Why do marxists hate him?

Nearly every Marxist I know loves him.
Marxism and Nietzsche are not incompatible, because Nietzsche would be disgusted by any smoothbrain that quoted him to copy his own values and discount some other values from which an individual drew some inspiration or use.

Same here, I would argue that Marxism and Nietzsche is very much reasonable with each other. The few things he was "wrong" about was evolution and even then it was just a poor understanding of the theory not a outright refute.

>What is the marxist account for human nature
I would say that according to marx, humans abide by replicating the means of their (self) subsistence; this includes not only work but importantly food/water, and it is only after this subsistence that ethics can be meaningfully sustained. In fact, he would say that moral systems are in place to stabilize current relations and accesses to resources.

He specifically called Socialists "Flatheads and fools" in Beyond Good and Evil.

They don't necessarily. Did you come here from /pol/ to mine arguments you can use on twitter?

Did you read my comment?

Number of the aphorism?

Marxism ignores the exceptions in history from its historical analysis and essentially regards the center of gravity for historical development to rest in social commerce, whereas Nietzsche regards the exceptions as the milestones of historical progress and the center of gravity for historical development to rest in these individuals. They aren't compatible.

If this is true, how could someone be dumb enough to take Marx's side?

Very shallow reading of both, desu

don't listen to that post; Marx is the first philosopher to expound a thoroughly objective theory of history. There is a reason why 'marxist' analysis is still valid in academia to this day.

revolution is the opiate of the fake intellectuals

no one is taking about his political theories ITT, brainlet. Revolution as a violent upheaval was propounded by later writers anyway.

>people sharing their shitty "opinions" about marxism (can we even call them opinions if they haven't read shit?)
on pourrait peut être génocider les anglos histoire de discuter sans ces abrutis

While I definitely simplified them to make a quick point, I don't see how you can reconcile Nietzsche's views and aims with Marxism. I can see how you might do this with only cursory knowledge of Nietzsche, but in the end he was on a very different track than Marx and Engels were. Nietzsche vouched for the increase of "evil" in the world, regarded "mankind" as not having grown at all from its exceptional cases throughout history, and regarded exceptional cases as a type of monstrous diversion from civilization that were an integral part of civilization and a direct consequence of it, having been built piece by piece over whole ages and whole peoples. He very clearly felt that these exceptions, who he called "whole men," were highly desirable, and in fact what ought to be striven for. From Will to Power:

>From a superior viewpoint one desires the contrary [of the "good man"]: the ever-increasing dominion of evil, the growing emancipation of man from the narrow and fear-ridden bonds of morality, the increase of force, in order to press the mightiest natural powers—the affects—into service.

>The high points of culture and civilization do not coincide: one should not be deceived about the abysmal antagonism of culture and civilization. The great moments of culture were always, morally speaking, times of corruption; and conversely, the periods when the taming of the human animal ("civilization") was desired and enforced were times of intolerance against the boldest and most spiritual natures. Civilization has aims different from those of culture—perhaps they are even opposite—

>Most men represent pieces and fragments of man: one has to add them up for a complete man to appear. Whole ages, whole peoples are in this sense somewhat fragmentary; it is perhaps part of the economy of human evolution that man should evolve piece by piece. But that should not make one forget for a moment that the real issue is the production of the synthetic man; that lower men, the tremendous majority, are merely preludes and rehearsals out of whose medley the whole man appears here and there, the milestone man who indicates how far humanity has advanced so far.
Point me to where Marxism is in alignment with this evaluation of history.

Ultimately, he didn't much care for any kind of historical analysis of civilization. He didn't care for civilization. He deemed it the enemy of greatness. Marxism doesn't reconcile with this.

>Marx is the first philosopher to expound a thoroughly objective theory of history.
>thoroughly objective theory of history.
Pure silliness.

High quality.

Okay, I haven't read Nietzsche in entirety, in fact I've only read On the prejudices of Philisophers, some of the free spirit, and part 1(I think) of gay science). So even from what I have read, I don't think I brushed enough upon what he addressed from your readings.

That being said, how does culture and civilization not have potential to work in tandem to select greatness from the population? In which a highly Marxist or socialist civilization is one that is sickly? Where he is saying that culture is repressed and civilization is great, can I not point and say that culture and civilization are in sync?

I find the weakness in my point, the repression of emotion that is necessary for civility, which I think he touches on, but I'm not sure what he means by it.

Essentially, is Nietzsche saying that by embracing opposite values and breeding,, one would grow more than embracing good values?

Do you mind breaking this down a little more. Sorry if brainlet, but I want to understand.

Not who you're responding to but

>can I not point and say that culture and civilization are in sync
You can point and say whatever you want, but its contrary to Nietzsches entire worldview. For him, civilization is restricting, it's a system of rules and bureaucracies that snuff out the ambitions of greater men for the sake of the masses. To cater to the masses is the ultimate bad for Nietzsche, it's the great man who should be catered to.

Bump

Ok. Was N right wing?

Neetchy:
>The overall degeneration of man, down to what nowadays shows up in the socialist fools and flat heads, as their "man of the future" - as their ideal! - this degeneration and diminution of man to a perfect herd animal (or, as they say, to a man of "free society"), this beastialization of man into a dwarf animal of equal rights and claims is possible - no doubt of that!

He feared tall poppy syndrome was going to be the end of human excelence.

>>can I not point and say that culture and civilization are in sync
>You can point and say whatever you want, but its contrary to Nietzsches entire worldview.
I suppose I was asking why he believes that is which is answered here:

>For him, civilization is restricting, it's a system of rules and bureaucracies that snuff out the ambitions of greater men for the sake of the masses. To cater to the masses is the ultimate bad for Nietzsche, it's the great man who should be catered to.
Ya, I agree with this, but how exactly is he justifying it? Does he see no help from community? Or is it that a man who is truly great is ALWAYS stifled. But then, how does one know if they are the great man? It's not like we are born with a super explicit indicator.

In the original sense of the phrase, I guess you could call him that. In Antichrist he spends several aphorisms gushing over the caste system put forward in the Laws of Manu. The political figures he identifies as closest to the overman are Napoleon and Caesar. Its certainly not left wing.

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. (203)

Revolution is mostly a thing that happens sometimes, like tsunami. Then you have the tsunami-worshipper and the wild wave LARPers but that's another thing.

Because Marxism is the manifestation of slave morality

Attached: b474d33d784b5f0ef002a27513765163547ee78d.jpg (1840x1227, 153K)

Nietzsche anti-religion? Mein gott that’s a pleb opinion. He basically tried to start a religion.

God is dead is not a pronouncement of atheism but an astute cultural diagnosis. Saying he is dead inherently means that at one point he was alive. That’s not atheism.

The transvaluation of values is basically his expression of desire for a re-enchantment of life. He upbraided the dead-eyed skepticism of Socrates, who he sees as an event that made scientist inevitable.

*scientism

He doesn't fit in either wing, because the whole game of politics is part of civilization, which he opposed. His heroes were men like Napoleon and Borgia, not because they were rebels, revolutionaries, or criminals, but because they nobly opposed the civilization within which they found themselves while alive, finding it inadequate for their aims and an unholy assembly of the weak over the strong. Some of his values are occasionally shared by people on the right, some of them occasionally on the left, and that's about all you can say — I wouldn't identify him as either of them just for that.

Attached: 1513953476296.jpg (868x545, 42K)

Not who you're responding to, but he certainly did want to move past religion (not in le fedora way though obviously). The overman is supposed to take the place of God in authority over value creation since Christian slave morality killed religion.

Isn’t a reaction against prevalent values in a sense determined by those values? I think he had very idiosyncratic uses of the words “weak” and “strong”. I won’t deny he lionized Napoleon and Borgia though.

And doesn’t this determination make those original values “stronger” than the reactionary ones?

He didn't regard them as reactionaries. If he did, he wouldn't have romanticized them. Nietzsche basically regards all reaction a form of ressentiment.

What he saw in those individuals' actions was a noble effect, not a reactionary one. They were paragons of the civilization they emerged from; but their natures were even loftier than that. As such, they diverged from civilization specifically because it was inadequate for their goals. Nietzsche doesn't admire reactionaries — the reactionary is like a cornered dog, in other words, already losing the battle and struggling against the tide. He admired individuals who knew how to ride the wave of civilization, and did so exceedingly well, until they grew weary of all its inadequacies, and then dreamed of something greater, and went for it.

On top of that, he considered the values of civilization to be reactionary. That was his message in his Genealogy. In ancient times, the morality of civilization emerged from the ressentiment of the people, a reaction towards the kind of man that Nietzsche admired. The morality of civilization is NOT the "original" morality to Nietzsche; that is the reactionary one in history.

>marxists hate him
why the fuck does the annoying faggot in pic related exist then? he loved Nietzsche.

Attached: file.png (220x270, 125K)

Why doesn't he like Wagner?

easy, he wasn't a marxist

He wasn't a marxist nor a postmodernist. Peterson fooled you kid, or he fooled himself.

anyone?
Legit curious.

>anti-state
>anti-religion
>anti-market
Absolute pedestrian reading of Nietzsche
Please consider suicide

Nietzsche and Marx were two of the 19th century's biggest curtain pullers. Pitting them against each other is a deception from above. That's all. Cool it and enjoy them anons.

Because he blew them the fuck out.
Sorry for the shitty translation its the only one on pdf I can find.

Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star.
Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you THE LAST MAN.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"--so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
"We have discovered happiness"--say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth.
One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.
Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily.
He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
One still worketh, for work is a pastime.
But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; every one is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.
"Formerly all the world was insane,"--say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled--otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
"We have discovered happiness,"--say the last men, and blink thereby.

Nietzsche and Marx were two of the 19th century's biggest curtain pullers. Pitting them against each other is an ideological deception from above to entangle the thoughts and feelings of lessees for a few more centuries. That's all, cool it and enjoy them anons.

>even comparing that fat jewish materialist pseud to nietzsche
Yikes user

Wagner was getting really into anti-semitism and german nationalism (in the volkish movement). Neetch was really against these politics of envy and collectivism.

How was Nietzsche against nationalism or anti-semitism?

>nor a postmodernist
>"postmodernist"
please tell me how he paid a big role in the development of poststructuralism without actually being a "postmodernist"

braindeadwojak.jpg

Nietzsche considered Parsifal basically a failure and an indication that Wagner had become a petty celebrity of the masses, pandering to their innate desire to have a "redemption" arc and simply reflecting the womanly taste of the age, a very cowardly and unbecoming act in Nietzsche's eyes. He likened Wagner's political views to this tendency of spirit as well.

For Nietzsche, the desire for salvation is born from weakness. And he considered the German nationalist and anti-Semitic movements of his time one that was ultimately seeking salvation from an aggressor force. This is probably why he started mildly larping as being Polish towards the end of his writings. He really disliked what the Germans became and regarded them as a people with potential but who had not been elevated at all by Goethe, and instead turned down a road of catastrophe and plebeian spirit.

great argument as always
you haven't even read Foucault, have you

because they were very sure in their assumption that their morality was objective and true and the rational one when in fact it is even more relative than what they criticsed. N reveals this and does it with a large amount of disdain and disgust for exactly the thing that made them think they were morally superior.

So what. He was ignorant about socialism but if he were alive today he would be a socialist and that's all that matters.

What? No one believes in dialectical materialism.

Allan Bloom has a whole section on this in Closing of the American Mind.

>it wasn't real communism
>he wasn't a real postmodernist
lmao

Because he accurately psychologised them.

He stopped being a marxist pretty early in life.

He was extremely individualistic, so he saw nationalism as people banding together out of weakness. The strict social code of fascism is obviously antithetical to Nietzsche's thought
As for antisemitism, he hated antiquity Jews because they created Christianity. He didn't necessarily hate modern Jews, and he surely didn't believe in a reactionary movement to remove them from positions of power, because he viewed that as pure ressentiment.

>if he were alive today he would be a socialist
Imagine being this retarded
Socialists are literally Nietzsche's last men

Justify this claim you piece of shit

Bump

If you haven’t noticed, there are several varieties of socialists. Nietzsche would do the same as Stirner if they were alive. Critique them when they are wrong. But they would prefer them over the counterrevolutionary any day

I feel like Nietzsche is loved and hated all over the political spectra. To my reading his project is wholly incompatible with any of the more idealistic political projects emanating from the left (he views the order of rank, hierarchy as desirable and necessary) but I have known many leftists who liked him. Most of them ended up not very leftist though. I, myself, am among those.

>spectra
There's one political spectrum m8

You don’t get out much, do you, user?

>He didn't necessarily hate modern Jews
>"perhaps the young stock-exchange Jew is altogether the most disgusting invention of mankind. "

if this is true, then why were so many russian nihilists?

joke btw

>12642676 #
What about vico

He changed his mind when he befriended some Jewish guy, I forget who

They don't? The critical theory tradition draws heavily on Nietzche

Yeah, nazis and reality don't mix.

To be fair, they either adopt his methodology or are influenced by his reading style. What he actually says is less important for them.

Depends on who you read, as well as your reading on Nietzsche himself. Benjamin for example is very clearly influenced by Niet.

attempting to inspire personal agency

Hierarchy shit nigga

Imagine a mohawk-like wing running across the top of the plane. That's n.

this

Because he learned 5 languages fast and easy with this one weird trick!

Smart right wing thinkers scare marxywarxies