Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Darwin and their influence on Fascism

[L.A.P.]

Fredrich Nietzche was a big influence on fascism because he had a contempt for democracy and believed in an aristocracy of intellectuals. Niccolo Machiavelli had a significant influence on fascism because he believed in strong leadership to direct people's lives because the masses could not govern themselves. Charles Darwin probably had the biggest influence on fascism due to his theory of evolution being only the strongest survive therefore creating social darwinism which a fascist's justification for supporting nationalism. Did Charles Darwin really support the idea that only the strongest survive in modern day or did he just state the facts of what was nature in the beginning of life? Because of their large influence on fascism does that make these three highly regarded intellectual men fascists? Or is that just a fascist interpretation of them?

[fa2991]

Social Darwinism is a discredited misinterpretation of Darwin's ideas. We may as well blame Karl Marx for Pol Pot while we're at it.

Nietzsche, also, was misappropriated by the Nazis.

As for Machiavelli, his ideas were mainly a strategy for keeping in power, so you can't blame the Nazis on him much since he didn't necessarily advocate tyranny from the citizen's standpoint. He viewed problems from the dictator's standpoint.

[Turinbaar]

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.

Not very evolutionary sounding to me.


For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.

This rings more of an argument from intelligent design.

The main ideological influences on Fascism were (as you mentioned) Nietzche, machiavelli, and the Roman Catholic Church. Each fascist regime in Europe, from Spain to Croatia, was founded with an alliance with the vatican, which had already established the principles of anti-communism and anti-semitism as mainstays of reaction. Mussolini's genocide in africa was justified by the Pope as a cleansing of Abyssinia of Christian orthodox heretics. Several of the Nazi puppet states were headed by Catholic priests. Equating darwinism with Fascism is a pathetic attempt by right wingers to distort the true identity of the great evil doers of history.

[Pavlov's House Party]

To say that the writings of some historical figures caused one of the worst periods in human history is kind of naive. Fascism is a social movement with a basis in class struggle, namely the aftermath of a failed worker's movement, not just some "idea" that Mussolini came up with one day. Sure some of these ideas may have influenced how fascism presented itself during the 20th century, but they did not explicitly cause it. Nietzsche never wrote about class collaboration, "The Prince" never makes any references to genocide or capitalist imperialism.

To make claims like that would be to say that teaching of Jesus Christ advocate the Crusades and the colonization of the Americas. Sure, the people later on claimed that was the reason, but in reality there was a social basis for them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that Machiavelli is a really fascinating (and largely misunderstood) figure. Many people read and take note of The Prince, but few recognize him for his Discourses, which in many ways foretold the establishment of modern states.

[mikelepore]

Did Charles Darwin really support the idea that only the strongest survive in modern day or did he just state the facts of what was nature in the beginning of life?

Not necesarily the strongest. Darwin's hypothesis was about individuals who have a greater than average probability of having offspring, for any reason. The reason could be something about their appearance or behavior that attracts more mates, camouflage to hide from predators, longer arms to reach food in a tree, etc. Being stronger is only one possible example.

It's not that "only" they survive. They may have a very slightly greater chance to have offspring, but after a thousand generations the ones with that characteristic have become the vast majority of the population.

It's not only in the beginning of the history of the species. This principle continues to act forever. But it has to act on environmental conditions that still exist. The ablity to run fast away from a lion isn't going to promote survival if we are no longer chased by lions. After predators and starvation stop being the main issues that limit transmitting one's genes, then the tendency to attracts mates, survive though childbirth, etc. would then become more important.

[Nihilist_Pig]

The main ideological influences on Fascism were (as you mentioned) Nietzche,
Only a kindergardener's interpretation of Nietzsche.

His only ideas, that had some "influence" on the Nazis were the Overman and the idea of master and slave morality.

The Overman isn't even central or of any importance to his philosophy - Zarathustra just mentions it briefly in his preface. Examining it outside of the context of everything else Nietzsche wrote and as an idea of its own renders it completely meaningless. Moreover, nowhere does Nietzsche state that the Overman is "white" or a part of a "dominant race".

Master and slave morality is also misinterpreted and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with class struggle or rampant state dictatorship. "Masters" refer to the ancient Greeks, which Nietzsche regarded very high, and their aspiration towards excellence in body and soul. "Slave morality" is that of Christianity - instead of striving for excellence yourself, you try to bring others down and this is pretty much central to the whole institution of the church - suppression of sexuality, pride and vanity presented as mortal sins, the individual regarded as meaningless in comparison with God's will and power, a life of selflessness, weakness, self-denial and poverty regarded as holy...

How about the Nazis' campaign against modern art ("degenerate art") - this would have been something Nietzsche would have reacted strongly against. He writes with great love of the Dionysian spirit in art, art that has no "purpose" but to express the individuality of the artist, HIS view of the world, not rational, canonical art, which all totalitarian states promote.

True, Nietzsche had very negative views about socialism and anarchism, but his view of politics isn't really anything important - he relied heavily on Schopenhauer's opinions on these subjects and wasn't a particularly active citizen, neither did he participate too much in social life.

However, his criticism of the anarchists' and socialists' view of history and it's comparison to Christianity is spot on, in my opinion.

[Dimentio]

Machiavelli would probably have admired Mussolini's early government, but he wasn't an ideologist - he admired political leaders who were ruthless and skilled at hiding their ruthlessness.

During his own age, he was a republican and an Italian nationalist, which would make him a progressive in my eyes. He simply wanted some kind of representative government and foresaw Italy falling to France, Spain and Austria if unity couldn't be reached.

If Italy had been united in the 16th century, I doubt fascism would have arisen in the form it did,.

[Thirsty Crow]

However, his criticism of the anarchists' and socialists' view of history and it's comparison to Christianity is spot on, in my opinion.

You mean an eschatological view of history? Well, not all socialists hold this position, a paradoxical position in fact since it undermines the notion of historicity from within. I don't think Nietzsche was fair, and his complete and utter silence when it Comes to the works of Karl Marx is very telling.

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11

Shitty translation, but it clearly shows that Nietzsche had much contempt for the State. Which isn't to say he was egalitarian or anything; as said before, the fascists twisted his philosophy heavily to suit their own ends.

[AnthArmo]

I quite like Nietzsche, and I think a lot of his theories are actually very applicable to an Anarchist viewpoint.

His criticisms of Anarchism and Socialism, if I'm not mistaken, is that they follow a very similar moral paradigm to christianity. That is, the individual is subdued to the "Herd" and is to be expected to work for the "Common Good" rather than for self-excellence. He hated this because he thought that people should strive to overcome the Herd-Christian moral paradigm and instead create their own moral views and values.

I think, rather than just say "ZOMG what a stoopid capitalist lol" we should actually take his criticisms into consideration. They're good, valid criticisms. We often talk about how Capitalism dehumanises and subverts the individual, but then turn around and talk about how people should be expected to work selflessly in a gift economy. I'm not saying that we should all abandon Communism because "Nietszche says so", but that when talking about a post-capitalist society, we need to take these criticisms to heart, rather than just dogmatically ignoring them.

[L.A.P.]

m3hjv-2bBlw

[Ocean Seal]

Fredrich Nietzche was a big influence on fascism because he had a contempt for democracy and believed in an aristocracy of intellectuals. Niccolo Machiavelli had a significant influence on fascism because he believed in strong leadership to direct people's lives because the masses could not govern themselves. Charles Darwin probably had the biggest influence on fascism due to his theory of evolution being only the strongest survive therefore creating social darwinism which a fascist's justification for supporting nationalism. Did Charles Darwin really support the idea that only the strongest survive in modern day or did he just state the facts of what was nature in the beginning of life? Because of their large influence on fascism does that make these three highly regarded intellectual men fascists?
Charles Darwin absolutely despised the perversion of his ideas for social Darwinism as were used by the bourgeois class before fascism. He never supported social Darwinism.


Or is that just a fascist interpretation of them?
Nietzche- I haven't read enough by him, but his ideas of a super-man may have given ideological foundations to fascism. However, this would be much like calling Hegel a communist. I don't think we have enough information to conclude this one.

Machiavelli- Lived a really long time ago. Long before fascism. His method of thought reflected the needs of feudalism. So we cannot really call him a fascist because fascism comes around during the conflict between capitalism and socialism. He liked the idea of a strong military, the leadership of a prince, and the idea of being feared before being loved. So these are all ideas that fascists agree with, but I still wouldn't call him a fascist simply based on the period in which he lived.

Darwin-certainly not a fascist.

[hatzel]

I quite like Nietzsche, and I think a lot of his theories are actually very applicable to an Anarchist viewpoint.

I wrote an essay at uni about the concept of sovereignty according to Nietzsche. It was clearly anarchistic...

Nietzsche, as we know, generally isn't associated with Italian fascism (though he was certainly known amongst them; he was widely read amongst people of all political colours, though, so that should come as no surprise), only with the German variety, who famously adopted him as some kind of philosophical basis for their movement as a whole. He could only be seen to have influenced Nazism if you ignore all that stuff he wrote saying how nationalism (particularly German) was disastrous for humanity, antisemitism was still more disastrous, and how German nationalist antisemitic types all have slave mentality and should pretty much be purged if we don't want all mankind to descend into a state of mediocrity. If anything, he was actually a virulent Jewish supremacist:


"Let no more Jews come in! And shut the doors, especially towards the East (also towards Austria)!"--thus commands the instinct of a people whose nature is still feeble and uncertain, so that it could be easily wiped out, easily extinguished, by a stronger race. The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe [...] A thinker who has the future of Europe at heart, will, in all his perspectives concerning the future, calculate upon the Jews, as he will calculate upon the Russians, as above all the surest and likeliest factors in the great play and battle of forces. [...] It is certain that the Jews, if they desired--or if they were driven to it, as the anti-Semites seem to wish--COULD now have the ascendancy, nay, literally the supremacy, over Europe, that they are NOT working and planning for that end is equally certain. Meanwhile, they rather wish and desire, even somewhat importunely, to be insorbed and absorbed by Europe, they long to be finally settled, authorized, and respected somewhere, and wish to put an end to the nomadic life, to the "wandering Jew",--and one should certainly take account of this impulse and tendency, and MAKE ADVANCES to it (it possibly betokens a mitigation of the Jewish instincts) for which purpose it would perhaps be useful and fair to banish the anti-Semitic bawlers out of the country.

As the story goes, the bit of his biography where he ended up in an effectively vegetative state, being 'marketed' by his proto-Nazi sister, did a lot to tarnish his image...when he was still 'active', though, he was frequently denouncing his sister and her right-wing buddies for even mentioning him or any of his ideas in their writings, or tying it in with any kind of racial biology eugenics shit.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Niccolo Machiavelli had a significant influence on fascism because he believed in strong leadership to direct people's lives because the masses could not govern themselves.

Didn't Machiavelli support a democratic republic?

[Decolonize The Left]

Only a kindergardener's interpretation of Nietzsche.

His only ideas, that had some "influence" on the Nazis were the Overman and the idea of master and slave morality.

The Overman isn't even central or of any importance to his philosophy - Zarathustra just mentions it briefly in his preface. Examining it outside of the context of everything else Nietzsche wrote and as an idea of its own renders it completely meaningless. Moreover, nowhere does Nietzsche state that the Overman is "white" or a part of a "dominant race".

You are correct that the overman isn't a race-related idea, but it was absolutely central to his philosophy (along with eternal recurrence). He didn't develop the idea during his early writings, but as he approached his later books it was perhaps his most important idea.


Master and slave morality is also misinterpreted and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with class struggle or rampant state dictatorship. "Masters" refer to the ancient Greeks, which Nietzsche regarded very high, and their aspiration towards excellence in body and soul. "Slave morality" is that of Christianity - instead of striving for excellence yourself, you try to bring others down and this is pretty much central to the whole institution of the church - suppression of sexuality, pride and vanity presented as mortal sins, the individual regarded as meaningless in comparison with God's will and power, a life of selflessness, weakness, self-denial and poverty regarded as holy...

This is a decent outline, but the master/slave morality wasn't supposed to refer to any one specific example, but rather it refers to the types of morality which can exist.


I quite like Nietzsche, and I think a lot of his theories are actually very applicable to an Anarchist viewpoint.

You might enjoy this book (http://www.amazon.com/Dynamite-Friedrich-Nietzsche-Anarchist-Tradition/dp/1570271216), which covers this very topic.


Nietzsche, as we know, generally isn't associated with Italian fascism (though he was certainly known amongst them; he was widely read amongst people of all political colours, though, so that should come as no surprise), only with the German variety, who famously adopted him as some kind of philosophical basis for their movement as a whole. He could only be seen to have influenced Nazism if you ignore all that stuff he wrote saying how nationalism (particularly German) was disastrous for humanity, antisemitism was still more disastrous, and how German nationalist antisemitic types all have slave mentality and should pretty much be purged if we don't want all mankind to descend into a state of mediocrity.

Bingo.

In short, Nietzsche would have been as anti-fascist as you could get if there had actually been fascism when he was alive - which there wasn't.

- August

[bezdomni]

Nietzsche's sister was a proponent of fascism, and he quit speaking to her for the last years of his life because of this.

After he died, she opportunistically edited many of his unpublished writings to make it appear that Nietzsche's philosophy was a basis for fascism.

I think Nietzsche was more close to the anti-theist schools of Existentialism which emerged after his death and (due mainly to Sartre) became closely associated with revolutionary communism.

[Red Commissar]

This thread was needlessly bumped IMO, but might as well post. Anyways I used to have a low opinion of Machiavelli due to forced reading of The Prince and the usual "popular" conceptions of him desiring an authoritarian and cruel leader. After re-reading some of his works (not just the Prince) and from Gramsci's thoughts on him I re-evaluated my opinion of him.

From the introduction to his "Modern Prince" writings...


The concept of ''Jacobinism'' is perhaps that which establishes most clearly and most succinctly the unifying thread which links all of Gramsci's prison writing on history and on politics. Machiavelli was a "precocious Jacobin" ; Mazzini and his followers failed to be the "Jacobins" of the Risorgimento ; the "Modern Prince"-i.e. the communist party-must organise and express a national. popular collective will, in other words, must be a ''Jacobin'' force, binding the peasants beneath the hegemony of the proletariat, and rejecting all forms of economism, syndicalism, spontaneism. What has characterized Italian history hitherto is the fact that "an effective Jacobin force was always missing". Now the question is posed of whether the urban proletariat has "attained an adequate development in the field of industrial production and a certain level of historico-political culture". Its historical task can only be accomplished if "the great mass of peasant farmers bursts simultaneously into political life". The writings on the communist party grouped in this section aim to define what type of party could play the role of the "Modem Prince".

In an earlier version of the passage here entitled "The Political Party", Gramsci gave what he wrote the heading "Marx and Machiavelli", and began : "This theme can be developed in a two-fold study : a study of the real relations between the two as theorists of militant politics, of action ; and a book which would derive from Marxist doctrines an articulated system of contemporary politics of the 'Prince' type. The theme would be the political party, in its relations with the classes and the State : not the party as a sociological category, but the party which seeks to found the State." Why did Gramsci attach such importance to Machiavelli ? Because "Machiavelli was the representative in Italy of the recognition that the Renaissance could not be a real one without the foundation of a national State" ; "Machiavelli's political thought was a reaction to the Renaissance [in the narrow sense] ; it was an invocation of the political and national necessity of drawing closer to the people as the absolute monarchies of France and Spain had done . . ." Machiavelli did not merely abstractly desire the national unification of Italy ; he had a programme, and it was one which revealed his "precocious Jacobinism". He intended through the institution of a citizen militia to bring the great mass of peasant farmers into political life. For Gramsci, he was not simply a precursor of the 'historical" Jacobins', but a precursor of the "modern" Jacobins-i.e. the communists-in their task of forging the worker peasant alliance. In his identification of the communists with Jacobinism, Gramsci was developing and expanding a theme already touched on by Lenin-who wrote in July 1917 that " 'Jacobinism' in Europe or on the boundary line between Europe and Asia in the twentieth century would be the rule of the revolutionary class, of the proletariat, which, supported by the peasant poor and taking advantage of the existing material basis for advancing to socialism, could not only provide all the great, ineradicable, unforgettable things provided by the Jacobins in the eighteenth century, but bring about a lasting world-wide victory for the working people".

The notes grouped in this section approach the problem of the "The Modern Prince" from many angles ; they analyse the nature of a political party as such ; the relations between party, class and State ; the ideological dangers of econornism and spontaneism, against which it must struggle ; the type of non-bureaucratic internal regime which is necessary if it is to be effective. But if there is one passage which perhaps more than any other encapsulates Gramsci's conception of the revolutionary party, it is the opening sentences of the section entitled "Prediction and Persp ective" in which he evokes Machiavelli's Centaur as a symbol of the "dual perspective" which must characterise the revolutionary party (and State) . The party must hold together in a dialectical unity the two levels "of force and of consent, authority and hegemony, violence and civilisation, of agitation and of propaganda, of tactics and of strategy"...

Machiavelli had acquired a rather nice understanding of the interplay between the state and civil society, and how to work with that in governance. Machiavelli had actually really been concerned about the divisions and chaotic nature of Italy at the time- with the numerous city-states and feuding nobility- and the need to solve that before Italy came under the sway of other Continental powers (France, Austria, etc). In short we must view Machiavelli in his time frame, not ours.

On the surface, The Prince indicates his desire for the absolute monarch, of which was beginning to develop in France, that would be able to keep the state strong. But that's more of an overall structure he used to posit his arguments regarding the tactics of the new, enlightened, and liberal thought in creating a new state (so as to secure a place where enlightened thought could grow). He kept the Republican angle under the surface in The Prince (though it was present); in Discourses it becomes evident that he felt that republicanism would be the only feasible way to include the masses and allow for the 'hegemony' of the enlightened figures in the cities to spread. His concept of a citizen militia- his idea of broadening the scope of populace involved in political life- would have been contrary to what the monarchs of that time wanted.

I mean in many ways there were concepts of Republicanism that Machiavelli discussed that would become pretty standard for the liberal movements- checks and balances, rule of law, broadening the stratum of people involved in political life, etc. He just was one of the first to gain a true appreciation of governance and the state (and how to preserve it)- for his time that was remarkably progressive.

Here are some quotes by Machiavelli in Discourses:


http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10827/pg10827.html

“In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check”. Book I, Chapter II

“Doubtless these means [of attaining power] are cruel and destructive of all civilized life, and neither Christian, nor even human, and should be avoided by every one. In fact, the life of a private citizen would be preferable to that of a king at the expense of the ruin of so many human beings”.
Book I, Chapter XXVI

“Now, in a well-ordered republic, it should never be necessary to resort to extra-constitutional measures. . . . ” Book I, Chapter XXXIV

“. . . the governments of the people are better than those of princes”. Book I, Chapter LVIII

“. . . if we compare the faults of a people with those of princes, as well as their respective good qualities, we shall find the people vastly superior in all that is good and glorious”. Book I, Chapter LVIII

“For government consists mainly in so keeping your subjects that they shall be neither able, nor disposed to injure you. . . . ” Book II, Chapter XXIII

“. . . no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated”. Book III, Chapter XIX

“Let not princes complain of the faults committed by the people subjected to their authority, for they result entirely from their own negligence or bad example”. Book III, Chapter XXIX


Only thing I care not for him is his ideas on "human nature" which has some similarities to Hobbes, but we must see what he arose from rather than judge him by the lenses of our times.

In regards to fascists and their use of the aforementioned figures like Machiavelli, it's rather doubtful that they individually contributed wholly. Fascists cherry picked what they needed because they didn't have a figure like Marx or Engels- powerful minds in their own rights- that provided the arguments and justifications of their views. They compensated by finding previous political figures as a precedent and justification of their views. Many people, and not just fascists, do this a lot actually.

[Octavian]

Niccolo Machiavelli-He advocated republics. His most often cited work is the prince but that was a parody.
Charles Darwin- He was a biologist not a political theorist. Also Natural selection doesn't say anything about interspecies fighting.
Fredrich Nietzche-He strongly disliked herd behavior.

[CornetJoyce]

Fascists may have been inspired by Nietzsche's Superman but they certainly weren't his idea of the Superman. He ranted about his antisemitic brother-in-law, proposed to "banish the antisemitic bawlers from Germany" and broke with Wagner over the latter's antisemitiism.
As for Machiavelli, his influence fell not upon fascism but upon Republicanism and Marxism: Marx and Engels discussed his thought admiringly and Marx referred to him as "the Copernicus of the State."

[Philosopher Jay]

Fascism grew out of the military-industrial complexes in Italy, Germany, and Spain in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's. In the same way it grows out of the military industrial complex in the United States today. Hitler always called himself just "an ordinary soldier." The violence and thirst for order, the hatred of democracy, workers, peace and equality grows out of the military mentality. They were not influenced by any philosophers like Nietzsche or Machiavelli or brilliant scientists like Darwin.
They were/are just a bunch of degenerate psychopathic savages that capitalists find useful for suppressing/oppressing the workingclass.

[Wanted Man]

Blaming Machiavelli for fascism is a bit rich. What Machiavelli and fascism have in common is that they are both synonyms for "evil", making it unnecessary to commit ourselves to further study and understanding. Not exactly something to promote.

The burden of proof is firmly on the person asserting this link, because the mere fact that Mussolini studied him is obviously insufficient. I also think you would struggle to find someone who has gone far in politics who has not at least made some attempt to read Machiavelli.

[Ose]

I seem to remember that the reason Nietzsche became a philosophical talisman for Hitler was due to his sister Elisabeth. She was an ardent Nazi supporter, and the corruption of his philosophy into something that could be used by the Nazis was largely her doing.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Yeah... Nietzsche really had nothing much to do with Fascism. He was opposed to nationalism (a "European", he called himself in Beyond Good and Evil(?)), fell out with his sister when she marriied a virulent anti-semite who also happened to be a proto-fascist. On a personal level the most aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy which I hold closest to heart relate specifically to self improvement: the eternal recurrance etc. Even in Utopia it is the responsibility of the individual to strive to improve themselves, even whilst working for the common good. and why not?

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not really sure, and can't be bothered to go look up the quote, but as fas as I recall Nietzsche expressed pride in his ethnic origin and class background, "Polish aristocratic". Maybe that would put him in the camp of, by his time, outdated reaction a la de Maistre.
Also, some telling fragments from the Will to Power tend to confirm at least the existence of a reactionary aspect to his philosophy. Though, I'm well aware that his sister is "credited" with "specific" editorial work on that material.
Can someone point out a decent work on this thesis?


On a personal level the most aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy which I hold closest to heart relate specifically to self improvement: the eternal recurrance etc. Even in Utopia it is the responsibility of the individual to strive to improve themselves, even whilst working for the common good. and why not?
Sure, I also grasped that aspect of his writings first, as a positive contribution to my general outlook on life and self-reflection.

[W1N5T0N]

Bolsheviks: Democracy? no. Ruling class of intellectuals? Intellectuals = inner party members who didn't oppose to stalin, apparatchiks..

[hatzel]

Bolsheviks: Democracy? no. Ruling class of intellectuals? Intellectuals = inner party members who didn't oppose to stalin, apparatchiks..

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that maybe this is in the wrong thread? :) If not, feel free to explain the relevance of this statement...

[W1N5T0N]

Well, what i meant was that after the bolshevik party had cemented it's position of power in the early 1920's, there was little democratic effort and the bureaucratic apparatus under the rule of lenin and then stalin dominated over everyday life, while workers had little say in any matters. (relating to Nietzsche opposing democracy). And then, only the people that followed the one party line could live in relative safety and pursue a career. The really hardcore-stalinist followers were `the elite`, inner party members and apparatchiks. What i was trying to say is that only because a philosophy has certain elements in it, it does not relate it to one particular ideology. Philosophies, like Nietzsche's, can be used in a wide variety of context and interpretation. So saying Nietzsche is fascist is like saying Marx is stalinist. Only because certain people used the philosophy of a certain thinker for their own means does not mean that the philosophy is, at its core, associated with that movement.

[Bilan]

Fredrich Nietzche was a big influence on fascism because he had a contempt for democracy and believed in an aristocracy of intellectuals.

Source. Then find some evidence for this relationship. Nietzsche's influence on fascism is derived - more than anything - from his sisters tampering.



Niccolo Machiavelli had a significant influence on fascism because he believed in strong leadership to direct people's lives because the masses could not govern themselves.

Strong leadership in government is something which transcends fascism.



Charles Darwin probably had the biggest influence on fascism due to his theory of evolution being only the strongest survive therefore creating social darwinism which a fascist's justification for supporting nationalism

That is an incredibly weak argument. Darwin's ideas dealt with biology. He conjured the theory of evolution based upon natural selection, survival of the fittest - that is, those who are most capable of reproducing (based upon their ability to adapt to the given environment and its changes). It has nothing to do with being violent (at least not necessarily).



Because of their large influence on fascism does that make these three highly regarded intellectual men fascists? Or is that just a fascist interpretation of them?


None of these men are fascists. Fascism as an ideology and movement spawned in the early 20th century. Machiavelli is from the 16th century. Read the introduction of The Prince to see Marx's, Rousseau's and Voltaire's interpretations of it.

Fascism was created not by the ideas of the dead but by the transformation of social and economic conditions in the post war period.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If one even takes a slight interest in Nietzsche, it's pretty hard to determine how he was a "proto-Nazi". He said quite a few things that would have scandalized Nazis, including that the sophisticated southern Europeans had been tainted with "barbarian blood" of the Teutonic peoples (!), and more than one reference to the Jewishness of both Christianity and Jesus, which would've shocked a lot of readers of "The Gay Science" at the time it was written (it's the only Nietzsche book I own/have read, so I don't pretend to be an expert). He also wrote against "poisonous" nationalism, hated his sister's husband (a virulent anti-semite), etc. etc. blah blah blah

[L.A.P.]

Source. Then find some evidence for this relationship. Nietzsche's influence on fascism is derived - more than anything - from his sisters tampering.



Strong leadership in government is something which transcends fascism.



That is an incredibly weak argument. Darwin's ideas dealt with biology. He conjured the theory of evolution based upon natural selection, survival of the fittest - that is, those who are most capable of reproducing (based upon their ability to adapt to the given environment and its changes). It has nothing to do with being violent (at least not necessarily).





None of these men are fascists. Fascism as an ideology and movement spawned in the early 20th century. Machiavelli is from the 16th century. Read the introduction of The Prince to see Marx's, Rousseau's and Voltaire's interpretations of it.

Fascism was created not by the ideas of the dead but by the transformation of social and economic conditions in the post war period.

Dude whatever, the thread was made 9 months ago when I first joined. I know this all now, don't you think all the earlier posts have already made their point and this is just redundant?

[Wanted Man]

Dude whatever, the thread was made 9 months ago when I first joined. I know this all now, don't you think all the earlier posts have already made their point and this is just redundant?

Umm, "dude", you necroed the thread yourself last month. With the thread active again, of course people will respond to it. Bilan's post was not very original, because, like most of us, he disagreed with the claims made in the OP, but it was a pretty valid response besides that. If you feel otherwise and want to maintain the assumptions made in the OP, feel free to debate. If you've changed your mind, then just say that and don't chastise people for trying to help you and answer your question.

It is, in any case, a pretty good discussion (though more Learning than Philosophy) to help newcomers on their first steps of analysis. Simplified bourgeois media simply teach us that fascists admire strong leaders. Machiavelli wanted strong leadership for Italy, therefore... (apparently, communists want weak leadership?) Arguing against such reasonings is the first step towards letting go of shallow bullshit, of baggage that we all carry, and start talking about what fascism actually is, what we can all learn from pre-Marxist writers like Machiavelli, etc.

[agnixie]

Niccolo Machiavelli-He advocated republics. His most often cited work is the prince but that was a parody.
Charles Darwin- He was a biologist not a political theorist. Also Natural selection doesn't say anything about interspecies fighting.
Fredrich Nietzche-He strongly disliked herd behavior.

For Nietzsche - he also hated nationalism, started claiming he was polish at some point down the line in disgust over german nationalism, and abhorred the idea of a violent imposition of ideas

[Bilan]

Dude whatever, the thread was made 9 months ago when I first joined. I know this all now, don't you think all the earlier posts have already made their point and this is just redundant?

There are two ways I can go about responding to this.
The first is to say:

Well, please excuse me. I was just trying to help and didn't take much notice of when you posted this. It came up as a recently posted thread and I took that for granted.

The second is:

Well, I suppose you should note then that your OP poses questions/theories that have been discussed on this forum - to varying/excruciating degrees - before. So perhaps you should've done your research before asking such a question?

[A Marxist Historian]

You are correct that the overman isn't a race-related idea, but it was absolutely central to his philosophy (along with eternal recurrence). He didn't develop the idea during his early writings, but as he approached his later books it was perhaps his most important idea.

The best way to understand Nietzche is in Marxist class terms. He hated the proletariat. They had no understanding of art, culture, Grecian urns, all the things he valued, so they had no rights that the "overman" was bound to respect, to paraphrase the Dred Scott decision. He hated socialists and anarchists not because Schopenhauer told him to, but because he was smart enough to understand that they advocated the slaves, and he advocated the masters. Nietsche was all in favor of slavery, and would have wanted to see much more of it.

He wouldn't have liked the fascists much because of the *populist* overtones of fascism, especially talk of "national socialism." He was an opponent of German nationalism and if anything pro-Jewish rather than anti-Jewish, so he would have made a very bad Nazi. Nor would he have been fond of Nazi attitudes toward culture, the central passion of his life.

But, since he was after all German not Italian, the Nazis loved him and the Italian fascists were disinterested in him.

The best treatment of Nietzche and his foully repulsive ideas is in Arno Mayer's book, The Persistence of the Old Regime.

-M.H
.-


This is a decent outline, but the master/slave morality wasn't supposed to refer to any one specific example, but rather it refers to the types of morality which can exist.



You might enjoy this book (http://www.amazon.com/Dynamite-Friedrich-Nietzsche-Anarchist-Tradition/dp/1570271216), which covers this very topic.



Bingo.

In short, Nietzsche would have been as anti-fascist as you could get if there had actually been fascism when he was alive - which there wasn't.

- August

[agnixie]

The best way to understand Nietzche is in Marxist class terms. He hated the proletariat. They had no understanding of art, culture, Grecian urns, all the things he valued, so they had no rights that the "overman" was bound to respect, to paraphrase the Dred Scott decision. He hated socialists and anarchists not because Schopenhauer told him to, but because he was smart enough to understand that they advocated the slaves, and he advocated the masters. Nietsche was all in favor of slavery, and would have wanted to see much more of it.

He wouldn't have liked the fascists much because of the *populist* overtones of fascism, especially talk of "national socialism." He was an opponent of German nationalism and if anything pro-Jewish rather than anti-Jewish, so he would have made a very bad Nazi. Nor would he have been fond of Nazi attitudes toward culture, the central passion of his life.

But, since he was after all German not Italian, the Nazis loved him and the Italian fascists were disinterested in him.

The best treatment of Nietzche and his foully repulsive ideas is in Arno Mayer's book, The Persistence of the Old Regime.

-M.H
.-

If by best treatment you mean something based on a complete strawman.

The übermensch is supposed to be neither master nor slave. Because the slave is expected to grovel and the master imposes his will by force, both things he despised. A lot of anarchists were drawn to him; at least Emma Goldman was, and he was compared a lot to a leading german anarchist of the time.

[A Marxist Historian]

If by best treatment you mean something based on a complete strawman.

The übermensch is supposed to be neither master nor slave. Because the slave is expected to grovel and the master imposes his will by force, both things he despised.

In individual relations, at the individual level, sure. Both Hitler and Mussolini would have agreed by the way.

The "individual" ubermensch ought neither to grovel nor push others around. And that of course was the focus of his public philosophical writings.

It is as a "class" he wanted the ubermenschen, the ruling class, in charge. And was in favor of violence and force to an unlimited degree to keep things that way, which is why he admired Tsarist Russia so much. He did not talk about that much in public as he did not see himself as a politician. But he explained this clearly in his private letters, which Mayer quotes from so effectively.

Have you read Meyer's book? You should. If you did it would open your eyes.

-M.H.-