The beast of prey and the man of prey (for instance, Caesar Borgia) are fundamentally misunderstood, "nature" is misunderstood, so long as one seeks a "morbidness" in the constitution of these healthiest of all tropical monsters and growths, or even an innate "hell" in them—as almost all moralists have done hitherto. Does it not seem that there is a hatred of the virgin forest and of the tropics among moralists? And that the "tropical man" must be discredited at all costs, whether as disease and deterioration of mankind, or as his own hell and self-torture? And why? In favour of the "temperate zones"? In favour of the temperate men? The "moral"? The mediocre?—This for the chapter: "Morals as Timidity."
Human, all too Human; Nietzsche
With regard to the state, Machiavelli says that, “the form of government is of very small importance, although half-educated people think otherwise. The great goal of statecraft should be duration, which outweighs all else, inasmuch as it is more valuable than liberty." It is only with securely founded and guaranteed duration that continual development and ennobling inoculation are at all possible. As a rule, however, authority, the dangerous companion of all duration, will rise in opposition to this.
Twilight of the Idols; Nietzsche
My recreation, my preference, my cure from all Platonism has always been Thucydides. Thucydides and, perhaps, Machiavelli’s Principe are most closely related to myself by the unconditional will not to gull oneself and to see reason in reality—not in “reason,” still less in "morality.”
Discourses on Livy; Machiavelli
Reflecting now as to whence it came that in ancient times the people were more devoted to liberty than in the present, I believe that it resulted from this, that men were stronger in those days, which I believe to be attributable to the difference of education, founded upon the difference of their religion and ours. For, as our religion teaches us the truth and the true way of life, it causes us to attach less value to the honors and possessions of this world; whilst the Pagans, esteeming those things as the highest good, were more energetic and ferocious in their actions. We may observe this also in most of their institutions, beginning with the magnificence of their sacrifices as compared with the humility of ours, which are gentle solemnities rather than magnificent ones, and have nothing of energy or ferocity in them, whilst in theirs there was no lack of pomp and show, to which was superadded the ferocious and bloody nature of the sacrifice by the slaughter of many animals, and the familiarity with this terrible sight assimilated the nature of men to their sacrificial ceremonies. Besides this, the Pagan religion deified only men who had achieved great glory, such as commanders of armies and chiefs of republics, whilst ours glorifies more the humble and contemplative men than the men of action. Our religion, moreover, places the supreme happiness in humility, lowliness, and a contempt for worldly objects, whilst the other, on the contrary, places the supreme good in grandeur of soul, strength of body, and all such other qualities as render men formidable; and if our religion claims of us fortitude of soul, it is more to enable us to suffer than to achieve great deeds.
Selections from the Prison Notebooks; Gramsci
The modern prince, the myth-prince, cannot be a real person, a
concrete individual. It can only be an organism, a complex element of
society in which a collective will, which has already been recognised and has to some extent asserted itself in action, begins to take concrete form. History has already provided this organism, and it is the political party—
the first cell in which there come together germs of a collective will
tending to become universal and total. In the modern world, only those
historico-political actions which are immediate and imminent,
characterised by the necessity for lightning speed, can be incarnated
mythically by a concrete individual
Selections from the Prison Notebooks; Gramsci
One may therefore suppose that Machiavelli had in mind “those who
are not in the know”, and that it was they whom he intended to educate politically. This was no negative political education—of tyrant-haters—as Foscolo seems to have understood it; but a positive education—of those who have to recognise certain means as necessary, even if they are the means of tyrants, because they desire certain ends. Anyone born into the traditional governing stratum acquires almost automatically the characteristics of the political realist, as a result of the entire educational complex which he absorbs from his family milieu, in which dynastic or patrimonial interests predominate. Who therefore is “not in the know”? The revolutionary class of the time, the Italian “people” or “nation”, the citizen democracy which gave birth to men like Savonarola and PierSoderini, rather than to a Castruccio or a Valentino. It seems clear that Machiavelli wished to persuade these forces of the necessity of having a leader who knew what he wanted and how to obtain it, and of accepting him with enthusiasm even if his actions might conflict or appear to conflict with the generalised ideology of the time—religion.
So I've been thinking about the relationship between Nietzsche, Gramsci, Stalin, and the idea of "Machiavellian" that ties them all together. I think we can take for granted in this forum that liberalism is degenerate and that socialism needs to be a recreation of man as a healthy, free being instead of as a fulfillment of liberal idealism like Chomsky and Graeber would have us believe. Further, I think we can take for granted that critiques of Stalin as a "murderer" and defiler of "human rights" is nonsense.
Given this unique opportunity this forum presents us of discussing Stalin and Nietzsche without degenerating into liberalism and cries of fascism, I thought I would ask some questions:
What does Stalin (and by extension Mao) represent as the fulfillment of the modern Prince? What can we discuss in terms of tactics in creating a permanent communist state that resists revisionism? What does a Machiavellian man look like (a communist morality), and can such a man exist in a degenerate, liberal world? How do we look at the legacy of the 20th century communist movement in an honest way and learn from Stalin and Mao just as we learn from Alexander, Darius, Ceaser, Borgia (and in the process recover an honest morality based on greatness)?
I have a bunch of thoughts obviously but I wanted to dump a bunch of quotes that were connected in my head to get a discussion started first. Sorry if this is all very confused, feel free to say "none of this is connected, wtf are you talking about" as all of these thoughts are still murky in my brain. I don't take any offense as long as we can clear it up and get discussion started. I still think this forum has potential and I'm not going to give up on the opportunity of the internet as a medium of discussion. Any shit about me personally results in a ban k thx.
Flappo posted:
Stalin
probably only murdered a few million people, let's cut him some slack
thanks for bringing the level of discourse back up after all those idiots kept toning their arguments to a continuous B flat sound, the sound of an airhorne
thank u
AmericanNazbro posted:
yes, yes!! now that's what i'm talking about. good old fashion Stalin posting.
thanks for bringing the level of discourse back up after all those idiots kept toning their arguments to a continuous B flat sound, the sound of an airhorne
thank u
Indeed. Stalin.
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/trotsky/1900/12/nietzsche.htm
It's really horrible, one giant ad-hominem (excuse the D&D phrase). Trots are sick individuals, going all the way back to the man himself.
Also here's Hobsbawm on Gramsci if you want a taste of how liberals have perverted his revolutionary thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Pb0Ttkerw
The conclusion: "There is no foreseeable way of envisaging the socialist transformation of Britain...except through a series of labor governments" {democratically elected lol}. I like Hobsbawm, too bad he's British which makes him hopelessly liberal and useless.
Trots and liberals are the same, but thank Stalin we already know that on here.
Gramsci does touch on what he calls "negative ideology" and he sort of lumps Schopenhauer and Nietzsche together and dismisses them from what I remember when I first read the Prison notebooks. However his is a different case since he's very Hegelian and the relationship between Hegel and Nietzsche is quite complex imo and something I would appreciate one of you more well studied theory posters to touch on if you feel like. I have trouble verbalizing it which means it's still muddled in my head ideologically.
girdles_gone_wild posted:
how does this relate to rashes and paying 10 bucks to sleep in a girl's bunk bed?
thats a ban mister
babyhueypnewton posted:
I think the second quote is really interesting, it basically says that legitimacy comes from existence and longevity. One of the political projects we clearly need is to exist, as in have a socialist state which has gained traditions and past glories. Just the existence of the USSR in the 50s and 60s, even though it was already revisionist and didn't support revolutionary movements after WWII, created a space for revolution in the 3rd world and basically allowed a new socialism to emerge. In todays age, we desperately cling to the tiny states like Nepal and Venezuela for existence, when those kinds of revolutions were the norm during decolonization. Even Cuba, as tiny as it is, has kept the revolutionary spirit alive in South America where it has died in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Obviously we need the existence of a socialist state, can we learn from North Korea which is the only "revolutionary" state which has survived the death of it's modern prince?
actually the lesson we should learn from this is the success of the Catholic Church as an institution that has survived for millenia despite the best efforts of greeks protestants "rationalists" commies and hedonists
Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?
its especially cool because he was 100% right about the failure of socialism in one state
Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?
no trots allowed, thats a ban mister
crustpunk_trotsky posted:Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?its especially cool because he was 100% right about the failure of socialism in one state
trotsky was cool right up until he got super bitter about being thrown out. bukharin at least had the courage to throw himself into the fire, trotsky, while correct 90% of the time from 1914-1927, was in his soul a coward.
Tsargon posted:crustpunk_trotsky posted:Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?its especially cool because he was 100% right about the failure of socialism in one state
trotsky was cool right up until he got super bitter about being thrown out. bukharin at least had the courage to throw himself into the fire, trotsky, while correct 90% of the time from 1914-1927, was in his soul a coward.
agREED, it took a Stalin to murder all those illusive jew assassins
Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?
they are liberal entyrsts
crustpunk_trotsky posted:Tsargon posted:crustpunk_trotsky posted:Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?its especially cool because he was 100% right about the failure of socialism in one state
trotsky was cool right up until he got super bitter about being thrown out. bukharin at least had the courage to throw himself into the fire, trotsky, while correct 90% of the time from 1914-1927, was in his soul a coward.
agREED, it took a Stalin to murder all those illusive jew assassins
stalin was the worlds strongest
AmericanNazbro posted:Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?they are liberal entyrsts
the idea of being perceived as a normal, functioning, non-insufferable human being long enough to be accepted into a group is anathema to real leftists
babyhueypnewton posted:
I think we can take for granted in this forum that liberalism is degenerate and that socialism needs to be a recreation of man as a healthy, free being instead of as a fulfillment of liberal idealism like Chomsky and Graeber would have us believe. Further, I think we can take for granted that critiques of Stalin as a "murderer" and defiler of "human rights" is nonsense.
Tsargon posted:crustpunk_trotsky posted:Tsargon posted:crustpunk_trotsky posted:Flappo posted:
What's LF's obsession with Trots and rooting out Trots all about. Is it just the need for complete ideological purity that seems endemic to the left?its especially cool because he was 100% right about the failure of socialism in one state
trotsky was cool right up until he got super bitter about being thrown out. bukharin at least had the courage to throw himself into the fire, trotsky, while correct 90% of the time from 1914-1927, was in his soul a coward.
agREED, it took a Stalin to murder all those illusive jew assassins
stalin was the worlds strongest
i don't worship strength though
babyfinland posted:
Do you think that Stalin revered the State as a sancrosact source of morality and goodness? The ideal Marxist identifies the working class as the "negation of negation", the surrogate for God in a materialist politics. Machiavelli (arguably) did so with the state, the font and temple of civic life and all the virtue thereof. Where does Stalin lie between the two
Machiavelli is a product of his time, his historical task was the unification of Italy and the revolutionary task of the nationalist bourgeoisie. Of course this took the form of the state, but we have to remember that Machiavelli is not talking to statesmen in The Prince. He admits that rulers and politicians already know everything he is writing, Machiavelli is writing a guide for society. Though it is through the state, this is perfectly compatable with the Marxist desire for the "negation of the negation" i.e. the beginning of history.
Stalin's greatest failure, as we all know, what his economism and under appreciation for the role of politics and the war for hegemony. Here's a quick quote:
They believe that in view of the specific role assigned to the Soviet state by history, the Soviet state and its leaders can abolish existing laws of political economy and can "form," "create," new laws.
These comrades are profoundly mistaken. It is evident that they confuse laws of science, which reflect objective processes in nature or society, processes which take place independently of the will of man, with the laws which are issued by governments, which are made by the will of man, and which have only juridical validity.
However, I don't think Stalin really followed his own ideals. The purges are an example of the state acting as a "Machiavellian" agent to subvert the laws of economics which were creating a new bourgeoisie within the party. This is what makes him interesting to me: the state as an agent of power and morality under Stalin took the form of violence and terror (as it probably should). Mao learned from this and didn't purge the revisionists right under his nose and instead tried to change the culture. Clearly both approaches weren't enough but Stalin is much closer to Machiavelli and the great men of the past like Ceaser and Robespierre imo.
babyfinland posted:
we have to remember that Machiavelli is not talking to statesmen in The Prince. He admits that rulers and politicians already know everything he is writing, Machiavelli is writing a guide for society.
This is inverted. I'm assuming you know about the specula principum genre that The Prince belongs to; point being that it was written for a single specific statesmen, actually: the ruling Medicis.
Machiavelli was a republican but he was also a severe opportunist. His main concern in writing The Prince was to advocate for volunteer militias rather than mercenaries.
babyfinland posted:babyfinland posted:
we have to remember that Machiavelli is not talking to statesmen in The Prince. He admits that rulers and politicians already know everything he is writing, Machiavelli is writing a guide for society.This is inverted. I'm assuming you know about the specula principum genre that The Prince belongs to; point being that it was written for a single specific statesmen, actually: the ruling Medicis.
Machiavelli was a republican but he was also a severe opportunist. His main concern in writing The Prince was to advocate for volunteer militias rather than mercenaries.
Sorry I should have made my ideas more clear. Machiavelli, the person, isn't really that important. We can talk about morality and the state, and criticize Stalin for economism, but that doesn't mean that there aren't genuine economic and historical forces that act on and outside of individuals. Machiavelli is only important as an agent of history, what makes him individually important (and ties him to the other great men) is he resisted the decadence of liberalism/christianity and fulfilled his role as a historical agent. My question is why men who see beyond the limitations of morality to the the science of politics 'reason in reality' are so reviled in the modern left and how we can recover/create a man who can fulfill his historic role as ending capitalism and leading the populace through violence, terror, and death. As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough.
babyhueypnewton posted:
My question is why men who see beyond the limitations of morality to the the science of politics 'reason in reality' are so reviled in the modern left and how we can recover/create a man who can fulfill his historic role as ending capitalism and leading the populace through violence, terror, and death. As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough.
Zizek opposes central planning and the vanguard party-led state, though.
He says this about Hitler too, and everything you're saying is applicable to Hitler just as well as Stalin. This all comes across as a bunch of Will to Power fascism to me.
getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
My question is why men who see beyond the limitations of morality to the the science of politics 'reason in reality' are so reviled in the modern left and how we can recover/create a man who can fulfill his historic role as ending capitalism and leading the populace through violence, terror, and death. As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough.Zizek opposes central planning and the vanguard party-led state, though.
there are a lot of things I dislike about Zizek's idea of communism, but when he has an idea worth quoting I'll quote it because then we're working with similar principles and you can go read an explanation more indepth from him. Like if I said 'Stalin didn't go far enough' you'd be like "wtf does that mean". Basically it's a form of laziness, please don't take my quote mining from Zizek and others as endorsing their ideology 
Now excuse me while I watch the daily show even though I hate it.
babyfinland posted:
"As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough."
He says this about Hitler too, and everything you're saying is applicable to Hitler just as well as Stalin. This all comes across as a bunch of Will to Power fascism to me.
fascism is one of the most misunderstood and poorly defined concepts ever. will to power is the opposite of fascism, but I'm curious what the difference between Ceaser, Alexander, Solomon, even Mohammed, and Hitler/Mussolini is to you. I guess throw Stalin in there, I hope you're not one of those people who thinks fascism and communism are the same thing.
getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
My question is why men who see beyond the limitations of morality to the the science of politics 'reason in reality' are so reviled in the modern left and how we can recover/create a man who can fulfill his historic role as ending capitalism and leading the populace through violence, terror, and death. As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough.Zizek opposes central planning and the vanguard party-led state, though.
has he ever given an alternative? i just remember he always says that what happened in the USSR was a disaster but never stating what should be done instead
AmericanNazbro posted:getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
My question is why men who see beyond the limitations of morality to the the science of politics 'reason in reality' are so reviled in the modern left and how we can recover/create a man who can fulfill his historic role as ending capitalism and leading the populace through violence, terror, and death. As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough.Zizek opposes central planning and the vanguard party-led state, though.
has he ever given an alternative? i just remember he always says that what happened in the USSR was a disaster but never stating what should be done instead
Ya weird huh, he forgot that part..strange..
(he advocates withdrawal to study, study, study)
AmericanNazbro posted:getfiscal posted:babyhueypnewton posted:
My question is why men who see beyond the limitations of morality to the the science of politics 'reason in reality' are so reviled in the modern left and how we can recover/create a man who can fulfill his historic role as ending capitalism and leading the populace through violence, terror, and death. As Zizek says, Stalin's problem was that he didn't far enough.Zizek opposes central planning and the vanguard party-led state, though.
has he ever given an alternative? i just remember he always says that what happened in the USSR was a disaster but never stating what should be done instead
"Saying ‘no’ is the first step, but the subsequent affirmation of the necessity for change requires not only the formulation of political demands, but also some idea of how an alternative society can be organized; or in his words: “ … I think it is important that we start to shift focus from the purely, let me call it ‘negative gesture’—we reject this debt—to at least try to play with, to imagine, alternative modes of organization” . Zizek is concerned with ensuring the protests effect real change and with how any change can be maintained while avoiding the spectre of totalitarianism. Using Greece as an example, he wonders how things would be organized if the State were to collapse and the ‘people’ were to take over. What would happen at such a juncture?
At this point there is an interesting and polemical intervention by Costas Douzinas, who suggests that Zizek has the problem the wrong way round. The question of what happens after some new regime takes over will involve, in Douzinas’s words, a “long process in which programmes will be created … a long democratic process”. The real problem, therefore, is not what is going to happen after any revolution, but how to get there in the first place. Following a series of arguments and counter-arguments over the pertinence, amongst other things, of direct democracy, the debate quickly escalates:
Zizek: This is for me the crucial problem and when you say, “well, it’s a long process, we will find it”, it’s just rhetorics. Of course it’s a long process … but your position is basically, if I’ve got it correctly, we cannot say anything, we will see what happens. I mean this is for me a little bit too risky … The big problem is: can we imagine another way of what Gramsci called the “new order” of things functioning normally in a different way.
Douzinas: But what you’re saying … the “new order” — this is total eschatology.
Zizek: No, because I’m not saying that this is the end of history.
Douzinas: No no, what you’re telling us is we have to know how paradise is. Before we know what paradise is we’re not going to make any attempt to get there. And what I’m saying is that it is much more important to try to get to paradise and once we get there we’ll work it out. Because your recipe and your advice all over the world to these movements, to people who are standing up and mobilizing and so on, is that before you have a full blueprint of how society is going to be after the change you should not do anything. Do a bit of protest, do a bit of hippydom here and hippydom there, and since you do not have your full constitutional order and party in place, forget it!
Zizek: I never said this. What I said is, on the contrary, that if you just want to go to a paradise without knowing where you are going you can well end in hell.
Douzinas: Indeed, this is the chance you take. As Benjamin said, the worst and best are very close to one another, but unless you aim for the best you don’t get anywhere.
Zizek: Let me be concrete. I never spoke about what will be. Who knows what will be? … But my point is this one: I don’t think you can simply say how to get to paradise. Paradise is there. If there is a lesson to be drawn from the sad 20th century experience, it is that the germs of paradise must be already here in how we are organizing … and direct democracy is not enough …
Douzinas: You’re a very imaginative guy so use your imagination and give us some alternative …
Zizek: … our focus should … be … on different forms of representation. There lies the true creative work. In normal times, you cannot have permanent activity , you need representation, but you need a type of representation, maybe even less democratic, I don’t know.
Douzinas: I don’t think we disagree.
Zizek: Yeah … can’t you see what worries me is that we will have a beautiful protest and then this protest will disappear and then all that will remain is that we will feel very well: what a nice time we had during the protest.
Show me what will remain, show me what will remain as new institutional forms!
And I agree with you, something probably will emerge. I’m not as pessimistic as I may sound here. Just let’s look at history and how people thought many things not possible. Let’s not forget.
Here we should even sincerely praise democracy itself: my God, up until modernity people thought the moment you don’t have a natural pretender to power, the moment you open up the field and admit the empty place of power, it’s catastrophe. The great triumph of democracy is that it turned this moment—when the thrown is empty—into the resource for the stability of the system. So things can be done. But I don’t want to terrorize people into this: oh give me a detailed blueprint! — no! I just think that we should be very careful … .
The people with their protests are not asking questions, they are an answer, but an opaque answer. What we intellectuals can do with our knowledge is not to provide answers, but to start to raise the right questions, so that the answer can only come from the people. The answer will be recognised as the answer if we provide the frame for the question to it. This is a much more modest model where nonetheless we intellectuals are crucial …
I think, if anything, the 20th Century fiascos, we intellectuals lost this arrogant right to say, “we have the answers, we show you the way” …"
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
I think it's safe to say that no one will ever say of Tom that he "didn't fat enough.
you may call me a dreamer