[Marxism] Michael Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 11 05:57:14 MDT 2008
> this does not mean Holger Wendt does not have a
No, honestly, Holger Wendt does not have any point. A
school pupil could spot where Wendt gets things wrong
about Heinrich. To wit:
> stands in the reformist tradition of Bernstein in
> regard to the role of the state
Pure unadulterated nonsense, for reasons I gave in my
last post. Reformists in the tradition of Berstein
have no problem with the state. Heinrich, on the
other hand, practices a radical critique of the state
as a social form particular to capitalism, not a
transhistorical constant of human society.
> the Neo-Kantians in his rejection of Hegelian
Heinrich argues that Marx practices a dialectical
unfolding of categories in _Capital_, he says so
explicitly, right there on pages 35-36 of KdpÖ.
> in the tradition of Kautsky in regards to the
> criticism of Lenin.
I won't speak for Michael, but I think Lenin and
Kautsky are joined at the hip. Gilles Dauve/Jean
Barrot hit the nail on the head with the title of his
text "The Renegade Kautsky and His Disciple Lenin".
Whether Holger Wendt's misrepresentations can be
attributed to malice or stupidity I can't really say,
but I will be charitable and say it is probably the
latter. For one thing, there's a passage in which he
claims that Michael tries to reclaim "Western Marxism"
for the "Neue Marx-Leküre". In fact, that is
precisely was he does *not* do, and criticizes the
Western Marxists for largely accepting the assumptions
of Second and Third International Marxism vis-a-vis
the critique of political economy. So I can only
assume that Wendt just didn't really read the book.
More information about the Marxism