this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
94 points (98.0% liked)
Asklemmy
55845 readers
295 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I prefer David Harvey, who sometimes misses the mark slightly. Heinrich is closely associated with the Neue Marx-Lektüre school of Marxism that deviates pretty heavily from Marx's actual ideas IMO, and quite far from Marxism-Leninism, which is where I stand.
I find Heinrich to be more stimulating over all. He is really unique in that he and his peers consulted some pretty obscure notes and unpublished corrections/refinements M&E made. They differ from the big editions that were historically published. I am an "agnostic" Marxist – as in I don't like to moralise about the USSR like a Trot and hate the present discourse around doctrinal purity and traditionalist legacy, who the real communists supposedly are and whether or not anyone today is allowed to call themselves a communist – I don't at all believe in distancing yourself from an author's work because other positions they hold don't conform neatly to one's previous politicisation.
My point isn't that I think people should never read anything by Heinrich or anything, nor that I am arguing for purity. I think Heinrich presents a very specific reading of Marx that lends itself to opposing practical action with respect to existing socialist states, and that this insistence on adhering to Marx and minimizing the contributions of Engels downplays Marx's lifelong agency and cowork with Engels. Harvey is more agnostic, in that sense, and defends the Fowkes translation, based more on the French edition that Marx developed latest than earlier Marx-only editions.
Really, this gets more into esoteric and usually trivial differences. Among modern Marxist economists, I am most a fan of Ian Paul Wright over others.
Hm, interesting. What do you think of Anwar Sheikh?
Unfamiliar, sorry.
fair.