can someone explain how the fuck there can exist such a thing as "left-nietzscheanism"?
>>2266756his critique of morality is specifically from the right
and it's not a critique of morality as such, he is a proponent of a different kind of morality - master morality
master morality is when somebody starts using reasoning on you, and you smash their head in with your royal scepter, because you are an aristocrat - no reasoning required
>>2266764what annoys me most is hordes of "progressive" liberals and anarchists who read passages like "the enlightenment was a mistake, the jews subverted the proper order of things, we must reinstate slavery", and still think he was a wholesome big chungus resistor lol
he was a resistor, a right wing one that is.
how fucking stupid do you have to be to not recognize when someone is critiquing capitalism, nationalism, christianity, etc. FROM THE RIGHT?
>>2266768people keep saying this, as if nietzsche "criticized everything", or was a nihilist, etc.
no, he advocated for an aristocratic society where slaves did labor so that aristocrats could make art lol
>>2266764Literally the entirety of western academia for the last 100 years has been anticommunist psy-op
People will think you're a lunatic if you say this
>>2266749This.
He was reactionary but you can take some of what he says and use it. Granted, you’ve got to knock out the pillars of what hold up a lot of his philosophy.
>>2266786What the fuck else is there to disregard them for if not for their politics you stupid moron
Their philosophical projects were explicitly political
>>2266770Nietzsche was a Nihilist, what the hell are you talking about? Have you any idea who he even is?
I ask you to reflect on Mao's infamous quote: "No investigation, no right to speak", and to accordingly shut the fuck up.
Both Nietzsche and Stirner were radical individualists who rejected the existence of absolute truths, rejected the existence of abstract ideas, and rejected the existence of metaphysics. In this their views are effectively identical, even if the language they use differs.
Both were deeply atheistic and both rejected the existence of morality as anything more than an artificial man-made concept.
Stirner rejects this man-made morality altogether, while Nietzsche wanted mankind to create a new "master" morality where power and strength and confidence are centred, to replace what he considered the "slave" morality of Christianity which held weakness, meekness and submission to be virtues.
>[Nietzsche wanted] an aristocratic society where slaves did labor so that aristocrats could make artThis statement in your post appears to be a very childish "I skimmed through his Wikipedia page once" tier misunderstanding of this above viewpoint of master-slave morality held by Nietzsche.
Furthermore, Stirner wanted absolute egoism, total freedom of the individual from any obligations to do anything other than what he wishes, to become a Unique One, a truly freed ego.
Nietzsche wanted man to become Superman, for people to exercise their will to power and re-create, re-organise themselves into a higher, better version of who they are by following their own intentions and drives.
In other words, Stirner says to follow your inner drive unerringly, and Nietzsche says to follow your inner drive insofar as it will leader to you becoming greater (by your own metrics) than you currently are.
And last but not least, Nietzsche was a rampant anti-Semite through and through. Stirner's beliefs completely rejected nationalism and racism in theory, although given his time and place he certainly uses language, particularly about the Chinese, which would be unacceptable today.
But this doesn't seem out of malice but rather out of his misunderstanding of Chinese culture which is understandable for his time and place.
Hope this helps and please do not comment again on topics you are ignorant on.
>>2266798You again misunderstand Nietzsche, perhaps you read him too literally. Where he calls for a form of "slavery", he doesn't mean having people wearing chains and picking cotton. He literally condemned slavery a brutal and unjust system.
He is trying to explain that he believes that hierarchical labour structures are necessary in society in order to cultivate psychological and spiritual development, and that these structures can help certain types of people develop in themselves.
Now I totally disagree with Nietzsche on this, and Nietzsche was undoubtedly a racist. But what he is not doing is calling for the re-establishment of the Atlantic slave trade.
>>2266797Lmao another victim of western academia's whitewashing of nietzsche.
You have to understand when reading nietzsche is that he's not talking to YOU
He's talking to his fellow "free spirits", as in, the aristocrats, the masters.
Master morality is FOR THE MASTERS. For the slaves, whatever mystification that will keep them from rebelling will suffice.
He wasn't against religion for the purpose of controlling the masses, he was against christianity because it posited equality of all before god.
see
>>2266752 on his "individualism" that suspiciously seems to take a back seat to ruling class interest.
he was also an eugenicist, lol
That's not to mention that anyone should be deeply suspicious of "individual liberation", because individual liberation is fundamentally compatible with class society, liberalism, monarchy, slavery, etc.
>>2266803he wanted the perpetual overcoming of phenomena in so far as it preserved aristocratic society
"eternal return" - anti-dialectics, cyclical history that does not progress towards anything, reactionary
>>2266814Yes, well done. You're pointing out Nietzsche was a racist, we have all been in total agreement on that throughout this thread.
But there is nothing in the image you attached that supports your arguement.
You claimed he wanted to re-establish slavery in the literal sense, and have yet since failed to provide any proof to back up your position.
And you won't be able to since you can't seem to understand that he uses slavery as a metaphor, as a term indicating hierarchical social and labour structures, which I will again reiterate I am opposed to.
It is possible to thoroughly disagree with Nietzsche, as I do, without misrepresenting his positions, as you do.
>>2266834He is advocating for slavery in the most profound sense - slavery that doesn't even allow the slave the language to articulate that there is such a thing as non-slavery for them, or that there is a possibility of freedom at all.
Materially the slave might be well fed, well taken care of, the particularities of their enslavement could be whatever, but the point is that it is understood that they are a slave and it is considered good that they be a slave.
I don't see the point in splitting hairs over what kind of slavery - wage slavery, chattel slavery, they're both bad, even if to different degrees. The point is that he advocates for it, which makes him a liberal at best, and an aristocratic reactionary at worst.
>>2267058Why should I read anything produced by a civilization that never had a socialist revolution?
Why did the frenchies try to dust nietzsche off of his misogyny and pro-slavery instead of continuing the living tradition of marxism-leninism?
>>2266748In the same way there can be such a thing as "left Hegelianism".
To actually answer your question though, "left-Nietzscheanism", often means post-left Anarcho-Egoism. There's a lot of overlap between Nietzsche and Stirner, although, as far as I'm aware, they had little to no awareness of eachother (Nietzsche was still a child when Stirner died) and arrived at their philosophies from very different influences.
The thing with Nietzsche in general is that he said a lot of shit over the course of his life, and never really presented an overall philosophical system. The end result is that there's a little something for everyone. Even if you disagree with 99% of everything he says, you're going to find that 1% you like eventually.
>>2267072France produced the Paris Commune, which Marx himself said was the first ever DotP.
>>2267116thanks for being a disingenuous uyghur. i was offering some supplements for someone who might have issues reading deleuze, if you actually followed the conversation
>>2267118ok then leave this imageboard, faggot
>>2267122what's the use of readied deleuze?
does he have any insight that might help bring about world proletarian revolution?
how many divisions has he got?
>>2267125giving your autistic standards, i doubt you've read much of anything at all
so im not spoonfeeding you, im sure youre a big boy who can google stuff and read letters sequentially
the original soy fascist lol…lmao
>>2266834>And you won't be able to since you can't seem to understand that he uses slavery as a metaphor, as a term indicating hierarchical social and labour structures, which I will again reiterate I am opposed to"Of course I am opposed to sending my undocumented slaves to El Salvador!" yet you immediately scoffed with contempt when I called you an indoor kid settler degenerate
https://readsettlers.org>>2267072>Why did the frenchies try to dust nietzsche off of his misogyny and pro-slavery instead of continuing the living tradition of marxism-leninism?French are colonialist pedophiles
The nazi shit was just his sister and everyone projecting political meaning onto the will to power. You can read his critique of Wagner and see how it completely kills the idea of him approving of nazism.
>left-x
I'm not going to do that low literacy, ultraleft bullshit where they pretend to not know what "left" means. I understand it just means socialism or something similar.
Nietzche was critical of the bleeding-heart egalitarian aristocratic philosophy but so was Marx. Marx called it bourgeois socialism. His points were never "oh if only everyone was equal." No, the point was to eliminate class antagonisms through a radical takeover of the means of production and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat to serve as the base of power to enact change, not some moralistic, individualist egalitarianism which Nietzche also criticizes. The point of Marxism isn't to deify the working class, it's to DESTROY the working class by DESTROYING the institution of work itself.
Most of what Nietzche wrote about morality can be interpreted in a Marxist sense. In the Genealogy of Morality, where he critiques the concept of "good and evil" and how it creates a "subject" separate from the action that serves to justify the weakness of prey animals. A bird of prey killing an animal to eat isn't making an "immoral" action, but in the weaker animal, it refusing to kill is a "good" action. This serves a later point about Christianity creating a totalitarian, worldwide system of "guilt" and "good behavior" serving as an "opiate of the masses."
You reconnect this to Marx when you see the *everlasting* deliberate misunderstanding of his view on the role of the State as a vehicle of power in a revolution. You can read this in what he wrote about the Paris Commune and how their first mistake was to STOP the revolution instead of trying to take everything over. Their illusion of "goodness" stopped them from being the "aggressor" and you see this even today among the anarchists who bemoan any "authoritarianism" as a morally wrong behavior. It's the same slave morality that Nietzche wrote about, just in a different style.
The reason he's forced into the ideological category of an "anarchist" is because of his critical views on the State. You'd think this contradicts a Marxist view but it doesn't. If anyone actually read Marx, you don't just "seize" the State, you destroy it and remake it. Reading more on the commune, one of the specific thinks he focused on was how the police were abolished and replaced with a national guard that all people participated in. An idiot would think this is replacing police with another police. No, the role of the police is to surrender your power, to give the ruling class the monopoly on power, and to ultimately instill a sense of "moral goodness" when you do so because you're "free" to be a weak little slave while they handle everything. In abolishing the police, power is returned to the working class. In the communist revolution, the holders of power are flipped from the few to the many (or are supposed to…) and with their power, they destroy the class distinctions. This is how the state would be able to "whither away" as Marx said, when its use becomes irrelevant because the slave mentality is destroyed. The role of the State is never to "coddle" the working class.
He is not some Ayn Rand chuckle. This is a ridiculously wrong interpretation of his work to sum it up as "aristocratic individualism". He may not have been a Marxist, but it's idealistic thinking if you need everything you consume to be propaganda instead of being able to dissect the work and use your fucking brain.
>>2267890If you actually look at the passages his sister edited, she removed the anti-semitism from his works, because she wisely saw that as overplaying their hand.
You can trivially verify this by yourself, the passages that Elisabeth omitted are widely available to look at.
The funniest part of this whole thread is the sheer amount of ressentiment on full display. You’ve got half the thread desperately clawing at him for aristocratic tendencies, "reactionary" this and "reactionary" that, as if every moral judgment you hurl somehow elevates your own position. It's the classic slave morality instinct to invert strength into weakness, turn power into sin, and call it justice.
>>2267894>Nietzsche's critique of morality was that it subverted the unquestioned rule of the aristocratic mastersYeah, no shit. And this bothers you because the mere idea of a morality not rooted in equalization makes you foam at the mouth. You don’t want liberation, you want domination rebranded with a working-class aesthetic. It’s master morality with the serial number filed off and a hammer and sickle spray-painted on.
Half of the people ITT screech about "Western academia whitewashing Nietzsche," yet you can’t even conceive of a critique of egalitarianism without crying "fascist," because to even think outside that binary would demand actual strength and self-overcoming. You want everyone else as shackled as you are, and call it "solidarity."
Regardless, Nietzsche didn’t write for you. He wrote for those who would overcome their own mediocrity, not fetishize it. You hate him because he didn’t coddle your moral sensitivities. That says more about you than it ever will about him.
>>2267937Good.
Unironically, the meek shall inherit, lol.
We, the weak, are on a historical mission to liberate ourselves, through solidarity and class struggle. We invent moralities to that end, and the masters appropriate and wield them against us, but the germ of liberation is still within, eventually subverting the master himself. This scares the aristocrat.
Nietzsche was a genius because he realized this. He wanted to abolish reason itself.
>>2267944nietzsche also thought however that moralism was nihilism, since it denied life. thats why pure morality either leads to asceticism or suicide (as schopenhauer understood perfectly well). thats why he wanted the "transvaluation of all values" to correct the mistakes of morality for a new way of being. i think we also have to take these concerns seriously.
>>2267947>>2267948>morality doesnt protect the weakthe first orphanages were established by christians.
>>2267952"Life", to nietzsche, was " da big eat le small" (but he was also a hypocrite about it).
It's good to deny such a beastial notion of life, and the unquestionably accept the barbarism of the becteria.
>>2267953well, theres theory and practice. morality is always a theory of how things should be, which inevitably leads to hypocrisy. this is the nature of power.
>>2267955life to nietzsche is "joy" or gayness, associated with dionysus. christians you will notice are rarely funny or joyful, but solemn. its this attitude which he opposed.
>>2267958Yes, it's the joy of a chimpanzee ripping the testicles of its rival, it's the joy of a lion killing an ousted male's cubs
it's a bestial joy, the joy of animals, and nietzsche's project is to devise a way to let humans be "intelligent beasts", as in, enjoy their barbarity intelligently
>>2267960they represent a shift in moral priority. this care for the weak eventually becomes all sentimental movements, all the way to ascetic veganism; which is already present in the ancient priestcraft. moralism leads to a denial of the world and so a seeking to transcend it. this to nietzsche is at least the primary will to power, in self-overcoming, but it can lead nowhere if it has no place in matter. a nietzschean adaptation of this ethic would be the gymnasium, which he praises in its ancient context.
>>2267964well its either joy or misery; those are the terms of life.
>>2267966too much reason can prove to be poisonous
>>2267969but you see his own thoght can be used to dismantle nietzsche's reactionaryism and we can salvage the theoretical core for the left bro
i don't know what that means beyond individual liberation but we gotta use nietzsche for the left bro it's really important we gotta do it bro
>>2268685Huh.
On what basis did stuff like post structuralism develop then? Also just saying things?
How do you develop something out of a guy who was just really good at posting?
>>2268681>I keep hearing that Nietzsche's thought is worth washing off its misogyny, slavery advocacy, eugenics, etc., because it contains a potent method of critique as good as marx'sNot really, since if you wash it of all that shit all you're left with is seething and declaring all previous philosophical and moral systems to be fake and gay without much actual methodology or analysis. Marx on the other hand goes into precisely why they're fake and gay (they're historically contingent and transient, they're manifestations of class interests and material necessities of different modes of production, etc.). Nietzche's reasoning for why they're fake and gay is on the contrary steeped in his elitism and chauvinism, i.e. they're bad because they are conceived of by a weak, inferior rabble, because they hold back the noble and superior elements of society, etc.
>>2268729Actually, nietzsche says that violence is only will to power if you're a master
If you're a slave, violence is "ressentiment"
lol
the elitism is built-in
at first you might think that will to power and ressentiment are types of attitudes or approaches or manners in which you do things, but if you read carefully, and add all the caveats he scatters about, you realize that it's the opposite - being a master is what makes my violence will to power, being a slave is what makes yours ressentiment
>>2268752You make the same mistake when reading nietzsche as the anarchists do
You read his critiques as an attack, when in fact it is a desperate defense against slave morality, which has succeeded in asserting a pro-slave position, that even the ruling classes have to pretend to adhere to, or else be torn apart by an angry mob.
In the critique of slave morality as weak, whiny, from an aristocratic pov, is the hope to abolish it such that it is no longer considered evil to rape, kill, and abuse, as long as it's done by an aristocrat. This is sold back to the proles as a fake invitation to join the masters "in attitude".
In reality, only someone who is a master in a MATERIAL sense can behave according to master morality – acting instead of reacting, asserting without intellectualizing, etc. It is the privilege of the materially strong to affect without being affected, to assert things instead of having to negotiate. It's a trick to get the slaves to agree with the masters that calling the masters evil is ghey, while keeping them as slaves and denying them even a morality that sees their subjugation as something bad.
kill all nazis, including gay ones
>>2268717lol I keep hearing people say "if only marx and nietzsche communicated, they have so much in common!"
I bet people would also think marx and proudhon are compatible if marx hadn't explicitly criticized him
>>2269034Nietzsche's critique of "resentment" merely instrumental to his desire to an aristocracy free of fetters of morality.
Why is "ressentiment" bad? Because it is an attack of the weak against the strong, in reaction to the violence of the strong.
Resentiment is a good thing, actually. It's how the rabble (us) gets on top.
Going "beyond good and evil" is just a roundabotu way of justifying evil.
There is no non-insidious reason for viewing reality under a non-hegelian lens. The only position outside marxism, which is a culmination of western thought, is a reaction so profound that it seeks to turn back time to before the invention of reason, a return to a barbaric, animalistic account of life.
>>2269107My point is that in "left-nietzscheanism", I see how they're nietzschean, I don't see how they're "left".
Reactionary critique of "degeneration of art"? Very nietzschean. What's so leftist about it?
/leftypol/ general contempt for philosophy and its growing anti-intellectualism is really a bad thing for level of average discussion here. many very confident posts in this thread that are outright wrong but since philosophy and "intellectualism" doesnt matter anyway theres no standard to correct them from.
yes nietzche was a reactionary, yes attempts at "left-nietzcheanism" are at best silly and misguided. no it is not that important that you read nietzche or most other philosophers. no that does not mean you should resent and diminish intellectual curiosity and the development of knowledge, even if it isnt strictly 'necessary.' the recent rhetoric on here around philosophy, the arts, and just abstract consideration in general is starting to sound like learn2codefags acting smug at anyone who is interested in any part of history or culture or thought that isnt directly applicable to what theyve decided (in their apparently inborn wisdom) are the only things worth pursuing
i understand the criticism and agree that emphasis on overly theoretical, overly abstract thinking is a vulnerability that communists often fall into, and it leads people to complicate and obscure otherwise simple questions and strategies. as far as that goes, i agree with the criticism. but nothing about that necessary cautionary statement suggests that any kind of intellectual pursuit or development is bad for you. in fact it is good to think and learn, even if you are unsure as to the immediate relevance or applicability. the only way to develop standards for what is relevant and/or applicable is through practice, which means familiarizing yourself with what youre trying to evaluate.
here is lukacs, a philosopher from socialist hungary, critiquing nietzche on the basis of his deep familiarity with the relevant philosophy:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/nietzsche/ch01.htm>>2269150I don't think anybody here was making a general case against intellectualism and the arts, etc.
It's just that I believe there's not much to salvage from western academia from the last century, and most of art produced in the west is clearly nietzschean dreck
>>2269114>What's so leftist about itIf you read Adorno a lot because he is also a Marxist and heavily believes in dialectics.
Of course you won't ready, not one bit, you don't give a shit you just want to make a Nietzsche seethe post.
>>2269206Everyone's a Marxist these days.
Being a Marxist anti-communist is actually the mainstream position in the western "left"
>>2269216>Everyone's a Marxist these days.People call themselves Marxist*
>Being a Marxist anti-communistWhat kind of babble is this?
>>2269219They're all over twitter and academia, they call themselves left-communists, critical theorists, anarcho-communists, etc.
What they all have in common is using Marx as a cudgel against real socialism.
>>2269216this is something you can only believe if you have never touched grass or only interact with people in some kind of specific left-lib bubble. im sure its different in other countries than where i am in the US, but i dont think its THAT different in most places. "everyones a marxist" is delusional even if you mean it in the minimal sense that a lot of liberals claim to like marx. they dont. the liberals who claim to like marx, let alone be marxists, are already a small minority
>>2269225see you have to be in a very insular algorithmic bubble to think that leftcoms and anarchists on twitter are anything but a small minority of left-liberals. disproportionately influential in left-liberal discourse, ill give you that, but youre still chasing shadows by making them into a bogeyman. those people are a tiny minority of the general population and theyre probably much closer to your own political positions than the majority of other groups
>>2269216True enough I am neither one of the anons who replied to you, most people take what Marx contributed to dialectics and apply it to shit like race while also ignoring everything else he said.
Again I'm not saying Adorno is good.
If you need another answer on what is "left" about Adorno he also had feminist critiques in his works. He was hardly a reactionary aside from eccentric views on art.
>Inb4 feminism is reactionary or something It can be but not how Adorno does it.
>>2269239I mean three different answers were given to OP regarding people you can read if you wanna learn something.
>>2269269here, if this makes it any easier
>>>Nietzsche is now mostly viewed as a critic of decadence. And since this criticism for Nietzsche is the central point of his aesthetics, it is precisely the aesthetic, literary, and generally artistic-critical elements of his philosophy that have now become especially effective, especially since this aesthetics is based on the same insoluble contradictions with which the fascist “philosophers” and their ideological predecessors cannot cope. In his pamphlet on Wagner, Nietzsche, characterizing the decadent style, writes that “the word becomes sovereign in the sentence, the sentence in the page and obscures its meaning, the page lives off the whole; the whole is no longer a whole … And this symbolizes every decadent style: always anarchy of atoms, unfocused will, from the point of view of morality, “freedom of the individual”, in the expanded sense of political theory, “equal rights for all”. The equal power of life, its awe, its abundance in each of its smallest forms, everything else is poor in life … The whole … is composed, calculated, it is not a natural, but an artificial product.”
The political content of this theory of decadence is quite clear: decadence means the freedom of democracy. Nietzsche’s struggle against the Bismarckian form of the “Bonaparte monarchy” in Germany is a struggle from the right; he fights along that line, which is very close to the modern demagogic theories of National Socialism. Alfred Baeumler, the official philosopher of German fascism, also quite clearly expresses the political content of the Nietzschean theory of decadence: “The superman is the opposite of the “last man”, i.e., the “functionary” of a democratic socialist society” (Nietzsche as a philosopher and politician). Of course, there are also quite significant differences. Nietzsche himself still lacks the forms of social demagogy that are especially characteristic of Hitlerian fascism.
Nietzsche glorified capitalist exploitation openly, without phrase-mongering. His apology consisted in the fact that he dressed the glorification of capitalism in the form of criticism of modernity, in the fact that, accordingly, his apology was indirect, not direct. Such a “critical” form, however, exposes a deep contradiction in Nietzschean philosophy: his critique of modernity is ambivalent. Nietzsche, on the one hand, is not satisfied with the society and state of his day, since the domination of the capitalist elite is not sufficiently manifested in them. “He was given,” writes Nietzsche about the worker, “the right to coalition, the political right to vote: what is surprising if the worker now already feels his existence as disastrous (from a moral point of view, as unfair)? … If he strives for goals, then he should also strive for means.” On the other hand, and inseparably from this critique, Nietzsche criticized the culture of his time, taking as his starting point the romantically idealized backward forms of capitalism. Therefore, Nietzsche, like all romantic anti-capitalist ideologists, fought against the machine. The machine increases productivity, “but work with it is monotonous, this causes opposition, namely desperate spiritual boredom, which teaches you to strive for changeable impressions of idleness … The machine is impersonal, it takes away from the work of its pride everything individually good or bad, which is associated with any work without a machine: therefore it deprives it of humanity … Do not buy the relief of labor at too high a price.” And so on in a number of passages that would be just as appropriate in Sismondi, Carlyle, Ruskin, etc.
These two tendencies are, of course, mutually exclusive; it is clear that thanks to them, in the philosophy of Nietzsche – and especially in his aesthetics – a tangle of contradictions arises, which cannot be unraveled. Arising like this. the double-facedness of Nietzschean philosophy, at the same time turned to the past and the future, precisely because of its contradictory character, has become a model for the current apologetics of modernity. In Nietzsche these contradictions are much less hidden than in his fascist followers. One of the last biographers of Nietzsche, Ernst Bertram, a student of George, correctly points out that the above assessment of the decadent style is borrowed almost verbatim from Paul Bourget’s essay on Baudelaire. Nietzsche himself never made a secret of the fact that the decadent Parisian literature (literature of the asphalt, as his goofy fascist fans call it) has consistently been his favorite reading. Nietzsche speaks with enthusiasm of such curious and subtle Parisian psychologists as Bourget, Loti and others. He regarded the reading of Dostoevsky as a “happy accident” of his life, etc., and in his intellectual biography Esce Homo a confession broke out from him: “Except for the fact that I am a decadent, I am also the opposite of decadence.” But since Nietzsche, for reasons that are already clear from the previous paragraphs, could in no way realize the objective foundations of his predilection for the decadent ideology, his criticism naturally remained a criticism of decadence from within decadence. The decadent Nietzsche, the faithful son of descending capitalism, who at the same time rebelled against the cultural, against the aesthetic symptoms of this decline, in passionate anguish, he turns his eyes to the past and future of capitalism, trying to get an aesthetic ideal from there in order to save the present from the decadent-democratic decline. Nietzsche is a late fruit of Romanticism, a harbinger of the imperialist, reactionary revival of Romanticism.
>>2269239youre 10 years too late
nu-/leftypol/ somehow became dumber AND painfully unfunny at the same time
>>2269584>>2269585Libbrained take.
Nietzsche had a clear political project of reaction against not only modernity, but the historical cause of modernity - reason itself
THAT'S why he was a genius. He articulated the only position outside marx, and his thought is now hegemonic, both on the left and right
>>2268711poststructuralism comes out of structuralism
structuralism concerns chains of signification; poststructuralism concerns the ambiguity of signification. truth then, becomes relative. nietzsche's ultimate epistemology and ethic is "perspectivism", which is an extreme form of relativism. in "anti-christ", nietzsche takes the side of pontius pilate; "what is truth?" - nietzsche says it cannot be known. this is his rejection of metaphysics. the denial of absolute truth we see in poststructural thinkers who are equally relativistic (or particularistic, rather than universal). we can also see in fascism, the abolition of absolute truth for relative truths (see: dugin). nietzsche in "will to power" and "anti-christ" also says that the essence of his thinking is a form of aesthetics, or phenomenalism, since there is no noumenon. this obsession with aesthetical truths is postmodern (as we might see with baudrillard's notion of simulacra, neo-marxist concerns with commodity-formation, or with queer theories of gender expression). all of the famous poststructuralists also herald nietzsche as a direct inspiration, like bataille, foucault, deleuze and even judith butler. another nietzschean feminist is camille paglia. nietzsche also inspired psychoanalysis, which often engages with poststructuralism.
>>2269608I never said nietzsche read marx or vice versa, check your reading comprehension
I said he articulated the only philosophy outside marx.
>>2269611>>2269613Repeating western academic whitewashing of nietzsche
>He criticized everybody :DThat's because he was to the right of everybody.
He hated nationalism because he wanted an unconditional rule by an aristocratic elite
He hated the germany because he saw it as progressive - universal male suffrage, universal education - letting the rabble get on top.
Every single thing he hated, he hated because he was to the right of it.
>>2269618His sister's tampering has been overstated in order to rescue his philosophy from the nazi association
There's even anti-semitic passages she removed to make his work more palatable to the liberal bourgeoisie.
He was also buddy-buddy with eugenicists during his time.
He traced the origin of morality to jews, and that was the extent of his praise - that they succeeded at instilling slave morality in europe, and his criticism of nationalists, anti-semites, etc., was that they were too stupid to understand that in their "ressentiment" towards the jews, they're using the weapon of the enemy
>>2267890>The point of Marxism isn't to deify the working class, it's to DESTROY the working class by DESTROYING the institution of work itself.Yes. The historical role of the working class is to abolish classes altogether, including itself as a class. That is communism. That is the whole point of Marx identifying himself as a communist, not just socialist. That is why social democracy is fundamentally at odds with Marxism: it extends the lifespan of the working class.
But, all too often, this is something Western communists fail to understand: that the goal is NOT "AES", market socialism, capitalism with free healthcare, etc. but rather the goal is
COMMUNISM.
All too often, communism is treated by Western communists, in error, as some far-flung utopia that far-future socialists will reach, when statehood withers away, but for now we should "build socialism". This false interpretation has NOTHING to do with Marx, is not communist, and has no business calling itself communist.
>>2269698Nietzsche explicitly thought that for there to be a true aristocratic class that produced the highest art, there needs to be a class of slave laborers that allow the aristocrats to live a life of otium - idleness.
Nietzsche also identifies slave morality in egalitarianism, science, rationality, dialectics, reason - anything that posits a universality before which all humans are equal. Master morality, on the other hand is simply asserting without justification, acting without reacting - pure cause, no negotiating or adjusting oneself in relation to another. Master morality rejects that there is truth in reason, because the master asserts his own truth, and reason can't stand above and against the master's will (to power). This is incompatible with any kind of collective, mutually agreed existence, such as communism, or any kind of rational, scientific organization of society.
Communism is not aristocratic. Communism recognizes one's mutual dependence on another, one's relation to the whole, etc. It embraces the "dignity of labor". The aristocratic position rejects that there is any dignity or meaning in labor - only idleness, pursuit of art for art's sake (not for anyone else) is noble
>>2269725once againt it has to be asked what's so "left" about all these nietzscheans
also, isn't he the original "everything is fascism" guy. everything is fascism, but especially communism
>>2269516/leftypol/ at this point is 90% vibe-huffing incels. The site became a dumping ground for people who got ostracized from other left spaces for being obnoxious and abrasive. And now they've pushed away a bunch of the old userbase that stayed after the 8ch split. It's become a vacuum attracting rejects with personality disorders and gooner incels who just like the aesthetics of communism out of contrarianism.
For example, have you ever noticed how many people on here write like cavemen compared to even three years ago, even though English is their first language? How many do you think are *literal* kids and young adults who got developmentally stunted by the internet? I guarantee you it's not zero!
>>2269767Another telling thing is that the "left" reading of nietzsche has to characterize him as an idiot-savant, who, while a genius, somehow just didn't realize that "his own critique could be applied to him"
He published all these books but made such a silly mistake, what a silly lil' doofus.
But no matter, we'll "use his own critique on him", which in practice just means ignoring the part where he talks about eugenics and slavery, surely those aren't parts of a larger coherent project or anything, it's just him going on random rants in the middle of a book, totally unrelated to the substance of his thought. what he needed was a good editor! (well, almost a century later he found one in kauffman)
lmao
Can somebody explain why "ressentiment" is bad, or why "ressentiment" is even a useful concept at all?
That's the main thing "leftists" seem to mine from Nietzsche, they want to resist oppression without doing "ressentiment" I guess. Like, taking on a more "virile", rather than reactive, affect in their struggle.
This seem to me like adopting the aristocratic value system for the purposes of the left. As if anything can be repurposed for anything, regardless of what it fundamentally "IS". I don't think communists should despise the weak and weakness. Or tone police how the working class gets to express and realize their demands for freedom.
The thing that makes me most suspicious of "ressentiment" is that it is a critique of a posture (and subsequently an endorsement of a different kind of posture), and is unconcerned with anything concrete. Like, it forecloses certain acts as IN THEMSELVES BAD, rather than doing concrete analysis. This reeks of idealism, or even worse, aestheticism.
>>2270296Meaningless word salad. Nowhere is it written that communism happens overnight. Rather, communism is the goal, and not a utopian sci-fi goal, but a real goal, a political goal realized within the lifespan of revolutionaries. Socialism is merely in the goal of communism, the intermediary step where the workers are politically empowered, where the workers are radicalized to see that the point is not social democracy, the point is communism. The very history of the French Revolution shows that the peasantry, lacking real emancipation, had their demands begin and end at short-sighted social reform, rather than seeing the possibility of abolishing their condition altogether. Had the revolutionaries known what we know today, we would be living in communism right now!
Thus, to reiterate, the point of socialism, in the context of the struggle for communism, is the emancipation of workers. The point is not social democracy.
Your "AES" fails for the same reason social democracy fails. And it will continue to fail, the same way social democracy will continue to fail. As history has shown.
>>2270466Alright. Going off memory:
>Communism is the goal.The Communist Manifesto (look it up).
>The point of socialism within the campaign for that goal is the emancipation of workers.The 10 points in the Communist Manifesto (look them up, consider their purpose).
The lower-stage of communism as described in Critique of the Gotha Programme.
>social democracy (addressing the historically proven failure of social democracy and "AES" separately).Extensively criticized by Marx, though at the time what we call social democracy would be called state socialism.
https://marcellomusto.org/marxs-critique-german-socdem/(Ask yourself why Marx has no issue with the 10 points in the Communist Manifesto, which to the uninitiated looks like social democracy at a glance, but has issue with social democracy, or state socialism rather.)
>The peasantry of the French Revolution wasn't radical enough to abolish itself?I'm going to cite a Reddit comment from the AskHistorians sub I have bookmarked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/qlVJrZv0En>The revolutionaries were proto-communists but lacked the hindsight we have?Marx's critique of the French Revolution is scattered, he referenced it in multiple different works in passing, to avoid the headache of trying to track down every reference to the French Revolution he made, I will just cite what I remember.
<When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time – that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society – in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases.<The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm<Robespierre, Saint-just and their party fell because they confused the ancient, realistic-democratic commonweal based on real slavery with the modern spiritualistic-democratic representative state, which is based on emancipated slavery, bourgeois society. What a terrible illusion it is to have to recognise and sanction in the rights of man modern bourgeois society, the society of industry, of universal competition, of private interest freely pursuing its aims, of anarchy, of self-estranged natural and spiritual individuality, and at the same time to want afterwards to annul the manifestations of the life of this society in particular individuals and simultaneously to want to model the political head of that society in the manner of antiquity!https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_3_c.htmIn essence, the revolutionaries failed because they were idealists (they thought reality would conform to their slogan "Liberté, égalité, fraternité") , they mimicked the Romans, who they romanticized as democratic, but failed to understand that Romans were literally slave-owning elitists, furthermore they did not understand the political economy, that is that politics is intrinsically linked with the class struggle, that stripping the aristocracy of their privileges does not make socioeconomic inequality disappear, that the bourgeoisie could wield capital to establish itself as the ruling class in spite of the aims of the revolution to make rulers disappear, etc.
>Historical failure of "AES" and social democracy.Much has already been written by various Marxists on the post-WW2 order where social democracy reigned, "the Western bourgeoisie bribed the workers", creating the labor aristocracy of the West benefitting from imperialism, making them not interested in communism, etc. I'm not even sure who to specifically cite because it's so commonly referred to. As you know, social democracy with the advent of neoliberalism has been slowly peeled off. Whatever gains were had, are/were being lost. Also we can mention Marx's critique of capitalism itself, specifically the crisis of overproduction and the falling rate of profit, which in translation means you cannot use capitalism to fund socialism because capitalism is unstable.
For "AES", in my opinion most striking is Armadeo Bordiga's critique of the USSR's economy. Bordiga argues that the USSR, to paraphrase in my own words, reinvented capitalism, as it failed to abolish the commodity form, engaged in commodity production. Trotsky also may or may not have made similar observations (can't remember). Anyway, by reinventing capitalism, the USSR paved the way for its own collapse.
Wow. I'm tired. I probably could have written even more but this really tired me out. I also probably forgot to mention something, but whatever.
>>2266748>be me>existencial crisis>fuckme.jpeg>not able to live in this meaningless world>follow the marquis de sade-stirner-nietzsche-bataille pipeline>thereisawaytoliveinthemeaninglessworld.png >Truth and Good may be spooks, but one thing still remains: the pursue of beauty>found reason to live>live on>understand that people are lost in their lives, they need help>try to look how to spread this newfound way and maximize beauty, and i have to find reason for why only a small amount of people try this way>it's their individual fault because of their psychological weakness>wait, people are determined by their circumstances, and I can influence them through education>wait, education is in turn influenced by the functioning of the world at the socio-economic level>become marxistmoral of the story: you can't be nietzschean and communist at the same time, because once you link your WILL with the interests of everybody and not only personal pursue of a romantic life, all the categories of inter-subjective dependency, sociality, geoeconomic, geopolitics etc… and therefore also TRUTH as the system that these dimensions conform, and GOOD as that ambit in which communism has an advantage compared to any other system, all of these things, as I was saying, necessarily return at play and must be recovered from the slave-morality-shithole that nietzscheanism has put them in. Nietzscheanism is for people that are strong enough to pursue a higher life, but weak enough to believe themselves to be the protagonist of their own life, and not DA WORLD, the real protagonist
>>2270719I grew up in a house where screaming, holes in walls, and broken plates were a pretty common occurrence. My own father told me when I was younger that he could do what he wanted, hit who he wanted, that he could even break my jaw if he wanted to.
So for me, what makes Nietzsche a breath of fresh air is he acknowledges pain and rage and essentially says “these too have their place”—a nice worldview when you can’t stand the bubblegum pink pussy shit about unicorns and kittens and Harry Potter, and the utter despair of “everything is awful, time to kill myself.”
>>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: 85