Nietzsche: Human too Human

[W1N5T0N]

Many of Nietzsche's Aphorisms/Statements seem to be quite anarchist in the sense that they challenge authority, tradition and the state.

What's your opinion on this?

[JustMovement]

personally I think Nietzsche should be read as apolitical.

His work is useful as a criticism of metaphysics, a history of the evolution of religion and ethics, and what it means to overcome those limiting preconceptions that come from our christian history,which i think ties in nicely with anarchism, but he himself is not a "political" anarchist.

[hatzel]

Basically the above. It might be fair to even call Nietzsche anti-political, rather than merely apolitical, but that's largely irrelevant. And let's not forget that he called anarchists "naive propagators and panegyrists" in Beyond good and evil, which may not be the most complimentary review I've ever seen, without even approaching his more in-depth critique of anarchism / anarchists. Still, it is true that his ideas have radical implications (much like Stirner's, in fact, and countless parallels have been drawn between the two), though he would definitely eschewed the term 'anarchism' to describe them, even if just on semantic grounds, and through association. Autarchy, on the other hand...well, let's just say that he may have been somewhat more willing to take such a term, had somebody tried to apply it to him, and the Wikipedia article on that is '[p]art of the Politics series on Anarchism,' apparently, but even that doesn't really match his views particularly well...

[Decolonize The Left]

Many of Nietzsche's Aphorisms/Statements seem to be quite anarchist in the sense that they challenge authority, tradition and the state.

What's your opinion on this?

You can spend a long time drawing connections between Nietzsche and anarchism. In fact, it's already been done:
Wikipedia page on the topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Friedrich_Nietzsche)
A collection of essays on the topic (http://www.amazon.com/Dynamite-Friedrich-Nietzsche-Anarchist-Tradition/dp/1570271216)
This introduction touches on the subject (http://www.seesharppress.com/nietzscheintro.html)

In my personal opinion, I agree with JustMovement and La Sombra in noting that Nietzsche is most certainly an apolitical, if not an anti-political, thinker. So a truly Nietzschean response to your question would be to flip the question on its head and ask you - how have anarchists used Nietzsche's work and is their use a responsible one? To this I would respond that the anarchist has much to find and enjoy in Nietzsche's work and there is ample fodder for the anti-state movement, perhaps some of the best critiques, in his words.

- August

[HEAD ICE]

This maybe of interest. Here is a newly translated article of Trotsky's about Nietzsche:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1900/12/nietzsche.htm

[Decolonize The Left]

I've made a group to discuss Nietzsche (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=774). All are welcome, but I'll invite you folks anyway.

- August

[A Marxist Historian]

Many of Nietzsche's Aphorisms/Statements seem to be quite anarchist in the sense that they challenge authority, tradition and the state.

What's your opinion on this?

Well, his published writings aren't political, he didn't consider himself a politician. But he expressed his political opinions frequently in his letters.

His favorite government was the Tsarist regime in Russia, which he had tremendous admiration for. The thing he liked best about it was its iron hand in suppressing anarchists and other trouble makers.

He especially hated socialists, some of his letters talk about how they should all be killed.

When he talks about how the superior men, the "ubermensch," should rule, he is not only thinking about personal superiority in personal relations, but in political terms too, namely the rule of the cultured sophisticated ruling classes over the uncultured mob.

-M.H.-

[scarletghoul]

I have tried reading Nietzche quite a few times, since so many people think so highly of him, but honestly I have never gained anything from it. Im just like "yeah thats true, so what" all the way through, its like i am missing something

[agnixie]

Many of Nietzsche's Aphorisms/Statements seem to be quite anarchist in the sense that they challenge authority, tradition and the state.

What's your opinion on this?

Nietzsche and Stirner basically had the same views on a lot, probably most things, to the extent that people at the time thought he had plagiarized him.

[Blackscare]

His favorite government was the Tsarist regime in Russia, which he had tremendous admiration for. The thing he liked best about it was its iron hand in suppressing anarchists and other trouble makers.

....

When he talks about how the superior men, the "ubermensch," should rule, he is not only thinking about personal superiority in personal relations, but in political terms too, namely the rule of the cultured sophisticated ruling classes over the uncultured mob.

-M.H.-
Do you have any sources for your first claim?

I doubt that it's true, and I know that the definition you use of overman in the second bit is wrong. The overman is to be achieved through active questioning and defiance towards established cultural values of all types and the fabrication of a new ethos. He goes to lengths to establish that no such overman yet exists, that it is to be the end result of the struggle to destroy the Last Man. No class is exempt from this, being an overman doesn't have anything to do with your relation to means of production or how "cultured" you are. Especially at birth!

In fact, Nietzsche never expressed anything close to sympathy for aristocrats that I can recall, after all, they embody and dictate the moral zietgiest of an era! They internalize most the very same value system that he implores everyone to destroy! Not to mention, I can't really imagine a man who wrote constantly about the value of overcoming the worst struggles and hardship placing his hopes in a group of pampered inbred dillholes.

I don't think you've read much Nietzsche.

[Thirsty Crow]

In fact, Nietzsche never expressed anything close to sympathy for aristocrats that I can recall, after all, they embody and dictate the moral zietgiest of an era! They internalize most the very same value system that he implores everyone to destroy! Not to mention, I can't really imagine a man who wrote constantly about the value of overcoming the worst struggles and hardship placing his hopes in a group of pampered inbred dillholes.

I don't think that it is accurate to ascribe to Nietzsche the statement that the aristocrats "embody and dictate the moral zeitgeist of an era" since, and don't quote me on that cause I'm relying on "Will to Power"*, it was the debased parliementary democracy that enshrined the "instinct of the herd" as the ruling morality.

As you can see, I'm parahphrasing from vague memory, and if you have any sources to offer, it'll be more than welcome.

*I assume that you're aware of the controversy surrounding this work, with his nazi sister and all (editing the notes etc.). Maybe August could clear that up?

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't think that it is accurate to ascribe to Nietzsche the statement that the aristocrats "embody and dictate the moral zeitgeist of an era" since, and don't quote me on that cause I'm relying on "Will to Power"*, it was the debased parliementary democracy that enshrined the "instinct of the herd" as the ruling morality.

According to my understanding of Nietzsche, the herd instinct is a product of slave morality. Slave morality which came about as a reversal and rejection of master morality, slave morality which glorifies weakness and sameness (those qualities hated by the master morality), slave morality which emphasizes the herd as the only morally acceptable situation.

As for Nietzsche's position on aristocrats, I'm pretty sure he'd be less interested in what someone was (in terms of class, caste, etc...) than how someone became who they were, and how they acted as a person.


*I assume that you're aware of the controversy surrounding this work, with his nazi sister and all (editing the notes etc.). Maybe August could clear that up?

The controversy of which you speak was very serious, but any mainstream translation (Kaufmann and Hollingdale are the best, with the later being my preferred) should be using the unadulterated copies of the text. Both Kaufmann and Hollingdale take their work very seriously and neither would translate a copy which had Nietzsche's sister's revisions as part of the text.

- August

[Thirsty Crow]

The controversy of which you speak was very serious, but any mainstream translation (Kaufmann and Hollingdale are the best, with the later being my preferred) should be using the unadulterated copies of the text. Both Kaufmann and Hollingdale take their work very seriously and neither would translate a copy which had Nietzsche's sister's revisions as part of the text.

- August
The tricky part is that I had been reading a Croatian translation of a German version for some 2-3 weeks. I didn't really check the reference to the original, but I intend to get hold of that copy in the near future. Are you familiar with the German versions? If yes, I might PM you about this.

[Decolonize The Left]

The tricky part is that I had been reading a Croatian translation of a German version for some 2-3 weeks. I didn't really check the reference to the original, but I intend to get hold of that copy in the near future. Are you familiar with the German versions? If yes, I might PM you about this.

I am not familiar with the German versions as I cannot speak nor read any German at all.

- August

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you have any sources for your first claim?

I doubt that it's true, and I know that the definition you use of overman in the second bit is wrong. The overman is to be achieved through active questioning and defiance towards established cultural values of all types and the fabrication of a new ethos. He goes to lengths to establish that no such overman yet exists, that it is to be the end result of the struggle to destroy the Last Man. No class is exempt from this, being an overman doesn't have anything to do with your relation to means of production or how "cultured" you are. Especially at birth!

In fact, Nietzsche never expressed anything close to sympathy for aristocrats that I can recall, after all, they embody and dictate the moral zietgiest of an era! They internalize most the very same value system that he implores everyone to destroy! Not to mention, I can't really imagine a man who wrote constantly about the value of overcoming the worst struggles and hardship placing his hopes in a group of pampered inbred dillholes.

I don't think you've read much Nietzsche.

No I haven't, not since high school. I have however read Arno Mayer's book, with the quotes from his letters where he expresses his ultra-reactionary political views. To me, what is primarily interesting and important is how Nietsche's abstract philosophical views translate into political beliefs. After all, that "new ethos" of his could turn out to be absolutely anything, from anarchism to Nazism.

If you want to junk all old values and discover brand new undefined new ones nobody has believed in before, just why not those "values" expressed at Auschwitz?

Have you read what Mayer wrote on Nietzsche? Totally damning IMHO.

"The Persistence of the Old Regime." Not some obscure little tract, rather it's the classic work that made Mayer famous as a historian. Very well respected in the field.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

No I haven't, not since high school. I have however read Arno Mayer's book, with the quotes from his letters where he expresses his ultra-reactionary political views. To me, what is primarily interesting and important is how Nietsche's abstract philosophical views translate into political beliefs. After all, that "new ethos" of his could turn out to be absolutely anything, from anarchism to Nazism.

If you want to junk all old values and discover brand new undefined new ones nobody has believed in before, just why not those "values" expressed at Auschwitz?

Have you read what Mayer wrote on Nietzsche? Totally damning IMHO.

"The Persistence of the Old Regime." Not some obscure little tract, rather it's the classic work that made Mayer famous as a historian. Very well respected in the field.

-M.H.-

Just to be totally clear, yes my source on Nietsche and Tsarism is the Mayer book. I have a copy somewhere I could fish out to give you the exact page number, if need be.

-M.H.-

[Decolonize The Left]

No I haven't, not since high school. I have however read Arno Mayer's book, with the quotes from his letters where he expresses his ultra-reactionary political views. To me, what is primarily interesting and important is how Nietsche's abstract philosophical views translate into political beliefs. After all, that "new ethos" of his could turn out to be absolutely anything, from anarchism to Nazism.

If you want to junk all old values and discover brand new undefined new ones nobody has believed in before, just why not those "values" expressed at Auschwitz?

Have you read what Mayer wrote on Nietzsche? Totally damning IMHO.

"The Persistence of the Old Regime." Not some obscure little tract, rather it's the classic work that made Mayer famous as a historian. Very well respected in the field.

-M.H.-

I'd be very interested to read what Mayer has to say on Nietzsche. I get the general idea that he views Nietzsche's ideas as reactionary, which is dumb-founding, but if this is the case then I'd like to know what his interpretation is of Nietzsche's fundamental ideas as this is most likely where the confusion lies.

- August