/lit/ - Literature

>>16412453

A demonologist transcended mongolist professor and Geist activist was teaching a class on Hegel, known necromancer.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the end of history and accept that Absolute Idealism is the most highly-evolved sophism to make us feel good about ourselves the continent has ever known, even greater than self-serving petit-bourgeois protestant theology!"

At this moment an uncaring if he was brave because being judged by illusionary social standards was of no importance to him, egoist, unique girl's school teacher who had smoked more than 15000 cigars in Hippel's winebar and understood the spookiness of all ideology and fully supported whatever he felt like stood up and held up "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum".

"I wrote this, innit?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite synthetically and smugly replied "It's not yours at all, fucking egoist, its the stern, reluctant working of reason towards the full realization of itself in perfect freedom."

"Wrong. It's been a few years or something (time is nothing to me) since I, the Unique One, created it. if it was not mine, and idealism, as you say, is not a spook... then Ghost Busters wouldn't have had a happy ending."

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his balls and copy of Plato's dialogues. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic thesis and antithesis tears, both coming together on his cheeks into synthesis. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Hegel (who liked to teach about himself), wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a spook ridden sad cunt interested in arbitrary justifications. He wished so much that he had some kind of Own to hold on to, and he had but just didn't realise it because he was an involuntary egoist.

The students applauded and all started milk shops that day and accepted their Self-Enjoyment as the end of philosophy. An eagle named "Union of Egoists" flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Stirner's Critics" and shed a beer on the hardcover. "Ich hab' Mein Sach' auf Nichts gestell" was said several times, and Renzo Novatore himself showed up and demonstrated how hand grenades are nothing but a means of killing police officers.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of superstition and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.

Marx almost always made fun of the person he was criticizing in these one on one works. That doesn't mean that he's not critiquing them on their content, as he did in the german ideology, although he does go wild there. I still haven't seen anyone trying to critique Marx's critique of Stirner. Especially for stuff like 'On Class Interests', 'On Communism and Morality', 'On Desire and the Conditions of Life' at the start of the "New Testament" part, or 'Peculiarity' also in the NT, I'd like to hear why Marx is just going ad hominem or remains without substance.

Marx also made use of 'Stirner's Critics' btw.

>>5263048
>It is actually communism which got that from capitalism.

The concept of communism that Graeber is working with in this piece is the principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", with the broken water pipe example conforming to that principle. So it's besides the point (although correct) to say that Taylorism got adopted by the SU.

>If the peasants actually think the relationship is reciprocal, if they *want* it, then it is.
Hmm, the way Graeber frames it I see the difference between the hierarchal relations and reciprocity which he points out interesting, but i'll leave this as it is so i can get to the next point.


>More importantly, Stirner doesn't say reciprocation "justifies" anything.
The principle of reciprocity as a moral basis is of course problematic because morality is a spook and the egoist only lets their self-interest determine their actions. And I knew when I linked the article that would apparently undermine the whole thing, but I wanted to present a view which doesn't see all humans relations as exchange, and I'd like to ask if you consider 'communism'-as a 'logic' of human relations- in the way Graeber used it in this piece to be inconsistent with an egoist acting out of their own self-interest; and if not, does this not undermine the view that all human relations operate as exchange relations?