I am legitimately curious, does Holla Forums suffer form slave morality?

I am legitimately curious, does Holla Forums suffer form slave morality?
Look onto yourself.

Give us an example.

>A propertarian saying that we suffer from slave morality
Check yourself mate

Seeing I want to abolish wage slavery, no

If you think having power and wealth is bad, you're under the effects of slave morality, mate.
I realize people here are just shitposting since it seems like a morality you'd have to justify people having more power than you or at least that's what lefty would assume but I am interested in at least one serious reply.

Are you sure you aren't a slave to those that print your little green paper?

You should first explain what do you mean when you say slave morality. If we start with different concepts then the discussion is going nowhere.

This thread is strictly about Nietzsche's definition of "skavenmorale".

Naturalist ethics > morality tbh

Why would we think power and wealth are bad? Our wealth is stolen from us daily by the slaves of capital, we will take power to protect it from the aforementioned thieves.

It's a mix. There is certainly some slave morality going on in the concepts of international solidarity and egalitarian society.
But the revolutionary ideal is clearly based on master morality.
I don't really know if I find it a useful concept. Calling something slave or master morality is a sure fire way of spooking small minds.

He just wanted to try and one-up Schopenhauer.

If Nietzsche was really so big on individualistic nihilism, why didn't he go become a bandito in America's wild west?

The dude was a linguistics professor.

It's Sklavenmoral you dumb nigger, and you obviously have no grasp of Nietzsche's philosophy.

If you'd actually read Nietzsche carefully enough you'd know that he didn't look down on slave morality. In fact he opposed both master and slave morality as simple forms of striving for power. Slave morality being the more cunning of the two.

>– Nietzsche was —– — – on ————- nihilism
In retrospect maybe I should have observed myself since re-explaining Nietzsche form scratch would be too time consuming.
As for you, you really should take off that trip whenever you comment on something you're not sure about.

I am legitimately curious, does OP suffer form projection?

I seriously hope this is a bluff.
Well since you're such a pro I'm sure you can explain this one: he didn't oppose striving for power, yet this post implies he did.

actually read Nietzsche

We think being enslaved to those who have power and wealth is bad, you on the other hand get down on the ground and lick their boots. Despook yourself.

Nietzsche was salty the anarchist escaped master/slave morality while he couldn't.

of course they fucking do
they are worse than the christcucks

please go back to Holla Forums OP

No sorry kid. Nietzsche's philosophy doesn't justify your Great Man fantasies. The Superman is not an exponent of neither slave nor master moralities. Thus Spoke Zarathustra demonstrates this

I never implied that.

i'm not OP

Slave morality is a good thing. It's creation is sort of a proto-class-consiousness in antiquity.


I'm not sure how I should reply to this post other than asking, "Where did I even say that?".

Now this response is just "I think being a slave to them is bad"
I may even conceive this as a valid argument but it would be odd to do so.
It should be know that according to the moral code commonly seen here, it is impossible to allow something to someone. If I were to, say, allow someone to use a machine I own on conditions(Such as: You can make a few products or whatever for that machine, but I'll keep the products and you'll receive alternative payment), that person is "enslaved" to me.
Now your "technically true"

If you really can wiggle out of this one, then I can also wiggle out of your reply. In fact, lets just do that:
Nietzsche thinks that slave morality is outdated as the slave masters are gone, so why would we keep up the charade? In this sense, you are suffering form old ethics which are no longer relevant. In this sense I can say that you "suffer form slave morality" and still keep true to Nietzsche.

So you actually don't undestand Nietzsche? I'm so sorry.

Yet again if you'd actually read Nietzsche you'd know that the Superman must supersede both Master and Slave moralities to gain power. Nowhere did I say that Nietzsche opposed to acquisition of power I'm saying he criticized the two popular ways of obtaining it. You're strawmanning here.

Because slave morality has become an integral part of western culture and is still a viable way of obtaining power. The material conditions for it to succeed still exist. That means it's relevant.


Those attempts to silence me by saying I did not actually read Nietszche because of word cherry picking are getting boring.
I am also not sure if its necessary. You're on Holla Forums. If you want to end the debate you can just murmur something about me not being a communism and leave the thread, instead of, you know, this.

Slave moral is about the poor hating the rich. His comments on the superman do not apply, in fact, most Ubersmench he could remember were famed in history as good people(Jesus Christ, Voltaire, etc).
By bringing up his comments on "The Superman" you are demonstrating poor reading comprehension.

wew lad


I suppose this is the part where the thread stops pretending its not dead and actually dies.

No see

You legitimately have misunderstood some of Nietzsche's most core ideas and are using your own bastardized version of them to try and spurn other ideologies. And you actually think you're in a position to complain over someone insulting you for being an ignorant? Get a grip you literal child.

Why do you have to bring money into it? Slave morality was brought about by the oppressed's hatred for the oppressor.

How do they not apply? The entire analysis of slave and master morality was intended to educate individuals on how to achieve Übermensch status.

Are you Ignoring that your argument on how I misunderstood is not complete yet or?

Here let me explain again to you.
His comments on the superman having to supersede both moralities to be the superman, and his comments about how the weak hate the strong, can be separated by one simple thought:
When he's talking about the weak, he's talking about THEIR visions. When he's talking about the ubersmench, he's talking about HIS vision.
The weak hate people who they think are strong, so even if he said, "The weak hate the strong", and "The Ubersmench are strong", he would not be saying "The weak hate the ubersmench" because the weak do not see the ubersmench as being strong as they see the rich being strong.

It's amusing watching you try to act condescending now.

Ah full damage control now I see. This doesn't prove that my argument was not complete at all. You accused us of "suffering" from Slave Morality according to the Nietzschean definition. I demonstrated that Nietzsche himself didn't look down on Slave Morality and didn't muh privilege Master Morality either, but believed that the Superman (Nietzsche's ideal image of a man, in case you missed that) should be free of both to realize his true potential.


as I understood it, slave morality is caring for the plight of the oppressed instead of aspiring to be the oppressor
so in that sense, we do suffer from slave morality

Does your fierce Master Morality impede you from feeling any kind of shame when you change the goalposts that obviously?


fuck you nietzsche you lack originality, individualism is leftist af now take your aristocratic sephilitic arse outta here you were never cool like me

dude you worship property, that religion is older than the oldest trade on the planet

But unlike an ideology based on slave morality communism seeks to transcend the master rather than simply making the master a slave.

I don't think you understand, this whole argument is mentally challenged.
You started all this because I said that communists "suffered" form slave morality, and that was the key word in here for you. Except "suffer" would be correct since I think you suffer form slave morality. I imagine you either think that you benefit form slave morality, and do not understand how I could see this differently, so that whole thing about me not understanding Nietszche comes form the fact that you don't understand basic reading comprehension

Or, you think that communists don't benefit form slave morality. In which case, why are we even having this argument? Because if this case is true, you have no reason to be arguing this because "suffer" would still be the correct word to put in the thread OP.

I am legitimately curious, does this post suffer from being bait?
Look onto it.
So either you are not a libertarian, or you are a hypocrite.

Even then. The poor banding together is not the same as slave morality such as Christianity. Socialism always calls upon violence to take back the means of production and abolishing capital relations. Real slave morality would be claiming that being a worker or being poor makes them better than others. Although anger might seep out of socialists when workers get exploited, we never claim that porky should work for us and that the workers should be the business owners. No, we are not fueled by petty resentment. We are fueled by anger towards the exploitation of both humans and nature while believing in a solution which can solve these issues, without relying on the same mechanisms of capital. This is exactly what Herrenmoral is. Taking your anger and turning it into a driving force. Just because workers don't have the power of their own, doesn't mean that their anger can't be turned into this driving force when banded together.

Also, stop eating out of the trashcan of ideology. Use philosophy to better yourself and expand your mind, not for petty accusations and false claims.



Jesus the goalposts are in outer orbit!

Neither of those things have anything to do with the original argument. Whether I think we benefit or don't from slave morality was never in question.

But if it isn't then why do you care if I used "suffering" in the OP?
Why are you even here? What are you even arguing? Do you even know why you think that I don't understand Nietzsche? If its a mistake other than the usage of a single "wrong" word in the OP you should help yourself and move that goalpost back where it was.

The entire western world suffers from slave morality. Liberal democracy is a product of Christian slave morality.

Because suffering implied that Nietzsche saw it as a negative thing. You imbecile.

I do not think you fully understand what is going on between the keyboard and the chair of the two people arguing in here, you and me. This conversation line is actual fire and could have been avoided if you didn't nitpick the usage of a single word in the OP for being wrong when you do not even fully understand why I used the words that I did.

imagine my shock!

OP, I understand having difficulty accepting you're wrong but this is a bit much. You're pretending that most of the entire argument never even happened now. "Suffered" is a verb with a negative connotation.

okay comrades this has been a nice thread but you need to get back to work if we are going to meet our patriotic tractor production goals for this season

Says the guy who's still insisting someone is totally wrong because he does not understand something.
The only way to expose what is going on your mind however, is to go ahead in argument, though. I want you to talk about the OP again. What does this imply? How does this "suffering" come back to me not understanding Nietzsche?

Taking easy advantage from unfairness is weakness, not strength. Socialism is the condition for a Nietzschean society.


Okay. Maybe this will be it.

Excuse me. He said that its outdated(Negative connotation) since the slavery is over, and wondered why we still used this moral system. Its the whole reason the ubersmench has to "surpass slave morality", it has no use anymore.



Oh I missed this.
Are you serious? I thought you wanted the best for the proletariat. If that's true you should tell them to steer clear form Slave Morality instead of encouraging it. Or at least tell them that masters are not really evil but they're playing a game for their own benefit.

Okay so slave morality can still exist. What do you argue by this? We could still, for example, use swords to kill people, but it would be inefficient and– dare I say– outdated compared to using a gun.

okay comrade snek and comrade tito I tried to be polite the first time
but we are having bread shortages and we really need these tractors
the spirit of the great Lenin should inspire you in your patriotic tractor production
get back to work immediately

Excuse me we're communists and Stalinism wasn't real communism.

comrade snek please come this way I want to show you something

okay all better now, everyone back to work



You haven't even responded to all replies, you just cherry picked the ones you had an easy response to.

OwO what's this?