(1) Jürgen Meier, “Amokläufe zum Ich – Der Kommunismus als Voraussetzung des Individualismus“, Neue Impulse Verlag 2011; “Schiller's greatness and boldness consists in the fact that, irrespective of the contradictions in which he had to become entangled, he ruthlessly criticized bourgeois society and yet never for a moment gave up the annihilation of the frantic step towards feudal society. / Almost fifty years later, Marx and Engels addressed this consideration of the ambivalence of bourgeois society, on the one hand progressive production, on the other hand the isolation and alienation of people: 'The bourgeoisie' they wrote, 'where they came to power, it has all the feudal, patriarchal , idyllic relationships destroyed. It mercilessly tore the motley feudal ties that tied man to his natural superior, and left no other bond between man and man than bare interests, but callous cash payment. ' / Schiller as well as Goethe, of course, different school conclusions from the ambivalent development of bourgeois society when he did Marx and Engels. Schiller and Goethe get to know each other in the aestheticizing consideration of social development, they also emerged how impossible it was to connect their desire for real freedom from bourgeois alienation in their time with reality. The bourgeois, in union with the nobility, determined, through the objective freedom of the market and the market laws, the social development for which the citizen always more readily created the framework conditions. (2) Passim: The dynamic process of change, set in motion by volatile upheavals in the productive power of society, whose ever more differentiated division of labor, always distanced the individual men further from the goal of work and common purpose, was already recognizable for Schiller and Goethe, characterized by a general brutalization of human relationships. the facticity of knowledge was raised. late capitalist intellectuals no longer believe in the recognizability of the totality of being. Your interest in its dynamics and ontological properties decreases significantly. Instead, they throw all their might into their specialty, their science and talent. 'The enormous increase in practical rationality is opposed to irrationality' The enormous increase in partial rationality. / Schiller recognized both sides of bourgeois society at the earliest stage of its formation. On the one hand, progressive in the process of work, which pushed back the boundaries of nature with a rapidly growing dynamic ... On the other hand, Schiller felt how such a cold step hindered humanity in being awake. He would not have wanted to get rid of this obstacle through better PISA assessments, but through strengthened citizenship, through trusting the reason and educational miracles that he hoped for on the stage. Schiller would therefore have set up theatrical booths instead of, as was the case under the supreme direction of the cultural minister, to denounce them. Schiller's idealistic struggle for freedom was based on the desired liberation of the citizen from the bourgeoisie, which, of course, had to remain an unrealizable wish. Not the 'freedom of the market', not the 'freedom of the bourgeois' nor the 'freedom of the egoists' was considered Schiller's work. Freedom, for Schiller, was the duty of the individual to serve the general and generic in order to be able to actually individualize human beings as citizens."
Marx Caesar Asimov 