/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19421183]

>he thinks neech would approve of the modern left as everyone wants edgy smart mustache man on their team

PHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.19421409]

>>19421183
lol

[Anonymous No.19421580]

>>19421183
>the left is still trying to take Nietzsche from the right
holy cope, their admiration for Nietzsche is just making them look dumb - he would have hated to be compared to or synthesized with Marx

[Anonymous No.19421581]

>>19421183
Not even Marx would approve of the modern left

[Anonymous No.19421585]

>>19421183
There is no left or right.

[Anonymous No.19421587]

>>19421580
Google Acephale retard

[Anonymous No.19421588]

>>19421183
What nietzsche would or wouldnt think is irrelevant, he’s dead. whether his philosophy can be appropriated by the communist left is the question, a question which is answered with a resounding yes. Nobody cares what a dead guy would think, we care what he thought and how we can use that to gain power.

[Anonymous No.19421597]

>>19421588
Can you explain how his political philosophy can be used by the communist left? All I see is gross generalizations of his work being made use of.

[Anonymous No.19421598]

>>19421588
>question which is answered with a resounding yes
Proof?

[Anonymous No.19421600]

Not even marx would approve of the modern left lol

[Anonymous No.19421604]

>>19421183

[Anonymous No.19421608]

>>19421597
>>19421598
mao and nietzsche have identical conceptions of power

[Anonymous No.19421621]

Reminder that I am the ubermensch and I have already enumerated all the modifications that would express extreme female biased sexual size dimorphism in humans. I've basically already won. All we need now is to be able to edit hundreds of genes in a germline, then we will begin to mass modify humans to become giant women and small men.

The future political system is whichever one the giant women small man master race will construct for themselves. None of you are relevant and none of your ideas for the future matter.

[Anonymous No.19421628]

>>19421608
Which is?

[Anonymous No.19421630]

>>19421604
>Biggest pseud on twitter
Jk he's actually pretty cool. But even he has a whole essay written on why Nietzsche is fundamentally a Conservative.

[Anonymous No.19421637]

>>19421183
>Noooooo your taking inspiration his ideas WRONG
>One day, all the people who do it RIGHT like me will be rewarded when we all laugh at your hypocrisy
Pure resentment

[Anonymous No.19421641]

>>19421628
Might is right

[Anonymous No.19421648]

>Christcucks like Jordan Peterson unironically want to paint off Nietzsche as a Christian

PHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.19421662]

>>19421600
Certainly. Western Academia has dont a lot to render Marx as a liberal moralist. Basically anything at all to avoid taking materialism seriously. Which they find offensive to their sensibilities as the beneficiaries of the current power structure.
>>19421628
Power grows from the barrel of a gun

[Anonymous No.19421667]

>>19421587
>Acephale
irrelevant tripe, fuck off tranny

[Anonymous No.19421668]

>>19421662
>Power grows from the barrel of a gun
Then why is Somalia not a powerhouse?

[Anonymous No.19421675]

>>19421637
That's Ressentiment you pseud

[Anonymous No.19421677]

>>19421662
You're not a materialist either you dipshit lmao.

[Anonymous No.19421698]

>>19421641
>>19421662
>gross generalizations
Thanks for not changing my mind in any way about this.

[Anonymous No.19421700]

>>19421637
>>One day, all the people who do it RIGHT like me
BAP unironically has the most relevant interpretation of Nietzsche in the modern world. No lefty cuckademic will ever understand what might is right in a dionysian sense means.

[Anonymous No.19421816]

>>19421668
Because it doesn’t have that many guns compared to countries with organized militaries and shit you fucking moron

[Anonymous No.19421828]

>>19421588
>lets appropriate the guy who had ideas against what we think

[Anonymous No.19421935]

>>19421183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K__n-wk1oE

OH NO NO NO BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD

[Anonymous No.19421967]

he doesn't make that point at all.

[Anonymous No.19421975]

>>19421581
Marx didn't even approve his time's left. Read Critique of the Gotha program, which is a critique of... the left (socialists) from Marx's era.

[Anonymous No.19421993]

This book hasn’t even been released yet, so I guarantee none of you have read it.

[Anonymous No.19421998]

>>19421993
it has, 9 th november

[Anonymous No.19422057]

>>19421975
Was Marx the original "Not real leftists!"er?

[Anonymous No.19422217]

>>19422057
Possibly. Fake leftism is understandable, since it's always easier to reform Capitalism (socialism), than to abolish it.

[Anonymous No.19422222]

>>19421580
imagine thinking Nietzsche was either left or right

[Anonymous No.19422232]

And Classical marxism is not leftism. It's beyond the left-right dichotomy, which is about management of commodity.

[Anonymous No.19422241]

>>19421828
What you gonna do about it chud

[Anonymous No.19422260]

>>19422222
based quints of dionysian ecstasy

[Anonymous No.19422277]

imagine crypto-christcuck liberals (lets be kind! lets be sharing and caring! lets take care of the marginalized! lets lift up the weak!) thinking that Neetzcha would be on their side

[Anonymous No.19422302]

Literally none of you know what you're talking about.
The ubermensch is not restrained by any elses ethics. Whether you're a marxist, or a fascist, or a liberal, you are not the ubermensch.
Source: I am the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.19422332]

>>19422222 checked!

[Anonymous No.19422343]

>>19421183
>How to philosophize

[Anonymous No.19422372]

>>19421183
I hate you all

[Anonymous No.19422379]

>>19421580
He would have hated any notion of him being right or left (liberal)

[Anonymous No.19422408]

>>19422343
Is that a Franz Xaver Messerschmidt-poster I've just seen?

[Anonymous No.19422412]

>>19422372
I hate me all

[Anonymous No.19422439]

>repeater books, never heard of it
>google search
>it's literally nu-Zero Books
I feel sorry that Cuck Philosophy seemed so proud of this book deal

[Anonymous No.19422471]

>>19422439
>>it's literally nu-Zero Books
Actually it is the original zero books which split when zero went down the shitter. And they just recently bought the shit nu-zero

[Anonymous No.19422487]

>>19421183
The over-all degeneration of man down to what today appears to the socialist dolts and flatheads as their "man of the future"-as their ideal-this degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal, this animalization of man into the dwarf animal of equal rights and claims, is possible, there is no doubt of it. Anyone who has once thought through this possibility to the end knows one kind of nausea that other men don't know-but perhaps also a new task! (BGE, 203)

-Nietzsche
Nietzsche was not too fond of socialism.

[Anonymous No.19422500]

>>19422487
He wasn't fond of government either

[Anonymous No.19422504]

>>19422500

[Anonymous No.19422506]

>>19421667
>irrelevant
I guess you didn't even google

[Anonymous No.19422515]

>>19421183
He looks exactly like I thought he would
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.19422517]

>>19421975
>the left (socialists) from Marx's era.
social democrats.

[Anonymous No.19422570]

>>19422515
he showed his face before in a schopenhauer video

[Anonymous No.19422590]

>>19422487
>diminution of man into the perfect herd animal
This is the crux of his argument and it’s pretty weak. Change it from ‘herd’ to ‘pack’ and suddenly it is a good thing. Humans are not a herd since we are not roving herbivores, but we are a cooperative pack of hunting animals. The higher the degree of cooperation, the more effective the pack, the more is yielded from the hunt (now the hunt is labour). The socialist does not seek to turn man into a cow or some other such stupid animal, it seeks to turn man into a wolf, ruthless and powerful in our pursuit of collective riches.

[Anonymous No.19422613]

>>19422590
The problem is that human civilization is not reducible to pack dynamics. Rather you see pseudo-packs existing uneasily in a kind of herd matrix, consorting with and competing with other pseudo packs.

[Anonymous No.19422618]

>>19422590
>it seeks to turn man into a wolf, ruthless and powerful in our pursuit of collective riches
That's only true if Eugenics is used, secondly people don't like collective riches. People like their own riches. And the West has a history of individualism.

[Anonymous No.19422629]

>>19422590
>Change it from ‘herd’ to ‘pack’ and suddenly it is a good thing.
It's also no longer what he's getting at. Remember that his books are written for the ubermensch, above all else. This is what the ubermensch thinks / will think, and what can be done now to bring this individual about.

[Anonymous No.19422630]

>>19422590
And wolves have hierarchy

[Anonymous No.19422667]

>>19422613
Yes, because of competition, class dynamics, and, more recently, the anarchy of the market. Remove those things and man can be a united pack.
>>19422618
What belongs to everybody belongs to the individual. If society owns great riches, and I can partake in the use of these riches whenever I desire, then all the great riches of all of society are mine and free for my use. Thus everyman becomes richer than the richest man alive today.
>>19422629
Obviously it’s no longer what he’s getting at, that’s the point of my comment. I’m correcting his misunderstanding of socialism.
>>19422630
so? Socialism is a most perfect meritocracy, this means hierarchy, but only deserved not based off irrational market success, luck, birth-rights, etc. Equality of opportunity.

[Anonymous No.19422716]

>>19422667
>I’m correcting his misunderstanding of socialism.
It wasn't a misunderstanding. The herd / pack doesn't understand the ubermensch and therefore can't have free reign over all areas of society without also stunting the growth of the type. The ubermensch requires all forces to be present in society, and therefore acknowledges the value of socialism in certain areas of society (Nietzsche, for example, did advocate the perpetuation of democratic institutions despite his criticism of democracy), but these forces must be made hierarchic and/or separate so as not to stunt the growth of the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.19422726]

>>19422667
>but only deserved
deserved how?. it all boils down to some market success.

[Anonymous No.19422728]

>>19422667
>What belongs to everybody belongs to the individual. If society owns great riches, and I can partake in the use of these riches whenever I desire, then all the great riches of all of society are mine and free for my use. Thus everyman becomes richer than the richest man alive today.
Human nature doesn't really work like that sweetie, there is limited resources and it has to be distributed accordingly in some way its not a all you can eat buffer. Humans are greedy they don't want to share everything. Not everyone in the world could use 200 billion dollars worth of resources without catastrophic inflation and disaster.

>so? Socialism is a most perfect meritocracy, this means hierarchy, but only deserved not based off irrational market success, luck, birth-rights, etc. Equality of opportunity.
Socialist countries are full of nepotism, at least in capitalist countries you've a chance at getting a great life.

[Anonymous No.19422731]

>>19422667
Interesting that still nothing you said harmonizes with Nietzsche. Nietzsche was anti-banausic and loved the agonal culture, if there would be an state authority it main task would be to separate the sick from the healthy.

[Anonymous No.19422765]

neetsche was just another reactionary

losurdo is right about him

[Anonymous No.19422773]

>>19422765
>neetsche was just another reactionary
>Human, All Too Human opens with him shitting on traditionalists because he thinks the world can't go backwards like they wish it would

[Anonymous No.19422784]

>>19422773
And he is right? He still valued and tried to impose some of the values from ancient Greece, for just a little thing you forget and which is the main thing for Nietzsche: NOBILITY. He literally described the Dionysian spirit as the very Reality. Of course he was not a traditionalist in the common sense, but he was much farther from being a progressist.

[Anonymous No.19422804]

>>19422716
dont care
>>19422726
measurable success. for a chemist, as an example, it would be based on grades and success in experiments.
>>19422728
> there is limited resources and it has to be distributed accordingly in some way
Capitalism solves this problem for socialism by placing society right before post-scarcity, socialism just has to take the final step.
> Not everyone in the world could use 200 billion dollars worth of resources without catastrophic inflation and disaster.
Nobody can use 200 billion dollars worth of resources in a lifetime. There also would not be a market or inflation.
> Socialist countries are full of nepotism, at least in capitalist countries you've a chance at getting a great life.
The vast majority of political leaders in capitalist countries come from wealthy backgrounds, the vast majority of leaders in socialist countries worked their way up from the bottom.
>>19422731
Im sorry, did I say I was attempting to harmonize nietzsche and marx?

[Anonymous No.19422821]

>>19422804
>dont care
Exactly, you don't care, because your socialist ideals have turned you into only caring about the herd animal life.

[Anonymous No.19422830]

>>19422057
yeah

[Anonymous No.19422841]

>>19422804
>it would be based on grades and success in experiments.
and why somebody would pay for experiments in first place?. it´s because it would have an effect, a material succes in some way. there is no rational success, it´s always derived and dependent of irrational forces ( random inclinations of humans. )

[Anonymous No.19422849]

>>19422804
If you are not incorporating some of Nietzsche into your ideals then you are already wrong (just so you can see, for example, that there is compatibility between some of it and Christianity—which I take advantage to ask whether you are a christian, judging by your pictures).

[Anonymous No.19422854]

>>19422841
>and why somebody would pay for experiments in first place?
For the sake of it
> irrational forces ( random inclinations of humans. )
Random inclinations of humanity makeup what we call rationality.

[Anonymous No.19422859]

>>19422784
Wanting to change the world into something radically different that never existed before is neither a traditionalist nor progressist concept

[Anonymous No.19422872]

>>19422821
Yes, but I consider man to be a pack, not a herd. In this I am objectively correct as man is a social hunting animal, thus a pack animal.
>>19422841
see >>19422854
>>19422849
I am christian, yes. It is my religion as is an absurd revisionist marxism.

[Anonymous No.19422883]

>>19422859
Where does he say this? You might be referring to culture. But, again, read the last part of the Twilight of the Idols, Dionysus is the symbol per se of reality.

[Anonymous No.19422884]

>>19422854
>For the sake of it
you say the hierarchy would be deserved not as in irrational markets, but if its deserved in a program that just do it for the sake of it, how it is rational?.
>Random inclinations of humanity makeup what we call rationality.
i doubt you know what you are talking about, but anyway, explain yourself better. if rational is just a makeup with underlying irrationality commanding then there is no sense in calling it rational at all.

[Anonymous No.19422900]

>>19422804
>Capitalism solves this problem for socialism by placing society right before post-scarcity, socialism just has to take the final step.
By taking inventions from capitalist society, socialism can work is what you're saying.
>There also would not be a market or inflation.
Because?
The vast majority of political leaders in capitalist countries come from wealthy backgrounds, the vast majority of leaders in socialist countries worked their way up from the bottom.
Kim dynasty in Korea is a socialist theocratic society where almost everyone is poor as dirt. Fidel Castro was born to a financially successful sugar cane farmer. In China they even have a term for their benefactors of nepotism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princelings
So it happens everywhere. But at least you can be self made in countries with capitalism including China because they integrated capitalism.
And remember most millionaires are self made.

[Anonymous No.19422902]

>>19422884
>if rational is just a makeup with underlying irrationality commanding then there is no sense in calling it rational at all.
rationality solely describes human mental logic. what is rational for us is not rational for a beaver or an ant.

[Anonymous No.19422924]

>>19422872
Socialism/marxism is excommuncation latae sententiae, ok?

[Anonymous No.19422930]

>>19422924
im not a catholic

[Anonymous No.19422938]

>>19422902
that is stupid, you can see rationality in a hierarchy based in age, birth rights or market success if you just come up with this relativism.

[Anonymous No.19422941]

>>19422930
then you are not even a christian

[Anonymous No.19422986]

>>19422872
>man is a social hunting animal, thus a pack animal
Sure, but what about the OVERman? Why do you keep ignoring this type?

[Anonymous No.19423012]

>>19422630
>And wolves have hierarchy
Yet all the wolves eat roughly the same. You can search for this, but it's even obvious, because if not, the weak wolves, malnourished, wouldn't be able to hunt.
If you had a group of humans behaving like wolves, you would have human sharing the fruit of their labor.
If you had a group of wolves behaving like human, you would have a wolve, deciding he "own" the hunting territory, and the other wolves have to hunt, and give him the prey, for them to get back some scraps.

[Anonymous No.19423026]

>>19422728
>Mode of production based on commodity, money, Capital accumulation, wage labor.
>Humans are greedy
No shit. When you play poker, or monopoly, aren't you greedy?

[Anonymous No.19423040]

>>19423012
Humans aren't wolves

[Anonymous No.19423047]

>>19422941
Matthew 25-31
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, shelter the homeless. This is what it is to be a Christian

I'm not even the same anon btw

https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english233/Voltaire-Dogmas.htm

I heard an awesome voice ask them, "What good have you done to your fellow man?" Upon this followed a dismal silence; none dared answer [...]When all these proceedings were done, I heard promulgated the following decree: "ON BEHALF OF THE ETERNAL CREATOR, CONSERVATOR, REWARDER, PUNISHER, PARDONER, etc., be it known to all the inhabitants of the hundred thousand millions of billions of worlds it has pleased us to fashion, that we never judge said inhabitants according to their empty ideas, but solely according to their actions; for such is our justice."

I confess that this was the first time I had ever heard such a declaration: all those I have read on the little grain of sand where I was born ended with these words: "For such is our pleasure."

[Anonymous No.19423056]

>>19422924
capitalism isn't allowed, either. distributism is a form of socialism. dont confuse socialism with communism

[Anonymous No.19423076]

>>19423026
Monopoly sucks, and btw it was invented to show how wicked capitalism is

[Anonymous No.19423079]

>>19423056
>capitalism isn't allowed, either
completely agree

>distributism is a form of socialism
exactly and distributism is grievous sin, distributism should be absolutely forbidden

[Anonymous No.19423087]

>>19423026
That's the way we are, so we make do with what we are. That's why most countries have social security to balance out the greed.

[Anonymous No.19423090]

>>19422222
Quints confirm

[Anonymous No.19423096]

>>19423047
>le just be good and you'll be rewarded

[Anonymous No.19423124]

>>19423079
distributism is the official economic policy of the catholic church. do you have something else in mind?

[Anonymous No.19423148]

>>19423124
the church values charity, not any regulamentory form of distributism.

[Anonymous No.19423192]

>>19422343
Nigga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_of_the_Idols

[Anonymous No.19423294]

>>19422590
packs differ significantly from herds and crowds

[Anonymous No.19423311]

Reposting this gem from Klossowski on Nietzsche's economy.

>In the first place, the term 'master', which is borrowed from hierarchical societies, merely expresses, in Nietzsche's thought, an attitude of refusal with regard to a society founded on work, money and surplus production. If Nietzsche had remained here, his protest would have been purely oneiric, no different from the similar reactions of a Baudelaire, a Poe, a Flaubert and many others - those 'decadents'. But Nietzsche did not pursue his prophetic combat as a dreamer in revolt against the existing order of our industrial societies. The point of departure for his projects is the fact that the modem economy depends on science, and cannot sustain itself apart from science; that it rests on the 'powers of money', corporations, and on their armies of engineers and workers, whether skilled or not; and that at the level of production, these powers cannot develop their own techniques except through forms of knowledge required by the manipulation of the objects they produce, and through the laws that govern the exchange and consumption of these products.
>Nietzsche's 'aristocratism' has nothing to do with a nostalgia for past hierarchies, nor, in order to realize this aristocratism, does he appeal to retrograde economic conditions. On the contrary, convinced that the economy has an irreversible hold over the affects - and that the affects are exploited totally for economic ends - Nietzsche constantly interprets socialist systems as pessimistic negations of life's strongest impulses, even though some fragments go so far as to suggest that a socialist society might have the advantage of accelerating the massive saturation of mediocre needs - a process that would be indispensable to the setting apart of an unassimilated group, this group being the 'higher' caste. Consequently, he believes in the ultimate failure of the socialist experiment, and even expresses a desire to see the attempt be made, certain that it will end in an immense waste of human lives. This indicates that Nietzsche did not believe that any regime could escape the process of de-assimilated forces that must ultimately turn against it.
>Nietzsche more or less describes the 'aristocracy of the future' in terms of a behaviour that is at once aggressive with regard to the so-called ends pursued by economic (Anglo-Saxon) optimism, and complicit with every phase of the process that would lead to a generalized (and hence planetary) levelling. Nietzsche expects a movement of resistance to come from the extreme perfection of the mechanism.
>Here again, it is clear that Nietzsche is not concerned with the fate of humanity (a pure abstraction, in Stirner's sense); that he envisions humanity as something more like a raw material, and this always from a strictly 'artistic' point of view; and that future generations are and will only ever be valuable because of their rare successes, which are always individual.

[Anonymous No.19423520]

>>19421183
>HAHAHAHAHA
Stop laughing like that. It always looks as if the person typing is highly offended and trying to mask it.

[Anonymous No.19423536]

>>19421648
>le Peterson is Christian schizo

[Anonymous No.19423543]

>>19421700
Where can I read such an analysis

[Anonymous No.19423558]

>>19422784
marx was heavily influenced by aristotle, the ancient atomists, epicurus, and heraclitus but ok

[Anonymous No.19423561]

>>19423076
Didn't know that. That was my point. If you play a shit game, with shit rules, you'll behave like a shit player. That's what trad Capitalists don't understand.
>>19423087
>That's the way we are
Trads say mind over matter. We define our own reality. But when a classical Marxist argue that we could change reality to communal mode of production, the trad reply with: "it's human nature".
You have to decide, either human nature is static, never change, or it can. It doesn't change, or is static, only when it suits you. For Marx, human nature emanates from the relations of production. (See Gattungswesen: "the whole of human nature is not understood, as in classical idealist philosophy, as permanent and universal: the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation, with some aspects being biological. According to Professor Emeritus David Ruccio, a transhistorical concept of "human nature" would be eschewed by Marx who wouldn't accept any transhistorical or transcultural "human nature." much in the same was as in marxian critique of political economy.")

[Anonymous No.19423562]

>>19422222
The will to quints

[Anonymous No.19423563]

>>19423520
yeah, especially when it's that long and starts with a P or B, as if we live in a trope-ridden movie

[Anonymous No.19423569]

>>19422590
>Humans are not a herd since we are not roving herbivores, but we are a cooperative pack of hunting animals.
Have you met such "humans"? Whither do you see the wolf in their bovine stares?

[Anonymous No.19423576]

>>19423047

[Anonymous No.19423582]

>>19423311
>he envisions humanity as something more like a raw material, and this always from a strictly 'artistic' point of view; and that future generations are and will only ever be valuable because of their rare successes, which are always individual.
Are Klossowski/Bataille/Deleuze the only philosophers to have really gotten Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.19423583]

>>19423569
(Not him). Sure civilization changed people into cattle.

[Anonymous No.19423601]

>>19423583
Yes I'm aware wolfposter hasn't read N from other threads he's made his point in, or he'd understand that present humanity isn't some immutable animal but a product of a revolution in morality started by Pauline Christianity in which everything is about revenge against feeling one's own weakness.

[Anonymous No.19423665]

>>19423561
I don't believe in free will but I don't believe that we can just change human nature with the force of government, it hasn't worked out. We don't define our reality but we should accept reality, and the reality is that humans don't want to live in communes and share everything. People like owning homes and having their own private property and having rights to his property. We can help those at the bottom with a social safety net, but anything more than that you have to earn for yourself.

[Anonymous No.19423709]

>>19423558
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.19423726]

>>19422629
>It's also no longer what he's getting at. Remember that his books are written for the ubermensch, above all else. This is what the ubermensch thinks / will think, and what can be done now to bring this individual about.
You guys still don't get that the ubermensch is satire? How old are you lmfao?

[Anonymous No.19423794]

>>19423726
>the ubermensch is satire

[Anonymous No.19423807]

>>19421588
Checked but no tf it wouldn't. Nietzsche was literally survival of the fittest

[Anonymous No.19423820]

>>19423794
Yes, it's called a "troll" in zoomer vernacular I guess. Nietzsche was basically autoironically building a caricature of what a teenage angst edgelord who listens to Burzum would consider "ideal" and I can't believe anyone would take him 100% seriously when even he himself repeatedly advises not to.

[Anonymous No.19423836]

>>19423820
The only troll here is you m8

[Anonymous No.19423849]

>>19423836
Ok zoomer.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10323/irony-in-friedrich-nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19423857]

>>19423849
>stackexchange
And the trolling continues!

[Anonymous No.19423944]

I will now refute Nietzsche.

In Carl Jung's autobiography he wrote about the time he visited a remote African village. He was interested in African folk spiritual beliefs and decided to ask the village chief what he thought constituted good and evil. The chief replied, "Good is when I steal my enemy’s cow. Evil is when he steals mine."

I think that African chief is the true Nietzschean man. He lives beyond good and evil; he only acts in self-interest and has a totally relativistic sense of what is good and what is bad. The chief abides by master morality, taking what he wants from the weak and feeling no pang of conscious for what he does. And what does the chief reap by adopting this moral framework? Well, he lives in a mud hut, chucks spears at buffalo like a neanderthal, and has a life expectancy of >40 years old. In other words, he's a dumb nigger who lives like a subhuman, and that's exactly what Nietzsche was, a stupid nigger. All his life he benefited from living a civil society that was guided by "slave morality". Nietzsche lived a peaceful existence, had access to high education, and had a cozy pension from his university job that allowed him to traipse across Europe simping for women who despised him. All one needs to do to see the faults in his moral framework (perhaps anti-moral framework would be more appropriate) is to look at what a man who embodies these ideas lives like.

[Anonymous No.19423949]

>>19423857
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra

[Anonymous No.19423952]

>>19423949
>wikipedia
It just keeps getting better.

[Anonymous No.19423957]

>>19423944
What about all the other psychopaths who are actually successful, like CEOs, politicians, mafia, illuminati, Hollywood, Elon Musk, etc?

[Anonymous No.19424009]

Nietzsche celebrated when the Paris Commune militants were executed and said socialists were parasites that deserve to be wiped out

[Anonymous No.19424018]

>>19424009
source: dude trust me

[Anonymous No.19424028]

>>19423709
no, i have read his works and copious amounts of secondary literature on him
you might want to look up what his phd thesis was on btw

[Anonymous No.19424034]

>>19424018
>source: dude trust me
https://freerlives.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/nietzsche-part-1-politics/

[Anonymous No.19424555]

>>19423520
>being this self conscious about your own laughter
Hoho!

[Anonymous No.19424561]

>>19422343
The average /lit/izen's level of knowledge about Nietz

[Anonymous No.19424781]

I really like the book. But I'm already a commie, so I don't get offended by it.
Way better take on Nietzsche, than Dr. P.

[Anonymous No.19424801]

>>19422222
enlightened quints

[Anonymous No.19424816]

>>19423096
I'm not christian so I don't care, I was answering to the ignorant larper above

[Anonymous No.19424850]

>>19423665
>People like owning homes and having their own private property and having rights to his property.
Please do not tell me you think that under socialism/communism you don't have the right to own stuff.


You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society,
private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the
few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us,
therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose
existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is
just what we intend

[Anonymous No.19424859]

>>19422412
Only I'm allowed to be annoyed by your retardation anon

[Anonymous No.19424867]

oh sweet a schizo thread

[Anonymous No.19425029]

>>19422222
Yes. He is for pre-French Revolution politics.
You are right.

[Anonymous No.19425276]

>>19421700
Bronze age pedophile is a hack, icycalm is the real hotness

[Anonymous No.19425414]

>>19421668
damn lit is getting dumber every day

[Anonymous No.19425466]

>>19422804
>The vast majority of political leaders in capitalist countries come from wealthy backgrounds, the vast majority of leaders in socialist countries worked their way up from the bottom.
Are you really going to judge the state of a country based on its powerful elites instead of the average standard of living?

[Anonymous No.19425631]

>>19424850
right is bourgeois, it persists into the lower phase of communism but is absent in the higher phase. and in a fully communist society there's no "owning stuff", because this concepts loses all meaning when the entire society as a unity owns everything. means of consumption can come into personal use of groups of people or individuals, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.19425641]

>>19424028
I mean how does being influenced by philosophers (that doesn’t necessarily indicate you even agree with them, like Marx probably was influenced by Heraclitus because of Hegel, Kant was a lot by Leibniz, Wolff) have anything to do with cherishing the values of the society itself?

[Anonymous No.19425669]

Beyond Good and Evil is probably the single most vindicating rebuke of Marxism from a right wing perspective. It's pure art.

[Anonymous No.19425687]

>>19423944
>Jung read Henryk Sienkiewicz
holy mother of based

[Anonymous No.19425694]

>>19423807
>Checked but no tf it wouldn't. Nietzsche was literally survival of the fittest
So is Marx. Revolutions happen because ruling class is forced to cripples the economic principles that made it the ruling class further and further in order to secure the status quo and their power, until the system becomes completely dysfunctional, and the new formation succeeds it as it is plain and simple more efficient at fulfilling it's economic function, and therefore possess more economic and political power even within the old paradigm.

That's what the ancoms seethe about as "debasement of Smith" in the global Capitalist paradigm, i.e. how the globohomo and their pet governments are no longer Tru Capitalists with how they fuck over supply and demand (which is true is the point).

There's no contradiction with survival of the fittest here. Marx himself was fascinated with Darwin.

[Anonymous No.19425700]

>>19421662
Based take.

[Anonymous No.19425703]

>>19422804
In comparison with a genius, that is, with a being who either engenders or gives birth, taking both words in their highest sense - the scholar, the average scientific man, always has something of the old maid about him, for, like the old maid, he doesn't understand the two most valuable things men do. In fact, for both scholars and old maids we concede, as if by way of compensation, that they are respectable - in their cases we stress respectability - and yet having to make this concession gives us the same sense of irritation. Let's look more closely: What is the scientific man? To begin with, a man who is not a noble type. He has the virtues of a man who is not distinguished, that is, a type of person who is not a ruler, not authoritative, and also not self-sufficient. He has diligence, a patient endorsement of position and rank, equanimity about and moderation in his abilities and needs. He has an instinct for people like him and for what people like him require, for example, that bit of independence and green meadows without which there is no peace in work, that demand for honour and acknowledgement (which assumes, first and foremost, recognition and the ability to be recognized -), that sunshine of a good name, that constant stamp of approval of his value and his utility, which is necessary to overcome again and again the inner suspicion at the bottom of the hearts of all dependent men and herd animals. The scholar also has, as stands to reason, the illnesses and bad habits of a non-noble variety: he is full of petty jealousy and has a lynx eye for the baseness in those natures whose heights are impossible for him to attain. He is trusting, only, however, as an individual who lets himself go but does not let himself flow. With a person who is like a great stream he just stands there all the colder and more enclosed - his eye is then like a smooth, reluctant lake in which there is no longer any ripple of delight or sympathy. The worst and most dangerous thing of which a scholar is capable he gets from his instinctive sense of the mediocrity of his type, from that Jesuitry of mediocrity, which spontaneously works for the destruction of the uncommon man and seeks to break every arched bow or - even better! - to relax it. That is, to unbend it, with consideration, of course, naturally with a flattering hand - to unbend it with trusting sympathy: that is the essential art of Jesuitry, which has always understood how to introduce itself as a religion of pity.

[Anonymous No.19425716]

>>19425703
No matter how gratefully we may accommodate ourselves to the objective spirit - and who has never been sick to death of everything subjective and its damnably excessive obsession with itself [Ipsissimosität]! - we must ultimately also learn caution concerning this gratitude and stop the exaggeration with which in recent years we have celebrated the depersonalizing of the spirit, emptying the self from the spirit, as if that were the goal in itself, redemption and transfiguration. That's what tends to happen, for example, in the pessimism school, which, for its part, has good reasons for awarding highest honour to "disinterested knowledge." The objective man who no longer curses and grumbles like the pessimist, the ideal scholar, in whom the scientific instinct after thousands of total and partial failures all of a sudden comes into bloom and keeps flowering to the end, is surely one of the most valuable of implements there are, but he belongs in the hands of someone more powerful. He is only a tool, we say. He is a mirror - he is no "end in himself." The objective man is, in fact, a mirror: accustomed to submit before everything which wishes to be known, without any delight other than that available in knowing and "mirroring back" - he waits until something comes along and then spreads himself out tenderly so that light footsteps and the spiritual essences slipping past are not lost on his surface and skin. What is still left of his "person" seems to him accidental, often a matter of chance, even more often disruptive, so much has he become a conduit and reflection for strange shapes and experiences. He reflects about "himself" with effort and is not infrequently wrong. He readily gets himself confused with others. He makes mistakes concerning his own needs, and it's only here that he is coarse and careless. Perhaps he gets anxious about his health or about the pettiness and stifling atmosphere of wife and friend or about the lack of companions and society - indeed, he forces himself to think about his anxieties: but it's no use! His thoughts have already wandered off to some more general example, and tomorrow he knows as little as he knew yesterday about how he might be helped. He has lost seriousness for himself - as well as time.

[Anonymous No.19425724]

>>19425716
He is cheerful, not from any lack of need, but from a lack of fingers and handles for his own needs. His habitual concessions concerning all things and all experiences, the sunny and uninhibited hospitality with which he accepts everything which runs into him, his kind of thoughtless good will and dangerous lack of concern about Yes and No - alas, there are enough cases where he must atone for these virtues of his! - and as a human being he generally becomes far too easily the caput mortuum [worthless residue] of these virtues. If people want love and hate from him - I mean love and hate the way God, women, and animals understand the terms - he'll do what he can and give what he can. But we should not be amazed when it doesn't amount to much - when he reveals himself in these very matters as inauthentic, fragile, questionable, and rotten. His love is forced, his hate artificial, more a tour de force, a tiny vanity and exaggeration. He is genuine only as long as he is permitted to be objective: only in his cheerful comprehensiveness [Totalismus] is he still "Nature" and "natural." His mirror soul, always smoothing itself out, no longer knows how to affirm or to deny. He does not command, and he does not destroy. "Je ne méprise presque rien" [there is almost nothing I despise] - he says with Leibnitz: We should not fail to hear and should not underestimate that presque [almost]!3 Moreover, he is no model human being. He does not go ahead of anyone or behind. He places himself in general too far away to have a reason to take sides between good and evil. When people confused him for such a long time with the philosopher, with the Caesar-like breeder and cultural power house, they held him in much too high honour and overlooked the most essential thing about him - he is an instrument, something of a slave, although certainly the most sublime form of slave, but in himself nothing - presque rien [almost nothing]! The objective man is an instrument, an expensive, easily damaged and blunted tool for measurement and an artful arrangement of mirrors, something we should take care of and respect. But he is no goal, no way out or upward, no complementary human being in whom the rest of existence is justified, no conclusion - and even less a beginning, a procreation and first cause. He is nothing strong, powerful, self-assured, something which wants to be master. He is much rather merely a delicate, finely blown mobile pot for forms, which must first wait for some content and meaning or other, in order to "give himself a shape" consistent with it - usually a man without form and content, a "selfless" man. And thus also nothing for women, in parenthesi

[Anonymous No.19425727]

>>19422500
Good think that the whole point of Communist society per Marx is that it's a stateless one.

[Anonymous No.19425732]

No ones reading that

[Anonymous No.19425857]

>>19423807
>Nietzsche was literally survival of the fittest
Guess you overlooked the part where he refuted this type of Darwinism, huh?

[Anonymous No.19426004]

>>19423665
>People like owning homes and having their own private property and having rights to his property.
Classical marxism was never about taking your home. It's not about taking your home. It's about not giving up your labor for free.

[Anonymous No.19426039]

>>19423944
This is the correct interpretation of Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19426172]

>>19421183
You must be retarded and have not read the book. He explicitly says that he does not think that Nietzsche was a leftist or would approve of any marxist movement. This book is an attempt at a Marxist reading of Nietzsche. He discusses what of Nietzsche's philosophy leftists can make use of and brings up examples where socialists have been influenced by him. Nietzsche was a revolutionary thinker, of course there are some convergences.

[Anonymous No.19426183]

>>19426172
The guy said in his live stream that he disagrees with Losurdo’s claim that Nietzsche has reactionary inclinations despite not having read the book because it’s a thousand pages. But he doesn’t need to read Losurdo, he just needs to take Nietzsche without any leftist bias.

[Anonymous No.19426185]

>>19426172
Besides, there are countless other leftist (non marxist) readings of Nietzsche, i.e. Deleuze, Derrida, Bataille, Foucault. Are people on this board genuinely this fucking daft?

[Anonymous No.19426193]

>>19426183
He also said that he will read it and make a written response. Stop being willfully obtuse.

[Anonymous No.19426217]

>>19426185
>Deleuze, Derrida, Bataille, Foucault.
All of those are the exact same, wrong reading of Nietzsche, except for Derrida, who is not philosophically leftist.

[Anonymous No.19426229]

>>19426217
>All of those are the exact same, wrong reading of Nietzsche
You have obviously not read them.

[Anonymous No.19426237]

>>19426229
I have read all of them on Nietzsche. You are easily swayed by superficial, meaningless distinctions if you think there is any significant difference between what those three said about him.

[Anonymous No.19426239]

>>19422500
was he really fond of anything really

[Anonymous No.19426241]

>>19426237
you need to improve your reading comprehension in that case.

[Anonymous No.19426260]

>>19426241
Don't worry, you'll leave your Nietzsche and theory phases some day kid. And then all of the caustic and simplistic nonsense you invested time into will reveal itself for what it is.

[Anonymous No.19426261]

>>19422500
Nietzsche approved of lying and stealing.

[Anonymous No.19426278]

>>19426193
Have you read the part that one does not need to read a thousand page book to deduce an obvious character in Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.19426587]

>>19426217
They're wrong, yes, but Klossowski is right.

[Anonymous No.19426598]

>>19426217
Derrida was still wrong in some ways. His signifier chain and sous rature are hypocrisies that miss the point of the will to power.

[Anonymous No.19426781]

Some people really didn't read On the genealogy of morals which, in a paragraph, put socialism as the laughing stock of bloodthirsty avengers

[Anonymous No.19426789]

>>19422222
Incredible. It is checked by me.

[Anonymous No.19426867]

>>19421183
>this is the biggest voice in Marxism today
OH NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.19426871]

>>19426867
this is not the biggest voice in marxism today

[Anonymous No.19426889]

>>19421183
Would you listen to a guy that looks like this?

[Anonymous No.19426905]

>>19426889
Does he pass the physiognomy test?

[Anonymous No.19426992]

>>19421630
He's a huge retard like every twitter e-celeb you faggots fellate

[Anonymous No.19427023]

>>19426905
Idk I would nut on his giant forehead while he gives me this look though

[Anonymous No.19428097]

>a person must have near-close relations to your political philosophy otherwise you cannot use some of their arguments
you could probably analyze any philosopher with any political lens and you wouldn't necessarily be 'wrong'. haven't read nietzsche but i imagine there are some aphorisms that could fit either one umbrella and some that can fit under another.
to assign philosophers as exclusively left or exclusively right is for sensationalist idiots.

[Anonymous No.19428124]

>>19426867
>>19423520

[Anonymous No.19428421]

>>19426889
Yes, I would listen to him. It could be worse, he could be trans, or be a breadtube subhuman British cocksucker like Hbomberguy and Shuan.
In fact, he is one of the few leftists that I follow. Should tell you one or two things.

[Anonymous No.19428434]

>>19428421
he likes hbomb. although i think specifically for the vg stuff not the politics

[Anonymous No.19428548]

>>19426781
This. Lefties can still try and appropriate whatever bullshit you want, he would just be laughing at you beyond the grave

[Anonymous No.19428555]

>>19428421
I like some of his videos, but he got absolutely BTFO by that libertarian podcaster dude (forget his name) during their debate and his video on BLM was absolutely terrible. Honestly lost some respect after those events, it evinced his work as that of a sheltered grad student in his academic theory bubble like so many others. Still useful as a theory source but I don't really take his politics seriously at all. Hcuck is a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.19428563]

Leftists are mentally deranged.

[Anonymous No.19428576]

>>19428555
checked
>libertarian podcaster dude (forget his name)
the distributist, maybe? but he isnt a libertarian but thats the only guy Jonas debated with.

[Anonymous No.19428814]

>>19428576
that guy did not btfo him
>>19428555
can you explain what's wrong with the blm vid? also yeah specify who you mean by the other person because the distributist made an ass of himself if that's who you mean

[Anonymous No.19429458]

>>19422343
Keklmao

[Anonymous No.19429552]

>>19426781
Or Zarathustra, which said the same thing but in allegory as the fire-hound which he calls the spirit of revolution and mocks.

[Anonymous No.19429563]

>>19421183
>edgy
>smart
>mustache
>man
lmao ok

[Anonymous No.19429667]

>>19429552
See >>19423849 >>19423949

[Anonymous No.19429721]

>>19429667
Thank you for pointing me towards posts that were already to me LOL

[Anonymous No.19429840]

>>19426278
He didn't say that, dumbass

[Anonymous No.19429849]

>>19421183
>write a bunch of vague babble crap in a book
>people still talk about you more than 100 years later
>people try to interpret your crap through their own shitty perspective
uh uh I know! Nietzsche was an edgelord virgin incel power hungry low esteem narcissistic emo closet gay just like most of 4chan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go read that paragraph from TSZ that proves my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No no no don't read it like that. It's a metaphor!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19429869]

>>19429552
On Tarantulas is basically Nietzche mocking socialists for fetishizing equality, and using it as a justification for revenge as a way of gaining power. If you've been around socialists - they almost always talk about taking revenge for on people, and the use their crocodile tears to make themselves sound like victims.

[Anonymous No.19429897]

>>19429869
Yes and the book criticizes this.
What you're describing is what Marx himself attacked as "crude communism"

[Anonymous No.19429910]

>>19422804
>don’t care
This is evidence of your mediocrity. This is a statement that repulses those who are above mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.19429979]

>>19429897
All communism is a crude joke; I'm not sure what you mean

[Anonymous No.19430151]

>>19429979
Yeah because you've never read Marx

[Anonymous No.19430154]

>>19421183
>He things
what a fucking r-tard.

[Anonymous No.19430158]

>>19421183
neetch (accurately) thought leftists were larping christfags that couldn't cope with heaven not existing and told them to go back to church. beyond that he explicitly promotes slavery and even goes as far as to say that philosophical progress is only possible in slave societies because the will to enslave lesser men is the political manifestation of le uberman's will to dominate his soul and reality. political slavery is necessary in his system. leftoids stupidly or disingenuously interpret his critique of "slave morality" as a critique of religious traditionalism because religious people are slaves bro. that said his psychologistic and even materialist account of morality is indeed consonant at a basic level with plenty of skeptical arguments leftoids use in their systems which is probably all cuckold philosophy youtube man talks about in his book

[Anonymous No.19430850]

>>19429840
What are you on about, you idiot? I am saying that. It is just easy to see the guy is not interested in a genuine engagement with Nietzsche, he already knows what he wants from him, that’s why he knows he’ll not be convinced by a thousand book he hasn’t even read yet.

[Anonymous No.19431151]

>>19430158
I have a large amount of respect for the Neetch despite his attacks on Christianity. If nothing else he was intellectually honest and didn't hold back on atheists who simply internalized Christian ethics and thought they were self evident truths rather than contingent historical and cultural traditions. The number of people who misread his "God is dead!" quote as it being triumphalism over rationality defeating religion is absurd. It was a lament, a lament about man finding himself in a cold, unfeeling, uncaring cosmos guided by nothing more than pure arbitrary chance and whether or not man would be up to the challenge of moving forward anyway and finding his own meaning in the world.

If modernity has proven anything the answer is a resounding no. Modern man is far closer to Nietzsche's last man than they are to the Uberman. Nietzsche would certainly be disgusted by the modern new atheists who simply mindlessly accept Christian cultural presuppositions while claiming religion is worthless.

[Anonymous No.19431765]

>>19421641
Sir are you retarded?