By the way, my interpretation of Marx is somewhere between Michael Heinrich and Friedrich Engels.  I'm not one of those "Engels ruined Marxism" types of people.  But nor do I think Engels was infallible. 

Michael Heinrich and Friedrich Engels agree on just about 99% of everything.  But there are some differences in their interpretations of Marx, and some of them are kind of important.  You've got some people on one side, and some people on the other, yelling at each other, which causes these small differences to become exaggerated.  

Who can you trust?  When you look at it this way, it seems a little lopsided: Engels seems like a famous giant of the history of civilization, and Heinrich is just some guy.  Engels knew Marx personally, and they were close friends who worked together for almost their entire political lives, so it seems that Engels should have a huge advantage.  But when you read Heinrich, you have to admit that he makes some really good points.  

So whose side do I take?  Neither.  I don't think it's necessary to pick a side on this one.  Marx-Engelsism and Marx-Heinrichism, so to speak, both seem like coherent, interesting, insightful perspectives, both of which are worth listening to, and neither of which has a total monopoly on the truth.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending


The Ego Is Not Selfish Enough