/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2466436]

When socialists prove that the distribution of wealth in present-day society is the consequence of countless injustices and atrocities, rejecting in summa the obligation towards anything so unjustly established, they are seeing one particular thing only. The whole past of the old culture is built on violence, slavery, deception, error; but we, the heirs of all these conditions, indeed the convergence of that whole past, cannot decree ourselves away, and cannot want to remove one particular part. The unjust frame of mind lies in the souls of the “have-nots,” too; they are no better than the “haves,” and have no special moral privilege, for at some point their forefathers were “haves,” too. We do not need forcible new distributions of property, but rather gradual transformations of attitude; justice must become greater in everyone, and the violent instinct weaker.”

—Friedrich Nietzsche, libertarian

[Anonymous No.2466437]

>—Friedrich Nietzsche, libertarian

oh go away, you either know what's wrong or you're a real idiot

[Anonymous No.2466440]

>>2466437
For the most part, it's actually correct. Nietzsche's political conclusions regarding property, state, individual, socialism, communism, etc. etc. were all quite libertarian. This is not in fact especially controversial among Nietzsche scholars who actually parse his political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2466441]

>Friedrich Nietzsche, man who could not stop contradicting himself

[Anonymous No.2466449]

>>2466441
never really departed from his hardline anti-socialist conclusions

[Anonymous No.2466451]

Nietzsche would have been a proud member of the nazi party.

[Anonymous No.2466456]

>>2466451
ultra-patriotic, ultra-statist National Socialist Worker's Party? highly unlikely

[Anonymous No.2466463]

>>2466451
He detested anti-Semites. He would have been a very good Conservative Revolutionary though. Probably would have liked Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.2466476]

>>2466451
He wasn't a collectivist so no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXXpMs3T3jA

you would all vote for hitler.

[Anonymous No.2466478]

He would have approved of the Nazis if he was born a thousand years later in a time of decay. He was a mostly retrospective guy, and he would have had no taste for the sordid tabloid realities of running in elections as an elitist-militarist party. Nazism was almost neo-feudal in its plans for eastern europe; there was going to be millions of slaves and aristocratic plantations. With Nietzsche, slavery was the price of high culture. They were definitely building a nordic elite, and encouraging competition and ruthlessness within that elite, etc. State sponsored artists like Arno Breker and Josef Thorak were heavy-going classicists of the kind Nietzsche approved. People are too quick to dismiss the genuinely Nietzschean qualities of Nazi Germany because they want to hijack his philosophy for their directionless leftist individualism; they use his relativism to tear down opposing ideals, but ignore his core values.

[Anonymous No.2466479]

Nietzsche's problem is a PR problem: most people read him when they're too young to fully appreciate the subtleties of this ideas, as most younger readers of philosophy are either looking for validation of their own feelings, are pretentious, or see only extremes of thought.

And they have little to compare him to.

I take comfort in this, actually, as well as academia's attitude swaying between ambivalence and dismissiveness of his works.

[Anonymous No.2466482]

Nietzsche loved the classics, and is rare in preferring Rome over Greece.

[Anonymous No.2466483]

>>2466478
...'Millions' applying only to 'slaves' and not 'plantations.'

[Anonymous No.2466491]

>>2466478
>Nazism was almost neo-feudal in its plans for eastern europe; there was going to be millions of slaves and aristocratic plantations.

woa no this is nonsense propaganda made up by the soviets

[Anonymous No.2466511]

>>2466479
He's quite similar to Ayn Rand in this respect, inter alia. Also Camus.

[Anonymous No.2466523]

>>2466511
Indeed, but Camus suffers as Nietzsche does, whereas Rand benefits.

[Anonymous No.2466538]

>>2466523
Largely agreed, though Rand gets more flack than she deserves on method and whatnot. Objectivist Epistemology is annoying, but not that compared to the general slew of books published on the subject.

Who else suffers from early exposure? Wilde? Orwell? Sartre? Lewis? Einstein?

[Anonymous No.2466552]

>>2466538
>Who else suffers from early exposure?

Almost every religious text. Not so much early exposure, as exposure to people who have no business trying to interpret it.

[Anonymous No.2466616]

>>2466476
wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdzmLdKNAik#t=1h4m3s

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2466733]

ITT:
People completely disregard the proper content of the OP, or in fact any kind of content or subject matter, and go on and on about how they were into Nietzsche before he was cool.

Socialism isnt really about who is diserving in any such sense. Socialism is about liberating people of the scarcities that keep them from being a proper person. Of course poor people are as capable of doing shitty things as rich people are. In fact, one would sort of expect poor people to be "worse" because they lacked the means to be invested in them that might make them into better people under whatever interpretation you happen to choose. OP's quote sort of reminds me of how some people will derive amusement from seeing opressed people engage in stereotypical misbehavior (niggers, for instance) as if it proves some kind of point about how superior they are. As if you couldnt get your average pack of suburban WASPs to behave far worse from just a couple weeks of treating them like shit.

I like angry nietzche better when hes talking about rape. I think Nietzsche today would be a /b/tard actually.

[Anonymous No.2466830]

>>2466733
While socialism has to some large degree been about who is 'deserving' (see e.g. Marxist exploitation theory), it has always by standard definition been about the redistribution of property and specifically the transference of so-called 'private property' i.e. 'capital goods' i.e. 'the means of production' to a collectivity, functionally meaning a state. And that is precisely what Nietzsche (along with virtually all contemporary economists) criticizes as 'socialism.' Nietzsche, too, proposes ideological change away from legitimated states and toward his kind of individualism.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467110]

>>2466830
As if Marx wanted to have anything to do with a concept of "morality" diserving of that name.
Pretty sure Marx was all for the eventual abolition of the state. In fact he shares the same kind of liberalist utopism that you ascribe to Nietzsche (and ironically to Hayeck too it seems?). The real difference is that Marx has the sense to grasp that this has very little to do with "individualism", the ideology of which he (rightly) attributes to an economical need to separate "private affairs" from "public" ones. Since Marx's point of departure is largely an interpretation of idealism where the "labour" is more or less identified with that tendency which deploys human spirit (taken in an idealist sense), and that said forms of ideology simply alienate this tendency, liberation would really be about not having a reason in the first place to accrue individuated property rights, maintain abstracted notions of morality, ... over and against other people.

tl;dr: Wherever Nietzsche and Hayeck would take it, Marx takes it further by seeing through individualism. Therefore his utopian liberation penis is largest by far.

Did someone say "economists"?
1) Communism has nothing to do with planned economy.
2) Socialism (not communism) has been and is still being applied in Europe to develop welfare states. It is not a big secret that they work perfectly and that the only serious threat is the kind of crisis capitalism that has been fucking over everyone indiscriminately. Ok, so they may fail because "capitalism" is taking it with it down the gutter... Congratulations on "your side winning" I suppose? And its not even really happening in a free market environment in the first place, see Chomsky etc...
3) Do you realise communism has never actually been properly attempted?

[Anonymous No.2467115]

>Friedrich Nietzsche, libertarian

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467125]

>>2467115
You know,
thats pretty hilarious coming from someone who uses photos of Lenin as if they were meme pictures.
Hey I think you better go talk to your mom I think you're late for cello class and she wants to drive you there.

[Anonymous No.2467137]

>>2467125
Yeah.
>2012
>not using Stalin in pics
This is why you don't get to bang Brazilian models

[Anonymous No.2467147]

>>2467110
>3) Do you realise communism has never actually been properly attempted?

Communism is the very definition of failure.

[Anonymous No.2467159]

>>2467137
Since when does Zizek bang Brazilian models?

[Anonymous No.2467165]

words like atrocities that clearly have a negative connotation is subjective; there are no atrocities, just actions. people who are victims of atrocities are just sufferers of life in general.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467167]

>>2467147
By "properly attempted" I dont mean they actually tried it the way it says in the manual and failed.
I do mean they never actually tried to do it properly, as in, they did things and called it communism when it didnt nearly fit the definition.
The problem is that to grasp what communism means in the first place, you have to actually read what Marx wrote as opposed to what people said he wrote. And then, sadly, the communist manifesto is really a very bad intro into his theory.

tl;dr: Communism should really be attempted once capitalism actually becomes economically obsolete. Think star trek type technology but people still being tricked into believing they need to be made so desperate as to work their life away for other peoples profit.

[Anonymous No.2467168]

>>2467159
Zizek has monopolized the Argentinian market, you only have access to the Brazilian now.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467189]

>>2467137

[Anonymous No.2467266]

I can't read Nietzsche for I am afraid for me mental health. Whatever he came up with he went mad. So that can't be good.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467294]

>>2467266
just wear a condom whenever you fuck a hooker/slut/naieve household maid.
You should be fine.

[Anonymous No.2467306]

dat feel when everybody says I don't get Marx, but I find myself agreeing with his philosophy and politics the more I read his works

[Anonymous No.2467331]

>>2467167
>capitalism
>ever becoming obsolete

commies sure have their delusions

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467373]

>>2467331
I didnt say it's necessarily going to happen. I dont think this is really the kind of philosophical question that we have genuine answers to. But if you really read Marx you will see that there is actually a lot of sense in what he was trying to say.

I'm just saying that when people argue against "communism" it's usually a complete strawman and they miss the point entirely. Usually noone notices this because people who call themselves "communists" are actually themselves completely in the dark about what communism is about, for the reasons I have given. Basically they would have to be some kind of... Hegelian-idealist time travellers? Which they aren't, usually.

So you can sort of see how sad it is when usually even the people defending "communism" dont know what they're talking about, they think its about some superficial notion of "social justice", planned economy and being some totally gay hipster protestfag (a "revolutionary")

[Anonymous No.2467398]

>>2467331
Planning on living forever to find out?

[Anonymous No.2467402]

>>2467373
Never heard of "Marxist revisionists" or "neo-Marxists"?

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467420]

>>2467402
Yes, I have, coincidentally.
While those are interesting theoretical genres in their own right, I would say they're not actually communist theories.
Also, I think the terms you use are sort of pejorative as if all those people do is try to be marxist but dont get it, as opposed to doing something original with it.

[Anonymous No.2467425]

>>2466436
>"We do not need forcible new distributions of property, but rather gradual transformations of attitude; justice must become greater in everyone, and the violent instinct weaker.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, non-revolutionary social democrat

[Anonymous No.2467441]

If Nietzsche would be anything politically, with is talk of nobility of the spirit, he would be meritocratic. Libertarianism is too much aimed at economics, socialism at the rabble. The ideal of the first is the businessman, the ideal of the second the worker. I think Nietzsche would've rather seen a society that artificially alters the capitalist rat-race to a system that merits great men, according to his definition.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2467460]

>>2467441
Yeah, pretty much every modern ideology claims to approach meritocracy tho. That's pretty much the pinnacle of legitimacy in modern political ideology in general. So that's not saying a lot.

[Anonymous No.2467473]

>>2467460
Actual meritocracy would be a lot more extreme then most seem to think though. For example, there would be a 100% heir tax. Everyone would have to start over from a similar position for him or herself. Women would have to sign contracts about the dire consequences of them getting pregnant while in some sort of workforce. People would have to have very good reasons to collect an unemployment or disability check. Euthanasia in long term coma patients would not only be optional but mandatory. Breeding would possibly be a right of the successful. An actual hardline meritocracy would probably imply severe positive eugenic strategies, perhaps even negative ones. Of course, I'm speaking from some sort of state collective form of meritocracy. Libertarians or at least capitalists might find the most meritorious the ones who make and spend the most money.

[Anonymous No.2467477]

>>2467473
da fuq, who cares about meritocracy?

[Anonymous No.2467490]

>>2467477
Anyone with any concept of fairness and hopes of improvement will adhere to some form of meritocracy. Even if someone says "the lazy should get everything lol so whimsical" that would imply said person thinking of laziness of such an awesome trait it should be rewarded.

Also:

>implying meritocracy isn't the only way to go after scarcity is a thing of the past besides an free rider enabling violent spiralling into decadence and decay

[Anonymous No.2467493]

>>2467490
>fairness
>meritocracy

nope

I like how you faggots ignore all of human nature to create your fantasies. Stay irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.2467512]

>>2467493

Human nature is perfectly compatible with meritocracy. Take for example numerous dictators of the past who, after establishing power, turned their politics in their own whimsical form of meritocracy. This could be agreeing with the ruler a lot, or perhaps being a good hunting companion since the king likes hunting. If such a ruler had a broader horizon and he would actually think it pleasing to create some higher form of men (which has been the ambition of some rulers in the past) he would be able to introduce regulations to do so.

Take the eugenics of the Spartans and of National Socialist Germany as an example.

[Anonymous No.2467915]

>>2467441
"a system that merits great men" - that's a good definition.

[Anonymous No.2467920]

>gradual transformations of attitude

Fucking conservitard.

[Anonymous No.2467918]

>>2467512
There are more important things than merit to a ruler, loyalty being one.

[Anonymous No.2467933]

>>2467918
An intelligent leader could very well prefer less a loyal but more capable court than a bunch of drooling but tail wagging dogs.

[Anonymous No.2467945]

>>2467933
It's aways about the ends of the elite entourage: power or truth

[Anonymous No.2467950]

The greatest argument against meritocracy would indeed be the almost inevitable nepotism of the elite. Especially in countries that aren't as enlightened as North and Western Europe.

[Anonymous No.2467962]

>>2467950
that's not against meritocracy, but about the power game in autocratic regimes.

[Anonymous No.2468012]

>>2467373
OF COURSE WE KNOW CAPITALISM WILL FADE OUT.

Post-scarcity anyone?

[Anonymous No.2468026]

>>2468012
>2012
>thinking post scarcity will ever exist

RESOURCES ARE, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, FINITE

[Anonymous No.2468034]

>>2468026
OF COURSE, BUT WE'LL ALWAYS FIND NEWS WAYS TO DO SHIT

[Anonymous No.2468039]

>>2468034
Doesn't mean resources will be infinite, hence post scarcity will never arrive.

[Anonymous No.2468044]

>>2468012
the abundance economy is more a gift economy based in human will, rather than something based on limitless resources.

[Anonymous No.2468046]

>>2468039

There is something between infinite resources and scarcity. Let's say abundance.

[Anonymous No.2468048]

>>2468026
>>2468039
all you need is energy, LFTR's will practically give us post-scarcity levels of energy

[Anonymous No.2468053]

>>2468048

inb4 that guys says ABUNDANT ENERGY WON'T MEAN ABUNDANT CROPS
inb4 he can't into post-human lifeforms

[Anonymous No.2468057]

>>2468046
just because you have abundant shit doesn't mean you are going to give it all away for free just because someone wants it.

[Anonymous No.2468071]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2468074]

>>2468053
not even that, but with infinite energy you can convert molecules into useful ones. Kind of like star trek meals.

[Anonymous No.2468084]

>>2468057
In a society of abundance it would probably amount to not more than giving a bum a cigarette. In the sense that it won't really by missed by you. If you couple that with a situation where the consequences will be severe if you don't share, you have a pretty strong (selfish) motive to share.

But you may be right and maybe the future will hold even larger differences in wealth between people. I think the signs point the other way though. Most of modern privileges have technological bases, and technology quickly becomes cheaper and more common.

[Anonymous No.2468102]

>If you couple that with a situation where the consequences will be severe if you don't share

How would there be consequences?

Are you talking about the situation where some nigger animal comes along and says "gimme some money cracker"
This is when you are supposed to give them a couple doses of 10mm auto.

[Anonymous No.2468105]

>>2468102
>nigrz LOL XD

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.2468114]

>>2468102
See any revolt and/or revolution ever. Enjoy your 10mm defending your grain supplies from a hungry mob.

Also this:
>>2468105

[Anonymous No.2468143]

>Liking Marx
>Not reading the work which caused him to get so anal about shit

It still puts a forth a pretty good argument. Debasing of individuals is something which is required by communism. It's pretty evident in the way things went about with the USSR. There is no separation of "private" or "public". Anything which is to antagonize to public will be given to the public. Everything has to be general so that no one has anything in both a material sense and a sense of being. It is based on two parts. One is that you are a "man". The second is that you are a "laborer". If you don't hold up the labor bargain then you are lazy and the state wants nothing to do with you. The "man" is for show, as an affirmative under what the state grants you as being "man". You're just slaving yourself to more ideals rather then being. In communism, you are defined by the work you do and you are belonging to the state. Then there are inherent contradictions of the very notion of state within communism, revolutions etc etc.

[Anonymous No.2468164]

>>2468143

Always a pleasure to encounter a fellow Stirnerfag. It should be noted however that people fall for a same sort of trap with capitalism, since wealth becomes something seen as desirable in itself and enslaves people in its own way. You can not serve both Self and Mammon