Nietzsche + Marx

Nietzsche argued against anti-Semitism when it suited him while also railing on Jews.

>Economically, Marxist
>Socially: Not a fucking retard
Not very fused with Nietzsche, but the only popular Marxist besides mark who is easy to access who develops beliefs through philosophy and not emotion.

>being this bad a reader

nice trips tho

>wrote multiple works condemning the influence of semitic religions. Says they produce a slave mentality.
>praises Greco-Roman/Pagan hero cultures.
>bros4life with Wagner until Nietzsche went full madman at the end of his life
>implying antisemitism wasn't an everyday normal thing in the 19th century

Maybe he mingled with some Jews or tried to distinguish himself from the boorish antisemitism which would eventually morph into Nazism but nah, I think you're wrong on this one.

marx not mark

I had this in the back of my mind and didn't want to lead off with it.

What aspect of Nietzsche do you find that they misuse?

leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/the_hermeneutic.html

georges sorel i guess?

George Soros has nothing to do with this you naive little goy-I mean boy. Gb2 /pol/.

Dude, Nietzsche broke with Wagner, at least partly because of his nationalism and antisemitism.

since you asked a stupid questions, it's my turn:

Why not read, and come up with your own syntheses of Nietzsche and Marx?

He broke with Wagner, duly noted and acknowledged in my post but not after a long friendship and collaboration.

Did he break over nationalism and antisemitism? That I seriously doubt.

Typical leftist trying to sanitize important thinkers to serve his ends, not today shill.

Nationalistic people tend to be pretty immune from nihilism, which has was most certainly not

>I don't think Nietzsche was antisemitic
>therefore I am a leftist

You're brain has been cucked by ideology

I don't think Nietzsche had lofty opinions of the German citizen or state, that is clear in his prose. But most of modern man seemed diseased in his eyes and the influence of semitic religions was heavily responsible for that. He proudly claimed to be a descendant of Polish nobles once so he's hardly the German nationalist Wagner was.

But it was you and not me who brought nationalism into this, I thought we were debating his antisemitism? Bit of a red herring, eh?

If for whatever reason you're trying to present Nietzsche as a bastion of tolerance, someone who explicitly criticizes Jews and Judaism in his writing, then yeah I'm going to assume you're a leftist. This is a thread about synthesizing Marx and Nietzsche after all.

>But most of modern man seemed diseased in his eyes and the influence of semitic religions was heavily responsible for that.

But there's no evidence that he ever seriously made that connection, and much evidence that he considered those who did to be among the "diseased".

Also I'm not that user, this was my first post ITT

The whole of The Antichrist, his last major work, makes that connection, pic related. Twilight of the Idols, his first major work, also makes the connection. So from first to last Nietzsche makes statements that the modern reader might label "antisemitic".

Can you offer any solid proof he's being disingenuous? He seems to make it plain as day.

When did I say he was a bastion of tolerance? The only claim I made was that he wasn't antisemitic, that's it. And yeah I think you can be critical of Jewish ideas without hating Jews.

Twilight of The Idols was one of his last works though.

In the page I just posted, a worthwhile read, he explicitly says "the jews" not "Jewish ideas" and to summarize his point there he discusses how though Jews encourage self-sacrifice and pity they are clever and ambitious themselves. He doesn't spell it out like Hitler, "grr fuck da joos".

Mistake acknowledged but his first works , products of his time researching ancient cultures, touch on the differences between Greco-Roman religions and the slave mentality produced by semitic religions.

>Marxist
he is a comedian

Read Marxs criticism of Stirner, most of it would apply to Nietzsche

Edgy fucks like Georges Sorel is where you'll end up if you try this

Even so, being critical of a people doesn't mean he hated them, especially when it seems he was critical of almost every group of people.

Bataille

>explicitly mocked egalitarianism, herd mentalities, democracy, and socialism
>was incredibly elitist and believed in distinct classes of people
>despised altruism, pity, and histrionic humanitarianism
Leftists typically ignore all of the traits of Nietzsche's thought that conflict with their ideology and focus only on his individualism and attitude toward knowledge. They like his perspectivism, questioning of accepted moral truths, and the fact that he criticized nationalism, but they also skim over the fact that he considered their solutions to be an extension of Christian morality and just as mediocre.

Anyways, you're looking for Foucault

He pins the failures of modern Western peoples (what you and I mean by "everyone") being subjugated by Christianity and sees Christianity as a meme invented by Jews, which is historical fact. So much of his writing is dedicated to convincing his readership to erase its influence over their lives and embrace ideas from indigenous European religions. For example: he discusses how during antiquity momentary impulses weren't seen as sinful and destructive but rather as messages from the Gods. Compare to Judaism and Christianity that asks you to prostrate yourself and beg forgiveness from God - none of that from Nietzsche. Conquer the next town? Good, that's nature, that's strength, that's embracing the world you live in.

"The whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred. In almost all contemporary nations, therefore - in direct proportion to the degree to which they act up nationalistically - the literary obscenity of leading the Jews to slaughter as scapegoats of every conceivable public and internal misfortune is spreading."

>eftists typically ignore all of the traits of Nietzsche's thought that conflict with their ideology

you know that's a thing every thinker does, even in the past, using past thinkers as "tool-boxes".
I know that Veeky Forums became Hitler's last bunker but there many contemporary right wing theorist that read and use some Marxist notions.

He's praising the Jews for being duplicitous and scheming because that leads to outcomes of personal gain, and Christians of being eternal dupes. To blame others and not your own shortcomings is weakness, but my point stands when you look beyond a one paragraph musing that, when positioned against the majority of his writing, presents itself as somewhat of an outlier. i.e the modern Jew has long since thrown away the slave mentality and Christians have not.

>Also says that slave mentality and ressentiment are the forces that set the stage for the übermensch.
>Asserts that the Jews, while borderline evil in what they did to the master morality society, were undeniably successful.
>Hates weaklings using underhanded measures to defeat the successful.
>Hates people high-fiving each other and herds in general.

Reread On the Genealogy of Morals friend.

Their metaphysics are just too different for one to reconcile them. You might reach some of the same "ought" conclusions, but the way you would go about it would be very different. The first thing that comes to mind though is to look at people like Emma Goldman who took Nietzsche's message as an anarchist one.

There's your problem, any modern reader would think this was antisemitic, but modern readers are sensitive safe spacers or muh merry Christmas types, and both are looking for butthurt.

Would a nazi? Probably not. A nazi would likely think he's too soft on the Jews and that his occasional complements to them are suspicious.

Let's define positions further:

Nietzsche would never support a massacre of the Jews.

Pretty much this. However, should include Sartre.

Because I'm a crypto-nazi testing Veeky Forums to see who answers with the correct answer-- National Socialism.

BUT, in all seriousness, I recently read about Hitler's successful barter trades with foreign nations (Venezuela? Argentina?), and this question has been galling my gut since.

Truthfully, I have recently started to explore alternatives to globalist economic philosophies like capitalism and communism. I never understood what of fascism was exploitative.

Yall niggas need bataille

Nazism seems based when it comes to basing social status off of merit, unless of course you're a minority.

>"Aber mein Führer! Ich bin einem Junker! "
>"Habt eine schöne Ferien im Russland, faggot!"

can anyone evaluate my German? Amerikaner schwein hier.

Ich bin Junker is the correct way to state occupation, not to mention the word is not being used in the Dative case there, and would take ein as the nominative article. Also, the imperative form for du with haben is hab. Besides the Führer would probably use the Sie imperative to address an inferior.

To some extent, I think the other user is right in characterizing Nietzsche's comments as different in character from 'boorish' anti-semitism. Nietzsche is coming from an entirely different point of view than others. Its a criticism in the spirit of the Western canon & its legacy, not a manifesto or anything degenerate.

what work? i only read the story of the eye.

the guy who called it boorish and me are the same people.

I got (you)s all over this thread.

>tries to describe Marx
>has literally no understanding of Marx

Nazis rejected Marxist teachings

sorel, foucault, deleuze

>speak of Marx derisively
>"y-you just don't get it!"
>literally "slave mentality: the ideology"

sorry for blaspheming your messiah, hope your 15th birthday goes well.

Marx was spooked, he just didn't want to admit it.

Nietzsche says so in the case of wagner, how about you fucking read?

Hi!

You've never read Marx.

What parts of Nietzsche does this use?

The one Jew he argues against was the one that famously died upon the cross. Even then it's more the posthumous reimagining of Jesus by theologians like Paul. That might be what's confusing you.

>but not after a long friendship and collaboration.
He seemed to like him at first but the lack of wanting to break off the friendship may have been the whole wanting to fuck his wife thing.

Either way Nietzsche rekt Wagner in Nietzsche contra Wagner

failed playwright and failed composer leaves a painter

Are you trying to become the ultimate edge? As in you think Nietzsche is the shit but you've wanked your meat sore on Marx? So now you're trying to combine the two things you like as if they're an Oreo Klondike bar?

oh but I have, sorry to disappoint you

I too was an impressionable young, susceptible to the -isms of the world.

>Nonetheless, I have to ask, what is there that attempts to reconcile these two?

If you think that is at all possible, even in the slightest, you haven't understood N. at all.

Except Nietzsche himself said that picking and choosing what you like from a thinker and leaving what you disliked by the wayside was preposterous, in fact his entire philosophy goes against this. Look at all of his allegories concerning the eagle and snake, the roots and branches, pleasure and displeasure, to him all of these things are linked. The bad had to be considered alongside the good, you can't just cut it out.

That all being said, Foucault is definitely the most popular fusion of Marxist ideals with Nietzsche's methods.

>Foucault is definitely the most popular fusion of Marxist ideals with Nietzsche's methods.
It's the opposite surely.