Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Robert Kurz's criticisms of Crisis theory and Paul Mattick snr

ManchesterBeth

Well-Known Member
I've just been talking to someone who claims that Robert Kurz achieves an effective takedown of Mattick's analysis of Marx's crisis theory in The Substance of Capital, which has apparently been recently translated.

I don't have a PDF of this new translation (I can't find it anywhere) and my German isn't very good at all, so I cannot assess the claim. I've just responded with 'will read it and get back to you - though I find Kurz's writing style turgid from previous experience.'

Anyone else read the book and specifically the sections on Mattick? butchersapron
 
I haven't read the book, but I have read this interview of him on libcom which mentions Mattick being right and wrong but the take-away point is here:

Most contemporary Marxists, however, have regressed even below the level attained by the previous crisis theories and limit themselves to assuming the classical petty bourgeois point of view of a critique of “finance capital”. They confuse cause and effect: they reduce the crisis not to an objective lack of real production of value, but to the subjective profits of the speculators. The capitalist mode of production is no longer criticized at its roots; all they want to do is to return to the Fordist configuration of abstract labor. This option is not only illusory; it is also reactionary. It possesses a structural similarity with the economic ideology of anti-semitism.

Hard reactionaries can air themselves via the 'Marxist' criticism of the danger of crisis in 'finance capital'.
 
Reading that interview now. And next. Sounds like something entirely concocted in the academic's study - someone had a lot of time on their hands.
 
I haven't read the book, but I have read this interview of him on libcom which mentions Mattick being right and wrong but the take-away point is here:

Most contemporary Marxists, however, have regressed even below the level attained by the previous crisis theories and limit themselves to assuming the classical petty bourgeois point of view of a critique of “finance capital”. They confuse cause and effect: they reduce the crisis not to an objective lack of real production of value, but to the subjective profits of the speculators. The capitalist mode of production is no longer criticized at its roots; all they want to do is to return to the Fordist configuration of abstract labor. This option is not only illusory; it is also reactionary. It possesses a structural similarity with the economic ideology of anti-semitism.

Hard reactionaries can air themselves via the 'Marxist' criticism of the danger of crisis in 'finance capital'.

I assume Kurz is an influence on the antideutsch like Postone?

CC frogwoman
 
However, solidarity with the state of Israel, is not a position exclusive to the Anti-Germans. The groups Krisis-Gruppe and Exit! around the publicist Robert Kurz,[4] as well as many Antifa groups in Germany also hold Israel-sympathetic opinions, while rejecting any identification with the Anti-German current.

Oh christ. Once again demonstrating the absolute poverty of anti-fa - one of the more contemptible ideologies to emerge out of the radical left milieu. pseudo-radical resistance for fools.
 
The anti-German self-understanding, therefore, has taken a direction that sees itself more critical of ideology [ideologiekritisch] than critical of capitalism. However, Robert Kurz (2003) is quite right when he tries to define the ideological basis of the anti-German movement. While the national essentialism of the Israel solidarity politics could be dismissed as strategic, Kurz points us to the theoretical alignment of anti-German thought to the very analysis that it tries to overcome. Kurz, one of sharpest critics of what he terms “the anti-German ideology”, has argued that its argumentation remains an inadequate response to what he calls “labor movement Marxism” [Arbeiterbewegungsmarxismus]. Kurz depicts class struggle as system-immanent, and instead focuses on an analysis of the fetish form of capital and its crisis. While the anti-Germans share this rejection of labor as revolutionary subject (based on their reading of Frankfurt School theory), Kurz argues, they counter-posit not capitalist crisis but an ontological understanding of reason and civilization. In the place of revolution, anti-German “communism” succumbs to a mere defense of “bourgeois civilization” (Kurz 2003, 63). Kurz is also critical of the traditional Left and its inability, as he says, to understand the relationship between National Socialism and capitalism. The anti-German movement exploits this lack of clarity, as much as it exploits Auschwitz to defend the “bourgeois subject” and to decouple the Holocaust from the historical development of modernity. For Kurz, the origins of anti-German ideology are found in “bourgeois discourses” (Kurz 2003, 11). In particular, he maintains, the dichotomous logic of “barbarism” vs. “Enlightenment” that characterizes much anti-German criticism is structurally not dissimilar from the anti-imperialism that it tries to distance itself from. Instead anti-Germanism perpetuates the binary conception of anti-modernity vs. modernity and projects it back onto the level of states and nations (e.g. Palestine vs. Israel, Europe vs. America).

The (anti-)German ideology: Towards a critique of anti-German “communism”
 
Ive got a Kurz pamphlet called No Revolution Anywhere - basically says activists are shit, not enough theory, we all need to learn from our mistakes more and work out what we really really want.

Its published by a little thing called Chronos Publications. On first page it says they were going to translate and publish lots of Kurz/Exit stuff... I dont know if they did.

They dont have a website but just a address. If you can be arsed send them a SAE envelope asking them to tell you want to know....

Chronos Publications
BM Chronos
London WC1N 3XX

?Weird address ... no street name... google says Old Gloucester Street

Hope thats some help
 
sihhi butchersapron Knotted

In their critique of Rosa Luxemburg, Grossman and Mattick correctly retreated from circulation to the production of surplus value itself, and determined the essence of the crisis as the overaccumulation of capital, which in the sphere of circulation can appear as overproduction, but is not essentially determined by this fact. This development in crisis theory came at the cost that it dispensed with the inverted theory of Rosa Luxemburg that remained fixated on circulation along with its fruitful account of an historically absolutely finite developmental logic of capital. The reason for this can be found in the fact that Grossman and Mattick went back to the process of production, but not to the contradiction between the development of productivity and production’s objectivity of value. To this extent they therefore remained, like all previous crisis theorists, restricted and value-immanent, and thus unable to identify the contradiction in the concept of productive labor itself. Grossman’s attempt to adhere to theory of collapse all the same thus remained restricted to a highly dubious value-immanent mathematical example, which (like the earlier crisis debate) took as its starting point not the conceptual derivation of value and of productive labor, but the “schemata of reproduction” of the second volume of Capital, and which thus remained from the start apprehended within the surface-level mediations of the market. Paul Mattick thus ultimately no more adhered to a concretely derivable theory of collapse than did Grossman.

The reason for this can be found in the fact that Grossman and Mattick went back to the process of production, but not to the contradiction between the development of productivity and production’s objectivity of value. To this extent they therefore remained, like all previous crisis theorists, restricted and value-immanent, and thus unable to identify the contradiction in the concept of productive labor itself.

What on earth is value-immanent supposed to mean? A mental abstract of sorts? This passage is quite dubious TBF.

The Crisis of Exchange Value: Science as Productive Force; Productive Labor; and Capitalist Reproduction (1986)
 
sihhi butchersapron Knotted



The reason for this can be found in the fact that Grossman and Mattick went back to the process of production, but not to the contradiction between the development of productivity and production’s objectivity of value. To this extent they therefore remained, like all previous crisis theorists, restricted and value-immanent, and thus unable to identify the contradiction in the concept of productive labor itself.

What on earth is value-immanent supposed to mean? A mental abstract of sorts? This passage is quite dubious TBF.

The Crisis of Exchange Value: Science as Productive Force; Productive Labor; and Capitalist Reproduction (1986)

what is

the contradiction in the concept of productive labor itself.
?

(genuine question)
 
Michael Prigent died on the 20th btw

Ah that's sad. He was generally proper ranty and angry the few times I spoke to him but then was completely lovely when I saw him at the radical bookfair last year and bought that Postone anti-semitism pamphlet off him (for the second time but I did actually read it this time).
 
Ah that's sad. He was generally proper ranty and angry the few times I spoke to him but then was completely lovely when I saw him at the radical bookfair last year and bought that Postone anti-semitism pamphlet off him (for the second time but I did actually read it this time).
This may spark me to finally read The Kurz book The Substance of Capital that he published a few years back. Just doesn't feel very urgent though.
 
Back
Top Bottom