Nietzsche, first of all – began to undermine communist ideology.
<‘Whom do I detest most, among the modern scoundrels? The Socialist scoundrels – the apostles of the mob, who intrigue against the workers’ instinct, contentment and feeling of satisfaction with their modest life – who make the workers envious, and teach them revenge.’
(The Will To Power)
<Socialism ‘is for the most part a symptom of the fact that we are treating the lower classes too humanely, so that they get a taste of the happiness forbidden to them… It is not hunger that causes revolution; it is the fact that when the people begin to eat they acquire larger appetites.’
(Ibid)
So - the exploited classes would be at ease with their poverty, if it wasn't for socialist agitators; and it is not material poverty that causes revolt, it's people daring to imagine a better life.
No, these philosophies are not compatible. Let me reminder all idiots here that you don't get to pick and choose when it comes to Marxism. You take it as a totality, as a totalitarian philosophy of life, or you don't accept it at all.
>>2272119Nietzsche makes sense to study in particular left neitzscheanism since it's so pervasive in the west.
Losurdo has a great book explaining how Nietzsche was a reactionary. Going through with a fine comb through his work.
https://redsails.org/review-losurdo-on-nietzsche/#fnref15The Nietzschean left, which is anarchist, liberal, antirevolutionary, and so on, is incredibly prevalent.
https://monthlyreview.org/2024/04/01/on-the-misery-of-left-nietzscheanism-or-philosophy-as-irrationalist-ideology/The ascent of Nietzscheanism has instead elevated the following thematics, which uncannily unite the far right with “the moral Left”:
>Depreciation of understanding and reason, the primacy of the emotional and intuitive over the rational, the struggle against causal and systematic thought (judged “flat” or “repressive”!);<example: Focault by declaring that power is everywhere—and playing on the residual normativity of the left, for which unjustified power is coded negatively—Foucault has at once presented himself as “more radical than Marxism,” while also foreclosing any possibility of collectively organized political rebellion. The latter could only reproduce new forms of power, when “everything is dangerous”.>Differentialism and ethnicist interpretations of social phenomena (notably in geopolitics);<examples are plenty, anticommunist Zapatista+YPG/PKK supporters, anti-islamist poster doing geopolitical analysis through a religious-ethnic lens. No surprise that sabocat is also a proponent of this lens. >The abandonment of knowledge of real relations, recourse to myth, the involuntary survival of theological references;<eg: zizek/critical theory as the main mode of understanding society, rather than concrete social relations. Electoralism as a spectacle and as the main political arena.>Dandyism and pseudo-aristocratism, flight into “sublime, definitely sublime” subjectivity, systematic bowing down before literary references (a taste for writing “in fragments” that one cites as arguments from authority);<poetry more than theory, sloganeering, etc>A reduction of knowledge to technical utility (pragmatism).<"how does knowing X help the revolution??" - a misplaced Nietzschean Marxist Leninist. >>2272161Coping for what? Read here:
>>2272155Why deny it?
>>2272168>I wrote about a concern in the execution of communismYou spoke about authoritarianism. This is addressed in the text. Your claims of "authoritarianism" being inherent in x or y political formation, as well as inherent in humans, is a deeply liberal Nietzschean position. Your normative repudiation of it is anticommunist, and focaultian. Read the fucking thing.
>any utopian ideology is perfectHow is that relevant? Utopian ideologies are liberal/anarchist. Not communist. I think you're talking about things you haven't really done the effort to investigate properly. Can you confirm whether this is the case?
>>2272175It's dialectical comrade. Nietzsche didn't cause Nazism but his ideas were amenable to it. The western left is amenable to Nietzsche because of the so-called base. Left Nietzscheism is the so-called superstructure.
>>2272177Yes i didnt do any research about anything and i am not very opiniated either but my point still stands it is not about some ideology being utopian or authoratarian it is about the problem of execution an ideology brings with it and in this case it is authoratarianism
Yes that is true but thoose quotes implies that nieztsche caused the political obliviousness
>>2272155Good post and nice summary of the tendencies we can encounter among the western left.
<anarchist, liberal, antirevolutionaryTrue..
>>2272232I took offense to your defending of the anti-islamist poster and being in favor of criticising Islam, but maybe I misremembered it. My apologies.
>>2272258> What does Nietzsche even have to do with socialism? Like how does he add to it in any way?Well… Many of the left Nietzscheans weren't Marxists, or at least not "orthodox Marxists", instead opting for other methods of analysis. Although Marxist language and framing is very present in their works.
It's used to problematicize power, ideology, gender, apparatuses of the imposition of ideology, control of individuality and individuals, etc. IMO there's some interesting insights in these works, that a Marxist can benefit greatly by mediating them through Marxist analysis.
As a quick example, Judith Butler talks about the performativity of gender. Butler has a very individualistic analysis here. In the first instance, there's no immediate issue with this from a Marxist perspective. However, there is no structural analysis of the way these performances are constructed, reproduced, and imposed. It is merely stated (correctly) that it's performative and the resulting praxis is that it can be rebelled against by individually going against gender norms. I haven't really read Butler so excuse any misinterpretations. One can mediate this through Marxism by making a historical and materialist analysis of gender "performativity" to arrive at how gender is reproduced. Something like Engels origin of family. Following Engels, instead of prescribing how gender should be dismantled, by anti-performing it or whatever, it is understood that gender is a historically contingent phenomenon that emerges out of a variety of concrete realities, such as division of labor, biological differences, etc.
>>2272119that guy's entire thing is so dumb, why do pseuds love him so much, it is literally
>ha, might makes right, get fucked plebs<*the plebs organize and become stronger*>noooo stop I meant inner strength and being an aristocrat of the soul!!1it's literal nonsense
>>2273187Yes.
Read left wing communism an infantile disorder by lenin
>>2273188COMMUNISM IS NOT ABOUT PICKING AND CHOOSING RETARDS IT'S ABOUT HAVING A RIGOROUS THEORETICAL LINE
WHAT IS THIS PSEUDO-PRAGMATIST AMERICANIST BULLSHIT
>>2273291your 'nuance' is philosophical eclecticism, intelectual dilettantism and literally going against the fundamentals.
FUCKFACE
YOU CAN'T MIX OIL AND WATER
IT JUST DOESN'T WORK
>>2273098The correct response to any retard who says
<MIGHT MAKES RIGHTis to kill them.
It's a self-defeating ideology.
>>2272992>the idea that all the material world is all one I don't see another one. Do you know of alternate universes?
>and interconnected This is a necessary condition. Read Hegel. If you can refute this then you will revolutionize ontology.
>and so any inequality only harms a different part of the greater self,On the grand scheme of things, there isn't inequality. The whole can't be unequal. It just is. Internal inequality is inherent in all elements. That's what makes them different to each other. Social inequality is a different beast.
>that the root of all suffering comes from material inequalityThat's dumb as fuck. The root of all suffering is the tension between lack and desire, which are socially contingent.
>and so material existense itself is innately suffering, A bullet in the head would then fix this issue.
>the idea of early religious founders all being proto-communists, Ridiculous idealist belief. Communism is the project of conscious abolition of class. Religious asceticism is generally a renunciation of vulgar existence (reactionary shit). Communism is the exact opposite if anything. Grabbing vulgar existence by the horns. Anarchism is more like the former though, as well as western communist ideologues.
>the idea of capitalism as the manifestation of the demiurge of our universeIf you mean Ian Wright's demiurge theory, then I think you misunderstood his point. Capital is a social incantation of sorts that we let rule our lives and we serve it. It's like a mega computer made of up of our activities, which cybernetically controls us. It is a dual control of sorts. Capital vs humanity as such. While we have custodians, leaders, bourgeoisie, they are all subservient to the system, which also limits their activities, even though they have an outsized interest in maintaining the system and benefit greatly from it. Some great capitalists have ordered their factories not to close in the event of their death. The subservience is deep.
>Will To Power
Do any of you brainlets know this is a post-humous text (he died while clinically insane) that was published by his proto-nazi sister? The first thing anyone with any sort of knowledge of Nietzsche mentions before discussing Will To Power is that it's untrustworthy. She wasn't a Nazi in the twitter sense; she was an enthusiastic aryan/german nationalist who actively created propaganda.
No, if you actually know his texts and don't just ask "why is Nietzsche an anti-communist" to Chatgpt, you realize the connection you can see. Nietzsche was critical of some Christian, slave-morality state where everyone is charitable to each other and everything is egalitarian. This is precisely the criticism laid against a "welfare state" socialism that Communists and even Anarchists were explicitly against. Especially Marx with his dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class regains its power under no metaphysical illusions. Half of the debate back then was him butting heads with people who refused to use force to achieve socialism because they're brainwashed under the same ideological constraints that Nietzsche critiqued. Marx's essay on the Paris Commune came to the same conclusion when they refused to siege state power, letting their bourgeois enemies recuperate and destroy the uprising. They did that because they didn't want to be "morally wrong" so then predictably got destroyed.
>but he wasn't a communist so I can't read this
This is the biggest sign you're dealing with a low autism score individual, if they proudly proclaim their lack of critical thinking. Althusser went crazy and strangled his wife to death; he still wrote good shit. Half of Marx's views on labor theory of value are expanded from liberal economist/philosophers, it doesn't matter the ideology the author follows, it just sort of contextualizes everything. Propaganda meanwhile is by definition brainless shit for toddlers. It does the thinking for you.
>I don't trust you, he's still a Nazi
Read The Case of Wagner. It's a series of essays by Nietzsche where, despite still admiring the art of his compositions, he declared himself the opposite of Wagner. Where Wagner was pro-German identity, blood and soil yadda yadda, Nietzsche declared that music is created as a swan song of the culture it exists in. He points out that Wagner's music mostly found home in France, and Wagner's protests against it was just hot air. Nietzsche writes over and over that the Germany identity is a fabrication, so the idea that he would change his mind and become a rabid German identitarian shortly after these works is total insanity. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that, and it's why it's so obvious that his sister was fabricating nonsense using his name.
Stop being such a confident retard and cite something other than Will To Power. I know you can't because you don't actually read anything because otherwise you'd have known this basic fact. The fact you made a whole thread for this stupidity is insane.
>>2272986You are literally repeating an hoax invented out of thin air by a French far-right winger called Guy Sorman.
But keep going, the more rightoid lies you believe, repeat, and spread, the less you understand why people find Foucault's critique of institutions and commonly-held morality interesting, the more communism get material in the real world outside the realm of ideas and debates. You definitely won't look like clowns in the end.
>>2288681I deleted my post about /leftypol/ being terminally brainlet because I saw a few good posts in this thread and I didn't want to discourage effortposting anons, but then this take comes.
I imagine The German Ideology wasn't philosophy, (you know, the source of the "real movement" quote, right in the first chapter), it was a magical gospel descended from the heavens that has nothing to do with the state of German philosophy after the death of Hegel, it was just a revelation from the God of Communism.
So I will reiterate what I said to
>>2273614, the current state of this board comes from top-down decisions accumulated over the years, and I'm sure virtually no one knows who is Carl Schmitt here at this point, nor Giorgio Agamben and why he thought Carl Schmitt was an interesting thinker.
This board is like witnessing Twitter retards arguing among themselves in their micro-community of niche ideology, it's just as sad.
So just forget this forsaken place exists and move on with your life. Personally I'm going to sleep.
>>2288707Nta but kill yourself.
>>2288702I think this is the dumbest post I've seen this week.
Also kill yourself.
>>2288700The entire history of western philosophy is a critique of philosophy. Kill yourself too. I'm assuming you're all the same person so kill yourself thrice.
>>2272258Despite what some people here might tell you Marxism is, or at the very least implies a cohesive philosophical worldview. There should not be reconciliation with incompatible philosophies.
>>2288702Extremely stupid. Materialism is a philosophy.
>>2288700By rejecting philosophy your believe in materialism can only be justified by faith instead of reason. Congrats you are religious. No better than a "non-ideological" liberal capitalist.
>>2272982Avicii is naturally stronger especially if he has the drug boost.
>>2272179One very specific autist.
>>2289036You mean the part where Nietzsche says labor in the west is being so watered down that the workers are becoming slave like almost like in China?
I gotta admit I might remember it wrong but I think he says that.
You're right that Nietzche was not a leftist. He's best understood as a precursor to "lib-right" people like Rand and Rothbard, who idolize power for its own sake but also dislike when it comes from a codified political system. But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that are worthwhile in his writing. His conception of slave and master morality, for example, are a lot more applicable to Marxism than you'd think. Western culture, especially Anglo culture, romanticizes suffering and being oppressed. The sooner we admit that living a hard life is a bad thing, the better.
>>2272187Nothing, because he never presented a consistent ideology or philosophical system. You can always tell when someone hasn't read Nietzsche because they believe he had some sort of grand framework dictating his beliefs. He didn't. His books are basically polished diaries, and if you look hard enough, you're going to find something you (dis)agree with eventually.
>>2288700Anyone who doesn't think that philosophy concerns science knows nothing about either. Epistemology and metaphysics are the backbone of all human knowledge, and you hold beliefs on both, even if you don't think you do.
>>2289514>Nothing, because he never presented a consistent ideology or philosophical system. You can always tell when someone hasn't read Nietzsche because they believe he had some sort of grand framework dictating his beliefs. He didn't. His books are basically polished diaries, and if you look hard enough, you're going to find something you (dis)agree with eventually.This, thank you anon, Nietzsche was more of a poet than a systematic philosopher, he frequently did contradict himself, and did not have any philosophical system of any kind, because he understood the fancy German philosophical systems of his days always got revised, over and over again, to an absurd degree.
By the way, rightoids on Twitter make the exact same mistake as the pseudo-Marxists here, thinking his books are some guide books to become an ultra gigachad full of testosterone dunking on the soyboys or something.
He definitely was a proto-incel rightoid, but I think he is still worth engaging with.
If you can't handle the edge, read Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, it's basically the gist of Nietzsche's ideas, but from the point of view of a proto-imageboard loser who stopped caring about everything except his basement.
>>2289518Can you explain how his critique of Plato in the Twilight of the Idols was metaphysical and idealist, or does the epithome of dialectical form of discussion for you is saying "no u"? Do you have anything more to add beyond that?
>>2272119You're a retard to accept Nietzsche presupposition.
Communists don't feel envy because envy implies competition and a submission to the prevailing bourgeois social and economic forms. We don't want the bourgeoisie to be equally poor as us but to create a society where their development as individuals will be ours and vice versa. We hate the bourgeoisie because they're standing in the way of human progress not because we find their lavish wealth morally repulsive, and without hate their can be no class war.
This is what Marx explicitly wrote, envy belongs to the idealist socialists who are still under the influence of the ruling class and its ideas.
>>2289963None of us said Nietzsche didn't have a project. We said he didn't have a
consistent philosophical system, as opposed to, for example, Hegel.
Of course, he did have a project, otherwise he wouldn't have written anything. The absence of a systematic philosophy in Nietzsche is part of his project.
And both of us explicitly said he is a right-wing thinker. The other anon said he is a precursor to Ayn Rand and Rothbard, but I think he is even much more worse than that: He literally believed that "billions must die". He idolized the Hindu caste system, aristocracy and war. He wanted people with power to crush anyone who didn't have any. He was an eugenicist. There was no pretense of achieving some kind of freedom through market mechanisms at all, he was a complete chud, both in his writings and his personal life.
However, as much as I was initially disgusted by the chapter about the Hindu caste system of the Twilight of the Idols, where Nietzsche seems to take a certain pleasure at describing the horrible conditions of the Dalits (untouchables), in the last aphorism, he basically begs the question: "In order to create a stable societal system and some cohesion between its members, some people will need to be part of an underclass, some people will need to be reviled by all the other members of such society, a society always have its internal enemies. Look at the Dalits, they are even forbidden to drink clean water. You, who want to improve humanity with a new cohesive system, is that truly what you want?"
This is my interpretation of it, and I'm not pretending it's perfect. I'm not even saying it's very deep, or that it's a transhistorical truth and therefore a reason to abandon any attempt at transforming society.
However, it still gave me food for thought, because thinking about it, I can't think of a modern society which don't or didn't have some form of Dalits. I think it's for such passages that some anarchists found inspiration in Nietzsche while rejecting its reactionary aspects too.
I don't like the typical audience of Losurdo within the left — and that especially includes Roderic Day, who is more reactionary than Nietzsche, because at least Nietzsche wanted to destroy all the values of his day, while Roderic Day just want a retvrn to red tradition hoping he will be the next Lenin, and make apologia for the most capitalistic aspects of modern China, by painting them as hardline Marxism and "dialectical", which I find disgusting and completely gloss over the existing labor struggles in post-Deng China — but I have heard very good things about his historical work on Nietzsche, from both the left and the right, so I might read this interview to get the gist of it. At least I got something out of this exchange, because I usually wouldn't touch Red Sails with a ten foot pole.
However, if Losurdo wrote a 1000 page-long book on Nietzsche, maybe it's because he is worth taking seriously. Hell, the very first line of the interview says:
>In my book I argue that Nietzsche must be defended from his uncritical apologists. Is this not a paradox?Even if you don't find anything inspiring in Nietzsche, you must know your enemy. I've talked about Moldbug and Nick Land for years on /leftypol/, people dismissed them as irrelevant bloggers, and now the New York Times and even the national radio in my country started talking about Curtis Yarvin as one of the main inspiration behind JD Vance.
You might dismiss Carl Schmitt as a Nazi theorist, but a neoliberal like Macron is able to quote Carl Schmitt in German, and he knows very well what is a "state of exception" and the "friend-enemy distinction", and he uses them as tools to inform his policies.
I don't expect much feedback from this reply, but in case one of you is interested in a perspective on Nietzsche from the left, which doesn't gloss over the reactionary aspects of his thought, I recommend vid related, which is an interview with Mehdi Belhaj Kacem, a former student of Badiou.
>>2290037Nah, you still subscribe to bourgeois morality in which "lowly" emotions such as envy are seen as distasteful, thus you try to distance yourself by claiming a scientific detachment.
In the class war, all weapons and tools are good. Yes, I envy the the bourgeoisie's ability to perform unalienated labor. At the same time, I want not just that, but also not to be on the leash of capital like they are.
>>2290343the remnants of the bourgeoisie will be the dalits of lower stage communism, and under full communism society will change to such a degree that all speculation is pointless
and i'm ok with that
>>2290343>"In order to create a stable societal system and some cohesion between its members, some people will need to be part of an underclass, some people will need to be reviled by all the other members of such society, a society always have its internal enemies. Look at the Dalits, they are even forbidden to drink clean water. You, who want to improve humanity with a new cohesive system, is that truly what you want?">This is my interpretation of it, and I'm not pretending it's perfect. I'm not even saying it's very deep, or that it's a transhistorical truth and therefore a reason to abandon any attempt at transforming society.>However, it still gave me food for thought, because thinking about it, I can't think of a modern society which don't or didn't have some form of Dalits. I think it's for such passages that some anarchists found inspiration in Nietzsche while rejecting its reactionary aspects too.You have to basically not be a marxist, or horribly misunderstand marxism in order for any of this to come off as anything but meaningless idealistic drivel.
No class analysis, no materialism, no mention of modes of production, just "uhhh… you have to have an underclass for a stable society" ← unsobstantiated assertion out the ass.
Btw, Nietzsche's answer to "is that truly what you want?" is "Yes, obviously. Now stop being a feckless moralfagging liberal and embrace mastery". Stupid liberals look at his critiques of morality, reason, capital, etc., and go "woah… so deep… what do we do about this..? much to ponder…", ignoring the parts where these critiques are IN SERVICE of an answer he already has in mind: intelligently organized slave society.
Unique IPs: 44