How long is the german ideology

And history, the development of the material world, since the material world is determined by the consciousness perceiving it, is nothing but the history of ideas. Study the ideas and you understand the world. Forget about the rest. Marx sees the flaw in this philosophical system and goes in for the kill.

Ideas are abstract notions of material objects. Hence, philosophers project their idealization of certain concepts, like Man, onto the world as a whole and back in time. When Adam Smith and David Ricardo talk about how civil society is the pivot in economics they project their own epoch onto history, which leads to subversion of truth.

First, the abstractions that philosophers use to understand the world, lure them into the misguided idea that Ideas are the building blocks of science, while the Ideas are nothing but the end result of very material, earthly processes.

According to Marx, when man stumbled on the scene a brute fact , he immediately started to produce i. It is only after these four needs are fulfilled, that consciousness kicks in: reflection comes after having something to reflect on! The same for politics, morality, law, etc. Starting a continuous cycle of change, in which man is shaping his world and vice versa.

This is the true meaning of not interpreting the world, but change it: Revolution is possible once we acknowledge that man determines his own world and that acting, in community preferably international , is the key to change.

The second fatal arrow that Marx aims at contemporary philosophy and science is pointing at another subversion. The political economists Smith, Riccardo, and their followers claimed that capitalism — the division of labour and the separation of production and property i.

What this means, in effect, is that the existence of a capitalist class, a middle class of merchants, traders and middle men, and a lower class of proletarians — the class relations, which are a product of social production — are a characteristic of economics.

Marx calls Smith, Riccardo and co. Idealism is a dead-end, materialism i. Over time, multiple families flocked together for reasons of safety and survival. In this tribal life, property is communal property. With increasing population and increase of productivity, division of labour — which is already inherent in the family-structure — started to change, and hence change the nature of property.

Hence, the concept private property is introduced. Also, with the increase of the community especially in cities , and the tendency of the individual to look after his or her own interests, the general interests become too important for the survival of the whole.

Hence, the need for a central authority arises: the State is introduced. This state of affair continues for some time, until feudal times. Private property tends to accumulate; the means of production i. Peasants start to flock to the towns, the people in the towns manufacturing and selling become afraid that their professions would degrade and form alliances to exclude everyone from their professions and only accept apprentices on the condition that these apprentices work for them for a long period.

Soon, towns start to connect with each other — either in trade, military alliances or both — and this leads to the rise of merchants. The contradiction town-country now comes to include town-town. Then, later on, towns being included in states, states start to compete and trade with each other.

We see here an ever-growing division of labour and trade network. With the discovery of America, things started to speed up. Now the whole world gradually became connected, foreign lands became colonized, and the nature of current social production started to spread globally.

This leads to competition and alliances between states for colonies and markets. It also leads to the rise of the merchant class, which makes increasing amounts of money as the oil in the machine: intercourse becomes increasingly important. Ultimately, this pre-capitalist society comes to an end when demands outgrow production capacity. Why this is so, Marx explains by using the law of accumulation: competition leads to inequalities in property. By the eighteenth century, the United Kingdom started to dominate the world, which led to ever-increasing demand on their production coal, iron, wood, clothes, spices, etc.

This shortage in production capacity leads to scientific discoveries and technological inventions: now production can be magnified to an unheard-of scales. The industrial age kicks in. Industrialization is a new form of social production: in this type of society — with this form of intercourse, as Marx would say — the means of production are accumulated in the hands of the few, to be put to used by the property-less many.

The property of the masses — labour — is appropriated by those having a monopoly on the means of production: production and property are now separated for good. Industrialization, as a mode of social production, spreads across the globe and with this determines the form of social intercourse all over the world. According to him, all of history is nothing but the change of form of social production and hence change of form of intercourse.

History is rife with class conflicts; each epoch has its own classes and division of labour; but the key idea here is that ever-increasing changes in production lead to ever-increasing divisions of labour, which lead to ever-increasing class warfare.

The more division of labour increases, the more property is separated from production — those that produce do, in the end i. According to Marx, history is an unfolding of class struggle. In capitalism, this battle of the classes come to an end: the property-less masses become so numerous, and the wealth and culture of the lucky few so pompous and visible, that the system will collapse. Not only this, the whole world also becomes highly homogenous under capitalism: in the end, all capitalists, all bourgeois, and all proletarians, will be uniformed — the same class will be united to its brethren in all other nations.

Therefore, it is highly necessary to connect the proletarians, the property-less- all over the world with each other. It is the most interesting part of the book from a perspective , since in this part are to be found the seeds of later historical events. Communism is nothing but the abolition of the social division of labour, or, in other words: the abolition of property. Once capitalist appropriation is stopped, by either scaring or killing the capitalists and the proletarians confiscating the means of production, the final stage of history has come.

Now, all people will produce what they want, when they want, where they want, how they want, and in cooperation with whom they want. Nobody in his right mind would draw this implication from a philosophical refutation of idealism and the establishment of materialism. Only someone like Marx would. We see here, as so often throughout history, the rich intellectual proclaiming visions of a perfect future. While Marx claimed that the process of alienation — the appropriation of the products by the capitalists — led to a feeling of loss and resentment on the part of the proletarians, it seems that Marx, although a bourgeois to his bones — was alienated himself, but then in a slightly different way.

Marx, unlike Engels, remained the intellectual in his ivory tower for his entire life. All his talk about social justice, appropriation, alienation, the need for revolution — all this is empty talk.

Marx never experienced having to work for 18 hours in a factory — a day, let alone decades. Marx never experienced the effects of poor living conditions, harsh working conditions and poverty on the mind. All he had to do was ask daddy Engels for some money and he could continue to spend days in libraries. Engels even stepped in when Marx fathered an illegitimate child by a house maid, and claimed that it was his child.

Just like during his adolescent years, when his father stepped in to rescue him from some conflict or other. Marx simply was an irresponsible trouble maker.

Had Marx had some more real life experience, perhaps he would have been more cautious in his activist call to action. Saint Karl was obviously too enthusiastic about his own utopian ideals to see the flaws in them. The German Ideology, although only partly comprehensible, is still relevant today.

Understand the main concepts in this book and you understand Marxism, especially its inherent flaws and dangers exposed in a bright light. Dec 22, philosovamp rated it did not like it Shelves: college-age , philosophy. The German Ideology is frequently referenced as a great starter text for students of Marxism. Imagine my horror upon discovering it is nigh pages long and a philosophical critique of previous philosophers.

It is a run down of various parts of Marx's burgeoning Dialectical Materialism. The following three sections, critiquing the Young-Hegelian Feuerbach, Bauer, and Stirner in that order, is a real pr The German Ideology is frequently referenced as a great starter text for students of Marxism. The following three sections, critiquing the Young-Hegelian Feuerbach, Bauer, and Stirner in that order, is a real problem.

The former two, and especially Bauer, are not often read or discussed in any context but this one: in which they are shut down by Marx. The Stirner passage lacks what even the former two sections had - brevity, with "Saint Max" stretching over pages.

Tracking the minute errors and logical issues of these un-read philosophers to all reach approximately the same conclusion was frustrating and nearly pointless.

Allow me to summarize: Hegel was great, but his Idealism has some problems. Namely failing to see that ideas are nothing but the products of the prevailing means of production. These three guys follow Hegel's Idealism but don't do much with it, especially Stirner who is a dumb idiot. Volume II closes out with some other dumb idiots who now have the gall to bash the French revolutionaries for being too "crude" and not ideal enough.

The thinking was of course quality and in many instances, the writing - Marx is pretty damn funny , but I do not recommend actually reading this work. Read up on the context of all of the aforementioned philosophers, and then read "Theses on Feuerbach" to get the same thing.

There appear to be abridged printings of the text: I haven't looked at what is included in them, but perhaps they are worth seeking out. View 2 comments. Sep 01, Andrew added it Shelves: political-philosophy , philosophy. However, it's still a book of immense value. Let me explain. Marx in this book is, while formulating his thought, bouncing off of, refuting, and satirizing the positions of a number of now largely forgotten German idealist thinkers Feuerbach, Stirner, etc.

The first two attacks are rather fun, but then the long slog begins in his diatribe against Stirner, which is about pages too long, but then he brings it back with some more criticisms of criticisms of the French Revolution. It's not a casual read, and, really, for most of us who aren't German academics, a few excerpts are fine, but it is a game attempt at a philosophical house-cleaning.

And, for the modern reader, it makes you realize how disappointed dear old Karl would be at the academic "Marxists" today who attempt to bombard his philosophy with similarly idealist tendencies. Jul 24, Riley rated it liked it. I've been feeling like I don't read enough difficult books anymore, so The German Ideology was my crack at one. It is early Marx and Engels, in which they are first iterating their theories of materialism.

One thing that has always struck me from the few times I've read Marx I tend to think of Marxism as philosophy, and it is always interesting to see how much it was offered as science, a form I don't think ages well for it. One other thing Marx weighs in one of the old questions here: Whe I've been feeling like I don't read enough difficult books anymore, so The German Ideology was my crack at one.

Marx weighs in one of the old questions here: Whether it is better to fight the system or transcend it. I think my own inclinations are more for the latter, which he assails as illusionary. May 05, Thandiwe rated it really liked it. I have a soft spot for Marx I think this text, along with the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of , really highlight the emphasis he placed on human consciousness and its intricate connection to the material world and mode of production which alarmingly conventional readings of Marx minimize, if not, completely ignore.

May 17, Dan Raghinaru rated it it was amazing. Nice introduction to Marx's ideas. Interesting to notice how Marx reacts and departs from Hegel, while at the same time continuing to use Hegel's language, historical, and dialectical approaches. I liked how he mentioned that the only effective way to oppose and overcome any ideology — including the German Ideology — is by revolution and not by critical theory.

Following this idea, one may ask what is the point of his insightful critique of the bourgeois's philosophical, economic, legal, and oth Nice introduction to Marx's ideas. Following this idea, one may ask what is the point of his insightful critique of the bourgeois's philosophical, economic, legal, and other systems; but definitely worth a reading.

Mar 28, Ben Kearvell rated it liked it. For all his nay-saying about German ideology, Marx and Engels remains a German ideologue--and a very thorough one. Materialism, as Marx would have it, owes a debt to Hegel and romantic philosophy in general.

He Marx may have turned metaphysics on its head, yet he failed to remove the head. But there's no getting rid of it. Marxist economy requires a hidden hand, better said, a shift in ontology, or the way one values the world and oneself. Materialism itself, if history is anything to go by For all his nay-saying about German ideology, Marx and Engels remains a German ideologue--and a very thorough one.

Materialism itself, if history is anything to go by, has failed to achieve that. Marx's nay-sayings about Stirner are highly entertaining. Only a keen metaphysician would take so much time with him plus pages. Here Marx reminds me of Hunter Thompson: the sort of maniacal joy he found in opposition. The German Ideology is very much a rant, and I enjoyed it as such.

It seems like a good place to start with historical materialism and the like. Perhaps I'll know for sure when I've read Capital. Oct 15, Alex rated it really liked it. In the beginning Here, in Chapter One, Feuerbach is taken to task. This is the section everyone must read.

A theory of history: turn that Hegel off his head and back onto his feet! What are the preconditions of social life? What are the stages of human development? What is consciousness?

What are forms of intercourse? What is liberation? What are the ruling ideas religion, law, politics and their relationship to material life? These que In the beginning These questions are all answered for you, so pay attention! Chapter Two is reserved for Bruno Bauer. Chapter Three for that radical egoist son-of-a-gun Max Stirner.

A lot of silly, redundant polemic expended on philosophers relegated to the dustbin of history. Some gems in the later chapters though were dug out in my English translation. Oct 16, Michael rated it really liked it. Honestly, a lot of Marx sort of blurs one into another for me at this stage.

However, everyone should read at least some Marx as a reminder that economics is not determinist and capitalism is not the natural order of things.

Jun 10, sologdin rated it liked it Shelves: leftwing-theory. Feb 11, Harry Clark rated it it was amazing. A largely excellent and certainly crucial work in the Marxist canon. After an exordium containing some amusing and characteristically feisty ad hominem barbs, the book is a powerful rejection of the bourgeois idealism of the Young Hegelians who had counted Marx among their number during his younger years.

His deployment of the concept of alienation is critical to this undertaking and remained integral within his own work particularly to his critique of the commodity in Capital Vol. It would A largely excellent and certainly crucial work in the Marxist canon.

It would subsequently provide a rich seam to be mined by countless Marxists. Nov 13, Caed rated it really liked it Shelves: left-theory.

Sep 30, Hanna W. Review to come soon. Jul 27, Dierk rated it it was ok. The German Ideology is Marx's polemic against some of his notable German and French contemporaries of the s. Until the s, it only existed in manuscript form. Whether Marx ever wanted it to be published and whether he would have done more work on the manuscript in that case are unclear. Even in its final rough form, however, The German Ideology provides valuable insights into Marx's researching, thinking and writing styles.

To appreciate this book fully, the reader should be familiar with: The German Ideology is Marx's polemic against some of his notable German and French contemporaries of the s. However, further on in his autobiographical narrative of , Marx returned to the Brussels years when he introduced readers to his then collaborator.

Frederick Engels … [who — TC] arrived by another road compare his Condition of the Working-Class in England [37] at the same result as I, and when in the spring of he too came to live in Brussels, we decided to set forth together our conception [ Ansicht ] as opposed to the ideological one of German philosophy, in fact to settle accounts with our former philosophical conscience [ Gewissen ].

The intention was carried out in the form of a critique of post-Hegelian philosophy. We abandoned the manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice all the more willingly since we had achieved our main purpose — self-clarification. This latter publication was in the Marx-Engels-Archiv , a joint venture between German socialists and Russian bolsheviks. Later in life, when introducing his pamphlet work Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie , , Engels remarked that:.

The section dealing with Feuerbach is not completed. The finished portion consists of an exposition of the materialist conception of history which proves only how incomplete our knowledge of economic history still was at that time.

Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks] [49] in pencil on a page of the manuscript. In any case it is not clear at all exactly which manuscript pages Engels was examining in the late s other than the one on which he made his note. Something of the sort is probably the explanation of the tone which Marx and Engels consciously or unconsciously adopted when dealing with Bauer and Stirner and others of their old companions in the art of purely intellectual gymnastics.

What they had to say about Feuerbach would have been much more interesting because it would have been something more than purely negative criticism, but unfortunately this part of the work was never completed. The exact reason for preserving certain sheets is not obvious, but later editorial supposition has generally been that they were retained because of their possible relevance for a subsequent Feuerbach-critique.

In the first sequence there was again a process of marked deletions where Weydemeyer had copied out material for use in another fair copy manuscript. These fragments appear to inaugurate this process of beginning a Feuerbach-critique in the summer of Why then the intense editorial determination to produce a Feuerbach chapter, or at least to order these materials into that position, as happens — in effect — even in Jahrbuch ?

This means that a process of fitting all the surviving materials together into a book-length scheme authored by Marx and Engels alone is factitious. Plekhanov, to name but a few, not excepting the even more politicised interest in V. They include some 13 text instances separately listed but recognisably tracing a structure laboriously deduced by them from fragmentary comments about plans and incomplete achievements, much as previous editors have done.

This seems to me to be the only position that responsible scholars can adopt, so that questions will not be begged, nor evidence one way or the other neglected or overlooked.

Readers may then draw their own conclusions about exactly what is going on between the two at any given point. However, it should also be noted here that commentary on The German Ideology since the s has generally presumed as fact what Gustav Mayer put forward as a speculative view about the way the two were working:.

Engels wrote more legibly, he was faster and more precise, and was therefore always prepared to put on paper passages which he and Marx had sketched out together. Other passages, which they had already talked through beforehand, Marx will perhaps [ vielleicht — my emphasis — TC] have dictated to his pen. This was presumably because the extracted Bogen contained material that was mostly but not wholly unwanted for the polemical plans of the moment. Or are readers perhaps more interested in the state of the text as the authors were composing it for the different and overlapping projects on which they were working successively during this period?

This presentation would therefore catch the compositional process as the authors wrestled with their ideas. This can be explored in relation to any number of questions, not least how exactly Marx and Engels were learning to think as they did. Errors and omissions are, of course, my own responsibility. My research work was supported by a Research Leave Scheme award from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, for which I acknowledge here and for which I express my thanks.

I am also grateful for a critique of my views privately communicated by Professor Georg H. Feuerbach und II. Contrary to editorial opinion summarised in CW , vol. McLellan, Karl Marx , p. Enke, McLellan, Karl Marx , pp. Wataru Hiromatsu Tokyo: Kawadashobo-Shinsa, Recibir nuevas entradas por email. Recibir actualizaciones. The Production of Manuscripts by Means of Polemic The first order of business is to establish the context through which the manuscript materials themselves were successively written and re-written in He began this account with his stint as editor of the liberal paper Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne in , saying: I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to discuss what is known as material interests … [regarding — TC] thefts of wood and the division of landed property … the condition of the Mosel peasantry … the debates on free trade and protective tariffs [which — TC] caused me in the first instance to turn my attention to economic questions.

Last Hand s? However, it should also be noted here that commentary on The German Ideology since the s has generally presumed as fact what Gustav Mayer put forward as a speculative view about the way the two were working: Engels wrote more legibly, he was faster and more precise, and was therefore always prepared to put on paper passages which he and Marx had sketched out together.