Is that what I said? No, I said that Nietzsche has a form of class analysis that integrates psychology into the story in a way that historical materialists would learn from. Among other things. he does talk about a lot of things that are beyond class analysis, and and he does also insightful address a lot of things that are "beyond class analysis," or that class analysis does not fully and exhaustively illuminate or most usefully explain. That does not mean that class analysis is not itself (depending on the version involved) true, important, useful, but it is not the only story to be told, and Marx's version(s) -- there are at least two -- both lack the psychological dimension.
^^^^ CB: Then lets debate further some of N.'s psychological theories.
Marxism already had a notion of a socially constructed self. So, on that point, N. is not an advance beyond Marxism in psychology.
^^^^
Marxists like me are
> saying we don't see where
> N. pronounces any issues that are as he and his fans
> claim they are.
Is that because your view is that only Marx and Marxists have anything worthwhile to day about anything? Just as asking. Some people do hold this view.
^^^^^^ CB: This is a particularly "pernicious" redbaiting question.
The answer here is that on certain, specific issues -like master/slave relations , ruling class/ruled class relations through history, especially European history - Marxism is fundamentally correct, espouses, culminates as the most valid relative truth of the last 2000 years or so. When N. deals with those issues, he's just diverting people to the extent he contradicts Marxism so fully. "Psychobiology", by Marxism ( and by the passage the Miles sent, N. too) is _social_ psychology in the first place. There is an "individual psychology," "psychobiology", brain physiology and the like, but it is sort of subordinate field within the main field which is social psychology.
N. is a powerful demogogue on this in the sense that he misuses this powerful truth by hitching it to a transhistorical ruling class ideology.
Plato's smart too, but he's a servant of the ruling class. Down through history, that's what philosophers have been mainly. Predominantly mental laborers were the original overseers. Only with Marx, do some predominantly mental laborers come to explicitly serve the oppressed and exploited classes. In this regard, we can't blame N., but we should call a diamond a diamond.
Marxism has a monopoly on the most valid relative fundamental truth within its main topics, human history, not on everything. People who don't consider themselves Marxists are fully capable of equalling or exceeding the work of self-declared Marxists on historical issues , but in doing so , they adhere to principles that Marxism does without doing so as a Marxist, or the Marxist in question does not so adhere. The non-Marxist may just go further the Marxist in question, while still adhering to the basics.
Also, as far as the link between knowledge and power, this was fundamental to Marxism - integration of a class perspective in the knowing process. N. and Foucault do not originate analysis of the connection between knowledge and power. They are phony in posturing as if they have to leave Marxism for such and analysis.
To me it is best here to address specifics in N. What are the insights in psychology N. has ? Everytime I hear and discuss one or two, I find myself disagreeing that it is insightful. For example, I just out and out disagree that slave classes should not employ moral arguments and struggle in fighting for freedom. That's bad advice or a bad inference or derivative of N.'s discussion. And I don't give over the word "bad" to N.