What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the Twenty-First Century
From the creator of the Cuck Philosophy YouTube channel comes this timely and explosive re-evaluation of Marx and Nietzsche for the 21st-century left.
Modernity has been defined by humanity's capacity for self-destruction.
Over the last century, the means which threaten not only life's joy but its very existence have only multiplied. At the same time, as a new wave of nationalism and right-wing politics spreads across the world, fewer and fewer people are being convinced that socialism could improve their everyday lives, let alone save us from our own destruction.
In this timely and explosive book, philosopher and YouTuber Jonas Čeika (aka Cuck Philosophy) re-invigorates socialism for the twenty-first century. Leaving behind its past associations with bureaucracy and state tyranny, and it's lifeless and drab theoretical accounts, Čeika instead uses the works of Marx and Nietzsche to reconnect socialism with its human element, presenting it as something not only affecting, but created by living, breathing, suffering human individuals.
At a time when ecological collapse is hurtling towards us, and capitalism offers no solution except more growth and exploitation, How to Philosophise with a Hammer and Sickle shows us the way forward to a socialism grounded in human experience and accessible to all.
Modernity has been defined by humanity's capacity for self-destruction.
Over the last century, the means which threaten not only life's joy but its very existence have only multiplied. At the same time, as a new wave of nationalism and right-wing politics spreads across the world, fewer and fewer people are being convinced that socialism could improve their everyday lives, let alone save us from our own destruction.
In this timely and explosive book, philosopher and YouTuber Jonas Čeika (aka Cuck Philosophy) re-invigorates socialism for the twenty-first century. Leaving behind its past associations with bureaucracy and state tyranny, and it's lifeless and drab theoretical accounts, Čeika instead uses the works of Marx and Nietzsche to reconnect socialism with its human element, presenting it as something not only affecting, but created by living, breathing, suffering human individuals.
At a time when ecological collapse is hurtling towards us, and capitalism offers no solution except more growth and exploitation, How to Philosophise with a Hammer and Sickle shows us the way forward to a socialism grounded in human experience and accessible to all.
285 pages, Paperback
Published November 9, 2021
69 people are currently reading
1417 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
October 10, 2023
Note: a more detailed engagement with Ceika's ideas can be found here: https://anticapitalistresistance.org/...
How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the 21st-Century Left is difficult to summarize or discuss succinctly. The title suggests two things: first, that it is a how to of philosophizing in a particular way, and, second, an introduction to the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx with an eye to the contemporary relevance of their thought. The author, Jonas Čeika, manages to accomplish neither satisfactorily.
Why, then, would I give this book such a high rating? Because what it does accomplish satisfactorily is of overwhelming value, and, in truth, the book never sets out to do what such a title might seemingly suggest on first glance. No Nietzschean would dare write a systemic "how to" book on philosophy to begin with, nor would a decent Marxist contend themselves to merely showing the "relevance" of a thinker to the present.
This book, in reality, is nothing short of a shotgun blast to stale Marxist orthodoxy and unspoken leftist dogma. What is suggested by the title, should one be familiar with Nietzsche's original phrase to "philosophize with a hammer," is that the act of destruction can also be a constructive act: his attack on Marxism is not intended to consign the philosophy to the dustbin of history, but rather to save it from itself. Čeika's contribution is to see that this constructive act is not his own duty, but an opportunity for radicals everywhere. The construction of a new Marxism, Čeika says, will happen "beyond all books, where the philosophical problems brought up here are tackled at their source". It is clear that any new Marxism will be the communal product of struggle, a process in which Čeika has no ambitions to play anything beyond simply a role.
For Marxism to be an open-ended project to which all may contribute meaningfully, however, it has to be wrestled from the dogmatic stranglehold that sees Marxism as more akin to a natural science. In contrast, what is argued for here is a Marxism of life, a Marxism of praxis. Čeika uncovers the various ways in which Marxism has been distorted, not just by the Soviet authorities of the 20th century but the various parties and thought leaders of today, to encourage "servility" in various forms. He argues against any Marxism that wishes to reduce its namesake thinker to "a social democrat, a moralist, a historical determinist, even a nationalist." Against those who wish to dilute and water down Marxism to make it more palatable to reactionaries, Čeika seeks to make Marxism MORE scandalous, more emphatic in its trumpting of the cause of self-creation, and turns to Nietzsche as a thinker who can help us in this process.
Čeika is clear that he does not see his work as "synthesizing Marx and Nietzsche," nor is it an attempt at "supplementing what is lacking in Marx with Nietzsche, or supplementing what is lacking in Nietzsche with Marx". Instead, it is an attempt to use each thinker as a lens through which to view what is already present in the thought of the other: despite pretenses of equal treatment, it is Nietzsche who is used as a lens far more often and Marx who is subject to re-examination. Marx emerges from these pages as a firebrand: not simply a man interested in abstract political revolution or moralistic corrections of society's wrongs, but a man for whom no concern was higher than that of emancipation.
This leads to the greatest merit of the work: how it seeks to root out all traces of masochism and repression. This is what is meant by recasting Marxism as a philosophy of life, one that seeks to emancipate man not merely from his social shackles but from, as Marx put it in the German Ideology, the "muck of ages". The Marxism contained in this work is more concerned with attaining self-realization than it is with ending exploitation as an end in and of itself, even if the former is of course impossible without the latter. Similarly, rather than exalting suffering and sacrifice the way so many leftists do, Čeika makes clear that any liberatory theory worthy of the title must be guided consistently by the impulse for a free life above all else.
Čeika's master's thesis in philosophy was on the history of freedom as a philosophical concept, and the depth with which he has thought on this subject becomes apparent quickly. While hardly the first to suggest that authentic Marxism is animated by the impulse for freedom, this is among the best works in giving content to what that specific conception of freedom entails. If you read enough Marxist works, especially from the Trotskyist tradition, then you will be familiar with how often freedom is trotted out as a hanging signifier, an attempt to separate the writer from Stalinism. This is not the case here.
In spite of how I have presented it, this is not a manifesto. While it contains a political call to action, and indeed a philosophical call too, it is not intended as an introductory work to Marxism or Nietzsche nor can it really be called "agitprop." This is to the book's credit. While both unflinchingly radical and unquestionably accessible to non-specialists, the volume never gives up being a work of serious philosophy. There's a palpable sense of respect for the reader's intelligence and willingness to read things that aren't written at a 5th grade level. One never gets the feeling this is the product of a thinker slowing down for the masses, dumbing down their thought for the common man who, supposedly, doesn't have time for real books.
True to its purpose, there is little here that is likely to be completely new to any well-read Marxist, but it will draw your attention to aspects of Marxism that often escape notice and explore implications in Marxist theory that one may not have previously thought through. In examining Marxism through a Nietzschean lens, Marxism is refreshed and renewed. Čeika's book invites us to think re-examine what we already know as radicals in new and exciting ways, ways that lend well to understanding the depths of what it means to treat Marxism as an open project rather than a closed philosophy.
In doing so, it often exemplifies the best tendencies of both Marxian and Nietzschean thinking.
Note: I am basing my review off a manuscript Čeika sent me before publication. I am both biased due to my involvement in the writing process and due to my relationship with the author.
How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the 21st-Century Left is difficult to summarize or discuss succinctly. The title suggests two things: first, that it is a how to of philosophizing in a particular way, and, second, an introduction to the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx with an eye to the contemporary relevance of their thought. The author, Jonas Čeika, manages to accomplish neither satisfactorily.
Why, then, would I give this book such a high rating? Because what it does accomplish satisfactorily is of overwhelming value, and, in truth, the book never sets out to do what such a title might seemingly suggest on first glance. No Nietzschean would dare write a systemic "how to" book on philosophy to begin with, nor would a decent Marxist contend themselves to merely showing the "relevance" of a thinker to the present.
This book, in reality, is nothing short of a shotgun blast to stale Marxist orthodoxy and unspoken leftist dogma. What is suggested by the title, should one be familiar with Nietzsche's original phrase to "philosophize with a hammer," is that the act of destruction can also be a constructive act: his attack on Marxism is not intended to consign the philosophy to the dustbin of history, but rather to save it from itself. Čeika's contribution is to see that this constructive act is not his own duty, but an opportunity for radicals everywhere. The construction of a new Marxism, Čeika says, will happen "beyond all books, where the philosophical problems brought up here are tackled at their source". It is clear that any new Marxism will be the communal product of struggle, a process in which Čeika has no ambitions to play anything beyond simply a role.
For Marxism to be an open-ended project to which all may contribute meaningfully, however, it has to be wrestled from the dogmatic stranglehold that sees Marxism as more akin to a natural science. In contrast, what is argued for here is a Marxism of life, a Marxism of praxis. Čeika uncovers the various ways in which Marxism has been distorted, not just by the Soviet authorities of the 20th century but the various parties and thought leaders of today, to encourage "servility" in various forms. He argues against any Marxism that wishes to reduce its namesake thinker to "a social democrat, a moralist, a historical determinist, even a nationalist." Against those who wish to dilute and water down Marxism to make it more palatable to reactionaries, Čeika seeks to make Marxism MORE scandalous, more emphatic in its trumpting of the cause of self-creation, and turns to Nietzsche as a thinker who can help us in this process.
Čeika is clear that he does not see his work as "synthesizing Marx and Nietzsche," nor is it an attempt at "supplementing what is lacking in Marx with Nietzsche, or supplementing what is lacking in Nietzsche with Marx". Instead, it is an attempt to use each thinker as a lens through which to view what is already present in the thought of the other: despite pretenses of equal treatment, it is Nietzsche who is used as a lens far more often and Marx who is subject to re-examination. Marx emerges from these pages as a firebrand: not simply a man interested in abstract political revolution or moralistic corrections of society's wrongs, but a man for whom no concern was higher than that of emancipation.
This leads to the greatest merit of the work: how it seeks to root out all traces of masochism and repression. This is what is meant by recasting Marxism as a philosophy of life, one that seeks to emancipate man not merely from his social shackles but from, as Marx put it in the German Ideology, the "muck of ages". The Marxism contained in this work is more concerned with attaining self-realization than it is with ending exploitation as an end in and of itself, even if the former is of course impossible without the latter. Similarly, rather than exalting suffering and sacrifice the way so many leftists do, Čeika makes clear that any liberatory theory worthy of the title must be guided consistently by the impulse for a free life above all else.
Čeika's master's thesis in philosophy was on the history of freedom as a philosophical concept, and the depth with which he has thought on this subject becomes apparent quickly. While hardly the first to suggest that authentic Marxism is animated by the impulse for freedom, this is among the best works in giving content to what that specific conception of freedom entails. If you read enough Marxist works, especially from the Trotskyist tradition, then you will be familiar with how often freedom is trotted out as a hanging signifier, an attempt to separate the writer from Stalinism. This is not the case here.
In spite of how I have presented it, this is not a manifesto. While it contains a political call to action, and indeed a philosophical call too, it is not intended as an introductory work to Marxism or Nietzsche nor can it really be called "agitprop." This is to the book's credit. While both unflinchingly radical and unquestionably accessible to non-specialists, the volume never gives up being a work of serious philosophy. There's a palpable sense of respect for the reader's intelligence and willingness to read things that aren't written at a 5th grade level. One never gets the feeling this is the product of a thinker slowing down for the masses, dumbing down their thought for the common man who, supposedly, doesn't have time for real books.
True to its purpose, there is little here that is likely to be completely new to any well-read Marxist, but it will draw your attention to aspects of Marxism that often escape notice and explore implications in Marxist theory that one may not have previously thought through. In examining Marxism through a Nietzschean lens, Marxism is refreshed and renewed. Čeika's book invites us to think re-examine what we already know as radicals in new and exciting ways, ways that lend well to understanding the depths of what it means to treat Marxism as an open project rather than a closed philosophy.
In doing so, it often exemplifies the best tendencies of both Marxian and Nietzschean thinking.
Note: I am basing my review off a manuscript Čeika sent me before publication. I am both biased due to my involvement in the writing process and due to my relationship with the author.
July 13, 2022
This book can be divided into 3 parts: the first 35%, the second 35% and the following 20%. The last 10% is sources and acknowledgments.
The first part is quite bad. At 23% Čeika put in the last passage explaining what he is going to do in the book. At this point he has mostly made somewhat vague generalisations. He avoids, for the most part, reductive labels, which is good, but thereby ends up saying very little. Apart from some observations on academia and on the USSR, the book is quite abstract at this point. If this was all we had on Marx & Nietzsche, we would know nothing about them. If you’ve studied their work you can place Čeika’s observations in context, making some of them useful but only to academics interested in interpreting Marx & Nietzsche for its own sake. Most of it is pretty basic, many attacks on popular misconceptions, so this is not particularly interesting for academics either, undergraduate, radical liberal interpreters of Marx or Nietzsche will get something out of it. For all others it is either too advanced or too basic. Čeika does not give a systematic introduction to Marx or Nietzsche but also doesn’t go into enough detail on particular issues to add anything of true interpretive value. This means both experts and novices will get little out of this part.
I don’t understand why he chose to tackle the topic in such a way. If he wanted to dispel common misconceptions before going into the meat of the book, he should have written a short introduction to Marx, using quotes and sources to dispel misconceptions when they come up. The same, of course, should have been done for Nietzsche. Instead, Čeika’s treatment is chaotic and disorganised. At some points he goes off on tangents about minute and abstract details, turning the book into a dry academic investigation. At others he chooses to explain some basic point or refute a common misconception. He mostly seems to be making not very interesting, not very important points of his own about what kind of thinkers Marx and Nietzsche were.
For example, he explains that both Nietzsche and Marx investigated processes in their own development. If you only read Čeika, one would think that this is a rather common, unimportant point, made by an intellectual to prove he went behind Marx’s and Nietzsche’s positions. If one only read Čeika one would be left with the impression this point was made only to make Čeika seem learned and not to give any actual insight into Marx’s or Nietzsche’s philosophy.
This is far from the case. Nietzsche and to an even larger degree Marx emphasised their specific historical method. Later, when he is making an entirely unrelated point, Čeika explains Nietzsche’s genealogical method but never properly explains dialectics. He only briefly covers the thesis-antithesis-synthesis description of Hegel’s method which Marx mocked in The Poverty of Philosophy but Čeika takes it seriously. Marx’s dialectical conception of history is a way to explain historical events without using “factors”. In Marx’s day, as still today, many historians, philosophers and social scientists divided the human world into factors. They then argued that the economic, social, political, religious or some other factor they came up with was more important than the other ones. When the ruler of France was crowned, by divine right, as king of that country they would have a heated debate whether it was more important that the he was crowned in the name of god and therefore king or that he was crowned king and thereby must have been put in that place by god. These obviously refer to the same thing. Medieval and early modern people believed that god ruled all of history therefore one who was appointed king had divine right and one was who was considered to have divine right was crowned king. This process, constantly feeds into itself with divine right justifying kingship and the fact there was a ruling king reinforcing the idea god always brings forth one. Neither of the “factors” was more important as they both denote the same process, both descriptions just leave out important parts. Čeika explains this by noting that Marx studied processes in their development (instead of positing one factor first, seemingly outside of time, and then deducing the rest of a concrete historical order from it). If one only read Čeika one would not notice at all there is a fundamental difference between Marx and the factor theorists. One could even think Marx was a factor theorist himself who emphasised the “economic factor” or “political factor”, as many “interpreters” of Marx have done historically.
Rather than explain this, Čeika takes on the economic determinist charge separately from his description (but not explanation) of Marx’s historical method. He just asserts that objection is false. He proves his point by asserting it, just like Proudhon did!
Čeika makes these descriptions seemingly mainly to debunk popular misconceptions but to properly interpret them one needs an understanding of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s philosophy already much beyond that level. Who is the target audience for this?
The second part is largely the same but here Čeika covers specific topics. This means he actually explains and goes into detail. There is some interesting material on Nietzschean Bolsheviks, of which there were many, as well as material on the content Marxist and Nietzschean philosophy. He quotes Marx and Nietzsche more often but only to prove whatever point he is making. The quotes are too short and too few to get an idea of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s ideas in their own words.
The final 20% is the best part of the book and what saved it from a two star rating. Here he goes into more detail on issues of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s thought. They are quoted more frequently and more fully and individual quoted sentences are often integrated into his own paragraphs, using their own words to explain some of the nuances of their systems. There is material on the opinions of the Nietzschean Bolsheviks on various issues. Čeika actually explains Marx’s and Nietzsche’s ideas, rather than making abstract assertions about why people he disagrees with are wrong.
There’s another important positive to the book as a whole. Is revives the spirit of the first and second internationals. Čeika makes many of the same criticisms and assertions as, for example, Plekhanov. He holds the second international responsible for the supposed degeneration of Marxism. In a time when western Marxism focuses on niche and abstract academic topics and Stalinist forms of Marxism lost any understanding of theory, Čeika reestablishes some of the lost basics. Would he carefully study the works of Lafargue and Plekhanov he would find many points of agreement. It would have been very useful to quote their clear and concise explanations of many points Čeika made as well, would have made the work much clearer and less abstract.
If you’re already familiar with these thinkers I cannot recommend this book. If you’re a novice in Marxism it might be a good read, solely because it establishes a view of Marxism in general. However, there are superior alternatives for this. Lenin’s, Plekhanov’s, Lafargue’s and Engels’ introductory writings are very good. Kautsky’s introductions too are better than this though not as good as the aforementioned.
The first part is quite bad. At 23% Čeika put in the last passage explaining what he is going to do in the book. At this point he has mostly made somewhat vague generalisations. He avoids, for the most part, reductive labels, which is good, but thereby ends up saying very little. Apart from some observations on academia and on the USSR, the book is quite abstract at this point. If this was all we had on Marx & Nietzsche, we would know nothing about them. If you’ve studied their work you can place Čeika’s observations in context, making some of them useful but only to academics interested in interpreting Marx & Nietzsche for its own sake. Most of it is pretty basic, many attacks on popular misconceptions, so this is not particularly interesting for academics either, undergraduate, radical liberal interpreters of Marx or Nietzsche will get something out of it. For all others it is either too advanced or too basic. Čeika does not give a systematic introduction to Marx or Nietzsche but also doesn’t go into enough detail on particular issues to add anything of true interpretive value. This means both experts and novices will get little out of this part.
I don’t understand why he chose to tackle the topic in such a way. If he wanted to dispel common misconceptions before going into the meat of the book, he should have written a short introduction to Marx, using quotes and sources to dispel misconceptions when they come up. The same, of course, should have been done for Nietzsche. Instead, Čeika’s treatment is chaotic and disorganised. At some points he goes off on tangents about minute and abstract details, turning the book into a dry academic investigation. At others he chooses to explain some basic point or refute a common misconception. He mostly seems to be making not very interesting, not very important points of his own about what kind of thinkers Marx and Nietzsche were.
For example, he explains that both Nietzsche and Marx investigated processes in their own development. If you only read Čeika, one would think that this is a rather common, unimportant point, made by an intellectual to prove he went behind Marx’s and Nietzsche’s positions. If one only read Čeika one would be left with the impression this point was made only to make Čeika seem learned and not to give any actual insight into Marx’s or Nietzsche’s philosophy.
This is far from the case. Nietzsche and to an even larger degree Marx emphasised their specific historical method. Later, when he is making an entirely unrelated point, Čeika explains Nietzsche’s genealogical method but never properly explains dialectics. He only briefly covers the thesis-antithesis-synthesis description of Hegel’s method which Marx mocked in The Poverty of Philosophy but Čeika takes it seriously. Marx’s dialectical conception of history is a way to explain historical events without using “factors”. In Marx’s day, as still today, many historians, philosophers and social scientists divided the human world into factors. They then argued that the economic, social, political, religious or some other factor they came up with was more important than the other ones. When the ruler of France was crowned, by divine right, as king of that country they would have a heated debate whether it was more important that the he was crowned in the name of god and therefore king or that he was crowned king and thereby must have been put in that place by god. These obviously refer to the same thing. Medieval and early modern people believed that god ruled all of history therefore one who was appointed king had divine right and one was who was considered to have divine right was crowned king. This process, constantly feeds into itself with divine right justifying kingship and the fact there was a ruling king reinforcing the idea god always brings forth one. Neither of the “factors” was more important as they both denote the same process, both descriptions just leave out important parts. Čeika explains this by noting that Marx studied processes in their development (instead of positing one factor first, seemingly outside of time, and then deducing the rest of a concrete historical order from it). If one only read Čeika one would not notice at all there is a fundamental difference between Marx and the factor theorists. One could even think Marx was a factor theorist himself who emphasised the “economic factor” or “political factor”, as many “interpreters” of Marx have done historically.
Rather than explain this, Čeika takes on the economic determinist charge separately from his description (but not explanation) of Marx’s historical method. He just asserts that objection is false. He proves his point by asserting it, just like Proudhon did!
Čeika makes these descriptions seemingly mainly to debunk popular misconceptions but to properly interpret them one needs an understanding of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s philosophy already much beyond that level. Who is the target audience for this?
The second part is largely the same but here Čeika covers specific topics. This means he actually explains and goes into detail. There is some interesting material on Nietzschean Bolsheviks, of which there were many, as well as material on the content Marxist and Nietzschean philosophy. He quotes Marx and Nietzsche more often but only to prove whatever point he is making. The quotes are too short and too few to get an idea of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s ideas in their own words.
The final 20% is the best part of the book and what saved it from a two star rating. Here he goes into more detail on issues of Marx’s and Nietzsche’s thought. They are quoted more frequently and more fully and individual quoted sentences are often integrated into his own paragraphs, using their own words to explain some of the nuances of their systems. There is material on the opinions of the Nietzschean Bolsheviks on various issues. Čeika actually explains Marx’s and Nietzsche’s ideas, rather than making abstract assertions about why people he disagrees with are wrong.
There’s another important positive to the book as a whole. Is revives the spirit of the first and second internationals. Čeika makes many of the same criticisms and assertions as, for example, Plekhanov. He holds the second international responsible for the supposed degeneration of Marxism. In a time when western Marxism focuses on niche and abstract academic topics and Stalinist forms of Marxism lost any understanding of theory, Čeika reestablishes some of the lost basics. Would he carefully study the works of Lafargue and Plekhanov he would find many points of agreement. It would have been very useful to quote their clear and concise explanations of many points Čeika made as well, would have made the work much clearer and less abstract.
If you’re already familiar with these thinkers I cannot recommend this book. If you’re a novice in Marxism it might be a good read, solely because it establishes a view of Marxism in general. However, there are superior alternatives for this. Lenin’s, Plekhanov’s, Lafargue’s and Engels’ introductory writings are very good. Kautsky’s introductions too are better than this though not as good as the aforementioned.
November 17, 2021
"the communist manifesto of the 21st century" - the Guardian probably
February 26, 2022
A thinker must always be something beyond your control - nothing pays them more dishonour than making them servile. It's the same with living persons. There is nothing wrong with finding a person useful for some end or other, but their dignity requires that we do not reduce them to that usefulness, which is, of course, precisely what the capitalist division of labour does.
(pg 7)
The entire premise of this book is honestly kinda suspect.
Nietzsche and Marx are the philosophers of choice for angry young men. Bushy-bearded, electric with grand rhetoric, and furiously fucking angry, the ideas of these two Germans transmit easily among teenagers who've just discovered how crap the world really is whilst still possessing that monumental arrogance that makes them think they know how to fix it, if only they were in charge. I can only admit that my immediate response on hearing about this book was to sigh to myself and mutter, "Really?"
I mean, sure, they both talk about how society has failed us with some kind of oppression - be it internal or external, but Nietzsche's bombastic rhetoric found far too great a favor among Fascists for his words to echo back against Stalin's bedchamber, beneath which Marx's moldering corpse is chained. Much as the two rattle at their shackles, it seemed somewhat unlikely that the two could really be put into dialogue with one another. After all, this is Nietzsche we're talking about - the prime philosopher of the individual, against Marx, the king of collective action, and it's not like the two men even read anything by one another. With all Nietzsche's frothing-at-the-mouth about anarchists, it seems like wishful thinking on the part of a modern writer to imagine that the two can be put together.
Except, I've enjoyed Čeika's video essays before. The man has a history of taking rather trollish concepts, such as explaining Derrida using the plot-line of Sonic Adventures 2, or analyzing Shrek as a parable about the bourgeois betrayal of progressive revolution, and managing to somehow make it work. And... well... I am an angry young man, and Nietzsche and Marx are still two of my favorite writers, so I thought that I'd maybe give him a chance and -
Ah. Damn. This book is actually really good.
Čeika's basic insight is that both philosophers think in historicised and materialist terms, with Nietzsche interpreting power relations genealogically, whilst Marx works in the realm of dialectical mutation. To both, nothing in this world is fixed or expressive of any transcendental truth - instead it is always in a process of transformation, of 'becoming' in the Heraclitan sense, which means that any value or social arrangement or experience that exists in this world is made by people, which means it can and will be changed by them too. Nothing is permanent. Nothing is sacred. We are all but droplets in the river of human history, being carried where our collective efforts take us, with the viewpoint changing and changeable at every point in the current. Moral codes, religious doctrine, cultural mores and methods of psychological discipline such as guilt or sin were developed for practical, explicable reasons, and we must rid ourselves of them in order to make a more fulfilling future.
To do this, Čeika divides his book into short chapters with shorter subsections that allow him to employ a variety of rhetorical techniques, offering him the flexibility to try close-reading a passage at one stage, or to compare the uncanny similarity between a Marx and a Nietzsche extract in another (sometimes down to them employing same metaphors), or at other times drawing on modern scholarship and historical interpretations of Nietzsche that show his complex influence on the libertarian left throughout the 20th century. At other times contemporary events are brought in to provide case studies for his interpretations which gives the book a lively and dynamic feel as Čeika never lets himself get bogged down on one theme for too long. Though he doesn't quite write aphoristically, it strikes an effective middle-ground between recreating Nietzsche's anti-academic style whilst providing room to explain his own interpretations in a precise, long-form manner.
The result is a far-ranging and adventurous survey over Marx and Nietzsche's mutual and complimentary attitudes to history, epistemology, aesthetics, liberation, egalitarianism, and the possibilities of what it means to be human within societies that have developed to suppress us from becoming what we really are - or, rather, - what we could be.
What is remarkable is how well Čeika manages to argue all this. Nietzsche is undoubtedly the dominant character of this book - Čeika is a Socialist and assumes his audience is too - so Marx doesn't need much explaining, though Nietzsche is used to draw out the humanistic elements of Marx in a way that challenges the more dull and stultifying incarnations of socialist philosophy. Čeika wants a socialism that knows how to dance, a society where every hand reaches for the stars, and a world where guilt and blame are atrophied away to leave only the practical questions of what social relations obstruct each individual from achieving the greatness that our species is now wealthy enough to achieve.
This element only comes to the forefront in the last third, however, and so it is his Socialist interpretation of Nietzsche that dominates the pages. Marx is mostly used as a foil to either bring out the unexpected sociological layers to Nietzsche's philosophy or else as a counterpoint to suggest ways in which Nietzsche either did not follow his own thoughts to their conclusion, or else show how his thinking was restricted by the historical conditions of the time. This probably makes the book sound quite arrogant, but Čeika is very good at framing Nietzsche in his own terms, highlighting the ways in which Nietzsche would point out his own limitations and thereby taking the old man up on the challenge to try and surpass him. In the same self-critical spirit, Čeika also admits to having an agenda with his interpretation that serves as one of the book's most delightful qualities.
I would hate to mislead or disappoint my readers, I would disdain to conceal my views and aims, and would rather make clear, from the beginning, the all-too-human aspects of my thought that many philosophers tend to hide in shame, even from themselves. This is not a 'disinterested' book, its contents are neither universal nor eternal, it doesn't lay claim to an absolute perspective, and its interpretations are by no means final - indeed, I hope that one day this book will be obsolete [...]
So, let me make it clear: the following work is an interpretation of Nietzsche, and specifically a socialist one (and, indeed, one could add that it entails a particular interpretation of socialism as well)." (pg 14-15)
Čeika has a practical purpose with this book, and is not sorry for that fact. Indeed, as the rather apocalyptic conclusion of this book goes on to argue, Čeika sees philosophic issues as being solvable not by careful linguistic trickery but by the transformative effect of collective social action. It is perhaps a little audacious to claim that something like the subject-object distinction can be solved by spray-painting a slogan on a banner, but Čeika is a passionate and intelligent writer, and I admire how plausible he makes it sound. He has that skill that all the best philosophers have wherein they propose an idea that sounds obviously wrong at first for how strange it is, then, by explaining their reasoning in a charming and persuasive manner, you find yourself respectfully disagreeing, only for the idea to gnaw away at your brain until a week later you are convinced they were right and cannot believe it took the blooming of that seed as a full-grown tree in your cerebellum for you to ever see the issue otherwise. I'm letting myself laugh now because I can already feel the fruit ripening. Give me a week and I'll be shaking that paint can myself.
There are obviously steps where Čeika goes a bit too far with this. A passage where he tries to claim that Nietzsche disliked militarism because he was injured in the Franco-Prussian war made me laugh for how absurdly inaccurate it was, though the intended point that Nietzsche disliked state-worship obviously still stands. But these are minor stumblings in an otherwise brilliant interpretation. Despite Čeika's history, this book is not half so trollish as it could have been, and his characteristic knack for explaining complex ideas without jargon carries this book confidently through its more audacious and cheeky claims. This is an impressive debut and I'm curious to see what Čeika turns to next.
December 16, 2021
Congrats on taking Nietzsche's arguments and dumbing them down to the lowest common denominator and often missing the point.
"If the invention of the framework is a conscious act of revenge on the part of the slaves, how could they nevertheless believe it? This conflict is solved by Marx and Engles by the division of Labour. It is not the slaves but the priests." Shoehorning in 'division of labour' does not mean Marx and Engles 'solved' a problem Nietzsche already answered.
"Due to the division of Labour, the priests' thinking becomes separated" thus the mind body split, all of metaphysics is attributed to the idea that the priests simply forgot they were alive. Compare this to Nietzsche's far more sophisticated argument regarding the origin of religious metaphysics stemming from the will to power and manifesting a psychological discontent that sweeps across all future metaphycis.
This is a piece of children's literature.
"If the invention of the framework is a conscious act of revenge on the part of the slaves, how could they nevertheless believe it? This conflict is solved by Marx and Engles by the division of Labour. It is not the slaves but the priests." Shoehorning in 'division of labour' does not mean Marx and Engles 'solved' a problem Nietzsche already answered.
"Due to the division of Labour, the priests' thinking becomes separated" thus the mind body split, all of metaphysics is attributed to the idea that the priests simply forgot they were alive. Compare this to Nietzsche's far more sophisticated argument regarding the origin of religious metaphysics stemming from the will to power and manifesting a psychological discontent that sweeps across all future metaphycis.
This is a piece of children's literature.
February 12, 2022
This may be one of my favourite texts on leftwing political thinking. In "How to Philosophize with a Hammer and a Sickle", Jonas Čeika seeks to draw bridges between Nietzschians and Marxists - this is no easy task: Nietzsche has been viciously co-opted to signify a number of oppositions to Marx. Politically, Nietzsche is often seen as one of the inspirations of Nazism (ignoring the many Nietzschian Marxists as Čeika points out), whereas Marx is the inspiration for communism (including its totalitarians branches, whose pretentious "Marxism" is dismantled by Čeika flawlessly); Nietzsche symbolises the "strong individual", whereas Marx symbolises the "collective" (this is mostly a detrimental and preposterous claim about Marx but the Soviet experiment(s) still haunt modern pundit-based thinking); Nietzsche symbolises the selfish, Marx the altruist. Most of these oppositions, as Čeika so carefully demonstrates, are mere detractions from the true message both philosophies seek to transmit. Nietzsche, much like Marx, are philosophers which preached about liberation, not in the "free" market sense, but liberation as freeing individuals from the predetermined conditions set by moralistic society (for Nietzsche) and capital (for Marx). While their methods were different, both were driven by the critical analysis of the present and of history, and both were revolutionaries at heart, idealising the movements of society through their problems and contradictions, seeking to affirm the individual beyond its current capabilities. It is true these two philosophers are wildly different, but there is no point in finding the exact equality between their work - Nietzsche's work on sublimation is considerably more focussed on the individual than Marx's (and Hegel's) on Aufhebung, but both concern a fundamental overcoming of contradictions through a composite existence that resolves these contradictions (at least temporarily). In the end, both philosophers are different - and Čeika recognises this more than anything else; indeed, this is what allowed him to so aptly explain why both can be complementary.
Read
November 18, 2021Never have I read "as such" more than in this book.
Overall a nice outline, not so much reconciling Nietzsche and Marx but showing how they already ARE reconciled. It is readable for those who aren't necessarily initiated within this larger philosophical canon (I for one am not a Nietzsche scholar) but it still provides value for those who know more about the subject at hand, often in the sense of re-emphasis. For instance, there has been a trend among online left-wing types to fetishize (in the non-technical manner) state-building without acknowledging the staunch opposition apparent in Marx's own work given the forces of globalisation in a world market—the nation is not so much irrelevant but in the way of class struggle. Or a refreshing rebuttal of the Soviet Union with the use of Marx as opposed to some anarchist critiques which are relatively common. I imagine Stalinists won't be too fond of this work.
There are issues, I think toward the end it becomes apparent the steam is running quickly out as sections become less explored than perhaps they should be, and in addition I'm unconvinced of his use of dialectics. The use is certainly passable, but it does seem to air on the side of simplistic which may, in fairness, be a choice to benefit the reader who is less familiar.
Verdict: good.
Overall a nice outline, not so much reconciling Nietzsche and Marx but showing how they already ARE reconciled. It is readable for those who aren't necessarily initiated within this larger philosophical canon (I for one am not a Nietzsche scholar) but it still provides value for those who know more about the subject at hand, often in the sense of re-emphasis. For instance, there has been a trend among online left-wing types to fetishize (in the non-technical manner) state-building without acknowledging the staunch opposition apparent in Marx's own work given the forces of globalisation in a world market—the nation is not so much irrelevant but in the way of class struggle. Or a refreshing rebuttal of the Soviet Union with the use of Marx as opposed to some anarchist critiques which are relatively common. I imagine Stalinists won't be too fond of this work.
There are issues, I think toward the end it becomes apparent the steam is running quickly out as sections become less explored than perhaps they should be, and in addition I'm unconvinced of his use of dialectics. The use is certainly passable, but it does seem to air on the side of simplistic which may, in fairness, be a choice to benefit the reader who is less familiar.
Verdict: good.
June 18, 2024
How to philosophize with a hammer, without seeing everything as a nail?
In his first book, Jonas Čeika [ex-“Cuck Philosophy” – whose youtube channel I was lucky enough to discover at its conception; with instant classics such as “The Late Capitalism of K-Pop”, “Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism” and “Explaining Deleuze with drum machines”] revisits two of the most profound and influential thinkers of the 19th century – Marx and Nietzsche. The aim is not simply to introduce their thought or dispel certain misconceptions – though he does that as well – but more importantly, to read Marx through and against Nietzsche in order to bring out the best in both, in relation to contemporary emancipatory politics. Without sanitizing Nietzsche as an apolitical or secretly progressive thinker, nor overlooking his ugly side, Čeika aims to show that socialists can find value in going through Nietzsche’s anti-socialism and that his criticisms not only do not apply to Marx but that Marx himself provided similar critiques towards his contemporaries.
Čeika titles his book in reference to Nietsche’s subtitle for the “Twilight of the Idols - How to philosophize with a hammer”. Nietzsche used the phrase to critically examine the false idols of his times, including Morality, and to prompt a reevaluation of values. The philosophical hammer can be interpreted both as a destructive and a constructive tool. But it is the body that precedes philosophy and guides it.
There is a long tradition in the history of thought that ignores the body. Philosophers and Priests, philosophizing as if they were disembodied beings. Pure minds. The Cogito, searching for the Absolute. Be it Truth, Reality, Morals, the Essence of Being, the Telos of history, independent of Mind and beyond Space and Time. (Ex: Plato, Descartes, Rawls).
Both Marx and Nietzsche rejected this strand(s) of philosophy. The body, from which the mind is inseparable, with needs, desires, thoughts and consciousness acts upon the world on earthly and social matters. Not an ahistorical materialism with a static view of human nature, evocative of Thomas Hobbes or Richard Dawkins. Rather, a body-mind situated in a particular point in history – in a given society, a set of values, norms, relations etc. Starting here, philosophy becomes a philosophy of change and becoming (see Heraclitus). Of relations, interaction and processes, instead of absolutes, abstractions, eternal essences or fixed identities. A “historical philosophy and a philosophical history” i.e. Marx’s dialectical materialism lens and Nietzsche’s Genealogical lens, each with his own version of the Negation of the Negation.
For Marx, the progression from Primitive Communism to Class Societies represents a dialectical process: the initial communal state is negated by the emergence of Class Societies, which is then negated by the advent of Communism – the negation of the negation. This does not imply a simple return to the primitive form of communism but rather an evolution through the concept of Sublation, or Aufhebung in Hegelian terms – a dialectical notion that simultaneously “cancels, preserves, and elevates.” In this context, Communism negates the negation (i.e., class divisions and private property) to re-establish communal structures and a classless, stateless society while retaining the positive advancements achieved during class societies, such as scientific knowledge, technological innovations, and material abundance.
For Nietzsche, Master Morality, characterized by a distinction between good (noble, powerful, life-affirming) and bad (mediocre, weak, life-denying) is negated by Slave Morality which inverses the Master’s good as evil and good as the opposite to evil. Then, the Nietzsche’s Übermensch doesn’t signify a return back to Master Morality, rather it negates the negation through the transvaluation of values, while preserving life-affirmation from Master Morality and positive aspects of Slave Morality such as conscience, deliberation and self-control.
So both Marx and Nietzsche understood human beings as historical and material beings, were renowned critics of religion, and two of the most influential diagnosticians of Modernity (Liberalism, Capitalism, Industrialisation, Secularization). However, they focused on different aspects of modernity: Marx on the economic (the logic of Capital, contradictions, crises, exploitation) and Nietzsche on the psychological and existential (nihilism, ascetic ideal, herd mentality, mediocrity). This does not necessarily mean that Marx was the “real” materialist, analyzing the Base in Marxist terms (the means and relations of production), while Nietzsche was an idealist, focusing on the Superstructure (the cultural, political, and ideological). While Marx considered the Base to be primary (one can not philosophize without eating for days) he did not consider the Superstructure to be a mere epiphenomenon that is fully determined by the Base. They are in a dialectical relation. Each shapes each other in a mutual transformation. Therefore, an existentialist or ideological critique of modernity is not in principle antithetical or useless to Marxism.
Nietszche’s anti-socialism
Nevertheless, Nietzsche was staunchly antithetical to Morality, Socialism, Egalitarianism, and Democracy – notions that the Left holds dear.
Morality—as found in Christianity, Kantian deontology and even Utilitarianism—claims to be objective, eternal, universal, timeless, and applicable to all people at all times, imposing unconditional obligations. However, in his “Genealogy of Morality,” Nietzsche provides an account of Morality as a historical and social phenomena which cannot be understood in universal and absolute terms. He posits that moral values evolve based on social and psychological needs rather than any inherent truth. For instance, how people can rationalize their lack by deeming it undesirable and evil, thus turning their weakness into a supposed virtue, i.e. someone who doesn’t engage in sexual activity labeling “lust” as a sin.
Ethical systems are effective for upholding and defending institutions and to understand them, we must consider the motives and interests that shape and sustain them. For instance, how the concept of Free Will was created and is used to assign guilt and justify punishment. Or how for Nietzsche, Slave Morality and the Ascetic Ideal were created by the Priestly class, rather than by the Slaves themselves. And Nietzsche also liked to emphasize the frequent hypocrisy of moralists i.e. Christians that preach “love the sinner, hate the sin” while simultaneously condemning queer individuals to eternal damnation.
Nietzsche also criticized the concept of Free Will, since the will, like reasons, thoughts, and actions, are determined by prior causes. Moreover, people rarely consult reason or philosophical texts to make ethical judgments; even philosophers, “the pinnacle of human reason”, often use their complex systems to rationalize their pre-existing moral intuitions. Nietzsche opposed the notion of moral responsibility and sought to cleanse the world from guilt, blame, and moral punishment.
Nietzsche perceived democracy and socialism as forces that propagated mediocrity and herd mentality, suppressing individuality and greatness. Nietzsche saw Socialism as a continuation of Christianity, based on Ressentiment, Slave Morality and the Ascetic Ideal. However, Nietzsche was no fan of Capitalism either. According to Čeika, there is a critique of Capitalism in Nietzsche –however under-developed– in “The Dawn of Day,” which highlights the dehumanizing effects of the division of labor. Nor was Nietzsche a proto-Nazi –he despised German nationalism and anti-Semitism (though there are some debates about that)– or an apolitical thinker as some (including Walter Kaufmann) portray him. Instead, Nietzshe’s political vision can be characterized as a form of “Radical Aristocracy”. Čeika contends that Nietzsche supported this form of “Radical Aristocracy” because he believed it was the only way for some human beings to transcend the drudgery of labor and instead foster individuality, creativity and great art. In Nietzsche's view, the toil and suffering of the masses were justified as a necessary prerequisite for the excellent to create works of significant greatness – i.e. Beethoven and Goethe. [Although Nietzsche also included Napoleon and Borgia in his “Greats”.]
Nietzsche contra Marx
Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s critiques of the socialists he was familiar with (i.e. Wagner and Dühring) may have indeed been valid. Moreover, Čeika contends that Nietzhe’s criticisms do not apply to Marx and that in fact, Marx provided similar critiques towards the socialists of his time, who he criticized –among other reasons– for relying too heavily on ressentiment, or mere moral condemnations of capitalism or idealist notions of social change (referred by Marx and Engels as utopian socialism or crude communism). Instead, Marx advocated for a scientific and materialist analysis of social conditions and economic systems.
For Marx, moral principles are linked to the prevailing economic conditions of any given time, reflecting the class structure of society –not some objective, abstract and universal moral law. For instance, capitalist societies promote values such as individualism, competition, and private property, which align with the interests of the ruling class. Or how “stealing is a sin” is often applied to the poor but rarely to corporations that exploit and underpay workers, evade taxes and so on.
Marx was not a moralist nor was his critique of capitalism based on a moral analysis. His issue was not that capitalists are somehow “inherently evil” or for merely being “greedy”. Both workers and owners are alienated and dehumanized by the logic of Capital. Their material interests shape their worldview and influence their perception and behavior. While workers get the worst part of the deal, Capital controls the capitalist's life as well, compelling them to solely pursue profit above all. Either invest in automation or suppress worker wages to outcompete rivals or go out of business. In doing so, they inevitably exploit the workers (and nature).
On the flip side, workers who only have their labor-power to sell, are coerced to work, often in jobs they find meaningless if not abhorrent, in buildings and with tools that they do not own, enriching a company and its shareholders while receiving only crumbs in return.
Considering the soul-sucking nature of most wage labor, is it not surprising that most people fall for “opiums” in Marx’s terms or life-denial/passive nihilism in Nietzschean terms, be it religion and alcohol in their times or in recent decades: Consumerism, social media / video-game / binge-watching addictions and so on.
[Of course, Marx's critique is not limited to exploitation, alienation, and wage slavery, rather he analyzed the internal contradictions of capital leading to crises (i.e. overproduction and underconsumption), the concentration of capital leading to monopolies and oligopolies, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time, and so on – but this is primarily a philosophy book.]
Moreover, in some senses, Marx was not an egalitarian. He did not consider equality in-itself to be the end goal, nor a particularly useful goal or even a fully coherent concept. He did not aim for an abstract “equality of opportunity” nor “equality of outcome” but seeked to overthrow the very notion of wages, money and economic classes. Even when “defining” communism, for Marx, it’s not about equality, but rather about flourishing – peoples’ individual abilities and needs (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”).
And while rights can be important in making our lives more tolerable under Capitalism, they were not an end goal for Marx, because rights presuppose a power imbalance and as they can be “granted”, they can just as easily be taken away – see: workers’ rights from Thatcher’s and Reagan’s neo-liberal era and onward.
While neither Marx nor Nietzsche can be considered to be Anarchists, they were both critical of the State. Marx disagreed with the anarchists of his time in terms of strategy, not in terms of end goal: the stateless classless society. But given Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the events of the 20th century, including Stalinism and Maoism, it is understandable that Marx is often viewed as a statist and an authoritarian socialist. However, instead of an all-powerful and bureaucratic “red state” that will “magically wither away” –as envisioned by Marxist-Leninists– Marx looked up to the Paris Commune as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat: a temporary phase where the working class uses state power to dismantle the structures of capitalist and class society while comprising democratic control of production, self-working and self-governing districts and communes, popular militias and so on, with a temporary state of minimal functions for practical purposes run by elected and recallable officials. An “anti-state” in the process of its self-destruction.
Ultimately, the goal for Marx was emancipation! His radicalism analyzes and addresses the problem at its root and does not moralize and blame individuals for their moral character.
A Nietzschean Socialism?
We can posit that Nietzsche was simply wrong that “greatness” can only be achieved through a radical aristocracy at the backs of the masses. Even if “great culture”, creativity and aesthetics were our primary aspiration – as arguably were for Nietzsche – we would recognize the vast, wasted potential and talent throughout history, including modern times. Countless individuals, whose potential was crushed under bullshit jobs, wage labor, sweatshops, slavery, colonial or imperial rule, that could have contributed greatly to human creativity and cultural richness.
Similarly, Nietzsche was wrong that the Last Man –passive and nihilistic individuals, resigned from life, only seeking “low” pleasures, comfort and security– would be found under socialism. Rather, it is individuals under neo-liberal capitalism that better fit Nietzsche’s prediction. Or what Mark Fisher called depressive hedonia.
Regarding ressentiment, I would also argue that actual slave revolts (not Nietzsche’s metaphorical Slave Revolt) often have little to do with ressentiment, but are rather, a true expression of their Will to Power, for taking control of their lives and for emancipation. The same applies for workers under capitalism, women under patriarchy and so on.
In contrast, it is often the Right, from Christian conservatives to Neo-nazis, that are driven by ressentiment. Driven to remove liberties (and joy) from others (even when they have nothing to gain personally) or in scape-goating their suffering onto “Woke Culture”, “Gay Agendas”, “Postmodern Neo-Marxists”, “the Jew” and so on.
Instead of Nietzsche’s elitist aristocracy, we can envision a form of Socialism that is life-affirming and transcends “Master-Slave” relations. It overcomes Nihilism, prioritizes emancipation, self-creation, leisure and creativity and avoids atomization or the reducing of human beings to mere tools. For people to be free from coercion and necessity and allow for true human flourishing and development. A dialectical relationship between the individual and the collective. Individuals that have more control over their lives, engage in activities they hold dear, develop skills, capacities, relationships and so on – through solidarity and through the collective.
“Nietzschean Socialism” and “Nietzschean Marxism” (IMO: not to be taken too literally) may sound uncanny but they are not without prior. Čeika mentions Marxists that have been influenced by Nietzsche: Aleksander Bogdanov, Stanislav Volski, Anatoly Lunacharsky, Vladimir Bazarov. [Here, we could expand the list to include Anarchist Communists influenced by Nietzsche such as Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker among others.]
In closing, Čeika urges socialists to grapple with Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence. How to live with knowing that our current struggles may amount to nothing? How to deal with all the struggle and pain? And more importantly, if we were to relive our lives eternally, in all their pain and joy, would we want to live a passive life of resignation and complacency or an active life of tragic heroism, knowing that we did all we could?
… for the 21th century ?
While I thoroughly enjoyed and found value in Čeika’s book, I had a nagging feeling that it was somewhat abstracted from the conditions and crises we face in the 21st century. Of course, this is primarily a philosophical book, so it is understandable that it focuses on values, morality, alienation, nihilism, liberty, egalitarianism and not on Marx’s economics or Nietzsche’s psychological insights. Nevertheless, I was expecting at least a bridge towards thinking about contemporary issues, be it the ecological crisis, global inequality, emerging technologies (i.e., digital information, automation, bioengineering), new social classes (i.e., precariat, the underclass), intersectional politics, accelerationism, post-work or new forms of Nihilism, hustle culture, burnout society etc. Or given Čeika’s channel, I was expecting a discussion of the intellectual influence of Marx and Nietzsche on 20th century thought, from Foucault and Deleuze to the Frankfurt school, among many others. But who knows, maybe we will get that in Čeika’s next book. In any case, a 200-page book cannot cover everything and a good book does not close inquiry by “answering everything” but rather, ignites further exploration, thinking and action! At least on that front, the book succeeds for me. [I was reluctant to give it five stars, but the Will wills it.]
In his first book, Jonas Čeika [ex-“Cuck Philosophy” – whose youtube channel I was lucky enough to discover at its conception; with instant classics such as “The Late Capitalism of K-Pop”, “Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism” and “Explaining Deleuze with drum machines”] revisits two of the most profound and influential thinkers of the 19th century – Marx and Nietzsche. The aim is not simply to introduce their thought or dispel certain misconceptions – though he does that as well – but more importantly, to read Marx through and against Nietzsche in order to bring out the best in both, in relation to contemporary emancipatory politics. Without sanitizing Nietzsche as an apolitical or secretly progressive thinker, nor overlooking his ugly side, Čeika aims to show that socialists can find value in going through Nietzsche’s anti-socialism and that his criticisms not only do not apply to Marx but that Marx himself provided similar critiques towards his contemporaries.
Čeika titles his book in reference to Nietsche’s subtitle for the “Twilight of the Idols - How to philosophize with a hammer”. Nietzsche used the phrase to critically examine the false idols of his times, including Morality, and to prompt a reevaluation of values. The philosophical hammer can be interpreted both as a destructive and a constructive tool. But it is the body that precedes philosophy and guides it.
There is a long tradition in the history of thought that ignores the body. Philosophers and Priests, philosophizing as if they were disembodied beings. Pure minds. The Cogito, searching for the Absolute. Be it Truth, Reality, Morals, the Essence of Being, the Telos of history, independent of Mind and beyond Space and Time. (Ex: Plato, Descartes, Rawls).
Both Marx and Nietzsche rejected this strand(s) of philosophy. The body, from which the mind is inseparable, with needs, desires, thoughts and consciousness acts upon the world on earthly and social matters. Not an ahistorical materialism with a static view of human nature, evocative of Thomas Hobbes or Richard Dawkins. Rather, a body-mind situated in a particular point in history – in a given society, a set of values, norms, relations etc. Starting here, philosophy becomes a philosophy of change and becoming (see Heraclitus). Of relations, interaction and processes, instead of absolutes, abstractions, eternal essences or fixed identities. A “historical philosophy and a philosophical history” i.e. Marx’s dialectical materialism lens and Nietzsche’s Genealogical lens, each with his own version of the Negation of the Negation.
For Marx, the progression from Primitive Communism to Class Societies represents a dialectical process: the initial communal state is negated by the emergence of Class Societies, which is then negated by the advent of Communism – the negation of the negation. This does not imply a simple return to the primitive form of communism but rather an evolution through the concept of Sublation, or Aufhebung in Hegelian terms – a dialectical notion that simultaneously “cancels, preserves, and elevates.” In this context, Communism negates the negation (i.e., class divisions and private property) to re-establish communal structures and a classless, stateless society while retaining the positive advancements achieved during class societies, such as scientific knowledge, technological innovations, and material abundance.
For Nietzsche, Master Morality, characterized by a distinction between good (noble, powerful, life-affirming) and bad (mediocre, weak, life-denying) is negated by Slave Morality which inverses the Master’s good as evil and good as the opposite to evil. Then, the Nietzsche’s Übermensch doesn’t signify a return back to Master Morality, rather it negates the negation through the transvaluation of values, while preserving life-affirmation from Master Morality and positive aspects of Slave Morality such as conscience, deliberation and self-control.
So both Marx and Nietzsche understood human beings as historical and material beings, were renowned critics of religion, and two of the most influential diagnosticians of Modernity (Liberalism, Capitalism, Industrialisation, Secularization). However, they focused on different aspects of modernity: Marx on the economic (the logic of Capital, contradictions, crises, exploitation) and Nietzsche on the psychological and existential (nihilism, ascetic ideal, herd mentality, mediocrity). This does not necessarily mean that Marx was the “real” materialist, analyzing the Base in Marxist terms (the means and relations of production), while Nietzsche was an idealist, focusing on the Superstructure (the cultural, political, and ideological). While Marx considered the Base to be primary (one can not philosophize without eating for days) he did not consider the Superstructure to be a mere epiphenomenon that is fully determined by the Base. They are in a dialectical relation. Each shapes each other in a mutual transformation. Therefore, an existentialist or ideological critique of modernity is not in principle antithetical or useless to Marxism.
Nietszche’s anti-socialism
Nevertheless, Nietzsche was staunchly antithetical to Morality, Socialism, Egalitarianism, and Democracy – notions that the Left holds dear.
Morality—as found in Christianity, Kantian deontology and even Utilitarianism—claims to be objective, eternal, universal, timeless, and applicable to all people at all times, imposing unconditional obligations. However, in his “Genealogy of Morality,” Nietzsche provides an account of Morality as a historical and social phenomena which cannot be understood in universal and absolute terms. He posits that moral values evolve based on social and psychological needs rather than any inherent truth. For instance, how people can rationalize their lack by deeming it undesirable and evil, thus turning their weakness into a supposed virtue, i.e. someone who doesn’t engage in sexual activity labeling “lust” as a sin.
Ethical systems are effective for upholding and defending institutions and to understand them, we must consider the motives and interests that shape and sustain them. For instance, how the concept of Free Will was created and is used to assign guilt and justify punishment. Or how for Nietzsche, Slave Morality and the Ascetic Ideal were created by the Priestly class, rather than by the Slaves themselves. And Nietzsche also liked to emphasize the frequent hypocrisy of moralists i.e. Christians that preach “love the sinner, hate the sin” while simultaneously condemning queer individuals to eternal damnation.
Nietzsche also criticized the concept of Free Will, since the will, like reasons, thoughts, and actions, are determined by prior causes. Moreover, people rarely consult reason or philosophical texts to make ethical judgments; even philosophers, “the pinnacle of human reason”, often use their complex systems to rationalize their pre-existing moral intuitions. Nietzsche opposed the notion of moral responsibility and sought to cleanse the world from guilt, blame, and moral punishment.
Nietzsche perceived democracy and socialism as forces that propagated mediocrity and herd mentality, suppressing individuality and greatness. Nietzsche saw Socialism as a continuation of Christianity, based on Ressentiment, Slave Morality and the Ascetic Ideal. However, Nietzsche was no fan of Capitalism either. According to Čeika, there is a critique of Capitalism in Nietzsche –however under-developed– in “The Dawn of Day,” which highlights the dehumanizing effects of the division of labor. Nor was Nietzsche a proto-Nazi –he despised German nationalism and anti-Semitism (though there are some debates about that)– or an apolitical thinker as some (including Walter Kaufmann) portray him. Instead, Nietzshe’s political vision can be characterized as a form of “Radical Aristocracy”. Čeika contends that Nietzsche supported this form of “Radical Aristocracy” because he believed it was the only way for some human beings to transcend the drudgery of labor and instead foster individuality, creativity and great art. In Nietzsche's view, the toil and suffering of the masses were justified as a necessary prerequisite for the excellent to create works of significant greatness – i.e. Beethoven and Goethe. [Although Nietzsche also included Napoleon and Borgia in his “Greats”.]
Nietzsche contra Marx
Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s critiques of the socialists he was familiar with (i.e. Wagner and Dühring) may have indeed been valid. Moreover, Čeika contends that Nietzhe’s criticisms do not apply to Marx and that in fact, Marx provided similar critiques towards the socialists of his time, who he criticized –among other reasons– for relying too heavily on ressentiment, or mere moral condemnations of capitalism or idealist notions of social change (referred by Marx and Engels as utopian socialism or crude communism). Instead, Marx advocated for a scientific and materialist analysis of social conditions and economic systems.
For Marx, moral principles are linked to the prevailing economic conditions of any given time, reflecting the class structure of society –not some objective, abstract and universal moral law. For instance, capitalist societies promote values such as individualism, competition, and private property, which align with the interests of the ruling class. Or how “stealing is a sin” is often applied to the poor but rarely to corporations that exploit and underpay workers, evade taxes and so on.
Marx was not a moralist nor was his critique of capitalism based on a moral analysis. His issue was not that capitalists are somehow “inherently evil” or for merely being “greedy”. Both workers and owners are alienated and dehumanized by the logic of Capital. Their material interests shape their worldview and influence their perception and behavior. While workers get the worst part of the deal, Capital controls the capitalist's life as well, compelling them to solely pursue profit above all. Either invest in automation or suppress worker wages to outcompete rivals or go out of business. In doing so, they inevitably exploit the workers (and nature).
On the flip side, workers who only have their labor-power to sell, are coerced to work, often in jobs they find meaningless if not abhorrent, in buildings and with tools that they do not own, enriching a company and its shareholders while receiving only crumbs in return.
Considering the soul-sucking nature of most wage labor, is it not surprising that most people fall for “opiums” in Marx’s terms or life-denial/passive nihilism in Nietzschean terms, be it religion and alcohol in their times or in recent decades: Consumerism, social media / video-game / binge-watching addictions and so on.
[Of course, Marx's critique is not limited to exploitation, alienation, and wage slavery, rather he analyzed the internal contradictions of capital leading to crises (i.e. overproduction and underconsumption), the concentration of capital leading to monopolies and oligopolies, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time, and so on – but this is primarily a philosophy book.]
Moreover, in some senses, Marx was not an egalitarian. He did not consider equality in-itself to be the end goal, nor a particularly useful goal or even a fully coherent concept. He did not aim for an abstract “equality of opportunity” nor “equality of outcome” but seeked to overthrow the very notion of wages, money and economic classes. Even when “defining” communism, for Marx, it’s not about equality, but rather about flourishing – peoples’ individual abilities and needs (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”).
And while rights can be important in making our lives more tolerable under Capitalism, they were not an end goal for Marx, because rights presuppose a power imbalance and as they can be “granted”, they can just as easily be taken away – see: workers’ rights from Thatcher’s and Reagan’s neo-liberal era and onward.
While neither Marx nor Nietzsche can be considered to be Anarchists, they were both critical of the State. Marx disagreed with the anarchists of his time in terms of strategy, not in terms of end goal: the stateless classless society. But given Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the events of the 20th century, including Stalinism and Maoism, it is understandable that Marx is often viewed as a statist and an authoritarian socialist. However, instead of an all-powerful and bureaucratic “red state” that will “magically wither away” –as envisioned by Marxist-Leninists– Marx looked up to the Paris Commune as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat: a temporary phase where the working class uses state power to dismantle the structures of capitalist and class society while comprising democratic control of production, self-working and self-governing districts and communes, popular militias and so on, with a temporary state of minimal functions for practical purposes run by elected and recallable officials. An “anti-state” in the process of its self-destruction.
Ultimately, the goal for Marx was emancipation! His radicalism analyzes and addresses the problem at its root and does not moralize and blame individuals for their moral character.
A Nietzschean Socialism?
We can posit that Nietzsche was simply wrong that “greatness” can only be achieved through a radical aristocracy at the backs of the masses. Even if “great culture”, creativity and aesthetics were our primary aspiration – as arguably were for Nietzsche – we would recognize the vast, wasted potential and talent throughout history, including modern times. Countless individuals, whose potential was crushed under bullshit jobs, wage labor, sweatshops, slavery, colonial or imperial rule, that could have contributed greatly to human creativity and cultural richness.
Similarly, Nietzsche was wrong that the Last Man –passive and nihilistic individuals, resigned from life, only seeking “low” pleasures, comfort and security– would be found under socialism. Rather, it is individuals under neo-liberal capitalism that better fit Nietzsche’s prediction. Or what Mark Fisher called depressive hedonia.
Regarding ressentiment, I would also argue that actual slave revolts (not Nietzsche’s metaphorical Slave Revolt) often have little to do with ressentiment, but are rather, a true expression of their Will to Power, for taking control of their lives and for emancipation. The same applies for workers under capitalism, women under patriarchy and so on.
In contrast, it is often the Right, from Christian conservatives to Neo-nazis, that are driven by ressentiment. Driven to remove liberties (and joy) from others (even when they have nothing to gain personally) or in scape-goating their suffering onto “Woke Culture”, “Gay Agendas”, “Postmodern Neo-Marxists”, “the Jew” and so on.
Instead of Nietzsche’s elitist aristocracy, we can envision a form of Socialism that is life-affirming and transcends “Master-Slave” relations. It overcomes Nihilism, prioritizes emancipation, self-creation, leisure and creativity and avoids atomization or the reducing of human beings to mere tools. For people to be free from coercion and necessity and allow for true human flourishing and development. A dialectical relationship between the individual and the collective. Individuals that have more control over their lives, engage in activities they hold dear, develop skills, capacities, relationships and so on – through solidarity and through the collective.
“Nietzschean Socialism” and “Nietzschean Marxism” (IMO: not to be taken too literally) may sound uncanny but they are not without prior. Čeika mentions Marxists that have been influenced by Nietzsche: Aleksander Bogdanov, Stanislav Volski, Anatoly Lunacharsky, Vladimir Bazarov. [Here, we could expand the list to include Anarchist Communists influenced by Nietzsche such as Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker among others.]
In closing, Čeika urges socialists to grapple with Nietzsche’s Eternal Recurrence. How to live with knowing that our current struggles may amount to nothing? How to deal with all the struggle and pain? And more importantly, if we were to relive our lives eternally, in all their pain and joy, would we want to live a passive life of resignation and complacency or an active life of tragic heroism, knowing that we did all we could?
… for the 21th century ?
While I thoroughly enjoyed and found value in Čeika’s book, I had a nagging feeling that it was somewhat abstracted from the conditions and crises we face in the 21st century. Of course, this is primarily a philosophical book, so it is understandable that it focuses on values, morality, alienation, nihilism, liberty, egalitarianism and not on Marx’s economics or Nietzsche’s psychological insights. Nevertheless, I was expecting at least a bridge towards thinking about contemporary issues, be it the ecological crisis, global inequality, emerging technologies (i.e., digital information, automation, bioengineering), new social classes (i.e., precariat, the underclass), intersectional politics, accelerationism, post-work or new forms of Nihilism, hustle culture, burnout society etc. Or given Čeika’s channel, I was expecting a discussion of the intellectual influence of Marx and Nietzsche on 20th century thought, from Foucault and Deleuze to the Frankfurt school, among many others. But who knows, maybe we will get that in Čeika’s next book. In any case, a 200-page book cannot cover everything and a good book does not close inquiry by “answering everything” but rather, ignites further exploration, thinking and action! At least on that front, the book succeeds for me. [I was reluctant to give it five stars, but the Will wills it.]
September 21, 2022
As a friend on this site has already said, this is too vulgar for an expert and to technical for a newcomer: nonetheless, if one can pass that mistake, the union of Marx and Nietzsche in this interesting essay is rich and engaging.
Also, there is a clearly opposition to the Soviet Union so yeah: tread carefully.
Also, there is a clearly opposition to the Soviet Union so yeah: tread carefully.
December 9, 2021
A valiant effort by the maker of one of Philosophy Tube's popular channels to rescue Nietzsche from fascists and glibertarians, at which...he somewhat succeeds. While Nietzsche is obviously not painted as a socialist by any means, the author does manage to reconcile his life affirming philosophy and the Ubermenschean drive to overcome nihilism through the creation of new values with the Marxist notion of Aufheben. He distinguishes Marx from the utopian socialists of his time and correctly identifies both Nietzsche and Marx as fundamentally dialectical thinkers who dispensed with petty moralism while trying to desperately to grapple with a modernity seemingly devoid of values/meaning.
January 4, 2022
Easily one of the best books I've ever read, with an ending that filled me with hope and a feeling of purpose in an otherwise hopeless world.
Jonas Čeika writes in a gripping, powerful style, and in a way that is not overly academic, so that someone like me - a socialist without much of a background in academic philosophy or Nietzsche - can easily understand. Nietzsche is a philosopher I otherwise never would have thought I'd be interested in, but after reading Čeika's book, I feel an intense desire to know more, and definitely would like to explore the works of more Marxist Nietzscheans as well.
I felt sad after finishing it because I want more! I really hope Jonas Čeika will release additional books soon, and in the meantime I'll probably read this one more time.
Jonas Čeika writes in a gripping, powerful style, and in a way that is not overly academic, so that someone like me - a socialist without much of a background in academic philosophy or Nietzsche - can easily understand. Nietzsche is a philosopher I otherwise never would have thought I'd be interested in, but after reading Čeika's book, I feel an intense desire to know more, and definitely would like to explore the works of more Marxist Nietzscheans as well.
I felt sad after finishing it because I want more! I really hope Jonas Čeika will release additional books soon, and in the meantime I'll probably read this one more time.
August 1, 2023
A sublime minor synthesis - truly an inaugural base. I earnestly hope Čeika returns to this thesis more audacious, yes, even more intense, and creates something vital - an exigent work for all free spirits.
February 17, 2022
A book I learned a lot from, while still disagreeing with.
For me it was a first profound encounter with Nietzsche and I was suprised how much parallels there where to make between the rebellious aristocrat and the so called "young Marx". The author shows how a left-reading of Nietzsche can bring out the humanist in Marx that - according to Čeika at least - the USSR and the 3th international parties lost touch with.
It's a good reminder how Marxism is about the liberation of mankind, but Čeika seems to imply that the working class to us revolutionaries is a mere means to an end (a classless society). However, the existing of class societies and unambiguously choosing a side in that class conflict is an historical fase in itself. Čeika's ideas are too general and don't assume our role as marxists in today's class conflict enough.
Čeika's attitude allows to win over intellectuals and 'petit-aristocrats' to a materialist revolutionary cause - which is also important - but doesn't allow for to build a true working class movement. The improvident critiques of actual existing worker's states also show that the author doesn't have a serious idea of how to actual move a society from capitalism towards communism.
Today we see anti-communism and the far right grow in their reaction against the moralizing attitude of the radlibs. I see some parrallels with the critiques Čeika shows Nietzsche had against the moralist pre-marxian socialists of his day and age.
For me it was a first profound encounter with Nietzsche and I was suprised how much parallels there where to make between the rebellious aristocrat and the so called "young Marx". The author shows how a left-reading of Nietzsche can bring out the humanist in Marx that - according to Čeika at least - the USSR and the 3th international parties lost touch with.
It's a good reminder how Marxism is about the liberation of mankind, but Čeika seems to imply that the working class to us revolutionaries is a mere means to an end (a classless society). However, the existing of class societies and unambiguously choosing a side in that class conflict is an historical fase in itself. Čeika's ideas are too general and don't assume our role as marxists in today's class conflict enough.
Čeika's attitude allows to win over intellectuals and 'petit-aristocrats' to a materialist revolutionary cause - which is also important - but doesn't allow for to build a true working class movement. The improvident critiques of actual existing worker's states also show that the author doesn't have a serious idea of how to actual move a society from capitalism towards communism.
Today we see anti-communism and the far right grow in their reaction against the moralizing attitude of the radlibs. I see some parrallels with the critiques Čeika shows Nietzsche had against the moralist pre-marxian socialists of his day and age.
July 24, 2023
If the audience for this book is people with a passing understanding of Marx as a totalitarian and Nietzsche as a proto-fascist, then there are some effective sections in this book that argue otherwise. If, however, you’re familiar with both thinkers beyond an undergraduate survey course, this book won’t hold much for you. It essentially rehearses a number of superficial similarities between the thinkers (they are both critical of life under bourgeois capitalism, they both incorporate aesthetics in their vision of the good life) without really grappling with the fact that their overall projects are substantially different.
In addition, the quote-mining approach to Nietzsche (extracting anything that sounds compatible with Marx) basically means that Nietzsche has nothing to contribute that isn’t already in Marx. But worse, this way of engaging Nietzsche really understates the extent to which his project really is aristocratic, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian.
An interesting book, but one that is ultimately unsatisfying.
In addition, the quote-mining approach to Nietzsche (extracting anything that sounds compatible with Marx) basically means that Nietzsche has nothing to contribute that isn’t already in Marx. But worse, this way of engaging Nietzsche really understates the extent to which his project really is aristocratic, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian.
An interesting book, but one that is ultimately unsatisfying.
January 5, 2022
An exciting synthesis of both thinker's works with the repeatedly proclaimed goal of kindling a fire under the reader's ass. It sure worked with me.
The only problem with its approach might be that it's not deep enough to please academics while requiring an introductory knowledge of both Marx and Nietzsche's main ideas.
I'd love to recommend it to anyone, but a bit of legwork, or complementary readings might be necessary.
That being said, reconciliating marxism with the nietzschean aesthetic view of the world and disgust towards the asceptic is a very useful move towards surpassing the several misconceptions built by almost two centuries of bureaucratic academicism and propaganda.
The only problem with its approach might be that it's not deep enough to please academics while requiring an introductory knowledge of both Marx and Nietzsche's main ideas.
I'd love to recommend it to anyone, but a bit of legwork, or complementary readings might be necessary.
That being said, reconciliating marxism with the nietzschean aesthetic view of the world and disgust towards the asceptic is a very useful move towards surpassing the several misconceptions built by almost two centuries of bureaucratic academicism and propaganda.
March 7, 2022
The thing I have always found interesting about Nietzsche and Marx is that both were basically anarchists, but both are portrayed as authoritarian by the people who hate them, Marx as a proto-Stalinist, and Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi. There are some nits to pick here and there with Ceika's book, and it's basically more of an, "Why Nietzsche's philosophy makes more sense as a left-wing ideology than as a right," argument, than an examination of Marx, but he hits the nail pretty squarely when it comes to his central argument, which is how reading Nietzsche would really benefit leftists, and Marxists.
December 2, 2021
Just like his video essays, this is a well formulated argument/discussion of philosophy, theory, art and praxis, and a well-sourced and superbly curated reading of Nietzsche and Marx.
This was an easy-to-understand read that would suit a beginner who is hoping to get the gist of Marx and Nietzsche's writings.
I have to include that I have not yet read Marx or Nietzsche myself yet, so take my judgement with a grain of salt.
This was an easy-to-understand read that would suit a beginner who is hoping to get the gist of Marx and Nietzsche's writings.
I have to include that I have not yet read Marx or Nietzsche myself yet, so take my judgement with a grain of salt.
January 27, 2022
I might be biased here because this book was especially up my alley...but yeah. Exceptional theory. While one may think the lion's share of the labor would be trying to apply Nietzsche to communist theory, but, due to as much to its own virtues as much to the fact that there is already a wealth of literature synthesizing Nietzsche with socialist theory, its really Čeika's reading of Marx that drives this forward.
Great bit of introductory theory, great bit of "real-world" philosophy
Great bit of introductory theory, great bit of "real-world" philosophy
December 29, 2021
Max Weber once remarked that a scholar's integrity can be measured by their intellectual posture toward Marx and Nietzsche.
June 29, 2022
Great understanding of Nietzsche, fine understanding of Marx, dirt poor understanding of socialism and the Soviet Union.
February 14, 2022
It's my will to pick up this book for the people.
Jonas Ceika's How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle is a brief insight into the compatibilities between the thoughts of Marx and Nietzche. He uses these insights to point out how anemic modern left/Marxian thought is and how a new movement and human freedom can arise.
Back when I started taking an interest in philosophy, there were very few Youtube channels dedicated to discussing the field. If you count The School of Life as a philosophy channel... But that changed fairly quickly and many good (and bad, some just really terrible) channels emerged to tickle my brain between books.
Cuck Philosophy caught my attention thanks to Ceika's rebuttal videos addressing common misconceptions of postmodernism. So when this book was announced on the channel, I was interested in giving it a read.
This was a particularly interesting take on Marx and Nietzsche. Having recently read a little from Rosa Luxemburg, I think the argument that Marx's revolutionary ideas and intentions have been watered down by more modernlapdogs of the bourgeoisie leftists is fair. Combining the "will to power" and Marx is also an interesting idea. And as Ceika alludes to in his summary, this is also the way a lot of current social movements are operating.
As a result, this was a thought-provoking book. But I feel I need to read more Nietzsche and Marx and then revisit this text.
This review is also quite good and has a good overview.
Some of my favourite philosophy Youtube channels:
Jonas' CCK Philosophy (obviously)
Then and Now
Carefree Wandering
Early Philosophy Tube (later stuff is good too, but early stuff is more directly philosophy)
Gregory B Sadler
Wireless Philosophy
There are others who utilise philosophy in their content that I enjoy, but it isn't their primary focus so they're on a different list. A list you may never see. Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Comments while reading:
“Science is owned by capital.”
The idea that science can only be done by those whose needs are met, and that the production of that science has solved the needs of others who don’t have their needs met is a great insight.
Slave morality and the power/class divide. The idea of immutable morality being about maintaining power is interesting. We're told theft is a moral value but is it? Do we condemn the morality of Jeff Bezos for creating abominable conditions in his factories (and launching PR campaigns to pretend it isn't happening)? But those conditions create the poor who can only meet their needs through a supposedly immoral act. So is morality just a way to punish the poor and keep them in line?
The second philosophy course I did had a section on Marx that I'm reminded of here. He was very much of the materialist and humanist school of thought. But he was also a fan of a philosophy of doing rather than just thinking. Good to see that covered here.
Jonas Ceika's How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle is a brief insight into the compatibilities between the thoughts of Marx and Nietzche. He uses these insights to point out how anemic modern left/Marxian thought is and how a new movement and human freedom can arise.
Back when I started taking an interest in philosophy, there were very few Youtube channels dedicated to discussing the field. If you count The School of Life as a philosophy channel... But that changed fairly quickly and many good (and bad, some just really terrible) channels emerged to tickle my brain between books.
Cuck Philosophy caught my attention thanks to Ceika's rebuttal videos addressing common misconceptions of postmodernism. So when this book was announced on the channel, I was interested in giving it a read.
This was a particularly interesting take on Marx and Nietzsche. Having recently read a little from Rosa Luxemburg, I think the argument that Marx's revolutionary ideas and intentions have been watered down by more modern
As a result, this was a thought-provoking book. But I feel I need to read more Nietzsche and Marx and then revisit this text.
This review is also quite good and has a good overview.
Some of my favourite philosophy Youtube channels:
Jonas' CCK Philosophy (obviously)
Then and Now
Carefree Wandering
Early Philosophy Tube (later stuff is good too, but early stuff is more directly philosophy)
Gregory B Sadler
Wireless Philosophy
There are others who utilise philosophy in their content that I enjoy, but it isn't their primary focus so they're on a different list. A list you may never see. Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Comments while reading:
“Science is owned by capital.”
The idea that science can only be done by those whose needs are met, and that the production of that science has solved the needs of others who don’t have their needs met is a great insight.
Slave morality and the power/class divide. The idea of immutable morality being about maintaining power is interesting. We're told theft is a moral value but is it? Do we condemn the morality of Jeff Bezos for creating abominable conditions in his factories (and launching PR campaigns to pretend it isn't happening)? But those conditions create the poor who can only meet their needs through a supposedly immoral act. So is morality just a way to punish the poor and keep them in line?
The second philosophy course I did had a section on Marx that I'm reminded of here. He was very much of the materialist and humanist school of thought. But he was also a fan of a philosophy of doing rather than just thinking. Good to see that covered here.
December 28, 2021
A good effort from first-time author and long-time Youtuber Jonas Čeika, aka Cuck Philosophy. He draws out the similarities, connections, and synergies between Marx and Nietzsche, showing that they have a damn deal more in common than I previously supposed. Both have a deep concern for the aesthetic, both value Becoming over Being, both historicise their thought, both view morality as mutable, both find modernity alienating and soul-crushing, etc. Some of the exegetic parts of the book are downright moving, such as the section near the end on the Eternal Return.
There are some parts of this - the classic "after the sociaist revolution" parts found in many Marxist texts - that read like theology. In the closing chapter, Čeika argues that a socialist revolution will resolve the centuries-long divide between subject and object in Western philosophy. What? Like sure he justifies it on the basis of philosophical ideas being grounded in social relations, and argues the subject/object divide is an idea reflecting people's alienation from their labour, but what? Earlier in the book he mentions that Marx didn't think the superstructure was epiphenomenal; it has a life of its own and can itself impact material conditions and social relations. If that's the case, then how does a revolution - a sudden shift in social relations - erase this idea?
It's odd reading stuff like this because I strongly consider myself a socialist, but this brazen wishful thinking is so damn common in socialist literature. It's a huge turn-off for me, let alone anyone who hasn't already bought in.
Regardless, the parts focusing on Marx and Nietzsche are worth the price of admission alone, though I likely won't read this again. I look forward to another book from Čeika that resolves some of the issues I had with this one. 3.5 stars.
There are some parts of this - the classic "after the sociaist revolution" parts found in many Marxist texts - that read like theology. In the closing chapter, Čeika argues that a socialist revolution will resolve the centuries-long divide between subject and object in Western philosophy. What? Like sure he justifies it on the basis of philosophical ideas being grounded in social relations, and argues the subject/object divide is an idea reflecting people's alienation from their labour, but what? Earlier in the book he mentions that Marx didn't think the superstructure was epiphenomenal; it has a life of its own and can itself impact material conditions and social relations. If that's the case, then how does a revolution - a sudden shift in social relations - erase this idea?
It's odd reading stuff like this because I strongly consider myself a socialist, but this brazen wishful thinking is so damn common in socialist literature. It's a huge turn-off for me, let alone anyone who hasn't already bought in.
Regardless, the parts focusing on Marx and Nietzsche are worth the price of admission alone, though I likely won't read this again. I look forward to another book from Čeika that resolves some of the issues I had with this one. 3.5 stars.
January 6, 2022
A very insightful, comprehensible and concise reading of Marx and Nietzsche. Ceika explains how Marx and Nietzsche are both dialectically and materially oriented thinkers. He shows the intrinsic relation between Nietzsche's slave master dialectic and Marx's dialectical materialism and how both philosophically compliment one another to endorse a historically and socially situated socialism. Addressed in this book are misconceptions and misappropriation of Nietzsche's and Marx's philosophy by totalitarian regimes. Significant and astute is the dismantling of the notion of Nietzsche as a protofascist is especially significant and Ceika goes to lengths how Nietzsche's sister Elizabeth was instrumental in Nietzsche's philosophy becoming co-opted by Nazism. This book is proof that philosophy need not be an abstract and exclusionary practice reserved within academic elites, but a practice that becomes and manifests itself through social relations ultimately resulting in praxis to overcome social antagonisms. This book is accessible to both to those unfamiliar to Nietzsche and Marx and the seasoned reader or aficionado of both.
January 16, 2023
မက်စ့် နဲ့ နစ်ရှေးကို ဟာမနျူးတစ် ဖတ်ရှုမှု လို့ ပြောရမယ်။ နစ်ရှေး နဲ့ übermensch က ဖရွိုက် ရဲ့ civilization and its discontents ကို ကျော်လွန်ခြင်းမျိုး။ marxism ဟာ beyond marxism ကိုမသွားနိုင်သေးသရွေ့ cult တစ်ခုလို ဖြစ်နေအုံးမှာဘဲ။ An end in itself ဖြစ်နေတာကိုး။marxism ကို နစ်ရှေး ရဲ့ return of eternal recurrence နဲ့ ပေါင်းစပ်လိုက်မှ ဒိုင်ယာလက်တစ် ရဲ့ အနှစ်သာရ ထွက်လာမယ်။ပြင်သစ် ပို့စ်မော်ဒန် သမားတွေက ပြင်သစ် ကွန်မြူနစ် ပါတီ နဲ့ ခွါပြဲ ခဲ့ကြတာလည်း တကယ်တော့မဆန်းဘူး(နစ်ရှေးကို ပြန်လည်ဖတ်ရှုခြင်းမှာ ပြင်သစ် ပို့စ်မော်ဒန်သမားတွေက အရေးပါတယ်) ဖူကိုးကိုယ်တိုင်က freedom ဆိုတာ လစ်ဘရယ်တွေပြောသလို မွေးရာပါ အခွင့်အရေး မဟုတ်ဘဲ ကျင့်သုံးရတဲ့အရာ (practice) လို့ ပြောခဲ့တာကိုး။ communism works ဆိုပြီး southern developmentalism(တကယ်တော့ domination ဖြစ်မှုကို euphemism လုပ်ထားတာ)နဲ့ 2050 အမှီ next phase of socialism အမှီ runနေတဲ့ CCP ကို လက်ညှိုး ထိုးပြရင်တော့ လွဲနေပြီလို့ ပြောရမှာဘဲ( တော်လှန်ရေးက nationalist undertone ပါနေရင် သန္ဓေမကောင်းဘူး လို့ ကွန်မြူနစ် ဖခင်ကြီးတွေ ကိုယ်တိုင်က ပြောခဲ့တယ် မဟုတ်လား) status quo ကို ပြောင်းလဲ ချင်လို့ လက်နက်ကိုင် တော်လှန်ရေး လမ်းစဉ်လိုက်ချင်ရင်တောင် military industrial complex နဲ့ မလွတ်ကင်းနိုင်သလို (fun fact; ဘော်ရှီဗစ် တော်လှန်ရေး အောင်မြင်ဖို့ ဂျာမန်ကိုင်ဇာ ဘုရင် fund လုပ်ပေးတယ် ဆိုပြီး ဂျာမန် dw သတင်းဌါနက ဖော်ပြခဲ့ဖူးတယ် ပြောချင်တာက capitalism ကို abolish လုပ်ချင်ရင်တောင် capital လိုအပ်တယ် ဆိုတဲ့ irony)capitalist mode of exchange မှာ ဝင်မပါဘူး ကွာ ဆိုပြီးလစ်ဘရယ်တွေ ရဲ့ boycott ကာချာ လိုသွားရင်လည်း အလုပ်ဖြစ်မှာ မဟုတ်ဘူး။
"One may doubt whether a global revolutionary movement is still possible, but one cannot doubt that it is necessary." လို့ဘဲ မျှော်လင့်ရမယ်။
"One may doubt whether a global revolutionary movement is still possible, but one cannot doubt that it is necessary." လို့ဘဲ မျှော်လင့်ရမယ်။
January 23, 2022
At the outset, I would say that the first 5/6ths of this book are an enjoyable and relatively cohesive read. Čeika moves between Nietzsche with Marx as supplicant smoothly. He does not aim to read one through the other, though he does somewhat synthesise Nietzschean critique of the last-man, a lack of dyanamism and presence of life-denial with Marx' answers of capital and communism. Moreover, Čeika draws out a rather pleasant embodiedness to Nietzsche's thought; biographically looking to how his sickness and poor health suffused his thinking on the will-to-power and life affirmation.
The main let-down in my eyes is the discussion around the spectral-ethics, where responsibility to the future is embodied in transvaluation of values, and responsibility to the past is embodied with amor fati. I would've hoped for more exploration of this, as the concluding pages read more like a theoretical exploration turning towards the question of how-to-live and filling it content, rather than looking to the structures and behaviour of the question of how-to-live itself.
The main let-down in my eyes is the discussion around the spectral-ethics, where responsibility to the future is embodied in transvaluation of values, and responsibility to the past is embodied with amor fati. I would've hoped for more exploration of this, as the concluding pages read more like a theoretical exploration turning towards the question of how-to-live and filling it content, rather than looking to the structures and behaviour of the question of how-to-live itself.
May 21, 2025
Genuinely adored this comparison between Marx and Nietzsche. One which felt long over due. It brought sides of both to light that are usually not even discussed commonly. (example=Marx on aesthetics)
As I already said in a previous update post, I really enjoy watching Jonas Ceika's videos, but this was truly a step beyond that. Hope he keeps up the interesting work.
Once again reaffirms the power of the "action" in all its brightness.
As I already said in a previous update post, I really enjoy watching Jonas Ceika's videos, but this was truly a step beyond that. Hope he keeps up the interesting work.
Once again reaffirms the power of the "action" in all its brightness.
December 30, 2022
«I end on this note to emphasize that, strictly speaking, this work of philosophy does not end on the book's final pages. If it ends at all, it will end beyond all books, where the philosophical problems brought up here are tackled at their source: the social relations that produce and maintain them»
January 31, 2024
chaotic and esoteric in the points made, thus at times felt a pointless meander.
Alas, some Interesting discussion of the centrality of humanity to these philosophies and why we should question existing conceptions of ideas themselves.
Alas, some Interesting discussion of the centrality of humanity to these philosophies and why we should question existing conceptions of ideas themselves.
January 2, 2022
I've got a reasonable grounding in Marx, so this helped me to grasp how Nietzschian concepts can be useful for a wider analysis. As others mentioned, I don't think it aimed to go into huge depth but provide an overview, so hoping it will give me grounding for further engagement with these authors.
December 24, 2021
really excellent! even if it gets the nietzsche and marx wrong (which i doubt , but can only find out by reading both—luckily the book inspires that) it is an exhilarating read on its own
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews