/lit/ - Literature

>>13271634
Start writing friend

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1900/12/nietzsche.htm

relevant source

>>13271634
No, Ressentiment and Nietzschean Ubermensch are diametrically opposed.

>>13271634
>can we unite materialism and idealism under a materialist flag?
marxists are SCUM

How do I get over my fear of "they'll steal my ideas and publish it before me if the ideas are good enough"?

>Friedrich Nietzsche provides a useful comparison with Marx. In /Beyond Good and Evil/ Nietzsche attacks morality because it is based on the sentiments of pity and compassion and a concern for the well-being of all that stifle the self-development of the distinctive personalities of the noble elite. Nietzsche also thinks morality fosters resentment and psychological self-deception about our real motives. Some moral-Marxists argue as if there were no difference between morality and normative values about human lives more generally. This approach fails to understand Nietzsche. His criticism of morality can only be interpreted as a normative attack on a particular set of social practices. It is this that makes his challenge to the narrowly moral point of view much more interesting than that posed by the traditional moral skeptic, who rarely asks questions of morality more sophisticated than whether moral actions always promote her narrowly conceived self-interest.
>Marx thinks that morality promotes the illusion that social progress can occur through rational moral persuasion, rather than class-struggle. Morality promotes the delusion that justice is a sacred and desirable social norm for all people, rather than a conservative notion tied to the exsiting mode of production. Morality promotes the idea that current social evils are due to human nature and not a product of class-society (recall the 'man in the street' objection to socialism above). For Marx, as for Nietzsche, the social system of morality hinders the realization of his deepest values in human liberation.
>Examining Marx's views on morality forces us to consider morality as a social practice, rather than a conceptual construct. Moral-Marxists argue that because Marx's social criticism has a normative basis he must have a moral theory despite himself. On the contrary, Marx is indeed a critic of many social evils and the social practice of morality is one of the evils he wants to abolish.

>>13271634
Well, how will you motivate the populace to do anything? With no beliefs, structure, or way to go up in the world, it would all seem rather pointless. I imagine dangerously high suicide levels, towering over what we have now

>>13271634
>unite Marxism and Nietzsche?
it's called postmodernism

>>13272268
Nietzsche was definitely not an idealist
>I treat idealism as untruthfulness that has become an instinct, a not-wanting-to-see reality at any price: every sentence of my writings contains contempt for idealism

>>13272268
sorry, I should have clarified: only post in this thread if you actually have a clue about Nietzsche

>>13272683

elaborate

>>13272397

desu I think the opposite is true, when we have agency we have a drive to fullfill ourselves as human beings. capitalism commodifies and alienates us from the things we create and each other. full human potential can only be reached in a society free of want and necessity to survive

>>13272709
Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, they are all inspired by Marx and Nietzsche. Post-structuralism and deconstruction are both straight out of the Nietzschian tradition

>>13271634
Hierarchies are inevitable. To resist them would be to welcome tragedy. Leave the rich be rich, accept there will always be a pour, and understand the value of individualism over collectivism.

>>13272812
>Return

the simple fact alone that history has undergone many swift and fundamental changes shows how naive your vision is. where are the slave empires that stood for millennia? the royal families of Europe?

Marxism as a political position is about the Last Man

>>13272683
>>13272778
Postmodernism is not marxist at all.

>>13272859
I never said the postmodernists were Marxist I said they were inspired by Marx and Nietzsche, there is a big difference there. Deleuze, one of the top Nietzsche scholars of his day, had even planned to write a book called Grandeur de Marx

>>13272859
it evolved from the failure of marxism anon. its definately got marxist flavors in it.

>>13272727
I don’t think that’s true at all, at least in the case of common people. Most people aren’t like that at all, and won’t really do anything when they’re free of any necessity. Necessity drives people, not vague ideas. Being free of want only makes people complacent. Ambition and necessity drive people, we are a simple species when it boils down to wants and needs. Without any form of hierarchy and necessity, people will simply become lab rats for whatever nefarious purpose the creator of the society wants, and lab rats never live long or happily

>>13272832
I don't understand what point you're trying to get across.

>>13272832
The loss of the royal families is one of the greatest tragedies of recent times, it has signaled in the death of all that is good and right in the western world. It was when the nations of the west stopped being living breathing things and just became machines

>>13272979
personally rome hasn't been the same since we kicked tarquinius out

>>13271634
Marx and Nietzsche were more similar to each other than "Marxists" and "Nietzscheans" will ever be. That is all.

>>13272142

based

>>13271634
>i want to create beings that rise to the top of all hierarchy they are exposed to.
>i also want to create an existence for them that contains no hierarchy
>ends up creating shit ass beings that lack purpose, and a world that sucks ass

wow you didnt do much more than read the wiki as prep for this question fid you?

>>13272859
>postmodernism isnt marxist
>highlighted by broad indiscretion and rejection of existing narrative and ideology of the modernist and premodernist ideals. seeking to remove them outright until proved to exist in a state beneficial or rational to the whole.
>marxism
>highlighted by broad indiscretion and rejection of existing societal narratives and ideology of the established society. seeking to remove and then replace hierarchies until proved to exist in a state neither tyrannical, nor oppressive to the masses.

you dont see it do you?

Nietzsche + Paul Grice

>>13273259
Brainlet, this has been dealt with a million times already.

>>13273163
If the individual is truly Nietzsche's ubermench they could transcend the restrictions enforced, and it makes some sense that in a marxist society one could self actualize with less restrictions. Material hierarchies are kinda under the highest man anyway. Please enlighten me if i am wrong anywhere.

>>13272979
You should have hid your power level better, monarchist.

>>13271634
>Can we unite Marxism and Nietzsche?
Sounds like national socialism desu

>>13273368
it is not the purpose of the ubermenche to subvert the restrictions, but to grow to encompass them, to expand them, and in such cases to overcome them and expand beyond. you are stating that without these restrictions in the first place, the self would grow in all directions just as great.

this is not the case, since exile or hermitage does not produce excedingly impressive humans. however when one is too confined, and grows in spite of this, that the struggle ,and more importantly the strength gained by doing so, allow the individual to become truley strong. The ubermenche is the individual who grows in spite of restriction, to reform restriction at the end. Marx would remove restriction (not to reform it) only to replace it at such extremes as to be unhelpful.

imagine a wall that protects a village. as the village grows, it must expand, and so too does the wall. yes it keeps the village contained, but not restrained. it is built to protect, but may be torn down and rebuilt by those that would use it.

marxism would be like tearing down the wall, the rebuilding a massive wall several miles in diameter. it is impressive, but it does not protect. it is too far, and too llarge to man, and as such it hinders the village which cannot use it. without intimacy and pressure of boundries, it serves no purpose, nor measure.

to marx the walls were unnecessary, and restricting. to nietzsche thay were restricting, but were that way intentionally, so that they could be moved or changed as needed.

If you think formal hierarchy is static, only to be destroyed and replaced: thats very marxist

if you think that formal hierarchy is flexible, and can be reformed as needed: thats very nietzsche

>>13273163

>implying the Ubermensch has material ambitions of power

fuck off Sklave

>>13273731
>implying the idea of the ubermensch wasn't written by a cuck who died of fucking back alley whores

>>13273744
nietzsche died a virgin, jackass

>>13273629
Nietzsche + Marx + Stirner = NazBol

>>13272320
>i'm only in it for the fame
oh yea, you're gonna blow us all away, alright.

>>13273913
What's the difference between a nazbol and a strasserist exactly?

>>13273907

>>13274116
thats not a pic of n

>>13273907
>died of syphilis as a virgin

>>13274395
cope

>>13274417
thats a pic of n

>>13274425
he liked photography, he made some porn. what's the big deal?

>>13274435
thats a photoshoped pic of n

>>13273259
Pomo doesn't reject 'the existing' narrative, it rejects narrative on principle, one of the principal factors of pomo's birth was a critique of Marxism. To that extent it's goal is deconstruction and subversion of structures. Marxism on the other hand holds that world-history forms the unified narrative of human existence, and, in contradiction to its main socialist ideological rival, anarchism, holds that hierarchies are a necessary and useful part of reality (though some anarchists kinda claim this as well), particularly insofar as they abolish themselves to create higher social forms. Also:
>broad indiscretion
What?

>>13271634
>but he can only be attained in a world without predestinated superstructures and material hierarchies
>without material hierarchies
>without hierarchy
you've never read nietzsche.

>>13272832
equality by definition is false. Two different things cannot be equal because then they wouldn't be different.

>>13274710
'Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism...were he to take the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes...The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth'

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>>13274763
>The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities
this is still an attempt to make different positions equal

Any two ideologies you can think of can be combined together in some capacity. Just look at how easily the progressive educational establishment co-opted Nietzsche, Schmidt, and Heidegger. Look at all the libertarians influenced by the new left and old school monarchism, or the neo-Nazis influenced by neo conservative (i.e. Jewish Republican) talking points.

>>13274767
Is the notion of equality before the law 'an attempt to make different positions equal'? You do realise there's a difference between 'equal' and 'equivalent'?

>>13274767
is opportunity positional?

>>13274779
>Is the notion of equality before the law 'an attempt to make different positions equal'?
I mean very obviously yes. Society requires that people specialize in terms of occupation, so their positions are already not the same

>>13274791
I'm not understanding then. Do you believe we have equality before the law? If so, why is what Lenin suggests impossible? That's what I was getting at. Socialists don't suggest removing specialisation of occupation, at least not until technology has advanced so ridiculously far as to make it obsolete/unnecessary (assuming such a thing is even possible).

>>13274812
>Do you believe we have equality before the law? No I dont think any society has ever had this. Not to mention that the law itself is written by a small subset of people so that even if its application were equal it contains unequal outcomes for different members of society.

>>13274818
Odd. Most people believe we have equality before the law mate.
>the law itself is written by a small subset of people so that even if its application were equal it contains unequal outcomes for different members of society.
Well yeah the Marxist critique of it is precisely that equality before the law in bourgeois society contains 'unequal outcomes'. This kind of thing is something Marxists have been accounting for since Critique of the Gotha Programme. I'm still not sure though why you don't understand the fact that to make two things equal in terms of status, or access, is not the same as making them literally the same thing?

>>13274855
Marxist critique accounts for some causes of unequal treatment, there are others. My point was that I don't think it is possible to give equal access to everybody for anything. Power structures arise constantly in all human interaction, it's like society is a pyramid, and you are trying to squish it down, and it rebounds every time in a different place than where you're pushing it.

And I mean who is the one squishing it anyway? You would need either an authority to squish it and hope that he was just moral to the core and omnipotent, or you would need everyone to believe and want the same thing and act in unison against their own interests in any of the instances in which they can exploit others, which is like wanting humans to be bees or something.

>>13274871
china is studying biology to genetically regulate its citizens. so yeah, literally turning ourselves into bees.

>>13273666
Very well stated, this is the best post

>>13274871
Perhaps it's fair to say that socialists do (generally) consider this 'equality of access' to be aspirational, it's something to work towards, not something that can be instituted tomorrow or anything. In the shorter term it would indeed be 'equality' only for the overwhelming majority of the population, with the minority of large owners being excluded. But not all power structures are inherently exploitative, some are just plain old 'justified hierarchies' as the anarchists say. So why not remove the harmful ones, save the necessary ones, and see what we can and can't dispense with on the principle of equal access? I mean everyone acts 'in unison' regarding certain things. We all breathe the same air if nothing else, and as much of it as we want. So it's presumably just an issue of degree, not of categorical existence

>>13274911
I don’t think it’s a good idea to have opportunity open to everyone. I like the old reactionary idea of long lasting stable hierarchy. That way, those ambitious and skilled enough for the job they want get it, and those that want it for lesser reasons are weeded out. While opportunity is good, restriction and hierarchy are as well

>>13274911
>I mean everyone acts 'in unison' regarding certain things. We all breathe the same air if nothing else, and as much of it as we want. So it's presumably just an issue of degree, not of categorical existence
I think the problem is the concept of 'zero sum games'. There are benefits that come at the expense of others.

On the whole though it's not that I'm opposed exactly to the concept of say worker owned enterprise, it's more the way the Left interact with the state that strikes me as dangerous.

>>13274934
As far as I'm aware, what you describe doesn't go against any actually existing socialist society, even anarchists have their famous lines about specialisation and hierarchy as necessary. Possibly excepting what you say about 'long lasting stable hierarchy'. Depends on your time scale I suppose. Nothing lasts forever, especially not when it very obviously contains the seeds of its own negation, like the European monarchies etc.
As it is though, I'm mostly okay with your claim that socialism (and any system at all) cannot, and therefore does not, propose 'true' equality, since I consider the category 'equality' in the sense you mean it to be incidental to what socialists actually propose. Perhaps except insofar as it's a useful kind of Zeno's arrow, something that even in its 'impossibility', provides a useful/'tendential' guide to praxis.

>>13274950
In a sense it certainly is 'dangerous'. But it wasn't socialists that created the state, we nevertheless have to accept the world we live in. I think the reality of your formula about 'benefits that come at the expense of others' is that it doesn't take account of situations where perhaps the 'some' might be the overwhelming majority of a population, and the 'others' a tiny minority. But sure, if something like a society of all worker coops could be achieved peacefully, without interference from the state, I wouldn't mind that. I just know it's unlikely. Not impossible, just unlikely.

>>13275017
>t it doesn't take account of situations where perhaps the 'some' might be the overwhelming majority of a population, and the 'others' a tiny minority.
No im well aware of situations like that. Serial killers are an obvious example that is less contentious than capitalists or whatever.

I meant more that within even any organization that was devoted to peaceful cooperation there would be inumerable opportunities for exploitation

>>13275060
I can only say I disagree I suppose, given that I think planned economy is something absolutely necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change/resource scarcity/etc., which also happens to be anathema to big capitalists. Even if the compromise is a China-ish system where the 'commanding heights' of the economy are socialised and planned, and the rest is left to the market, if that's what's necessary, fine. As regards your second point, I mean yeah any organisation is open to possible corruption, all you can do is guard against it and tackle it where it appears I guess. That's no less true of any capitalist organisation.

>>13275103
>planned economy is something absolutely necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change/resource scarcity/etc.,
Any dictator could stop these happening if he had sufficient power over capitalists, socializing industry is just one version of that as far as I can tell.

I dont think we're in disagreement on that second point

>>13271634
>be a marxist
>be a materialist npc
>somehow still believe in a global narrative
>2k19
>still cares about muh means of production even though the uses of labour time in the west has shifted rapidly (think about all the service jobs we have)
>bases alienation solely off of material conditions
>ressentiment par excellent
>so retarded want to 'combine with nietzsche' whatever the fuck that means
>hegel OP so probably another nigger that misreads hegel as 'just fuse shit lmao'
yikes, not for me. read anti-oedipus (cope) or something

>>13275153
The problem is that dictators in this day and age tend to come to power with the tacit approval of the ruling class (Hitler, Mussolini, etc.), as a 'final resort', precisely to prevent the socialised industry/planned economy we're talking about, and that I consider necessary to deal with those problems. So I consider it useful for a planned economy to remain democratic simply in its own interests, both as the most likely means of its being created in the first place, and the best means of self-preservation.
On the second point, you don't think capitalist (as well as socialist) institutions are susceptible to corruption? Seriously? Any institution of sufficient size is.

>>13275234
Im not really sure what the difference is between fascism and modern china, which you listed as an example of socialized control.

And I said I agree about the second point

>>13275260
The difference is economic. Nazi Germany was not a planned economy (and that's even looking at its wartime economy when it was 'most' 'planned', but especially in peacetime, which we can take as more representative of what it would've actually resembled had it survived long term.
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf
Commodity production, markets, etc., were the 'dominant' features of the fascist economy, and I say dominant because while I acknowledge that modern China also has commodity production and markets, in my opinion they do not constitute the 'dominant' core of the economy, as seen in the sectors that are under state control.
'...power generation and distribution; oil, coal, petrochemicals, and natural gas; telecommunications; armaments; Aviation and shipping; machinery and automobile production; information technologies; construction; and the production of iron, steel, and nonferrous metals. The railroads, grain distribution, and insurance are also dominated by the state, even if no official edict says so.'
This combined with the fact that China is not imperialistic or expansionist in the same way as Nazi Germany (not that they aren't constantly trying to spread soft power, I'm not naive), means that they can afford to make use of this planning for long term projects of sustainability, in the sense that while they have enemies, they don't have tens of millions of Russians, Americans, British, etc. literally on their doorstep, and don't have a literal (as in spatial) territory they need to expand the wya the fascists did, for various reasons, all of which incentivises short term (unsustainable) decision making. Oh and sorry I misread your second sentence there.

>>13275317
How does one determine if it is 'dominant' or not? I see your point about their lack of expansionist policy though. the USSR though was expansionist and socialist wasnt it?

>>13271634
> How can I combine hyperbolic humanism and unwitting Protestant millenarianism?
This already exists.

>>13275165
cringe

>>13275337
Obviously there's a certain wiggle room there in 'dominant', to me all you can do is identify the most essential sectors of an economy and evaluate their ownership etc. Most (not all) of China's key sectors are socialised, as listed, though there are some exceptions like tech - though even there in practise the state has a lot of 'influence' thanks to the joint venture firms etc. Your point about the USSR, my response is 'kind of'. While I claim that the USSR was 'expansionist', it was so in a substantially different manner to the fascist countries - Bulgaria for example was certainly a client state of the USSR, but the reason for this and other states existing in the relation they did to the USSR was due to their desire to counter 'NATO encroachment' (percieved or otherwise) etc. Still expansionist, but not the same relation as, say, Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany, which was just a plain colony. This was openly the goal, economic subjugation, and for the explicit purpose of empire building. The most obvious example of this difference is the subsidies the USSR gave to its client states, a far cry from Nazi policy, except insofar as money could be used to aid extraction. The decision of the Soviets to focus on these '''defensive''' buffer states was nevertheless a major factor in their own demise, true, both as a diversion of resources and a drag factor re sustainable planning. But regardless of our individual takes on the USSR the point is that it isn't here, so it can't be the focus of discussions like ours in the way it would have been a few decades ago imo, at least not in this specific sense.

>>13275442
ty for replies

>>13275479
Np mate, take care.

Bump

>>13275367
>hyperbolic humanism

thanks for efficiently showing the rest of us that your opinions are worthless

So a nihilistic form of communism, yep that's communism

>>13271634
surprise! it's anarchism

>>13277186

how far are you reaching to call Nietzsche a nihilist?

>>13271634
>Übermensch, but he can only be attained in a world without predestinated superstructures and material hierarchies
No. That is the most Last man thing I have ever read. Only the Last man would let things like "predestinated superstructures and material hierarchies" get in his way. God damn it you're a little weak ass faggot bitch cuck. The Übermensch does not give a single fuck about gay shit like that and overcomes whatever faggotry tries to get in his way. Holy shit

>>13274989
Any equality isnofar equality is possible can obly come about by us transcending the discourse of equality. The problem with such naive calls for equality has always been the fact that they aim at an abstraction and that they are never creative rather they are always deconstructive and redistributive.

Equality rests on a static idea and human society isnt static thus no matter how much tinkering you do, you will not reach equality. What we need is a creative goal for people. A goal that will transcend equality to the point that people will feel equal by mere participation it. This is nothing else except Christianity. Secular equality is ab impossibility.

>>13274116
Nietzsche's got a big dick

>>13274402
He most likely died of a brain tumor, not syphillis

>>13277264

Nietzsche was an enemy of universities and political systems and advocated radical changes, only a brainlet would assume that the Übermensch strives only personal social ascension

>>13277265
A call for equality in the manner I described wouldn't be naive since it simultaneously acknowledges its own inpossibility, and the utility of that impossibility regardless. Either way, you speak of abstraction and the perils of my 'destructive-redistributive' notions, but this discussion itself is (needlessly) taking place at the level of abstraction. There's several dozen real world socialist societies that have existed and continue to exist, and that we can examine. We don't need to talk hypothetically of the possiblity of 'equality', true or otherwise (which is still your apparent desire, just through Christianity instead). 'Equality' to me is nice and desirable and to be instituted where possible, but if not, fine, its not the prime mover or the central axiom of what I want, at least not in the sense you mean. Even assuming I concede your flat assertion that 'secular' equality is impossible - which I'm not sure I do - like I said above, that's incidental to what I consider socialist society. I want a democratic planned economy, it's being 'more' or 'less' equal is ultimately something for the people of that country to decide, based in the material conditions they face.

>>13271634
>what is the last men

If Nietzsche were alive today I think he would be an anti-capitalist. But commiting yourself to an ideology, such as Marxism, and viewing it as 100% truth is antithetical to Nietzsche's philosophy

>>13277340
>"The word Übermensch [designates] a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to 'modern' men, 'good' men, Christians, and other nihilists ... When I whispered into the ears of some people that they were better off looking for a Cesare Borgia than a Parsifal, they did not believe their ears.

>>13277340
>let us not doubt that we moderns, with our thickly padded humanity, which at all costs wants to avoid bumping into a stone, would have provided Cesare Borgia's contemporaries with a comedy at which they could have laughed themselves to death. Indeed, we are unwittingly funny beyond all measure with our modern "virtues."
The decrease in instincts which are hostile and arouse mistrust -- and that is all our "progress" amounts to -- represents but one of the consequences attending the general decrease in vitality: it requires a hundred times more trouble and caution to make so conditional and late an existence prevail. Hence each helps the other; hence everyone is to a certain extent sick, and everyone is a nurse for the sick. And that is called "virtue." Among men who still knew life differently -- fuller, more squandering, more overflowing -- it would have been called by another name: "cowardice" perhaps, "wretchedness," "old ladies' morality."

>>13274789
yes

>>13278023
>When I whispered into the ears of some people that they were better off looking for a Cesare Borgia than a Parsifal

what did he mean by this?

>>13272142
this

>>13273731
>believing that the only measure of sucess in a hierarchy is material success
fuck off brainlet

>>13275165
>>ressentiment par excellent
Why do people keep saying this? Do they actually read Nietzsche or do they just read wikipedia and think "heheh commies are jealous of my trailer"

>>13278023
>>13277992
Fucking brainlets Jordan Petersoning around here.

>>13274763
>It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal.

>Marx wants to turn everyone into formless jello to make them equal, cut off everyones arm if one person is crippled to make them equal.

No wonder you don't understand Nietzsche either

>>13277999

>>13279463
Fuck Karl Marx. He's lead to more deaths, directly, than any other human being in history.

>>13272854
This tripfaggot knows his Zarathustra

just found one

>>13280723
>>13274763
>>13279297

This is all getting very tiring. What exactly about violent revolution by a necessarily larger force is anything but Will to Power? Its the exact opposite of ressentiment and the last man. And Marx wasn't a fucking moralist. Read a book.

>>13280478
No, Keyenes has.

>>13281286
have you even read Nietzsche? maybe some individual like Lenin could be seen as exhibiting will to power but the entire socialists discourse surrounding exploitation of proles is pure slave morality

>>13281309


>>13281309
>have you even read Nietzsche?
Of course I have, have you even read Marx?
>the entire socialists discourse surrounding exploitation of proles is pure slave morality
Or just listened to blue hair liberals the Youtube algorithm feeds you?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.

>>13281319
No I havent read Marx, Im talking about the way socialists describe their revolution, it is 100% 'we are the righteous oppressed rising up against the evil masters'. You know this is true even if the abstract marxist theory doesn't technically contain it.

>>13271634
>he can only be attained in a world without predestinated superstructures and material hierarchies
t. read the Wikipedia page for Nietzsche and no further.

>>13281334
>the way socialists
>'we are the righteous oppressed rising up against the evil masters'
You are talking about liberals and you are literally making the same arguments as Jordan Peterson. Actual Marxist analysis has absolutely nothing to do with morality. My reference to a 'necessarily larger force' is to point out that there are always more workers than bosses. A slave revolt isn't about the masters being evil its about a larger group of people killing a smaller group and taking their stuff because they can. Slave morality is trying to bargain for equality with your master like a shitlib instead of killing him and becoming a master.

>>13281371
That is not what I actually see socialists doing or saying, they are constantly talking about oppression, including a bunch of talk about race and gender that has nothing to do with class, I give you the benefit of the doubt that Marx himself wasn't peddling slave morality.

>>13271634
Marx and Nietzsche are philosophically opposed. Marx wants to eliminate material hierarchies while Nietzsche wants to expand their gulf. It's impossible to reconcile them into one philosophy.

>>13281334
What a fucking retard, this is not what socialists think. It's what you think they think, exactly because you watch blue haired liberals on youtube

>>13281406
k give me a website or newspaper run by 'real socialists' and I will evaluate it for tendency to cry about dumb black people

>>13281452
>/lit/
https://www.marxists.org/
https://libcom.org/

>>13271634
>I believe in his theory of the Übermensch, but he can only be attained in a world without predestinated superstructures and material hierarchies
literally philosopher king

>>13271634
egalitarianism and aristocracy are irreconcilable

>>13278246
That you're better off looking for an ambitious Politician that is hoping to make a change, than a Knight in shining armor that is perfect.
You're better at looking for someone that will achieve their goals, but isn't perfect, than someone who is perfect but probably won't achieve their goals in the real world.

>>13280478
shame he didn't manage to murder all your ancestors

>>13281452
Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher

Bump

>>13277184
What else is the ubermensch?

>>13274116

Literally none of the people photographed look anything like the people you're trying to say they are.

>>13277184

Marx would have hated Lenin.

>>13281286

Will to Power applies to individuals not collectives and Nietzsche was an aristocratic elitist.

>>13272689
Nietzsche means a very specific thing when he talks about idealism, and he rejects meme-tier materialist theories of existence with the same resoluteness.

>>13283137
The same cringe style of reasoning is used by Trots to claim that Lenin (King of the Soviets) decreed Trotsky to be his rightful heir, usurped by the betrayer of True Socialism, evil Stalin - all because in a paper he wrote on his deathbed he called Stalin 'rude'. Stop prpjecting your emotional fantasies onto a dead guy.

>>13271634
If you substitute the names of philosophers with football teams names this thread would be exactly the same

>>13283420
This is an 'X-is-like-a-religion!' tier argument.

>>13283454
Well to be fair this argument is often correct, but it's mistakenly applied to things like the work of Nietzsche and Marx in itself and not to how this work is treated by morons who are drawn to it despite the fact that they understand it only superficially. In such cases it can't not appear quasi-religious.

>>13271634
it has already been done.

Nietzsche//Übermensch > National-Socialism <> Communism (Leninism for the concept of the New Man; Stalinism for the practical side)

>>13271634
>Can we unite Marxism and Nietzsche?
Check out Alfred Sohn Rethel, he fused Marx with Kant, which is sometimes pretty exiting

bump

>>13271634
>Can we unite Marxism and Nietzsche?
One of Nietzsche's points in "The Antichrist" is that a higher human's duty is to treat the mediocre ones with gentle care, because his own existence literally depends on their well-being.
Meaning, one can be Nietzschean-like individualist and still care about collective.

Nietzsche's premise in "The Greek State" is, that you can't elevate everyone, the existence of higher (cultured) humans depends on human "slaves" to supply them - and even if you opened their eyes, they'd have no resources to achieve your height. They'd be doomed of realizing they're doomed to live in shit forever, and thus they would either pointlessly suffer or choose to topple everything to shit, to their debased level.
But the thing is - this premise is not necessary nowadays, given all the automatisation processes. You are about to have an overabundance of people who need not work (or who would lose their jobs to robots), but who could be potentially "healed" to contribute to culture. art, and shit.

Also, in "Beyond Good and Evil" (№262) Nietzsche remarks that aristocracy's virtues were forged by social conditions, but in this age of overabundance no external force nessecitates you, so you'll either have to keep self-disciplining yourself (morality-wise) to be higher human or degrade into Last Man consumer shit tier.
Meaning, basically "It's happening".

>>13284608

this is the kind of response I was looking for, thanks. everyone comparing national socialism to an attempted fusion of marxism and Nietzsche doesn't understand either, as if something as unpersonal as race would elevate you to a Superhuman

>>13271634
How about combining Marxists with helicopters? Free ride, speedy return trip.

>>13284608
You have literally contradicted yourself.
>a higher human's duty is to treat the mediocre ones with gentle care, because his own existence literally depends on their well-being.
then
>this premise is not necessary nowadays, given all the automatisation processes. You are about to have an overabundance of people who need not work
Meaning there is no longer any reason for the Ubermensch to care about them because he doesn't need them.

Nietzsche would still see the masses as dumb animals in your meme vision of automated communism

>>13284617

>you just don't understand them

lol

>>13283380

Marx said himself that he wasn't a Marxist.

>>13285048
It was a witticism to trigger French retards he disagreed with, so what. I hope you don't take that statement seriously.

>>13284997
>Meaning there is no longer any reason for the Ubermensch to care about them because he doesn't need them.
Ubermensch cares for 2 reasons:
1. They provide him sustenance
2. They receive "gifts" from him (the products of his virtue). Ubermensch constanly creates something and thus enforces values.

The sustenance problem prevents "masses" from becoming "multitudes", because they don't have time for themselves. Those who work hard are a subtype of the "Preachers of Death".

>Nietzsche would still see the masses as dumb animals
With capacity for improvenent and recovery from "sickness". And Ubermensch also cares for equals, because equals means rivals, worthy of respect.

>>13285093
It was funny and it certainly made them mad, but it was also prophetic, as proven by what has happened since then.

>>13285550
Meh, read it however you want

>>13271634
>marx
Stopped reading
Drink hemlock

>>13272859
>le meme man zizek said so
Ok I'm fucking tired of this shit
Not Marxism its self, but it is UNDOUBTEDLY a direct product of neo-Marxism. Its this "critical theory", this desire to pull at everything like a thread until nothing is left, to scour all history and philosophy with a fine tooth materialistic comb. This in combination with the liberal capitalism of the enlightenment has completely eroded the soul of humanity. Call it whatever the fuck you want.
If you fail to see that, then you're part of the herd.

>>13286336
>don't critique society man just be urself
liberalism was a huge mistake

>>13273907
Didn’t he frequent brothels?

>>13286336
>equating Marxist literary theory with critical theory
Pseud

>>13286349
>don't critique society man just be urself
Skepticism IS post-modernism. Its a reaction to the reactionary Liberalism of modernity. A skeptic reaction to skepticism.
The desire to question everything, to tear down percieved "social-constructs" of tradition and hierarchy in the name of so called progress (which by their own criteria is also just a social-construct but they conveniently ignore that), had NEVER been more prevalent in history than in the last 50 years.
You are part of the problem.

>>13286415
I did not, you seem to lack basic reading comprehension. I clearly said NOT Marxism, but neo-Marxism.

>>13284617
Based

>>13284617
>race
>unpersonal

>>13286425
It's pretty obvious you haven't read the postmodernists or the neo-marxists

>>13286445
How is that even a fucking argument? Explain how I am wrong and I will destroy your argument for you.

>>13286448
For a start, postmodernism isn't a unified movement, Foucault disagreed with Derrida, Baudrillard disagreed with everyone, ect. Specific critiques are usually a bit more coherent than the shotgun method. They are not practicing skepticism, they are practicing critique, I don't know why you changed your position here. I hope you understand the difference between the two. Also the claim that they simply want to tear down social-constructs, tradition, hierarchy, isn't really accurate at all. One of the major postmodern critiques is that tradition and social constructs are torn down too easily by the nature of "the postmodern condition". Also saying postmodernism ignores the idea of progress as a social construct is completely wrong, and progressives like the Marxists were some of the people postmodernism attacked the most. You should try reading them one day. I guarantee Difference and Repetition isn't going to tell you to tear down muh social constructs.

>>13286513
They did have overarching narratives they wouldnt question though, especially stuff to do with racism or jews

>>13286440
>">race >unpersonal"

>>13279463
that’s pretty based desu

>>13286425
Course, perfect wriggle room, criticise a strawman Marxism and then say 'what I was criticisig NEO-Marxism!'

>>13271634
The only logical fusion is to synthesize them to a higher form of marxism

>>13286377
yes, to sniff the BRAAAP

>>13275428
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0EkDdSP8xuN

>>13286637
Read my original post you fucking idiot.

>>13286513
You're right postmodernism isnt a unified movement because it isnt even a true "movement" to begin with. It is so broad it describes what is basically just a total cultural attitude.
>they are not practicing skepticism they are practicing critique
Tomäto tomåto. There is no key difference. If I'm mistaken please explain, but wikipedia equates the two frequently.
>the claim they want to tear down tradition isnt really accurate at all
It may not be their intention but they contribute to it, but yes you are correct and I didnt clarify properly. I'm packing symptoms and causes into one complaint.
>ignores the idea of progress as a social construct is wrong
Again I shoild have clarified, that was a bit of snarkiness on my part. I dont believe in "social constructs" to begin with. While I'm sure individual postmodern thinkers address this, most people dont. This attitude of post-modernism is deluded with the idea of progress through what you call critique and what i call skepticism. They may not call it that but thats what it is. That we're somehow achieving something by pulling things apart.

>>13286781
>wikipedia
Anon...

>>13286807
It being on Wikipedia doesnt make it wrong.
>If I'm mistaken please explain

>>13286821
Wikipedia doesn't even agree with you though. Read Kant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique#Critique_in_philosophy

>>13286906
>While encompassing a wide variety of approaches and disciplines, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.

>>13286933
>an attitude of skepticism... of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism
In philosophy, skepticism is a school of thought, not an attitude. This is why it's never a good idea to try and learn philosophy through wikipedia.

>>13286965
Where do you want those goalposts moved pham?

>>13287076
If I said conservatives have a skeptical attitude towards progress, would that make them skeptics too? (the answer is no, by the way)

>>13287109

>>13287117
skepticism comes out of Pyhrro and Descartes and Hume, it has a real philosophical tradition that goes far beyond "being skeptical about something in particlar". Critique is a form of philosophical inquiry coming out of Kant. You are uneducated and misusing basic terminology

>>13287149
>postmodernism isnt skeptic
>it literally is
>"but lets define skeptic"
Off urself my dood

>>13286781
Define socialism. Define capitalism.

>>13287319
Why?

>>13281371
>classless utopian society is not slave-morality oriented
hating social class is hating hierarchy is the way it is (amor fati and eternal recurrence).
also i have never read or see anything about jordan peterson.

>>13271984
fpbp

>fusing schools of thought
Pic related might count. Warning to anyone curious enough to actually read it, it's not entry level. Without some knowledge of Taoism and specifically Orthodox mysticism and theology you're going to be confused or start misinterpreting things very fast. Very interesting read though.

>>13286965
>In philosophy, skepticism is a school of thought, not an attitude.
lol

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/
>Expressivism gives voice to this ___skeptical attitude___ about practical reason.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/
>Further, a ___skeptical attitude___ toward the epistemic significance of disagreement seems to fit the spirit of these views quite well (more on this below).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/
>This ___skeptical approach___, fashionable in so-called post-modernist literature, crucially depends on a subjectivist theory of values, which is rarely articulated in this literature in any sophisticated way.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conscience/
>The “argument from ignorance”, which might be better labeled “argument from humility”, is based on a ___skeptical approach___ to the content of conscience.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lorenzo-valla/
>Some scholars have regarded Valla’s interest in these less formal or non-formal arguments as an expression of a ___skeptical attitude___ towards the possibility of certainty in knowledge in general.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-nonmonotonic/
>Considering an abstract argumentation framework based on Γ, SRules, and DRules, we give two examples of how a consequence set can be characterized by means of the ___skeptical approach___ (Prakken 2010)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supererogation/
>Definitions that are motivated by a ___skeptical attitude___ to supererogation often try to salvage the three-fold classification of obligation-permission-prohibition as exhausting the realm of moral actions.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/august-rehberg/
>Throughout the pantheism controversy, Rehberg maintained his ___skeptical attitude___ toward all religious belief.

>>13286933
protip, when wikipedia says 'postmodernism is generally defined by' without citing specific authors, it is not referring to those authors. it is dishonest to read a broad statement about postmodernism, associate certain authors with the movement in your head, then jump to the conclusion that those authors must all represent the movement as a whole, including its skepticism, irony, etc.

Aquinas + Hegel

literally Hitler