Steve Palmer:
> Heinrich's statement is pretty general and could be
> given a number of conflicting interpretations.
I think he states rather unambiguously that crises are an essential part of capitalism, not some aberration.
> You insult *me* in order to avoid responding to the
> *point* I make.
I apologize if I was insulting. I am not trying to avoid anything, I was just frustrated by what I perceived to be a series of cheap dismissals ("Schumpeterian", "Proudhonist", "Social Democrat")of no substance.
> Doug is always interesting, but I don't necessarily
> agree with everything he says. To use the argument
> from authority is pretty desperate.
No, you misunderstand me. I was not appealing to Doug's authority, simply noting that he and Michael have a similar perspective on the centrality of finance for Marx's critique. Both of them note that there is too often a tendency among Marxists to view production as the "real" sphere, while finance is viewed as some sort of artificial superstructure.
That is why I was frustrated, because it seemed to me you were attributing to Michael a position that is the complete opposite of what he says.
Also, I want to return to something that Louis says:
> What relevance does it have for defending immigrant
> workers? Or pushing for immediate withdrawal from
> Iraq?
Louis, these are important questions, but they are not questions to which we can find answers by reading Marx. However, I think we both agree that it is a good thing to read Marx, to understand how capitalism functions? That does not mean that we can draw direct political conclusions from our reading of _Capital_, but at least we have a good sense of how the system functions.
(The first issue you named, incidentally, is what I think the central issue for communists in this period is: open borders. I think the demand for free mobility of labor across nations is a non-negotiable position that all communists should be behind, and should not be compromising this (that is why I am not in Die Linke).)