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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more

Why I Love Religion

Image
  I'm too much of a materialist to agree with people like Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher and Sam Harris. They see world problems such as war, sexual repression, the oppression of women, terrorism, and so on as being caused by religion. As a materialist, I find the notion that an idea could cause these things to happen rather dubious. Dig a little deeper, and one always finds economic forces behind all of these problems.  Rather than scapegoating and blaming the existence of systemic problems on the interior beliefs and thoughts of individual human beings, I think it's a better use of our time to focus on how privilege and oppression can be embedded in structural institutions.  Religion isn't the enemy.  Indeed, by vilifying religion, we risk alienating ourselves from potential allies in the struggle against real material economic interests that run contrary to our own. My name is "Ian."  When I was growing up, this was an extremely unusual name.  No one that I
Read more