Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" expresses the philosophical glorification of what he can neither change nor understand historically. Since he has no critique of the social order as such, he discovers meaning not in overcoming it, but in affirming it eternally. He tells man to "love his fate" he tells him to identify his inner dignity with his ability to say yes to what crushes him. The higher man is he who no longer protests his misery but styles it as a proof of strength who converts his defeat into an achievement of character.
He doesn't really engage with "society" but rather retreats into himself and this is why I'll never take seriously pseuds who think Nietzsche can be interpreted through a "marxist lens".
Nobody takes the whole of Nietzschean philosophy and apply it to Marx/communism. The few that tried ended up being individualist anarchists like Emma Goldman which left their legacy being very shallow due to their rejection of the social character of the individual, rather focusing on some sort of transcendentalism.
What's actually valuable are the critiques on morality, anti-positivism (something Marx struggled with), and theories on power which can be directly applied to revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Nietzsche's disdain towards socialism was also focused directly on "egalitarianism" which is NOT Marxist at all. Marx points out "growing pains" of inequality, in pieces like his critique of Lassalle's Gotha Program. To Marx, alienation was from the separation of producer from the fruits of their labor, not necessarily "inequality." Some people are better at labor than others.
It's like how Marx drew from Hegel but wasn't a "Hegelian" in classical terms. It's really not hard to understand and this is like the fifth thread we've had on this.
But yeah, the "time is a flat circle" is wrong. It's a metal as fuck quote, which is probably the only reason people nod their head to it, but it's also completely wrong.
>>2539746>The few that tried ended up being individualist anarchists like Emma Goldman which left their legacy being very shallow due to their rejection of the social character of the individual, rather focusing on some sort of transcendentalism. That's where I am right now, can you lend me on any information on what Goldman thought process was like at this time? I would like to see if I can work out the contradictions. But hey having a contradicting world view is pretty Nietzschen in it of self.
>>2539746Even when marx and nietzsche converge on a critique of the same thing, they come from completely opposite, incompatible angles
https://redsails.org/aroma-and-shadow/