According to Eldred, the essence of capital is nothing economic or capitalistic just as the essence of technology is nothing technological.
It, rather, is what Eldred calls 'the win', the gainful game, [...].
It would be possible, more or less for the sake of completeness, to close the gap in Heidegger's texts between Hegel and Nietzsche that bears the name 'Marx' with a monograph or some other learned treatise in the way scholars do such things.
There is no doubt that Marx is an important thinker in the Western genealogy whose influence in the history of philosophy and the social sciences as well as in the history of politics has been enormous, so that the task of drawing the connecting lines between these two important thinkers, Heidegger and Marx, is unquestionably posed.
Marx would then stand on Hegelian ground which, with the dismantling of Hegelian metaphysics, would have been pulled from under his feet.with regard to those texts of Heidegger's that engage critically with the Western metaphysical heritage.It would be almost as easy to maintain that for the question that moved Heidegger's thinking, i.e.[...] If the 'rise of circulatory capitalism,' as Edward Li Puma and Benjamin Lee dub it, and the place of the United States in that conjuncture, 'have thrown orthodox Marxists and critical theorists into a tailspin' (Li Puma 15), perhaps, as Michael Eldred has it, we ought to reengage Marx through Heidegger.Obviously, such a project oversteps the limits of American Studies.
It would be a matter of showing that in Marx's writings, Heidegger would not have been in his element, that is to say, that there was not any significant connection between the issues that come into the focus of questioning in Heidegger's thinking and the issues that engage Marx's thinking.