
> Trying to
> disabuse you of your religious beliefs is not my idea
> of a fruitful discussion.
Please do not insult people you argue with. Sorry for having criticised 
your prophet.

More information about the Marxism mailing list