Philosophically speaking, is Nietzsche's work compatible with Marxism?

Philosophically speaking, is Nietzsche's work compatible with Marxism?

lolno

No, but your cranium is compatible with a bullet. Kys.

No, he valued individualism. Marxism is fundamentally collectivist in practice.

Can you explain why? I personally think he would love most aspects of communism since it encourages individualism.

What works of Marxism have you read and what works written by Nietzsche have you read?

>Socialism ― or the tyranny of the meanest and the most brainless, ―that is to say, the superficial, the envious, and the mummers, brought to its zenith, ―is, as a matter of fact, the logical conclusion of “modern ideas” and their latent anarchy: but in the genial atmosphere of democratic well-being the capacity for forming resolutions or even for coming to an end at all, is paralysed. Men follow―but no longer their reason. That is why socialism is on the whole a hopelessly bitter affair: and there is nothing more amusing than to observe the discord between the poisonous and desperate faces of present-day socialists―and what wretched and nonsensical feelings does not their style reveal to us! ―and the childish lamblike happiness of their hopes and desires. Nevertheless, in many places in Europe, there may be violent hand-to-hand struggles and irruptions on their account: the coming century is likely to be convulsed in more than one spot, and the Paris Commune, which finds defenders and advocates even in Germany, will seem to have but a slight indigestion compared with what is to come. Be this as it may, there will always be too many people of property for socialism ever to signify anything more than an attack of illness: and these people of property are like one man with one faith, “one must possess something in order to be some one.” This, however, is the oldest and most wholesome of all instincts; I should add: “one must desire more than one has in order to become more.” For this is the teaching which life itself preaches to all living things: the morality of Development. To have and to wish to have more, in a word, Growth―that is life itself. In the teaching of socialism “a will to the denial of life” is but poorly concealed: botched men and races they must be who have devised a teaching of this sort.

(cont)

>In fact, I even wish a few experiments might be made to show that in socialistic society life denies itself, and itself cuts away its own roots. The earth is big enough and man is still unexhausted enough for a practical lesson of this sort and demonstratio ad absurdum― even if it were accomplished only by a vast expenditure of lives―to seem worth while to me. Still, Socialism, like a restless mole beneath the foundations of a society wallowing in stupidity, will be able to achieve something useful and salutary: it delays “Peace on Earth” and the whole process of character-softening of the democratic herding animal; it forces the European to have an extra supply of intellect, ―it also saves Europe awhile from the marasmus femininus which is threatening it.

Bits from the communist manifesto and bits from the birth of tragedy and zarathustra

Most modern day "marxists" will say no.

Let me guess, you live either in Western Europe or America/Canada?

Look, I live in former communist country, it sounds amazing on paper, but in theory it is hell.

Your personal anecdotes don't disprove marxism.

...

Meant to say in practice it is hell.

Well, the fact that every Marxist country either broke apart or switched to capitalism does tell you something. Capitalism is brutal, I agree. But if you think Marxism is paradise, you are deluded.

Tell me from which continent are you?

Your brain is clearly not compatible with big paragraph books.

What's with all these "what did he think of" "is his work compatible with" threads?

Nietzsche's work isn't compatible with anything, because it expressly focuses on tearing down any larger moral systems and isn't meant for widespread adoption; because Nietzsche flat out believes the average person to be a complete tit.

But that said, it's "compatible" with anything in so far as you can take ideas from it that compliment other ideologies, which I personally contend is the most sensible thing to do, since the idea of serving an ideal to fulfill that ideal is goddamn retarded.

To be perfectly fair, there's an entire tradition of Marxists that agree (left-communists of basically all stripes) who have agreed since before Lenin's revolution went to shit.

How about millions of anecdotes, you smug imbecile?

No, it is 'compatible' with Christianity but absolutely not with Marxism.

I am aware of leftists who saw that Lenin and the gang were setting themselves up as a dictators. But exactly the same thing happened in China, Cuba, Yugoslavia and every other country that attempted to turn Marxism into reality. If something systematically happens, is it not wise to avoid that?

Well yes, but all of those countries followed the same program laid down by Lenin. So of course it went the same course as Lenin's program.

The general idea of left-communism as I understand it is that the workers have to liberate themselves, and will do so once capitalism reaches a state of global crisis due to its constantly expanding and inherently unsustainable nature. They include ideologies like council-communism and autonomism, which both reject all forms of vanguardism (falling under the label of libertarian left). Lenin referred to them as an "infantile disorder" and most Marxist-Leninists these days agree with them, since they don't really get much done, being more prone to theory and philosophy than praxis.

Communism wasn't even achieved. Its misleading to think of what you experienced as what Marx wanted to see.

They're trying to piss people off so much they revolt or something but what happens is they lose their minds and end up just being self-perpetuating dictators

Or at least that's how I have always imagined it. I've never wasted my time on communist literature beyond what I've had to read by Marx.

But that is the problem with Marxism in practice. The working class desires to liberate themselves from capitalist class, but they always need a leader, that is natural order of things. That leader then become a dictator and the rest is history.

I simply fail to see how can this ever work out good for people in practice.

Only with stalinism.

Just because there's an academic economy around your meme paradigm, doesn't mean it's true. There;s thousands of theories that aren't disproved, but only you whine about yours(that actually had the chance to be tried out).

This, nothing more to be said.

I literally have the book open in front of me, and marx is absolutely retarded. He thought capitalist society would fail because the rich would make too much money, then burn down all the industry and start again because their money was worthless. Because the bourgeois only buy and sell to other bourgeois rite?
Chapter 1 of the communist manifesto if you dont belive me

Well, if it is truly as Marx said, it's a historic inevitability that it's going to happen, so there's not really much point in being for or against it. I think the left-communists are just trying to shape it into something other than them banding together behind a strongman.

Personally I don't buy any form of Marxism. I think Marx was right in so far as an economic system will inevitably have to change with its material circumstances (this seemed to have been the case, as workers did stand up demand fair treatment, though this also resulted in businesses exporting their problems to more readily exploited countries) and that ideals are shaped by material circumstance (rather than the other way around) but I absolutely do not think global communist revolution is an inevitability (frankly I have absolutely no idea what our economic system will look like after global industrial capitalism reaches its breaking point).

This is really tough for me because I'm an egoist socialist, and I really don't get along with anyone politically.

/thread.

stop replying to this thread now.

The Manifesto was mostly written by Engels and was written when they were still idealists.

It's selfcontradictory so in classical logic it's compatible with everything.

Communism was never tried though.

That's not a flaw with Marxism as much as it is with revolution in general.

Because all of them followed Leninism?

>But that is the problem with Marxism in practice.
We're in a post USSR world. People turned to Leninism when the USSR was around because of three reasons

They wanted support from the USSR, which was a nuclear power and could help fight off the "west"

They were infiltrated by the USSR commies, who were trying to carve out their sphere of influence undermining anti-USSR communist movements

Finally, the USSR was actually functioning back then and a major world power. It's only 20/20 hindsight can we now say Leninism has failed every time it has been tried, after the collapse of the USSR. Back then it was still going plenty strong, and people followed that example.

>The working class desires to liberate themselves from capitalist class, but they always need a leader, that is natural order of things. That leader then become a dictator and the rest is history.
Not unique to socialism. This is an inherent risk with any revolutionary regime. See Nappy. The thing is people turn to revolutionary ideologies when things get so bad, they might as well go for it because they have nothing to lose. Not during times of great prosperity for everyone. People take the risk of revolution when they feel they have more to gain from revolution, despite the risks.

just look up individualist justifications for communism OP

for example, the right to be greedy, by for ourselves

It is the very antithesis to individualism in every sense. It could also be perceived as a form of slave morality which Nietzsche loathed.

It sounds like hell on paper too

That is implying the flaws with those countries were faults of the ideology itself and not other factors.

Not endgame communism where there is no state

This shit is stupid:
Hegel begat Marx
Schoppenhour begat Nietzsche

Lenin used a bastardized version of Marx to take over Russia
Hitler used a bastardized version of Nietzsche to take over Germany.

After the inevitable War ensued the only thing left standing was the USA who employs a bastardized version of British Empiricism.

This is where we fucking sit today. Now if we can just get rid of the fucking British Monarchal Empiricism bullshit that the USA has been brainwashed with and replace it with a Materialistic Taoism as is currently evolving in China Humanity will be in good shape otherwise its back to Hegel & Schoppenhour........

Thread, Nietzsche hated socialism, utilitarianism, and everything close to it. He borrowed Marx from a library once, he scribbled rubbish somewhere in the margins. That and Marx's economic dialectic was fundamentally opposed to Nietzsche's belief that society follows the trends of great men.

No, because Nietzsche was an anarchist

NIETZSCHE!!! COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY!!!!!

Your posting this as a smartass faggot but its actually closer than one might think.......

Communism isn't too dissimilar though

Post scarcity powered by fusion.

its literally the exact opposite of what he teaches.

Compatibility is a spook.

We'll the reason there is no state is because people no longer seek power. Human nature is so docile the state becomes irrelevant.

It's literally, irredeemably the most loathed thing in his entire ideology. Everything he says contradicts it.

and yet he seemed to long for it.

Niether of you have the faintest grasp of Nietzsche's use of the Aphoristic Metaphor as Mask....... and have tripped over his common use of 'bait and switch'.

He's perfectly compatible with actual Christianity, he's just not compatible with his bullshit idea of Christianity was.

In a way, Nietzsche embraced pain and suffering as supreme sources of creativity and affirmation of life.

what is "actual christianity" then? Is Jesus just metaphor and blessed are the meak a joke?

Agreed.

Explain?

Strength comes from your submission to God. The meak actually are the strongest of all.

and Nietzsche doesn't really 'teach' anything:
Freddie N enjoyed 'thinking' as a painter enjoys painting or a football player enjoys playing football or the way a musician enjoys playing an instrument - Nietzsche simply enjoyed 'thinking':

"My writings are for thinking; nothing else: they belong to those for whom thinking is a delight and nothing else....." Nietzsche

Like most of you faggots and many others since his death you know nothing of whta & why he really wrote what he wrote. If Freddie N were alice today he would be the epitome of Troll. lol

Zarathrusta is nothing but a Troll book on everything that could make Freddie N. laugh! lol

>what is "actual christianity" then?
Read Augustine.

>these people of property are like one man with one faith, “one must possess something in order to be some one.” This, however, is the oldest and most wholesome of all instincts; I should add: “one must desire more than one has in order to become more.” For this is the teaching which life itself preaches to all living things: the morality of Development. To have and to wish to have more, in a word, Growth―that is life itself. In the teaching of socialism “a will to the denial of life” is but poorly concealed: botched men and races they must be who have devised a teaching of this sort.
Nietzsche really didn't get Socialism at all. Even he makes one of the common mistakes many people who misunderstand it make, thinking that the abolition of Private Property entails the abolition of Personal Property.

Could you explain it in a couple of sentences?

There's a contradiction, but it goes te other way.

Communism is individualism for the masses. It happens when workers defend their interests and their ability to be in control of their lives.

Nietzsche's ideal society requires workers to give up their autonomy and provide for the needs and whims of the masters. Talk about life denying itself...

oh my sweet summerchild

Not that user, and I don't agree Nietzche is 'compatible' with Christianity, but he's far less antithetical to it then one might think.

He rails against an feminized, emasculated Christianity that dominated his day [and ours] but despite his protestations to the contrary, his philosophy is arguably a form of virtue ethics [albeit an existentialist one instead of a cosmically supported one].

The morality of the Medievals and the Schoolmen was far more of a 'Master Morality' then the later creeds of Kant and Mill.

not really Nietzsche is so opposed to egalitarian totalitarianism that it is odd fedora lords claimed him as their own

Section 201 from Nietzsche's Assorted Opinions and Maxims:
>Error of philosophers. - The philosopher believes that the value of his philosophy lies in the whole, in the building: posterity discovers it in the bricks with which he built and which are then often used again for better building: in the fact, that is to say, that that building can be destroyed and nonetheless possess value as material.

That's all.

Yes, very. A revolution has begun, and myself and others will revolutionize Christianity.

Common Christianity is weak, this New Christianity will be strong, and will love strength (what is more strong than God?)
This New Christianity will hate weakness, which is violent, barbaric, and afraid.
This New Christianity will love the strength of those that have the immense capacity to give, and will hate those that have the immense capacity to take.
This New Christianity will love those that seek to empower themselves, and will hate those that would rather live in idle pleasure.

And yet the meek will inherit the earth.

Thats exactly the thing that links it to Nietzsche. meek yet showing the qualities of the ubermensch

>it encourages individualism

explain how it doesn't. I think Adorno was a marxist and he made the same argument.

Anything is compatible with anything
It's not whether or not a shape will fit a hole, just how big a hole you want to make it.
As such, folks who try to synthesize marx with nietzsche already exist. Idk if they're consistent in their thought, because I don't care to read it.

The meek are strong.

>blames communism for slav inferiority
is this the eastern european wewuz

Yeah. No. I'm not really having this idea that JC meant power directed to the service of the Big Yin. I think that's just rebranding to make jingoistic gun nuts feel better. "Praeis", as I was taught, refers to mildness, gentleness of spirit, and humility - the poor and the powerless.

Who it's served by making humanity docile? Is that a viable evolutionary strategy? Suppressing our desire to increase our power and capabilities for survival and advancement and accept a generalized, sterilized, docility? This is a good thing you want?

You don't understand Nietzsche nor do you understand Jesus

I wasn't really getting that from him from what you posted. It seemed like he was saying that socialism doesn't work because it is based off of the assumption that people will use government for its intended purpose. If self-growth is entirely dependent on someone wanting to do something to get more, spending money on these people is like burning money trying to bring up someone who doesn't want too.

t. letzter Mensch

Addendum: if JC did make a return, i reckon 90% of 'Christian' right wingers would condemn Him as an unamerican commie SJW.

I don't see how this quote makes that mistake.

I'm sure you've got it down perfectly.

Yeah shit, especially in todays academic environment. Everybody is combining any x and any y no matter how disparate because its so hard to write anything original in the stale modern university climate. And this is more true for thinkers that are more easily interpretable. Pragmatic, Democratic, Fascist, Feminist, Anarchist, Aristocrat, Neo Kantian, Anti Kantian, Post Kantian, Anti Plato, Secretly-Plato, Existentialist....fuck man they got every kind of Nietzsche.

The problem with his favouring of master morality is that he never gives a reason for anyone to want to submit to that. Yeah, it's all well and good to say you favour excellence, except that master moral systems inhibit the growth of excellence in everyone but a very tiny portion of the system.

Nietzsche was a crank, with some good ideas and a lot of rubbish.

New Christianity isn't 'Merican Protestantism you fucking turd.

Nietzsche's thinking is absolute rooted in Lutheran thought, particularly his idea of life-affirmation, which is rooted in their idea that hating life is blasphemous (as it's ordained by God, and in Nietzsche's case a product of deterministic circumstance). His ideal of the ubermensch and high noontide are absolutely rooted in Christian ideas of the messianic second coming and judgment day.

If you are a minister, it doesn't sound very graceful.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

>Nietzsche
>Marxism
>Christianity
>Being compatable at all

What the fuck is this thread

If you havent noticed Veeky Forums is filled with complete nutjobs and retards.

>there is no truth, only a multiplicity of perspectives
>WHAT HOW DARE YOU TRY TO INTERPRET MY PHILOSOPHY TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH ONES I DON'T LIKE!?

I think we do need a religious containment board. It's getting too much. Every single thread is hijacked by nut jobs. That said, I probably would browse.

"WHO DO I HATE THE MOST AMONG THE RABBLE OF TODAY?? THE SOCIALIST RABBLE WHO TEACH THE WORKER REVENGE"

Ok, he can hate them all he wants, but that doesn't change the fact he opened himself up to this exact sort of use of his philosophy by denying truth and rejecting systemized metaphysics. There's literally no reason to take his entire project as a system itself, and only an idiot would try (since he was mostly just a pissy crank with no actual solution). Foucault has as much claim to his intellectual heritage as Heidegger.

>philosophy not being open to countless interpretations

there is an atheist containment board just for you
/r/athiesm

have fun!

Also that entire piece there is just unsubstantiated twaddle. It's a very formalized REEEE. There's a reason garbage like that of his never spurred any further philosophy.

I'm not an atheist and I'm not nearly as interested in it as I am religion, which is why I said I would browse.

I'm just sick of cunts like you.