Communism

That way OP could at least make a thread about literature.

i read very little of marx (i dont like it at all)
but he really think there is "a end of the history", i mean… really… really intelligent people believe this?.

He's right though, if OP read either Marx or Nietzsche he wouldn't have made this thread

why?. if you read something you automatically agree with what you read?. you think there is universal and indisputable truths?

Slave morality adapts itself to where it is applied. North Korea, Venezuela. Those are modern communists under other names (Juche and 21st-century socialism respectively)

But it's the same bullshit in essence: "How to fuck them over for good Ver 1.x"

>they envisioned a society with no slaves or master
Because communists (non-anrcho) did not do this?

The only proper communism is an anarchism.

I've read Nietzsche.

Let's get one thing straight - he didn't like Socialism/Communism/etc at all.

In one aphorism, he refers to it specifically as a sort of "Pied Piper" ideology that convinces people to pursue "mad desires."

He viewed them as ideologies of ressentiment in a very real way - pursuing the wrong kind of equality, by dragging the great and 'superior' down to mediocrity. The only sort of 'equality' Nietzsche liked, was that which saw the mediocre elevating themselves to the heights of the great and 'superior'.

Even then, I'd take the latter point with a pinch of salt. Nietzsche readily conceded that inequality was the way of the world and that, as a consequence, there will be heights/talents/capabilities/etc that some will simply never reach. If everyone could become a master, become an Overman, no one could. Masters need slaves.

tl;dr The ressentiment that ideologies like Socialism/Marxism/Communism/etc are built on, would have (and did) sicken Nietzsche.

No one actually reads books on this board.

>The only sort of 'equality' Nietzsche liked, was that which saw the mediocre elevating themselves to the heights of the great and 'superior'.
You're not a million miles off on this. It's a bit of an oversimplification tho, like communism for Nietzsche is almost incidental. There is always a possibility of overcoming. It might even be better, but I think he'd probs have something to say on certain regimes that suppress human action and that applies across the political spectrum.

I think you're quoting Adorno (might be another frankfurter) without realising it. Lukacs said something similar too iirc.

Thing is Nietzsche does talk at times about anarchism and communism but I think it's in the gay science that he lumps then all together with certain parts of Christianity because of their ethical values.

I don't think you know what slave morality is.

Yes it comes from Hegel. The "end of history" ideology still plays a big part in politics, neoconservatives think liberalism is the end of history that's why they support a permanent revolution to spread it worldwide.

That's essiently what Marx was getting at when he attacked "crude communism" in the Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

Nietzsche had never read the works of any Socialist/Communist besides Eugen Duhring (who Engels famously attacked). Nietzsche disliked the notion of "equality" and reciprocity like Proudhon was getting at which Marx attacked as well. Marx pointed out capitalism was based off the exchange of equivalents and quantification, the point of communism was to destroy that type of quantitative relations.

Nietzsche understood that slaves must always kill their masters in the end, he just never thought there was much of a "dialectic" to the whole affair. He didn't think ressentiment was illegitimate but the central reality of history and what destroys decadence in the end. Without ressentiment there would be no historical development and history would end.

Nietzsche is the battleground of modernism and post-modernism, cum-rag.

wouldn't it be great if people read books before they made conclusions on them?