What´s the deal with Leftists trying to claim Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.19166150]

[Anonymous No.19166159]

>>19166150

[Anonymous No.19166169]

>>19166150
Nietzsche was a leftist

[Anonymous No.19166177]

>>19166169
Nietszche on Socialism

>Socialism—as the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and the dumbest, i.e., those who are superficial, envious, and three-quarters actors—is indeed entailed by "modern ideas" and their latent anarchism; but in the tepid air of democratic well-being the capacity to reach conclusions, or to finish, weakens. One follows—but one no longer sees what follows. Therefore socialism is on the whole a hopeless and sour affair; and nothing offers a more amusing spectacle than the contrast between the poisonous and desperate faces but by today's socialists—and to what wretched and pinched feelings their style bears witness!—and the harmless lambs' happiness of their hopes and desiderata. Nevertheless, in many places in Europe they may yet bring off occasional coups and attacks: there will be deep “rumblings” in the stomach of the next century, and the Paris commune, which has its apologists and advocates in Germany, too, was perhaps no more than a minor indigestion compared to what is coming* But there will always be too many who have possessions for socialism to signify more than an attack of sickness— and those who have possessions are of one mind on one article of faith: “one must possess something in order to be something.” But this is the oldest and healthiest of all instincts: I should add, “one must want to have more than one has in order to become more*” For this is the doctrine preached by life itself to all that has life: the morality of development. To have and to want to have more—growth, in one word—that is life itself. In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a “will to negate life”; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts of! its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstratio ad absurdum would not strike me as undesirable, even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives.

[Anonymous No.19166197]

>>19166150
Sophists always try to claim people with philosophical fame when those people have some points in common with the sophists' beliefs, usually by mental gymnastics trying to reconcile things that are completely antithetical (see how modern moral humanists try to reconcile their morality with Darwin's discovery of evolution by natural selection as another example of this). Nietzsche is popular with leftist sophists because he is seen as being atheistic and anti-establishment, forgetting that the established beliefs that nietzsche was against run a lot deeper than christianity and capitalism and run into socialism at least as much.
The societal nihilism that Nietzsche recognised has not been addressed yet and will not be addressed until later this century

[Anonymous No.19166198]

>>19166169
>The man who praised the supression of the Paris Commune, hated democracy, hated socialism, hated anarchism, endorsed slavery, and voted for nationalist-conservatives all his life was a "leftist"
Ah yes, the man's whose works in the USSR was deemed "fascist" and outright banned all over the Warsaw Pact was certainly a "leftist."

[Anonymous No.19166201]

>>19166177
He was still a leftist.

[Anonymous No.19166211]

>>19166150
they are feels based and find Nietzsche cool or something
since leftists can't like anything "bad" they want him on the "good" side
theirs

[Anonymous No.19166250]

>>19166169
>Neetch was a twitter, anti-racist brainlet
Not if you continue to ignore what he said in Twilight of the idols. Cope.

[Anonymous No.19166263]

>>19166169
>>19166201
>" On the other hand, the piping of the Socialistic rat-catchers who wish to inspire you with foolish hopes is continually sounding in your ears: they tell you to be ready and nothing further, ready from this day to the next, so that you wait and wait for something to come from outside, though living in all other respects as you lived before—until this waiting is at length changed into hunger and thirst and fever and madness, and the clay of the bestia triumphans at last dawns in all its glory. "
>"Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one’s misfortune to others or to oneself — the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter — really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody’s fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge."
>"It is disgraceful on the part of socialist-theorists to argue that circumstances and social combinations could be devised which would put an end to all vice, illness, crime, prostitution, and poverty.... But that is tantamount to condemning Life ... a society is not at liberty to remain young. And even in its prime it must bring forth ordure and decaying matter. The more energetically and daringly it advances, the richer will it be in failures and in deformities, and the nearer it will be to its fall. Age is not deferred by means of institutions. Nor is illness. Nor is vice."
>"Socialism is the fantastic younger brother of
almost decrepit despotism, which it wants to succeed ; its efforts are, therefore, in the deepest
sense reactionary. For it desires such an amount
of State power as only despotism has possessed,
— indeed, it outdoes all the past.."
Even in Zarathustra Spoke - he condemns socialists as tarantulas, and idols of state power, not worthy of his project. There is nothing leftist about Nietzche.

[Anonymous No.19166271]

>>19166150
There's nothing wrong with attempting to take ideas from a thinker or theorist and apply them to a movement, it doesn't change what "side" that person would have been on. I swear this board is just one long, protracted, argument from authority fallacy. Just a bunch of midwits open-mouth pointing at a smart guy they think agrees with them.

[Anonymous No.19166278]

Because the greatest reader of Nietzsche was a Nazi

>Europe still wants to cling to “democracy” and does not want to learn to see that this would be its historical death. For as Nietzsche saw clearly, democracy is just a derivative of nihilism, that is, the devaluation of the highest values in such a way that they are henceforward just that and only that—“values”—and no longer formgiving powers. “The ascendancy of the rabble,” “the social mish-mash,” “equal men,” “means once again the ascendancy of the old values” (WzM n. ; ./). There- fore “God is dead” is not an atheistic dogma, but rather the formulation for the grounding experience of an event of Western history. I took up this phrase in full awareness in my  rectoral address.
>Taken at an even deeper level, this saying demands the knowing of the event of nihilism, and for Nietzsche, knowing means at the same time the will to overcome this event, and this from originary grounds and questions. To evaluate science according to its creative strength, and neither according to an immediate usefulness nor ac- cording to an empty eternal meaning; to evaluate this very creativity according to the originality with which it reaches down into Being itself, neither as the mere accomplishment of the individual nor as diversion for the many. To be able to value—and this means being able to act according to the essence of Being—is itself the highest creating, for it is the preparing of the preparedness for the gods, the Yes to Being.
>“The Overman” is the human being who grounds Being anew in the severity of knowing and in the harshness of creating. The “Overman” is not for sentimental dreamers who fancy themselves significant but who in fact can be understood only through a knowledge of the “last man.”
>Only a knowing that comes from originary grounds and questions grants a firm vision and decisiveness against the most dangerous nihilistic powers—those, that is, which hide themselves behind bourgeois cultural “activity” and artistic and religious reform movements. Those who appeal to what has been great up to now can do nothing for this greatness because they deny its innermost ground: the necessity of creating. For they cannot bear what is essential to creating: the necessity of destruction [Zerstören-Müssen]. And the greatest destruction lays hold of the creator himself. He must first cease to be his own contemporary, because he belongs least of all to himself, but rather to the becoming of Being. It was the knowledge of the fate of creators, in union with the knowledge of the death of God, that granted to Nietzsche, to the Dasein of the thinker, his great assurance in the midst of every upheaval and collapse.

[Anonymous No.19166287]

>>19166150
Based directionbrained retard

[Anonymous No.19166305]

>>19166271
This is a peak "I'm going to let leopards eat my face" moment. Don't be surprised when you merge contradictory belief systems, and have people mock you for it.

[Anonymous No.19166327]

>>19166287
>t.bootlicker of the system

your entire ideology will be dead in 100 years

[Anonymous No.19166331]

>>19166150
I've never heard leftists claim Nietzsche, most seem to think he was a fascist.

[Anonymous No.19166335]

nietzsche just seems like a reactionary incel who was scared of industrial capitalism and wished for feudalism
t. marxist

[Anonymous No.19166354]

>>19166327
based wojakposting directionbrained retard

[Anonymous No.19166360]

>>19166331
pic related claims that Neetsche and Phillip Mainlander were "socialist", he´s a disingenuous fuck

[Anonymous No.19166364]

>>19166271
There is a lot wrong in someone trying to take a thinkers work, extract small parts of it, and try to mash those smaller aspects (without their context) into another philosophy that the work directly opposed. Its obvious sophistry, and ironically given your complaints, an attempt to argue from authority by trying to attach the thinker to the ideas he despised.

[Anonymous No.19166370]

>>19166354