Is The german ideology worth reading or nah? Some people tell me it destroys Stirner...

Is The german ideology worth reading or nah? Some people tell me it destroys Stirner, some others say it's just a butthurted rant of ad hominem and strawmen.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>it's just a butthurted rant of ad hominem and strawmen

Basically this.

How though? Care to elaborate?

Bump

How about you read it and judge it yourself.

To test if it is indeed just:
>butthurted rant of ad hominem and strawmen
You read a few random pages. If not you read it all.

Good enough?

No since i have other stuff to read as well, limited time and do not know wether this quite voluminous yet secondary book is worth the time and the money.

The German Ideology was a bad piece of writing only published well after Marx died. Marx was mad that Stirner wasn't a Marxist socialist (Marxists never change) and had a different idea of revolution and class conflict.

>The entire body of German philosophical criticism from Strauss to Stirner is confined to criticism of religious conceptions. [The following passage is crossed out in the manuscript:] claiming to be the absolute redeemer of the world from all evil. Religion was continually regarded and treated as the arch-enemy, as the ultimate cause of all relations repugnant to these philosophers. The critics started from real religion and actual theology. What religious consciousness and a religious conception really meant was determined variously as they went along. Their advance consisted in subsuming the allegedly dominant metaphysical, political, juridical, moral and other conceptions under the class of religious or theological conceptions; and similarly in pronouncing political, juridical, moral consciousness as religious or theological, and the political, juridical, moral man – “man” in the last resort – as religious. The dominance of religion was taken for granted. Gradually every dominant relationship was pronounced a religious relationship and transformed into a cult, a cult of law, a cult of the State, etc. On all sides it was only a question of dogmas and belief in dogmas. The world was sanctified to an ever-increasing extent till at last our venerable Saint Max was able to canonise it en bloc and thus dispose of it once for all.

This seems to be the central criticism. You don't need to read it all.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Only 6-7 thousand words. If you've got time to spare posting on Four Chan, then you can knock this out in like, 20 minutes.

Bam! Loli Stirner

Sometimes I forget Stirner was a Veeky Forums meme originally and Veeky Forums hasn't been exclusive to him.

Why did Marx dedicate so much of a book as a response to stirner?

Is there any reading for the young hegelians that talks about them as people?

>implying you can destroy Stirner

Most of it is worth reading. The part railing against The Ego and Its Own (which is actually longer than the Ego and Its Own) is not really worth reading, it's just snarky rhetoric; Marx probably knew it was crummy, and that's why he cut it out of the book before publishing.

I want to loli stirner

This is simply what philosophers used to do.

Stirner was a huge influence on Marx.

>Stirner was a huge influence on Marx.
What are you basing this on? Stirner thought common property was a spooky as private property. He also thought states, including those brought about by revolution were retarded, whereas Marx saw a new state as a required stepping stone that would "whither away".

>Stirner thought common property was a spooky as private property
Where did he live then?

>Philosophical Influence is measured in how outwardly similar their proposals are.
Literally pleb tier.

A house.

Can you actually show any evidence Marx was influenced by Stirner?

>What are you basing this on?
That fact that Marx changed his tune about socialism because of Stirner.

>Stirner thought common property was a spooky as private property.
According to Stirner, property exists. What's spooky is that property belongs to someone because of a spooky right, rather than might. Marx tried to get around this by saying stepping stone socialism is in the prole's self interest, and in end stage communism, there would be such an abundance of goods that you would have little need to defend property as your own.

>He also thought states, including those brought about by revolution were retarded
But in reality, states have might. Which is why Marx had an increasing focus on exploitation, to basically say proles were spooked by private property.

>whereas Marx saw a new state as a required stepping stone that would "whither away"
And Stirner has no plan for revolution or accomplishing any sort of real life anarcho-individualism. If you follow Stirner, you end up just being an egoist living under the thumb of the state propped up by other spooked people.

>abundance of goods
is the cornucopia of infinite matter a spook yet

>That fact that Marx changed his tune about socialism because of Stirner.
How?

>According to Stirner, property exists
Stirner defines property as anything you use, be it an idea, a person, or whatever else. All other ideas of property he sees as ridiculous.

>But in reality, states have might
Not in Stirner's mind, that would be like saying God has might because of the Spanish Inquisition.

>And Stirner has no plan for revolution or accomplishing any sort of real life anarcho-individualism
No, Stirner just preferred everyone ignore the state and everything function through unions of egoists.

>there would be such an abundance of goods
lol

I didn't say Marx did a great job with that part. He was basically trying to say there was a hypothetical situation where things worked out and Marx's prior communist ideas didn't end up contradicting Stirner that much. Marx was even more utopian socialist before he read Stirner.

>How?
Early Marx vs late Marx.

>Stirner defines property as anything you use, be it an idea, a person, or whatever else. All other ideas of property he sees as ridiculous.
And you use it because you have might to defend it. He thought communism for the sake of the common good was retarded. That's different than being a socialist out of self interest if you think being able to use property instead of not being able to use property is a good thing. Focusing on exploitation is basically saying that capitalism is not in your self interest, socialism is. Revolution and class antagonism is also an acknowledgement of people looking out for their self interests.

>Not in Stirner's mind, that would be like saying God has might because of the Spanish Inquisition.
Stirner's mind is wrong. The state might be a spook, but someone, or some people, have might because of it. The Spanish Inquisition has might because of their spook. That might is real. The Spanish Inquisition will fuck you up whether or not, rather, especially if you call god a spook.

>No, Stirner just preferred everyone ignore the state and everything function through unions of egoists.
And then the state's armed forces come fuck you up. Again, there's no plan to arrive at this state of everyone being unions of egoists besides publishing the idea.

For some reason you think influenced by means that two philosophies must be 100% compatible.

>signs all in English

You stupid cunt, at least find an actual soviet supermarket pic, there are a bazillion online.

>signs in english
>soviet

He rejected utopian socialism after reading him.

The non-Marxist won't understand that because the non-Marxist makes no distinction between utopian socialism and "scientific" socialism. There's also the fact that currently, most people who support Marx are actually utopian socialists.

Where did Marx ever embrace utopian socialism?

What's the difference? Not memeing genuinely curious.

Utopian socialism is completely pre thought out. Scientific socialism doesn't have an elaborate blue print, and established through trial and error.

>Utopian socialism is a label used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet, and Robert Owen.[1] Utopian socialism is often described as the presentation of visions and outlines for imaginary or futuristic ideal societies, with positive ideals being the main reason for moving society in such a direction. Later socialists and critics of utopian socialism viewed "utopian socialism" as not being grounded in actual material conditions of existing society, and in some cases, as reactionary. These visions of ideal societies competed with Marxist-inspired revolutionary social democratic movements.
Basically, socialism based purely on spooks. Marx is relatively less spooky. It's not that Marx has zero spooks, his theory is just less spooky.

What will fuck you up is a bunch of latinos with huge fucking halberds, not God himself