can someone explain how the fuck there can exist such a thing as "left-nietzscheanism"?
222 posts and 22 image replies omitted.>>2270801>cpusanon is a nietzschoidthat makes so much sense in hindsight
all he does is police "ressentiment" on the left, in the guise of anti-idpol
>>2270838I mean I like Nietzsche, pretty open about that.
>>2270804Not sure what this is for; I figure there's plenty on the Left that've been through worse than that.
>>2270914No, it leads to the progress of history and the victory of the slaves (us)
Nietzsche himself admitted as much, it's why he hated it and wanted to achieve a historyless state where the response to the master's violence was simple acceptance
Ressentiment is dialectics. Dialectics is ressentiment
>>2270932They do it by hating them. And when the master is abolished, there is nothing more to hate, thus no ressentiment any more. Ez
This is basically a mirror of anarchism vs ML
"why don't the proletarians immediately take on the affect of those with power?" Because we aren't in power yet, dummy
>>2270942Nietzschean leftism never achieved revolution, in fact they keep killing themselves or just becoming liberals
Slave morality communism has had multiple ruvolutions and socialist states, without having to consult Nietzsche. The slaves will cry and whine and resent all the way to victory
In truth, accepting the master's value system, accepting "ressentiment" as valid critique, you have already cucked out, you've conceded to the master his perspective on reality.
Just look at the arc of history - who is abolishing who? Slaves should take advice from the slavedrivers, whom the slaves successfully defeated? Nonsense
>>2270958as you can see, "left" nietzscheans are just anticommunists, it's just another brand of aristocratic leftism similar to ultroids, leftcoms, anarchists, trots, etc. etc. etc.
They accuse communists of being "paralyzed", but they're the ones who are pessimistic and see no alternative, and secretly believe that communism is just impossible
>Ctrl+f: losurdo<0 results ???????????
What is going on?
https://redsails.org/review-losurdo-on-nietzsche/ >>2271051Actually, Nietzsche says that when proletarians do it, it's not will to power.
It's only will to power and not "ressentiment" when masters do violence on the slaves.
>>2270964Actually, this whole thread I'm just rehashing everything there is on redsails about nietzsche
it's just that I've found that if you send someone a link, they don't read, but if you rephrase what's in the link while insulting them, they read
>>2270968NTA. This anon
>>2269682 >>2270400 >>2270684It's true that "AES" went backwards (falling back into the stagnation of social democracy) in terms of actually struggling for communism. However, it is not true that the ML movement produced nothing. To give one model of what Marx saw as a possible path to communism (and it must be stressed, this is but one model, Marx avoided trying to theorize on what the definite path to communism would look like):
Dictatorship of the proletariat > lower-stage communism > higher-stage communism.
The contribution of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, is the vanguard party model, as a means of establishing and defending a dictatorship of the proletariat, so that the organizational mistakes of the Paris Commune were not repeated. The vanguard party model isn't necessarily the only means of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat (the Paris Commune didn't have one and was considered a dictatorship of the proletariat by Marx), but so far it's the best one in history. Perhaps there is something better than the vanguard party model, but so far we don't know what that would be. What the anarchists want, for example, suffers from similar organizational mistakes as the Paris Commune.
However, Lenin, the Bolsheviks, failed to establish lower-phase communism. It is not necessarily their fault, for my impression is, they were basically stalling for time while waiting for the revolution in Germany to kick off. When the German revolution of 1919 failed, they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, proverbially. Later "AES" states would in ideological blindness copy the economic policies of the USSR in error, for they did not realize the circumstances that led to the USSR turning out the way it did.
What does lower-phase communism actually mean, as opposed to social democracy? Communism, the real movement, seeks to abolish the present state of things, to use an analogy with the French Revolution, the point isn't for the French peasantry to pay less in taxes/feudal obligation, the point is for the French peasantry to cease to exist as a class altogether. The point isn't reform, the point is to abolish the conditions that make said reform seem desirable from the perspective of the exploited in the first place.
>>2270684You are wrong about the Soviet Union because this country abolished private property, making it public property for planning or agricultural cooperatives that did not compete with each other, had their land public and their only relationship was exclusively with the state in the production of commodities that was not for profit in the market. In these types of countries there was no way to accumulate capital and private property, there was no stock market, the internal currency existed only for accounting for the planning of the economy for the population where if you tried to increase the general wage of the workers it did not affect consumption at all, with an external currency for external relations to the country. In the Soviet Union, housing, health, education, transportation and all other leisure services in all branches of the production and extraction chain were a right guaranteed to the worker, therefore it is not capitalism because there is no industrial reserve of labor and there is no profit producing to be sold on the market because the production of commodities existed in other previous modes of production and this does not mean capitalism, this is not state capitalism, which was the rural sector of peasant production during the NEP in a limited market encouraging cooperatives that was directed using state farms and the state.
The problem of the socialist states in the Cold War was with the revisionism of intellectuals and petty bourgeois interests that declined and damaged the dictatorship of the proletariat creating complacency that was taken advantage of by imperialists and their collaborators who used reformists to restore capitalism with revisionist class collaborationism. The dictatorship of the proletariat lasts and must last as long as there is no global socialist hegemony, there is no discipline among workers with an abundance of production for consumption, there is still a contradiction between town and countryside, manual labor and skilled intellectual labor, in addition to the imperialist capitalist threat and its saboteurs.
>>2271815<Should we continue to claim that the Russian economy is socialist, respectively in the first stage of communism, or do we have to admit that despite state industrialism, it is governed by the law of value inherent to capitalism?[…]
<Which proves that commodity production, including private property, is neither “natural” nor, as the bourgeois claims, permanent and eternal. The late appearance of commodity production (the system of commodity production, as Stalin says) and its existence on the sidelines of other modes of production serve Marx to show that commodity production, after it has become universal, just after the spread of the capitalist production system, must go down with it.[…]
<It would be quite difficult to reconcile it with Stalin’s current thesis: “Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period” or “Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private ownership of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country.” This hypothesis is, of course, absurd; in the Marxist analysis, any existence of a mass of commodities suggests that reserveless proletarians had to sell their labour-power.<Do we have to quote the first two lines of “Capital” again? “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities’.”[…]
<Currently there are two sectors of commodity production in Russia: on the one hand the public, “nationally owned” production. In the state-owned enterprises, the means of production and production itself, thus also the products, are national property. How simplistic: in Italy, the tobacco factories and accordingly their sold cigarettes are owned by the state. Does this already qualify for the assertion that one is in a phase of the “abolishment of the wage labour system” and the respective workers weren’t “forced” to sell their labour power? Surely not.<Let’s move on to the other sector: agriculture. In the kolkhozes, says the brochure, land and machines are state property, but the products of labour don’t belong to the state, but to the kolkhoz. And the kolkhoz sheds only from them because they are commodities, which are exchangeable for other commodities that one needs. There is no link between the rural kolkhoz and the urban regions which is not based on exchange. “Therefore commodity production and commodity circulation are still such a necessity as they have been thirty years ago for example.”<It is to be noted that what Lenin proposed in 1922 is out of the question: “We wield the political power in our hands, and we will persevere militarily, but in the economic domain we need to fall back on the purely capitalist form of commodity production.” Corollary of this statement was: if we interrupt for a certain time the erection of the socialist economy, we will get back at it after the European revolution. Today’s propositions are diametrically opposed to this.<One doesn’t even try anymore to make a case such as the following: in the transition from capitalism to socialism certain sectors of production for a while are still subjected to commodity production.<Instead, one simply says: everything is a commodity; there is no other economic framework but that of commodity exchange and accordingly of the buying of labour power, not even in state-owned, large firms. Indeed, from where does the factory worker get his means of subsistence? The kolkhoz sells them to him mediated by private merchants; preferably it sells them to the state, from which it obtains tools, fertilizer etc.; the worker then must procure the means of subsistence in the state-owned stores for hard-earned rubles. Couldn’t the state distribute the products, of which it can dispose, directly to its workers? Surely not, because the worker (especially the Russian one) doesn’t consume tractors, vehicles, locomotives, not to speak of cannons and machine guns. And clothing and furniture are of course produced in the small- and medium-sized firms untouched by the state.<The state therefore can give the workers which are dependent upon it nothing but a monetary wage, with which they then buy what they want (a bourgeois euphemism for: the little they can buy). That the wage-distributing entrepreneur is the state, which presents itself as the “ideal” or “legitimate” representative of the working class, doesn’t say the slightest, if it wasn’t even able to begin distributing anything quantitatively relevant outside the mechanism of commodity production.[…]
<If a – today as tomorrow insurmountable – barrier is lowered down between state firm and kolkhoz, which only lifts to allow for business “for mutual gain” to be made, what should bring town and country closer together, what should free the worker from the necessity to sell too many working hours for little money, respectively a few means of subsistence and give him therefore the possibility of disputing the scientific and cultural monopoly of capitalist tradition?<We therefore not only haven’t got the first phase of socialism in front of us, but also not even a total state capitalism, that means an economy, in which – even though all products are commodities and circulate for money – the state disposes of every product; so, a form in which the state can centrally determine all proportions of equivalence, including labour power. Such a state as well couldn’t be controlled nor conquered economically/politically by the working class and would function in service of the anonymous and hiddenly operating capital.That's as far as I go spoonfeeding Bordiga, I haven't got all day. Just read the thing yourself.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htmAnd this. This one is relevant too.
<Constructing industrialism and mechanising things is supposedly the same as building socialism whenever central and “national” plans are made. This is the mistaken thesis.<Little men, think it over for forty minutes. Marx proved the thesis with the fact that the individual capitalist, the expropriator and exploiter, is, in many cases, a complete and utter idiot when it comes down to technical questions. We would like to invite you no longer to be surprised by the fact that even if in Russia there is no longer any (?) personal appropriation of others’ labour (wealth), that does not mean that there is not the full capitalist appropriation of it, the Russian capitalist state having obviously been able to appropriate for nothing western science.https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1953/horsepower.htmTL;DR? Private property is just one type of commodity. Abolishing private property doesn't make commodities go away. Capitalist relations do not depend on the existence of capitalist individuals. The exchange of commodities as a universal is the central defining thing of capitalism. And the USSR fell victim to it.
And to circle back to what I already wrote… "Building socialism" as the "AES" types say (actually building capitalism with free healthcare, or just social democracy) has nothing to do with Marx, is not communist, and has no business calling itself communist.
>>2270914>ressentiment is a pretty useful way to see things though, to venerate hatred of those above you leads to dysfunction and third worldist idiocy>>2270929>No, it leads to the progress of history and the victory of the slaves (us)>>2270932>no it doesn't, you refuse to let go of your crypto-christian worldview, instead the slaves must not hate their master, but seek instead to abolish the master entirely>>2270939>Paradoxically, to take the logical step of "kill your masters to be free" requires advancing beyond mere ressentiment, mere slave morality.To add my thoughts, and because I'm uneducated, I'm going to use a movie to explain what I think it's about: Django Unchained. Which is about a character undergoing a Nietzschean transformation of a former slave who becomes an assertive figure who creates his own values unrestrained by conventional (especially Christian or submissive) moral codes. He doesn't just resent his oppressors or wallow in moral outrage, he overcomes them and asserts his own will.
>>2271955A very self affirming story.
HOWEVER
It's the tale of an individual overcoming.
But the overcoming of the MASSES comes not from the Will to Power, but from the Cunning of Reason!!!111
>>2271976Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. not good enough?
We gotta mine the anti-rationalist, anti-progressive, aristocratic philosophy of a rabid reactionary for "revolutionary ideology" (platitudes)?
Again, what kind of PRACTICE would that entail? Telling the working class that revolution is the highest form of hustle grindset?
>>2271980There's no evidence of their usefulness.
There's plenty of evidrnce of nietzschean ideal leading to pessimism, anticommunism, and useless petite bourgeois lifestylism, though.
>>2271200>>2271957its almost like nietzsche's own logic subverts his aristocratic excesses and can be used to produce a new ethos… a "left-nietzscheanism" if you will
quoting deleuze:
>”But, above all, my way of coping at that time was, I am inclined to believe, to conceive of the history of philosophy as a sort of buggery or, which amounts to the same thing, a sort of immaculate conception. I imagined myself as arriving in the back of an author and giving him a child, which would be his and which nevertheless would be monstruous.”anyways i guess thats my monthly leftpol usage out of the way. cya
>>2272009>can be usedOk, has it? And when? Where are the results?
It's been half a century since Deleuze wrote his nonsensical drivel, that's the same distance of time as Capital vol. 1 and the October revolution.
>>2271932You are being ignorant because capitalism depends on the money-capital-money circuit with the means of production in order to produce commodities that are generalized to be sold on the market. A public company that belongs to the entire society and that produces according to a plan without competition to produce means of consumption for workers or to meet their needs is a socialized sector because unlike state-owned companies in capitalist countries that compete in the market, all labor products in the USSR returned to society according to the national plan, where soviet ruble could not be received without labor and could only be spent on means of consumption, following Marx and Engels. Therefore, the USSR economy was immune to economic crises that affected other countries, such as the Great Depression, because there was no boom and bust, because there was no investment in a stock market seeking profit.
Let's start with Marx's quote about what communism is in its low stage:
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.[…]
<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmNow let's take a quote from Engels:
<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token…[…]
<Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.[…]
<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.
<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distribution
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htmLenin, when preparing the NEP, already recognized the process of socialist construction with this quote:
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm >>2274490Would you care to listen to Stalin in 1906?
<Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. Introducing socialism means abolishing commodity production, abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its foundations and socialising all the means of production. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will come on to the market any day, and the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. That is exactly why it is said that the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois socialism.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm I'm a bit late, but the key to understanding Nietzsche was that he valued things on an axis from interesting to boring, and critiqued culture from a literary perspective, rather than a moral one. He preferred chaos to order, war to peace, social hierarchies to egalitarianism, individualism to collectivism, and emotion to logic, not because he thought that they were "good" unto themselves, but because he believed that they were the most conductive to a world where a lot of crazy shit happened.
He was, needless to say, by no means a leftist. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things leftists can learn from him. I'd compare him to someone like Hegal, where his thought is a good jumping off point for analysis that the man himself would likely strongly disapprove of.
>>2266811>>2271959Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence wasn't an ideal to strive for, it was his belief that time worked on a loop, Futurama-style. It's probably one of his more "normal" beliefs by modern standards. He also thought that acquired traits could be inherited, for example.
Unique IPs: 22