Not particularly. He doesn't spend most of his book nitpicking the minutiae of the language of the things he critiques.
>Btw the fundamental criticism of Stirner is, regardless of what you consider "yours", the world still works in certain material ways and you'll be prevented from acting on that belief. It doesn't free you from material constraints.
But that's not really a criticism of Stirner, as there's nothing within the Ego and Its Own that would say differently. When he suggests slaves recognize the ownership of themselves they already possess, it doesn't mean that they're suddenly free from the whips and chains they've been subjected to.
Bentley Mitchell
The head of HR decides weather to fire or hire employees. Yet he is an employee himself who owns no stock in the business and thus does not own the means of production and can be fired by his senior manager, who can also be fired.
Indeed even in partnerships, the board can vote to strip a "owners" of all firing and hiring decisions.
Blake Jackson
>Except in his journalism on China, or in Capital.
If he admits that Capital is competitively necessary, then under what circumstances will socialism rise up? All it takes is one militaristic country to fuck up the global revolution.
>I see you've not read Volumes 2 or 3
Stop name dropping chapters; you've done this repeatedly throughout the thread, it makes you sound like an arrogant 17 year old. If you want to have a conversation, reply with information instead of smarmy bullshit.
Bentley Green
it's not.. hypocrisy.. it's a contradiction
>Not particularly. He doesn't spend most of his book nitpicking the minutiae of the language of the things he critiques. his work isn't a criticism of that sort. Marx doesn't nitpick when he critiques culture either
>But that's not really a criticism of Stirner, as there's nothing within the Ego and Its Own that would say differently. Probably, I believe Stirner and Marx are closer than Marx realized. But it is absolutely true that Stirner failed to address the material side of anything
Benjamin Lee
>But it is absolutely true that Stirner failed to address the material side of anything
Why should he? His book was about addressing how you interact with the world around you, a matter which is entirely ideological.
>his work isn't a criticism of that sort. Marx doesn't nitpick when he critiques culture either
From what I've read so far, Marx has been mostly just picking at Stirner's odd choice of language.
Caleb Parker
>Yet he is an employee himself who owns no stock in the business and thus does not own the means of production and can be fired by his senior manager, who can also be fired. Ownership isn't formal, it is control. It is like you've not done any reading at all in the area you're attempting to talk about. Maybe that's because you've not done any reading at all in the area you're attempting to talk about.
Justin Taylor
>Every country that has ever been successful has been capitalist.
I just laugh every time people bring up Marx, despite all the obvious evidence which is counter to his theories, edgy contrarian teenagers still try to talk about him like he's worth anyone's time.
Christopher Phillips
>If he admits that Capital is competitively necessary, then under what circumstances will socialism rise up? When the crisis of capital causes it to be less competitive than free production by labour in its own sublation. For example, GNU is sufficiently competitive to have eliminated almost all private Unix toolsets. GNU is zero priced and made by voluntary labour. In the field of Unix toolsets, socialism has triumphed over capitalism by out competing it.
You're the one attempting to critique Marx without having read him. Marx spends the majority of the three volumes discussing the limits and potentials of entrepreneurial function. Labour, in Capital, appears SOLELY as the object of Capital's genius.
YOUR ATTEMPTED CRITIQUE OF MARX COULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE WRONG, CHIEFLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T READ MARX AND PRODUCED A STRAWMAN FROM YOUR OWN ARSEHOLE.
David Brooks
Control that can be stripped away at any moment, by fellow employees no less. Is that really control when its not absolute? Its merely borrowed power by the consent of others.
