How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the 21st-Century Left
- Downloads：1177
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-01-06 09:53:05
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Jonas Čeika
- ISBN：1913462498
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
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。
Reviews
Lucas Millan
，
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 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。 。。。more
cretakano
，
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 de 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。 。。。more
John Crime
，
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。 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。 。。。more
Blazko
，
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 downr 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。 。。。more
Jake Bews
，
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
ItsReallyOliver
，
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 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。 。。。more
Jacob van Berkel
，
Max Weber once remarked that a scholar's integrity can be measured by their intellectual posture toward Marx and Nietzsche。 Max Weber once remarked that a scholar's integrity can be measured by their intellectual posture toward Marx and Nietzsche。 。。。more
Rohan
，
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 identi 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。 。。。more
Dominic Trinajstic
，
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。 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。 。。。more
Maddie
，
"the communist manifesto of the 21st century" - the Guardian probably "the communist manifesto of the 21st century" - the Guardian probably 。。。more
Ethan
，
Never 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 Never 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。 。。。more
Michael’
，
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 wrote his 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 abstrac 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 wrote his 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 factors 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 empathised 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 of the 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。 。。。more
Nyssa O。 ☭✝
，