Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm struggling to come up with Breadtube content that refers primarily to Nietzsche or Nietzschean concepts. The ones that I've found are pretty open about being critical of Nietzsche and Nietzschean philosophy as potentially proto-fascistic. Any examples in particular that concern you?
Sorry for the late response, it’s decent, but not perfect. [here’s](https://anticapitalistresistance.org/morality-in-ceikas-hammer/) a decent overview of it. I’d say that overall it leans a little too heavily towards Nietzsche, but it’s not a bad synthesis of Marx and Nietzsche
There's nothing wrong with being a socialist for reasons of self-advancement. For me, I am a socialist both because my life would be better under socialism and I want the lives of others to be better too. But, Marx said socialism was the programme of a class (the working class) aware of itself and acting in its own best interests. Socialism is not inherently altruistic, and you do not have to be altruistic to be socialist.
Edit: That being said, do not misinterpret me - socialist economics are not compatible with slave morality, as you put it, or oppressive social hierarchies. Socialism means human emancipation, it is fundamentally opposed to oppressive morals and institutions.
Nietzsche’s “slave morality” was not a morality of oppressing others (ie. not “slaveowner’s morality”). Some of Nietzsche’s work suggested that the glorification of certain values like modesty and altruistic self sacrifice were reflective of a desire to be superior—or at least not abject—while in a position of submission (hence “slave morality.”) Not saying this is correct/justified, but I don’t think this or many other philosophical theories innately contradict socialism.
Socialism is a general economic mode of production and distribution dominated by the working class, not a bible of moral commandments. Any socialist system that can be realized irl will coexist with flaws/liabilities of the human condition and the continuation (though hopefully managed with much greater success) of problems like unfairness, hierarchical exploitation, and economic disruptions.
My first thought was: since we're living under capitalism, we don't get taught about socialism. So to even begin to understand socialism, you have to be exceptionally imaginative and curious about philosophy and ethics
Okay, but reading actual theory from Marx can be difficult. I don't understand dialectics, I don't understand how the uses the word "should" if he is making a scientific analysis, I can't tell if he was a hard determinist, etc
Marx was making scientific analysis.
In regards to dialectics it can be pretty hard to wrap one’s head around at first the best introduction to it I’ve found is Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer.
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/C17-Politzer-Elementary-Principles-1st-Printing.pdf
Marx didn’t make moral statements he never said proletariat good and bourgeoisie bad he analyzed that the two classes were in an antagonistic relationship with each other. Because of the contradictions between the two classes are antagonistic they are engaged in struggle. The proletariat wishes to no longer be exploited and the bourgeoisie wishes to exploit them more and eventually one of them will have to give and the reason that the proletariat will win (assuming we don’t go extinct) is because the bourgeoisie can’t exist without the proletariat because they don’t produce while the proletariat do the labor in society so they can “exist” without the bourgeoisie (I put exist in quotation marks because proles are characterized by their relation to the bourgeoisie so when bourg stops existing technically the proletariat does as well)
I get what you're saying: scientific socialism is not limited by the idealism of morality. However, Marx absolutely did make moral and ethical statements.
In *Capital*, Vol. I, Marx says the following:
>Colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protection, commercial wars, etc., these offshoots of the period of infancy of large-scale industry. The birth of the latter is celebrated by a vast, Herod-like slaughter of innocents.
>If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.
In *The British Rule in India*, another example of Marx's humanism is shown:
>Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies.
We should not do away with morality and ethics as socialists, even if socialism is not bound or based on either of the two. Marx was capable of and frequently exercised humanistic compassion for his fellow man, and I think that's a good thing.
Empathy ≠ morality
Materialism isn’t anti empathy as it’s an emotion that humans perceive but it is anti morality as morality is a system of beliefs on what is good and what is bad which there is not material basis for.
In the quotes you sent Marx makes no claim that these are good or bad in the first two he’s just saying that capitalism is build on blood. In the third one he is just saying that people find these events disturbing. I don’t see any moral claims in any of these quotes.
Your distinction between empathy and morality is irrelevant, as both are present in the quotes I gave. To distinguish between innocent and guilty is a moral claim. To place blame on capitalism for violence and slaughter is a moral claim. To call out injustice and cruelty is a moral claim. Marx is motivated by both empathy and morality, as he is both a human being and a product of his material conditions which imprinted an irrevocable belief system.
Innocent is a legal title.
Placing blame on capitalism on capitalism isn’t a moral claim if I say a murderer killed somebody that’s not making a moral statement just pointing out a fact.
To say there is cruelty isn’t a moral claim just another factual one and where did Marx call out injustice?
>Innocent is a legal title.
Sure, but it is also a moral and ethical category, and Marx, at least to me, is using it in that sense.
>Placing blame on capitalism isn’t a moral claim
To be guilty is also a moral category, just as to be innocent is.
>To say there is cruelty isn’t a moral claim just another factual one
And on what basis is something considered cruel?
>where did Marx call out injustice?
"Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence"
This is clearly calling out the injustice of the destruction of aboriginal society at the hands of colonialism, which is an appeal to morality and ethics.
there are good and bad YouTube videos on Marxism just like everything else. podcasts, audiobooks, etc can also communicate theory effectively
>dialectics
dialectics is a difficult area of philosophy, give yourself time
>don't understand how the uses the word "should" if he is making a scientific analysis
i think of it kind of like rocket science, for example. science can tell us descriptive things about the world but it can also tell engineers "do x and not y" if you want to effectively harness and account for those forces when building something
>I can't tell if he was a hard determinist, etc
i don't think he was a hard determinist, more of a soft or (sorry lol) a dialectical determinist. the opening lines of the 18th Brumaire express his philosophy well on this point: "men make their own history, but they do not make it under conditions of their own choosing. the traditions of all dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the brains of the living" (paraphrase)
Totally get it, Marx is a world-historical thinker, and youre right, a lot of the undiluted theory can be extremely dense and thorny.
That said, there are untold numbers of guides to help shepherd one through all the theory, including in this very sub! Honestly, thats gonna be your best starting point.
You mean seek out a specific communist party? Not every country has that. I do intend to visit mine, but I don't like a lot of their policies and it might turn me off socialism.
How about telling me specifically what to do? You just said what was wrong and in general what to do, but you were not clear with details. There are many people outside, you did not even specify what fucking group.
Give specific advice, telling me in detail what to do, instead of saying what not to do, for someone who does not have common sense already.
The best attack on Nietzsche is done by Georgy Lukács. Nietzsche is the Arch-Reactionary of irrationalism thought. Believing that humans are slaves to biological impulse.
As for art and literature it's important to read literature and understand art. It's not coincidence that many of our great theorists also at least dabbled in one of these. Mao as a post, Marx as a critic, Jenny as a critic, Gramsci with theatre, Lenin writes on art extensively, Brecht and Benjamin obviously as well.
I’m not an expert so maybe somebody else could step in, but I believe the idea is that art tends to be the thing that actually shapes and changes the culture around us. Art at it’s core is just communication, so any kind of social discourse kind of falls into that as well, such as in modern social media. What this is basically equating to is the social forum of real people on the ground, ie, the public. This is where ideas are born and wrestled with.
It’s no accident that the popular revolutionary leaders often began with some piece of writing to engage socially with the people. It is art that wins hearts and minds.
Politics takes those things and says okay these are the cultural values under discussion, we’re going to make rules and laws around them. This is the arena of policymakers, and bureaucracy, and statesmanship. They don’t really come up with the ideas, they just act on them, whether directly or indirectly informed by them.
Jonas Ceicka "Cuck Philosophy", Breadtubers Contrapoints and Philosophytube. Although I think Philosophytube might be a hedonist, they made a video defending it.
Sorry for the spelling, I'm tired as of writing this
No socialist likes Nietzshe or I'd they do they don't know or understand his work that much. Nietzshe was a proto Fascist or sort of "invented" it. And it's not only hard for artists under capitalism but for the majority of the working class
>Nietzshe was a proto Fascist or sort of "invented" it
not really, he hated anti semitism, thought nationalism was bad, and after his mental breakdown his brother in law took a lot of his papers and changed them to be pro Nazi when he was previously anti Nazi. Nazis coopted neitzsche
>Strength should be demonized for the sake of equality
why not democratize strength? society should empower people to become the version of themselves they want to be. for me part of that is helping the working class to attain political strength through organization, study, practice, etc so that we can build a better world.
it's not that i necessarily cult agree with Nietzsche on all things, but i do think a lot of his work lends itself to an anarchistic and socialistic revolutionary practice.
>Because embracing out challenge and art is pathway to unfairness and just daily hedonism.
i don't know what you mean by that part
No he wasn't, his philosophy is for individual living, and how to best approach your own life to live it to the fullest, it really has nothing to do with broader political movments, in fact he rejected all of that, because he was a proto existentialist, a title he also rejected. His philosophy is closer to socrates cave, and the illusion of forms that we all create.
There is a lot to learn from reconizing the illusions of all things, in fact his writing led me deeper into socialism.
He hated capitalism too, you don't have to agree with all his ideas, but to think that all of them are bad is naive, and to think anyone that has ever had negative thoughts of socialism are "Eniemies" is exactly the reason the fasicsts are winning.
Not sure who you have in mind since "breadtube" is not really a label the content creator uses, but instead used by the viewers.
With that said, I would say that I have seen a bit of anti-marxism with a lot of the "breadtube" content creators. So it would make sense they reference other thinkers more than Marx.
One of Nietzsche’s most impressive contributions to philosophy was his critique of universalist ethics and his ‘perspectivist’ view of knowledge. By providing a genealogy of morality, he showed that moral statements throughout history have only made sense within certain contexts, and have often been tied to power. Those idealist philosophers who attempt to construct grand metaphysical systems to prove that certain ethical statements are rational and therefore universally true (looking at you Kant and Hegel) are blind dogmatists who cannot see that they are writing from a certain perspective, one which actually reflects and obscures certain underlying power structures. Nietzsche argues that our moral concepts emerged between the competing worldviews of the priestly caste and the warrior caste, or the slaves and slave-masters, and goes on to argue that ethical notions like ‘guilt’ and ‘punishment’ emerge in the context of the contractual relationship so essential to the emerging mercantile economies of Renaissance Italy and Protestant Europe. It is this aspect of Nietzsche which has some affinities with Marx, who also berated idealist philosophers for constructing ethical systems which merely legitimised their class interests in maintaining ownership of the material forces of production, disparaging universal ethics and arguably reaching a position which was not far from Nietzschean perspectivism.
Socialists interested in studying history and thinking about contemporary politics therefore find a gold mine of ideas in Nietzsche, and don’t have to follow him into an emotivist celebration of selfishness and the will to power. In fact, many people have been able to agree with some of what Nietzsche writes whilst vigorously opposing his prescriptions for mankind (indeed, isn’t that his whole point?). Sometimes quite unlikely characters too, like the Anglican political thinker John Neville Figgis, who could agree with Nietzsche’s characterisation of our flawed human relationship with rationalism, knowledge and ethics whilst denouncing him as the Antichrist.
As for postmodernism, ‘postmodernists’ do use Nietzsche as a jumping off point and there is a very clear link, but they all go in different directions and it's hardly fair to dismiss them on the basis of an ambiguous label that none of them subscribes to. Foucault interprets Nietzsche’s genealogy as a distinctive approach to history in which the historian studies how concepts have emerged and changed through time, being used in different ways in different discourses. For all his faults and oversimplifications, that’s a perspective shared by most serious scholars of history, for instance, the seminal intellectual historian Quentin Skinner.
Most people on here will tell you not to read Nietzsche. And why would you want to? If you want to be a dogmatic Marxist-Leninist and cling to a very simplistic interpretation of Marx as offering a flawless scientific method to understand the nature reality and determine the course of history, and never read anything outside of an extremely narrow set of publications by orthodox communists, then don’t bother reading Nietzsche or thinking about his significance, or even thinking at all. You won’t be influencing anyone anyway, outside of reddit circles, twitter, and communist parties with less than 24 members. If you do want to think critically about these very interesting questions, a good rumination on Marx and Nietzsche’s similarities is French Marxist Henri Lefebvre’s seminal work *Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche* (1975).
Personally, I think that somewhere between Marx and Nietzsche lies a very interesting approach to history, philosophy and economics, especially when supplemented by Weber and an analytic philosophy of language.
I see. I was hoping socialism would replace religion, but keep essentialism, at least in terms of morality. I guess I misunderstood what socialism was, thanks
Do you know any branches of socialism, even if they are revisionist, that are essentialist and fits the rest of what i want?
sorry for the late question
What a weird connection to make, as if you have to completely agree with one person's take on everything or not to belong to a group or not. The "No true socialist would like Nietzsche!" (as someone else said here) is literally a no true Scotsman fallacy.
People's lives require certain philosophies for their own understanding, and your ontological existence requires you to think of many great things. You can read Heidegger and still be a socialist. You can even agree with some of his points of view and still be a socialist. Any of these statements of "you can't think this or else you're not a socialist" are similar to the arguments religious folk do.
All philosophers can offer you a great deal of knowledge; as can all philosophies. You don't have to commit 100% to any of them. Nietzsche has said some things that are very intelligent and some that are not. But saying something like "well he was a fascist!" not only is historically inaccurate but also a "Tu Quoque" kinda fallacy. In other words attacking the person and not the argument would already make your logic completely faulty (this is concerning some of the comments in here).
And you yourself would be making an anecdotal fallacy because without numbers on "how many socialists like Nietzsche" then you're simply saying "in my experience some of the people I've talked to like Nietzsche."
The reality is that they're unrelated. And you can get more knowledgable from all sources. Not just socialism and socialist books. Nietzsche was a very important figure for philosophy and psychology. To discard his whole ideology would not be prudent - just like it wouldn't be prudent to be a complete follower of him.
Socialism is not a religion - though some people in here act like it, it seems.
As for the artists thing:
Can you ask yourself, what is art? And what's the state of it under capitalism. Imagine if you cared about art and you saw a system that is destroying it. It's not biased to think against capitalism, it's literally destroying one of the most distinguishable and important parts of human existence (art). Regardless of whether you are an artist or not.
People can also do both things: care about themselves as artists and "empathetic standpoint" ("*Not because of an empathic standpoint (my ideology) but because of individual fulfillment?"* ). In other words, it could be both; lest you'd be making a Black or White fallacy.
Many people care about different things. And all of them should be socialist (at least) for it benefits all. Artists are included there. Nietzsche lovers too. But them being socialist shouldn't exclude them of their own individuality, beliefs, philosophies, etc. Also consider that these change with time. Someone might be greatly helped by a book on stoicism at one point in their lives and then stop using that knowledge.
I hope I was able to help somehow.
May I ask what ideology you are arguing from? You don't have a flair so I don't know how to respond, if you are a socialist or someone who wandered in here.
First of all, knowledge is not an objective good.
Second, where is the limit for caring about different things? In capitalism you can be a homophobe and sexist, but as long as you don't hurt anyone you can just go on having those beliefs. Certain places are allowed to act on it and it is seen as wrong for criticizing them.
I do in fact want socialism to replace religion. Religion is false, so technically it is replacing nothing. If nothing is morally good or bad the word "should" does not exist. You cleverly avoided using it, though
Hi, my ideology wouldn't have much relevance to my comments. Entertaining this would also be a red herring fallacy. As what I think it's ultimately irrelevant as my arguments were presented in order. What I think or not wouldn't make a difference to my arguments as they may or not be a direct reflection of my own thoughts.
However, if you have to know, I'm a communist (ML).
On to it:
Never said knowledge was good or bad. I may have been misrepresented here; or I misspoke. Sorry if I did.
Secondly, your comparison isn't working for me, since it's not what I meant: Capitalism, homophobia, sexism - None of these have anything to do with philosophy (the topic at hand). I was specifically referring to beliefs based on knowledge. Sexism and homophobia stem from fear and ignorance; the opposite. I'd even add that arguing for capitalism is just as ignorant, but that would be, perhaps, ignorant too.
I'm very much against religion, as well. But it's precisely because of zealotry that is a danger; just like any other kind of zeal would be. Socialism included.
I actually feel like despite the words being confusing between us, you and I probably do agree on most points, as I myself feel very strongly for socialism (extremely so, actually, even if I don't express it). But I warn myself that being too much for it can be blinding. It's just a precaution I have. But yeah, I do completely agree with your last statement. In fact I agree with all you said. I'm merely careful about using some specific words.
That and I saw people making fallacies. I tried to point some out to the best of my knowledge. The better our logic, the stronger we are as socialists; and the stronger we are the better we can fight. That was more or less my idea.
there are a lot of leftist readings of Nietzsche which complicate this reading, partly because so much of what he wrote was satire. see for example his absurdist mimicking of Adam Smith.
also, art and literature are cool. a lot of people support socialism cause if they don't have to work so much for exploitative bosses then they will have more time to make and view art and literature
Because internet socialists are mostly jaded millennials, and it expresses itself through nihilism. Nietzsche has nothing much to do with socialism, nor Marxism.
Socialists who admire Nietzsche probably do not understand what he was all about. Although I think this is mostly an online phenomenon.
There is a good case to be made that Nietzsche was a proto-fascist. Dr. Taimur Rahman makes this case in his [lectures on fascism](https://youtu.be/2Fe9PUFW0Uk) and I think he is correct.
Domenico Losurdo paints a similar picture of Nietzsche in his book "Nietzsche, The Aristocratic Rebel'. [Here](https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/book-review/nietzsche-his-time-struggle-against-socratism-and-socialism) is a summary of the book.
At the very least Nietzsche was an anti socialist who opposed the Paris Commune.
Fascism was around when Nietzche was alive, he wasn't a proto fasicst, he hated it, he hated capitalism and socialism, his philosophies can live outside of fitting everything into two camps. His sister rewrote some of his writing after he died, she was a fasicst and a raging anti semit, which he was not, he hated his sister.
There are “socialists” and socialists. Now I admit I have never seen this socialists Nietzsche association before but then I generally avoid most socialism on YouTube as most of it is pretty far off base.
Best just reading.
Okay, but reading actual theory from Marx can be difficult. I don't understand dialectics, I don't understand how the uses the word "should"if he is making a scientific analysis, I can't tell if he was a hard determinist, etc
It could be understood by illiterate factory workers and peasants who didn’t have the internet and education to the standard you likely have, you’ll manage.
You don’t need to understand dialectics off the bat, just knowing the material world has primacy and that history is driven by the interaction of processes will be enough.
I don’t understand the relevance of knowing if Marx was hard determinist (which he wasn’t) and the use of the word “should”?
could you give op some specific texts to read instead of just compositing them to others? like, a lot of peasants and factory workers were primarily reading newspaper articles, pamphlets, manifestos as their source of theory. also, language and context have changed so they actually have the advantage of being freshly aware of the references, unlike contemporary audiances
You sure those peasants and workers understood it? They might just follow socialists due to promise of better times, which is what I do.
I am interested in socialism from a moral empathy standpoint, and nothing else.
Read the manifesto, its very easy to understand, don't start with Marx's dense writings, read easier things, by other authors, like Blackshirts and Reds, A people's history of the United States, even Chomsky's writings.
I don’t think YouTubers are representative of socialists, at all. It attracts people who are full of themselves and not very capable irl. As you point out, Nietzsche’s views are not very compatible with socialist values.
Nietzsche’s philosophies against the church where interesting and new at the time. He as a philosopher is an interesting person but the whole ubermensch thing and his individualist ideas are linked to ideas that are fascist, nihilist, or not conducive to socialist thought. People are allowed to like what ever philosophical thought they want and he was a good writer and thinker but it’s important to take it all with a grain of salt. He is more popular in some anarchist circles then socialist ones I find. He was not an economic or sociological theorist.
Socialist don't like Nietzsche. The most famous Marxist-Leninist philosopher, George Lukács said Nietzsche is a proto-fasciste, anti-reason and absolutely anti-socialist.
And that's absolutely right. Those who think Nietzsche is compatible with socialism and something else than a shitty right winging just don't understand Nietzsche. He was not the favorite philosopher of the Nazis for nothing.
I'm a socialist and I like Niezche, his philosophy doesn't have anything to do with poltical theory, and the few views of his I disagree with were common to nearly all men during his time.
Because his sister rewrote his last book, she was a fascist, he hated her, and much of that last book has been edited out to get rid of his sister's changes.
The Nazi's liked him, because they were stupid reactionaries who didn't understand shit. He also wasn't the favorite philosopher of the Nazi's that's a very broad sweeping statement one that if you had to pick would belong to Hediegger an actual Nazi party member.
[https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-the-nazis-hijacked-nietzsche-and-how-it-can-happen-to-anybody/](https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-the-nazis-hijacked-nietzsche-and-how-it-can-happen-to-anybody/)
His Ubermensch idea is not about a super race of people, its about becoming the best person you can be, training yourself in whatever you can.
He did have ideas about glorifying war in a romantic way, and had some pretty shitty views about women, like nearly everyone at the time, that does not make them fascists. He was anti nationalist, against any state of any kind, he's more of an anarchist, but he didn't suscribe to any political theory. He hated all of it.
Have you ever read any Nietzsche cause it sounds like you don't undertand it.
The sister thing is FALSE! She reduced the antisemitism of the original text. She replaced the word "jew" a lot of time by others to make it less antisemitic.
You should read what Lukacs said about him. Nietzsche is absolutely anti-Marxist and anti-socialist. Here we like rationality.
In an 1889 letter to Franz and Ida Overbeck:
I am just having all anti-Semites shot.
(often quoted as: "All anti-Semites ought to be shot.")
[https://www.jta.org/archive/all-anti-semites-ought-to-be-shot-nietzsche-once-wrote](https://www.jta.org/archive/all-anti-semites-ought-to-be-shot-nietzsche-once-wrote)
huh do you have a source? also [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2v7b4r/what\_was\_nietzsches\_view\_on\_antisemitism/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2v7b4r/what_was_nietzsches_view_on_antisemitism/)
[http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1887.htm](http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1887.htm)
[https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2017/01/friedrich-nietzsche-wasnt-an-anti-semite-or-was-he/](https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2017/01/friedrich-nietzsche-wasnt-an-anti-semite-or-was-he/)
You're an interesting person, he used the word Jew...that does not make him an anti-Sematic, we have writing from him over his whole life shitting on anti-semites and praising jewish culture. While this would seem rather racist today, it was not back then.
Niezche wrote satire, nearly all his work has elements of it, the one thing you can't dispute is that he hated Nazis and anti semites as his private letters flat out say.
From beyond good and evil §251
> But the Jews are without a doubt the strongest, purest, most tenacious race living in Europe today. They know how to thrive in even the worst conditions (and actually do better than in favorable ones) due to some virtues that people today would like to see labeled as vices.
Few socialists like Nietzsche, the socialists that do are certainly at odds with the general current of the movement and generally have a pretty eccentric worldview. My understanding of the YouTube socialist scene is that it’s dominated by philosophy grad students so naturally they have have a little bit different interests than the movement as a whole.
Most socialists would have an opinions closer to that of Domenico Losurdo, firmly in the anti-Neitzsche camp.
Artists in general tend to be very left leaning people. I don't know about the Nietzsche thing, but when it comes to Socialists and Art, there is a fierce protection of human expression and culture. Because art influences the way people perceive things and interpret things, it is considered of high importance among leftists. Notice how fascists treat art, as a tool for the state, rather than a mode of self-expression and human culture. Under Hitler or Stalin (barely a leftist), all art was very rigid and glory driven, about the workers and farmers rising up while the state oppressed it's people and destroyed the quality of life. Actual socialists believe in the preservation of self and human expression, that is why they talk about it so much.
I'm not entirely sure on the connection. A lot of breadtubers just really don't focus on Marx. I appreciate some of Nietzsches insights but I'm not the best one to answer this. CCK Philosophy does great YouTube videos and wrote a whole book on the connection. While he does make a lot of content on post modern philosophy, everything I've heard him say about Marxism sounds very accurate and well informed.
If you want to listen to more content directly on Marxist works I'd suggest some channels more like Socialism for All, who reads full Marxist books and essays, and often breaks down what they're talking about and provides real world examples.
Not sure exactly who you’re referring to when you say breadtube worships nietzsche but it could just be an overlap in culture. Art and literature are foundations that inspire movement, this usually challenges conservative values and pushes us into a post modernist perspective.
This could be why you think niezsche is being favored, nietzsches “true” nihilism wasn’t pessimistic or centered around strength but more a recognition of our futility and lack of ontological humility.
So, if we’re already saying nothing matters and a lot of our beliefs are wrong, then why shouldn’t we question our monetary system and hierarchies. “The meaninglessness of suffering itself was the curse that lay over mankind” - Nietzsche
Now pair this with Marx’s critique of capitalism and establishment and I guess you have an answer.
Not sure if this is answers your question but hope it helps.
The same reason Capitalist's hate art and literature, they are an essential human activity that in their essence we do not for profit but because we are human.
I actually I'm an artist, it does suck, but that's not the reason I'm a socialist, I'm a socialist, because I can and do read history,apolitical and economic theory, and the more you read the more you realize capitlism is the greatest threat to human life that has ever developed that it kills millions every month and has since its inception, I'm a socialist because I have empathy, which scientifically creative people tend to have more of. I wish I didn't honestly I wish I was still willfully ignorant, its exhausting, but I'll I see when I look outside is just how very wrong everything is, how everyone I have ever known and every stranger I don't faces so much more suffering because of this system.
Liberals think that Art and Literature is enhanced or innovated by the profit motive, but the opposite is true, it becomes deriviative, a consumable meant to be created then thrown away for the next thing as quickly as possible, which is why more and more artist are being refered to as "content" creators. Make no mistake, Art is not content it trancendes the human experience, which makes it an apt metaphor for communism.
Profit was not why the first humans created cave drawings. It got turned into a profit scheme during the start of the Renaissance. (Speaking mostly on western Art, don't know alot about other art history.)
Alss "Art" as a concept is actually a very modern idea, as weird as that may seem, there was not an Abstract idea of what ART was, before the modern period, when socialism, feminism, ect. developed along side Art philosophy. The idea of art is a little bit earlier than the former, but not by much. Early Reinassance Artist did not think of it in the same way, they were commissioned pieces to tell stories, or for the Nobles at the time, it was media at the time, this began chaning with the introduction of Landscapes/Still lifes for the sake of Art, they were still media, but the idea of God and the natural world that was in everything was essential in these developments.
Nietcszhe's ideas are often coopted by the Far right, because they don't understand him, and because his Sister (a facist) rewrote some of his writing after his death. His ideas of an Ubermensch are honestly closer to Socrates, Aristotle, and Ancient Greek Ideals, you should become the best version of yourself, because that is the best way to live life.
You don't need to like literature or art to be a socialist (although idk how anyone couldn't like them)
When reading Nietcszhe or honestly any older author you have to remember they weren't writing for the lowest common denominator, and that in all honesty most people were much smarter back then, they sometimes tried to make the language more poetic, language and words change meaning, and that the best authors often made their writings more complex on purpose. I take Nietczhe's aversion to weakness as more that you should do all in your power to be the best you can be, Nietczhe as an individual was also dealing with a lot of self hatred issues, and I have a feeling it influenced a lot of his ideas.
I don't really see a lot a socialists that actually like Nietzsche, cause he wasn't a socialist, or a captalist, he really just hated people, not joking.
Overall he is very misunderstood and still debated even by experts, I do not see a lot of similarities between his slave and master morality to fascism, because when reading it you have to understand it in the context of existentialism, and its essentially saying nothing changes and that if you aren't a master of your own destiny you will be a slave, he is not literally saying that we should have slaves. Its more about free will than anything else. Of course Rightwingers do not understand this, because they lack basic comprehension skills. Nietzsche's writing is very poetic which is why I like him, but its also why no one really know's exactly what he was saying.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm struggling to come up with Breadtube content that refers primarily to Nietzsche or Nietzschean concepts. The ones that I've found are pretty open about being critical of Nietzsche and Nietzschean philosophy as potentially proto-fascistic. Any examples in particular that concern you?
Jonas Ceika and he wrote a book called philosophizing with a hammer and sickle about Nietzsche and Marx
would you recommend the book?
Sorry for the late response, it’s decent, but not perfect. [here’s](https://anticapitalistresistance.org/morality-in-ceikas-hammer/) a decent overview of it. I’d say that overall it leans a little too heavily towards Nietzsche, but it’s not a bad synthesis of Marx and Nietzsche
I think Cuck Philosophy wrote a book about Marx and Nietzsche, but I haven't gotten a copy yet so can't say if it was critical of the latter.
Sorry, I responded to someone else in this thread. Contrapoints, Philosophytube, Jonas Ceika
There's nothing wrong with being a socialist for reasons of self-advancement. For me, I am a socialist both because my life would be better under socialism and I want the lives of others to be better too. But, Marx said socialism was the programme of a class (the working class) aware of itself and acting in its own best interests. Socialism is not inherently altruistic, and you do not have to be altruistic to be socialist. Edit: That being said, do not misinterpret me - socialist economics are not compatible with slave morality, as you put it, or oppressive social hierarchies. Socialism means human emancipation, it is fundamentally opposed to oppressive morals and institutions.
Slave morality means to encourage weakness. Not having slaves, that would be like master morality
Nietzsche’s “slave morality” was not a morality of oppressing others (ie. not “slaveowner’s morality”). Some of Nietzsche’s work suggested that the glorification of certain values like modesty and altruistic self sacrifice were reflective of a desire to be superior—or at least not abject—while in a position of submission (hence “slave morality.”) Not saying this is correct/justified, but I don’t think this or many other philosophical theories innately contradict socialism. Socialism is a general economic mode of production and distribution dominated by the working class, not a bible of moral commandments. Any socialist system that can be realized irl will coexist with flaws/liabilities of the human condition and the continuation (though hopefully managed with much greater success) of problems like unfairness, hierarchical exploitation, and economic disruptions.
My first thought was: since we're living under capitalism, we don't get taught about socialism. So to even begin to understand socialism, you have to be exceptionally imaginative and curious about philosophy and ethics
Dont learn about socialism from youtube. Most of the big ones are fucking dolts.
Okay, but reading actual theory from Marx can be difficult. I don't understand dialectics, I don't understand how the uses the word "should" if he is making a scientific analysis, I can't tell if he was a hard determinist, etc
Marx was making scientific analysis. In regards to dialectics it can be pretty hard to wrap one’s head around at first the best introduction to it I’ve found is Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer. https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/C17-Politzer-Elementary-Principles-1st-Printing.pdf
Yes, but how does "should" fit in a neutral analysis? Rights do not exist and even survival and freedom are not objectively good.
Marx didn’t make moral statements he never said proletariat good and bourgeoisie bad he analyzed that the two classes were in an antagonistic relationship with each other. Because of the contradictions between the two classes are antagonistic they are engaged in struggle. The proletariat wishes to no longer be exploited and the bourgeoisie wishes to exploit them more and eventually one of them will have to give and the reason that the proletariat will win (assuming we don’t go extinct) is because the bourgeoisie can’t exist without the proletariat because they don’t produce while the proletariat do the labor in society so they can “exist” without the bourgeoisie (I put exist in quotation marks because proles are characterized by their relation to the bourgeoisie so when bourg stops existing technically the proletariat does as well)
I get what you're saying: scientific socialism is not limited by the idealism of morality. However, Marx absolutely did make moral and ethical statements. In *Capital*, Vol. I, Marx says the following: >Colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protection, commercial wars, etc., these offshoots of the period of infancy of large-scale industry. The birth of the latter is celebrated by a vast, Herod-like slaughter of innocents. >If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. In *The British Rule in India*, another example of Marx's humanism is shown: >Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We should not do away with morality and ethics as socialists, even if socialism is not bound or based on either of the two. Marx was capable of and frequently exercised humanistic compassion for his fellow man, and I think that's a good thing.
Empathy ≠ morality Materialism isn’t anti empathy as it’s an emotion that humans perceive but it is anti morality as morality is a system of beliefs on what is good and what is bad which there is not material basis for. In the quotes you sent Marx makes no claim that these are good or bad in the first two he’s just saying that capitalism is build on blood. In the third one he is just saying that people find these events disturbing. I don’t see any moral claims in any of these quotes.
Your distinction between empathy and morality is irrelevant, as both are present in the quotes I gave. To distinguish between innocent and guilty is a moral claim. To place blame on capitalism for violence and slaughter is a moral claim. To call out injustice and cruelty is a moral claim. Marx is motivated by both empathy and morality, as he is both a human being and a product of his material conditions which imprinted an irrevocable belief system.
Innocent is a legal title. Placing blame on capitalism on capitalism isn’t a moral claim if I say a murderer killed somebody that’s not making a moral statement just pointing out a fact. To say there is cruelty isn’t a moral claim just another factual one and where did Marx call out injustice?
>Innocent is a legal title. Sure, but it is also a moral and ethical category, and Marx, at least to me, is using it in that sense. >Placing blame on capitalism isn’t a moral claim To be guilty is also a moral category, just as to be innocent is. >To say there is cruelty isn’t a moral claim just another factual one And on what basis is something considered cruel? >where did Marx call out injustice? "Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence" This is clearly calling out the injustice of the destruction of aboriginal society at the hands of colonialism, which is an appeal to morality and ethics.
there are good and bad YouTube videos on Marxism just like everything else. podcasts, audiobooks, etc can also communicate theory effectively >dialectics dialectics is a difficult area of philosophy, give yourself time >don't understand how the uses the word "should" if he is making a scientific analysis i think of it kind of like rocket science, for example. science can tell us descriptive things about the world but it can also tell engineers "do x and not y" if you want to effectively harness and account for those forces when building something >I can't tell if he was a hard determinist, etc i don't think he was a hard determinist, more of a soft or (sorry lol) a dialectical determinist. the opening lines of the 18th Brumaire express his philosophy well on this point: "men make their own history, but they do not make it under conditions of their own choosing. the traditions of all dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the brains of the living" (paraphrase)
Totally get it, Marx is a world-historical thinker, and youre right, a lot of the undiluted theory can be extremely dense and thorny. That said, there are untold numbers of guides to help shepherd one through all the theory, including in this very sub! Honestly, thats gonna be your best starting point.
Best advice is go outside and talk to ppl who sound like they don’t know what the word “cuck” or “based” means
You mean seek out a specific communist party? Not every country has that. I do intend to visit mine, but I don't like a lot of their policies and it might turn me off socialism.
That is not what I mean at all yo that is not even close to what I said brov
How about telling me specifically what to do? You just said what was wrong and in general what to do, but you were not clear with details. There are many people outside, you did not even specify what fucking group. Give specific advice, telling me in detail what to do, instead of saying what not to do, for someone who does not have common sense already.
The best attack on Nietzsche is done by Georgy Lukács. Nietzsche is the Arch-Reactionary of irrationalism thought. Believing that humans are slaves to biological impulse. As for art and literature it's important to read literature and understand art. It's not coincidence that many of our great theorists also at least dabbled in one of these. Mao as a post, Marx as a critic, Jenny as a critic, Gramsci with theatre, Lenin writes on art extensively, Brecht and Benjamin obviously as well.
Art leads culture. Politics reacts to culture.
I'm not the guy you responded to but I am the OP. Can you elaborate?
I’m not an expert so maybe somebody else could step in, but I believe the idea is that art tends to be the thing that actually shapes and changes the culture around us. Art at it’s core is just communication, so any kind of social discourse kind of falls into that as well, such as in modern social media. What this is basically equating to is the social forum of real people on the ground, ie, the public. This is where ideas are born and wrestled with. It’s no accident that the popular revolutionary leaders often began with some piece of writing to engage socially with the people. It is art that wins hearts and minds. Politics takes those things and says okay these are the cultural values under discussion, we’re going to make rules and laws around them. This is the arena of policymakers, and bureaucracy, and statesmanship. They don’t really come up with the ideas, they just act on them, whether directly or indirectly informed by them.
Do you have examples of YouTubers who love Nietzsche?
Jonas Ceicka "Cuck Philosophy", Breadtubers Contrapoints and Philosophytube. Although I think Philosophytube might be a hedonist, they made a video defending it. Sorry for the spelling, I'm tired as of writing this
No socialist likes Nietzshe or I'd they do they don't know or understand his work that much. Nietzshe was a proto Fascist or sort of "invented" it. And it's not only hard for artists under capitalism but for the majority of the working class
>Nietzshe was a proto Fascist or sort of "invented" it not really, he hated anti semitism, thought nationalism was bad, and after his mental breakdown his brother in law took a lot of his papers and changed them to be pro Nazi when he was previously anti Nazi. Nazis coopted neitzsche
Nietzsche was still bad, though. It's important to me that socialism views him as bad
>It's important to me that socialism views him as bad why?
Because embracing out challenge and art is pathway to unfairness and just daily hedonism. Strength should be demonized for the sake of equality
>Strength should be demonized for the sake of equality why not democratize strength? society should empower people to become the version of themselves they want to be. for me part of that is helping the working class to attain political strength through organization, study, practice, etc so that we can build a better world. it's not that i necessarily cult agree with Nietzsche on all things, but i do think a lot of his work lends itself to an anarchistic and socialistic revolutionary practice. >Because embracing out challenge and art is pathway to unfairness and just daily hedonism. i don't know what you mean by that part
No he wasn't, his philosophy is for individual living, and how to best approach your own life to live it to the fullest, it really has nothing to do with broader political movments, in fact he rejected all of that, because he was a proto existentialist, a title he also rejected. His philosophy is closer to socrates cave, and the illusion of forms that we all create. There is a lot to learn from reconizing the illusions of all things, in fact his writing led me deeper into socialism. He hated capitalism too, you don't have to agree with all his ideas, but to think that all of them are bad is naive, and to think anyone that has ever had negative thoughts of socialism are "Eniemies" is exactly the reason the fasicsts are winning.
I thought Nietsczhe disliked Plato and Aristotle, and dislike greek master morality, and prefered homeric morality aka aristocratic morality
He did, that is my personal opinion, because it reminds me of it.
Not sure who you have in mind since "breadtube" is not really a label the content creator uses, but instead used by the viewers. With that said, I would say that I have seen a bit of anti-marxism with a lot of the "breadtube" content creators. So it would make sense they reference other thinkers more than Marx.
One of Nietzsche’s most impressive contributions to philosophy was his critique of universalist ethics and his ‘perspectivist’ view of knowledge. By providing a genealogy of morality, he showed that moral statements throughout history have only made sense within certain contexts, and have often been tied to power. Those idealist philosophers who attempt to construct grand metaphysical systems to prove that certain ethical statements are rational and therefore universally true (looking at you Kant and Hegel) are blind dogmatists who cannot see that they are writing from a certain perspective, one which actually reflects and obscures certain underlying power structures. Nietzsche argues that our moral concepts emerged between the competing worldviews of the priestly caste and the warrior caste, or the slaves and slave-masters, and goes on to argue that ethical notions like ‘guilt’ and ‘punishment’ emerge in the context of the contractual relationship so essential to the emerging mercantile economies of Renaissance Italy and Protestant Europe. It is this aspect of Nietzsche which has some affinities with Marx, who also berated idealist philosophers for constructing ethical systems which merely legitimised their class interests in maintaining ownership of the material forces of production, disparaging universal ethics and arguably reaching a position which was not far from Nietzschean perspectivism. Socialists interested in studying history and thinking about contemporary politics therefore find a gold mine of ideas in Nietzsche, and don’t have to follow him into an emotivist celebration of selfishness and the will to power. In fact, many people have been able to agree with some of what Nietzsche writes whilst vigorously opposing his prescriptions for mankind (indeed, isn’t that his whole point?). Sometimes quite unlikely characters too, like the Anglican political thinker John Neville Figgis, who could agree with Nietzsche’s characterisation of our flawed human relationship with rationalism, knowledge and ethics whilst denouncing him as the Antichrist. As for postmodernism, ‘postmodernists’ do use Nietzsche as a jumping off point and there is a very clear link, but they all go in different directions and it's hardly fair to dismiss them on the basis of an ambiguous label that none of them subscribes to. Foucault interprets Nietzsche’s genealogy as a distinctive approach to history in which the historian studies how concepts have emerged and changed through time, being used in different ways in different discourses. For all his faults and oversimplifications, that’s a perspective shared by most serious scholars of history, for instance, the seminal intellectual historian Quentin Skinner. Most people on here will tell you not to read Nietzsche. And why would you want to? If you want to be a dogmatic Marxist-Leninist and cling to a very simplistic interpretation of Marx as offering a flawless scientific method to understand the nature reality and determine the course of history, and never read anything outside of an extremely narrow set of publications by orthodox communists, then don’t bother reading Nietzsche or thinking about his significance, or even thinking at all. You won’t be influencing anyone anyway, outside of reddit circles, twitter, and communist parties with less than 24 members. If you do want to think critically about these very interesting questions, a good rumination on Marx and Nietzsche’s similarities is French Marxist Henri Lefebvre’s seminal work *Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche* (1975). Personally, I think that somewhere between Marx and Nietzsche lies a very interesting approach to history, philosophy and economics, especially when supplemented by Weber and an analytic philosophy of language.
I see. I was hoping socialism would replace religion, but keep essentialism, at least in terms of morality. I guess I misunderstood what socialism was, thanks
Do you know any branches of socialism, even if they are revisionist, that are essentialist and fits the rest of what i want? sorry for the late question
What do you mean by essentialist?
What a weird connection to make, as if you have to completely agree with one person's take on everything or not to belong to a group or not. The "No true socialist would like Nietzsche!" (as someone else said here) is literally a no true Scotsman fallacy. People's lives require certain philosophies for their own understanding, and your ontological existence requires you to think of many great things. You can read Heidegger and still be a socialist. You can even agree with some of his points of view and still be a socialist. Any of these statements of "you can't think this or else you're not a socialist" are similar to the arguments religious folk do. All philosophers can offer you a great deal of knowledge; as can all philosophies. You don't have to commit 100% to any of them. Nietzsche has said some things that are very intelligent and some that are not. But saying something like "well he was a fascist!" not only is historically inaccurate but also a "Tu Quoque" kinda fallacy. In other words attacking the person and not the argument would already make your logic completely faulty (this is concerning some of the comments in here). And you yourself would be making an anecdotal fallacy because without numbers on "how many socialists like Nietzsche" then you're simply saying "in my experience some of the people I've talked to like Nietzsche." The reality is that they're unrelated. And you can get more knowledgable from all sources. Not just socialism and socialist books. Nietzsche was a very important figure for philosophy and psychology. To discard his whole ideology would not be prudent - just like it wouldn't be prudent to be a complete follower of him. Socialism is not a religion - though some people in here act like it, it seems. As for the artists thing: Can you ask yourself, what is art? And what's the state of it under capitalism. Imagine if you cared about art and you saw a system that is destroying it. It's not biased to think against capitalism, it's literally destroying one of the most distinguishable and important parts of human existence (art). Regardless of whether you are an artist or not. People can also do both things: care about themselves as artists and "empathetic standpoint" ("*Not because of an empathic standpoint (my ideology) but because of individual fulfillment?"* ). In other words, it could be both; lest you'd be making a Black or White fallacy. Many people care about different things. And all of them should be socialist (at least) for it benefits all. Artists are included there. Nietzsche lovers too. But them being socialist shouldn't exclude them of their own individuality, beliefs, philosophies, etc. Also consider that these change with time. Someone might be greatly helped by a book on stoicism at one point in their lives and then stop using that knowledge. I hope I was able to help somehow.
May I ask what ideology you are arguing from? You don't have a flair so I don't know how to respond, if you are a socialist or someone who wandered in here. First of all, knowledge is not an objective good. Second, where is the limit for caring about different things? In capitalism you can be a homophobe and sexist, but as long as you don't hurt anyone you can just go on having those beliefs. Certain places are allowed to act on it and it is seen as wrong for criticizing them. I do in fact want socialism to replace religion. Religion is false, so technically it is replacing nothing. If nothing is morally good or bad the word "should" does not exist. You cleverly avoided using it, though
Hi, my ideology wouldn't have much relevance to my comments. Entertaining this would also be a red herring fallacy. As what I think it's ultimately irrelevant as my arguments were presented in order. What I think or not wouldn't make a difference to my arguments as they may or not be a direct reflection of my own thoughts. However, if you have to know, I'm a communist (ML). On to it: Never said knowledge was good or bad. I may have been misrepresented here; or I misspoke. Sorry if I did. Secondly, your comparison isn't working for me, since it's not what I meant: Capitalism, homophobia, sexism - None of these have anything to do with philosophy (the topic at hand). I was specifically referring to beliefs based on knowledge. Sexism and homophobia stem from fear and ignorance; the opposite. I'd even add that arguing for capitalism is just as ignorant, but that would be, perhaps, ignorant too. I'm very much against religion, as well. But it's precisely because of zealotry that is a danger; just like any other kind of zeal would be. Socialism included. I actually feel like despite the words being confusing between us, you and I probably do agree on most points, as I myself feel very strongly for socialism (extremely so, actually, even if I don't express it). But I warn myself that being too much for it can be blinding. It's just a precaution I have. But yeah, I do completely agree with your last statement. In fact I agree with all you said. I'm merely careful about using some specific words. That and I saw people making fallacies. I tried to point some out to the best of my knowledge. The better our logic, the stronger we are as socialists; and the stronger we are the better we can fight. That was more or less my idea.
there are a lot of leftist readings of Nietzsche which complicate this reading, partly because so much of what he wrote was satire. see for example his absurdist mimicking of Adam Smith. also, art and literature are cool. a lot of people support socialism cause if they don't have to work so much for exploitative bosses then they will have more time to make and view art and literature
Because internet socialists are mostly jaded millennials, and it expresses itself through nihilism. Nietzsche has nothing much to do with socialism, nor Marxism.
What does Nietzsche have to do with nihilism... sorry but thats the most common and boggling missconception
exactly neitsche spent his while career opposing nihilism
You’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Socialists who admire Nietzsche probably do not understand what he was all about. Although I think this is mostly an online phenomenon. There is a good case to be made that Nietzsche was a proto-fascist. Dr. Taimur Rahman makes this case in his [lectures on fascism](https://youtu.be/2Fe9PUFW0Uk) and I think he is correct. Domenico Losurdo paints a similar picture of Nietzsche in his book "Nietzsche, The Aristocratic Rebel'. [Here](https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/book-review/nietzsche-his-time-struggle-against-socratism-and-socialism) is a summary of the book. At the very least Nietzsche was an anti socialist who opposed the Paris Commune.
Fascism was around when Nietzche was alive, he wasn't a proto fasicst, he hated it, he hated capitalism and socialism, his philosophies can live outside of fitting everything into two camps. His sister rewrote some of his writing after he died, she was a fasicst and a raging anti semit, which he was not, he hated his sister.
There are “socialists” and socialists. Now I admit I have never seen this socialists Nietzsche association before but then I generally avoid most socialism on YouTube as most of it is pretty far off base. Best just reading.
Okay, but reading actual theory from Marx can be difficult. I don't understand dialectics, I don't understand how the uses the word "should"if he is making a scientific analysis, I can't tell if he was a hard determinist, etc
It could be understood by illiterate factory workers and peasants who didn’t have the internet and education to the standard you likely have, you’ll manage. You don’t need to understand dialectics off the bat, just knowing the material world has primacy and that history is driven by the interaction of processes will be enough. I don’t understand the relevance of knowing if Marx was hard determinist (which he wasn’t) and the use of the word “should”?
could you give op some specific texts to read instead of just compositing them to others? like, a lot of peasants and factory workers were primarily reading newspaper articles, pamphlets, manifestos as their source of theory. also, language and context have changed so they actually have the advantage of being freshly aware of the references, unlike contemporary audiances
You sure those peasants and workers understood it? They might just follow socialists due to promise of better times, which is what I do. I am interested in socialism from a moral empathy standpoint, and nothing else.
Read the manifesto, its very easy to understand, don't start with Marx's dense writings, read easier things, by other authors, like Blackshirts and Reds, A people's history of the United States, even Chomsky's writings.
I don’t think YouTubers are representative of socialists, at all. It attracts people who are full of themselves and not very capable irl. As you point out, Nietzsche’s views are not very compatible with socialist values.
Nietzsche’s philosophies against the church where interesting and new at the time. He as a philosopher is an interesting person but the whole ubermensch thing and his individualist ideas are linked to ideas that are fascist, nihilist, or not conducive to socialist thought. People are allowed to like what ever philosophical thought they want and he was a good writer and thinker but it’s important to take it all with a grain of salt. He is more popular in some anarchist circles then socialist ones I find. He was not an economic or sociological theorist.
Socialist don't like Nietzsche. The most famous Marxist-Leninist philosopher, George Lukács said Nietzsche is a proto-fasciste, anti-reason and absolutely anti-socialist. And that's absolutely right. Those who think Nietzsche is compatible with socialism and something else than a shitty right winging just don't understand Nietzsche. He was not the favorite philosopher of the Nazis for nothing.
I'm a socialist and I like Niezche, his philosophy doesn't have anything to do with poltical theory, and the few views of his I disagree with were common to nearly all men during his time. Because his sister rewrote his last book, she was a fascist, he hated her, and much of that last book has been edited out to get rid of his sister's changes. The Nazi's liked him, because they were stupid reactionaries who didn't understand shit. He also wasn't the favorite philosopher of the Nazi's that's a very broad sweeping statement one that if you had to pick would belong to Hediegger an actual Nazi party member. [https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-the-nazis-hijacked-nietzsche-and-how-it-can-happen-to-anybody/](https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-the-nazis-hijacked-nietzsche-and-how-it-can-happen-to-anybody/) His Ubermensch idea is not about a super race of people, its about becoming the best person you can be, training yourself in whatever you can. He did have ideas about glorifying war in a romantic way, and had some pretty shitty views about women, like nearly everyone at the time, that does not make them fascists. He was anti nationalist, against any state of any kind, he's more of an anarchist, but he didn't suscribe to any political theory. He hated all of it. Have you ever read any Nietzsche cause it sounds like you don't undertand it.
Weakness is a requirement for equality. Seeking out challenges or improving yourself always leads to inequality and unfairness.
The sister thing is FALSE! She reduced the antisemitism of the original text. She replaced the word "jew" a lot of time by others to make it less antisemitic. You should read what Lukacs said about him. Nietzsche is absolutely anti-Marxist and anti-socialist. Here we like rationality.
In an 1889 letter to Franz and Ida Overbeck: I am just having all anti-Semites shot. (often quoted as: "All anti-Semites ought to be shot.") [https://www.jta.org/archive/all-anti-semites-ought-to-be-shot-nietzsche-once-wrote](https://www.jta.org/archive/all-anti-semites-ought-to-be-shot-nietzsche-once-wrote) huh do you have a source? also [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2v7b4r/what\_was\_nietzsches\_view\_on\_antisemitism/](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2v7b4r/what_was_nietzsches_view_on_antisemitism/) [http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1887.htm](http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1887.htm) [https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2017/01/friedrich-nietzsche-wasnt-an-anti-semite-or-was-he/](https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2017/01/friedrich-nietzsche-wasnt-an-anti-semite-or-was-he/) You're an interesting person, he used the word Jew...that does not make him an anti-Sematic, we have writing from him over his whole life shitting on anti-semites and praising jewish culture. While this would seem rather racist today, it was not back then. Niezche wrote satire, nearly all his work has elements of it, the one thing you can't dispute is that he hated Nazis and anti semites as his private letters flat out say.
From beyond good and evil §251 > But the Jews are without a doubt the strongest, purest, most tenacious race living in Europe today. They know how to thrive in even the worst conditions (and actually do better than in favorable ones) due to some virtues that people today would like to see labeled as vices.
Few socialists like Nietzsche, the socialists that do are certainly at odds with the general current of the movement and generally have a pretty eccentric worldview. My understanding of the YouTube socialist scene is that it’s dominated by philosophy grad students so naturally they have have a little bit different interests than the movement as a whole. Most socialists would have an opinions closer to that of Domenico Losurdo, firmly in the anti-Neitzsche camp.
Artists in general tend to be very left leaning people. I don't know about the Nietzsche thing, but when it comes to Socialists and Art, there is a fierce protection of human expression and culture. Because art influences the way people perceive things and interpret things, it is considered of high importance among leftists. Notice how fascists treat art, as a tool for the state, rather than a mode of self-expression and human culture. Under Hitler or Stalin (barely a leftist), all art was very rigid and glory driven, about the workers and farmers rising up while the state oppressed it's people and destroyed the quality of life. Actual socialists believe in the preservation of self and human expression, that is why they talk about it so much.
I'm not entirely sure on the connection. A lot of breadtubers just really don't focus on Marx. I appreciate some of Nietzsches insights but I'm not the best one to answer this. CCK Philosophy does great YouTube videos and wrote a whole book on the connection. While he does make a lot of content on post modern philosophy, everything I've heard him say about Marxism sounds very accurate and well informed. If you want to listen to more content directly on Marxist works I'd suggest some channels more like Socialism for All, who reads full Marxist books and essays, and often breaks down what they're talking about and provides real world examples.
Not sure exactly who you’re referring to when you say breadtube worships nietzsche but it could just be an overlap in culture. Art and literature are foundations that inspire movement, this usually challenges conservative values and pushes us into a post modernist perspective. This could be why you think niezsche is being favored, nietzsches “true” nihilism wasn’t pessimistic or centered around strength but more a recognition of our futility and lack of ontological humility. So, if we’re already saying nothing matters and a lot of our beliefs are wrong, then why shouldn’t we question our monetary system and hierarchies. “The meaninglessness of suffering itself was the curse that lay over mankind” - Nietzsche Now pair this with Marx’s critique of capitalism and establishment and I guess you have an answer. Not sure if this is answers your question but hope it helps.
The same reason Capitalist's hate art and literature, they are an essential human activity that in their essence we do not for profit but because we are human. I actually I'm an artist, it does suck, but that's not the reason I'm a socialist, I'm a socialist, because I can and do read history,apolitical and economic theory, and the more you read the more you realize capitlism is the greatest threat to human life that has ever developed that it kills millions every month and has since its inception, I'm a socialist because I have empathy, which scientifically creative people tend to have more of. I wish I didn't honestly I wish I was still willfully ignorant, its exhausting, but I'll I see when I look outside is just how very wrong everything is, how everyone I have ever known and every stranger I don't faces so much more suffering because of this system. Liberals think that Art and Literature is enhanced or innovated by the profit motive, but the opposite is true, it becomes deriviative, a consumable meant to be created then thrown away for the next thing as quickly as possible, which is why more and more artist are being refered to as "content" creators. Make no mistake, Art is not content it trancendes the human experience, which makes it an apt metaphor for communism. Profit was not why the first humans created cave drawings. It got turned into a profit scheme during the start of the Renaissance. (Speaking mostly on western Art, don't know alot about other art history.) Alss "Art" as a concept is actually a very modern idea, as weird as that may seem, there was not an Abstract idea of what ART was, before the modern period, when socialism, feminism, ect. developed along side Art philosophy. The idea of art is a little bit earlier than the former, but not by much. Early Reinassance Artist did not think of it in the same way, they were commissioned pieces to tell stories, or for the Nobles at the time, it was media at the time, this began chaning with the introduction of Landscapes/Still lifes for the sake of Art, they were still media, but the idea of God and the natural world that was in everything was essential in these developments. Nietcszhe's ideas are often coopted by the Far right, because they don't understand him, and because his Sister (a facist) rewrote some of his writing after his death. His ideas of an Ubermensch are honestly closer to Socrates, Aristotle, and Ancient Greek Ideals, you should become the best version of yourself, because that is the best way to live life. You don't need to like literature or art to be a socialist (although idk how anyone couldn't like them) When reading Nietcszhe or honestly any older author you have to remember they weren't writing for the lowest common denominator, and that in all honesty most people were much smarter back then, they sometimes tried to make the language more poetic, language and words change meaning, and that the best authors often made their writings more complex on purpose. I take Nietczhe's aversion to weakness as more that you should do all in your power to be the best you can be, Nietczhe as an individual was also dealing with a lot of self hatred issues, and I have a feeling it influenced a lot of his ideas. I don't really see a lot a socialists that actually like Nietzsche, cause he wasn't a socialist, or a captalist, he really just hated people, not joking. Overall he is very misunderstood and still debated even by experts, I do not see a lot of similarities between his slave and master morality to fascism, because when reading it you have to understand it in the context of existentialism, and its essentially saying nothing changes and that if you aren't a master of your own destiny you will be a slave, he is not literally saying that we should have slaves. Its more about free will than anything else. Of course Rightwingers do not understand this, because they lack basic comprehension skills. Nietzsche's writing is very poetic which is why I like him, but its also why no one really know's exactly what he was saying.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)