/lit/ - Literature

>Christianity is an oppressive bourgeois opiate of the masses that perpetuates their control

>Christianity is a tool of the slaves to smother and control the will of the great

well, which is accurate?

Reminder that these two thinkers are irreconcilable. Marx and Nietzsche cannot be brought together. The French have a twisted reading of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's.thought is ultimately petit-bourgeois and reactionary. He cannot be further from Marx and communist thought. Losurdo is right about Nietzsche.

It is well known in the academic literature that, with the exception of the ancient Greeks and Schopenhauer (C.P Janz, an emminent Nietzsche biographer notes, however, that there were substantial gaps in Nietzsche's comprehension of even the Ancients) Nietzsche had little first-hand knowledge of the philosophers he liked to criticise. We know that his knowledge of Kant, e.g., was derived almost entirely from Kuno Fischer's survey of the history of philosophy, with the exception of the Critique of Judgement, which he appears to have read in 1867-1868. This superficiality has long been known to taint the acuteness of his critiques and even the originality of his ideas. In this respect, Walter Kauffmann and Tchijewsky, e.e., notes how 'Nietzsschean' Hegel was in his younger years.
What remains, however, truly perplexing in the midst of all of this is the glaring lack of engagement on Nietzsche's part with respect to the works of his contemporaries and immediate successors (save Feuerbach), e.g., Engels and Marx, Bauer (with whom he was otherwise acquainted , Stirner, Lotze etc. Is it, here, a mere coincidence that in the absence of easy-access cursory surveys, Nietzsche finds himself unable to engage or in any respect, pretend to engage with serious thought?
In this thread, we meditate on and explore the ramifications of this possibility.

These two thinkers are diametrically opposed to each other

Biological essentialism vindicates Nietzsche and refutes Marx thoroughly. I think Marx's critic of Capitalism is the greatest ever conceived but his prescriptive thoughts are so out of touch and not compatible with how reality actually works - hence why Nietzsche wins.

How do Leftist's cope with this antithetical tension posed upon their thesis? Well, they don't. They just outright deny human biological essentialism as a phenomenon. Have any Marxist been brave enough to tackle Nietzsche yet that I'm not aware of?

Who should I read first?

Is it possible to be an ubermensch and a socialist?

I've been involved with organizing focused on tenants rights for the past 2 years. I started reading Nietzsche about a month ago and his writing has really been resonating for me

I've been trying to work out how his will to power fits with my understanding of Marxist organizing. The way I've come about it, its in my interest to continue with tenants rights organizing. I've seen firsthand the real power that comes with it, and am comforted with knowing that if my landlord ever tries to evict me, I'll have a powerful organization fighting tooth and nail on my behalf

>>11837250
this

also these guys