/lit/ - Literature

Did Marx and Engels like to fuck eachother in the ass?

>>12718142
And as usual, it is that very air that irritates Engels. His impatience with all "theoretical chatter" grows. Stirner appears as it's last and most bewitching offspring:
>Stirner's book shows once again how deeply rooted in abstraction is in the Berlin essence. Among the Freien, St. is obviously the one with the most talent, independence, and precision, but with all that he too turns his somersaults from idealistic abstraction to the materialistic kind without arriving at anything.
Each of these judgments should be kept in mind while reading the furious attack on Stirner in 'The German Ideology', where he is presented as
>the most feeble and boorish member of that philosophical confraternity [the Freien group].

*Marx and Engel's rebuttable, 'The German Ideology', can be read here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/

>>10194618
Your turn, kiddo ;^)

>>8691692
>>8691692
>I keep referring to the Paris attacks because this is exactly the type of thing that Stirner would not allow to happen...
>He would say there are no higher ideas worth sacrificing yourself over
>The people who keep the Stirner flame going are Anarchists...
>But Stirner wouldn't have associated with these people because the idea of Anarchism was a spook, and he was a loner

Many times throughout this lecture I felt like something was not quite right in Stirners reasoning, but I watched the whole thing. These are just the ones I can recall offhand. I think the problem people have with him is (1) his ideas are difficult to imagine in practice and (2) his rationale is not very judicious. What I mean by the latter point is his treatment of all the reasons why people form societies, institute governments, contribute to the arts and sciences, educate others, etc., etc. is written off as spooks. Or they are making themselves slaves to abstractions and curbing their freedom. Its been said many times and it will be said some more, I'm sure, but this sounds like the reasoning of a person who does not know or does not care about the value of these abstractions, and therefore is not willing to admit they do have a representational basis in reality. What is a work of art but the ideas of the artist given substance? The same is true for the rest. He also does not seem to exercise good judgement, in my view, because he does not weigh the evils of a world with these abstractions against those of a world which is entirely free of them. Do governments have corruption? Yes! Well then, we need more participation, more scrutiny, more awareness of these ills. Not an abandonment of the entire enterprise and a negation of those very justifications upon which it was founded. This is why some anons dismiss him without reading a word, because what he is proposing is worse than what we have now. I could care less about how he reasoned his way to these conclusions, or whether they are logically consistent with whatever premises he chose to pursue them with.

>le logic is reality meme
>le arguments are reality meme

At least I learned from that lecture that Engels drew the Stirner meme we love so well. I'm not a Marxist, don't call me a Marxist.