Nietzsche and Fascism

[Comrade #138672]

How are Nietzsche (and other similar philosophers) and Fascism related? Nietzsche did seem to pave the way for Fascism with Nihilism and talk about superiority, etc. But how exactly?

[GerrardWinstanley]

Herbert Spencer's philosophy on human competitiveness is probably closer to the Nazi view than Nietzsche who, contrary to popular belief, saw survival as more of a means than an end (the end being the assertion of power and the sense of overcoming that went with it) and did not emphasise physical fitness (at least outside of aesthetics).

I think Nazi ideology may have been an unintended consequence of Nietzsche's philosophy though. Many of his unpublished journals and essays were published posthumously by his anti-semitic sister as 'The Will to Power' and became essential reading for Nazis, even though it is rejected as a misrepresentation of his views by Nietzsche scholars. It's easy to imagine Nietzsche's distaste for weakness and pity was appealing to the SS and useful to anti-communist propaganda.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

Nietzsche's individualism is closer to the likes of Renzo Novatore than any sort of rightist ideology. He famously had a falling out with Wagner over the composers anti-semitism. Nazism encompassed everything he hated, it pushed a metaphysical herd mentality unlike anything he formulated.

[Fruit of Ulysses]

Nihilism and its wrecking of all constructs and values has nothing to do with Fascisms fetishism of ancient values and relics.

[Decolonize The Left]

How are Nietzsche (and other similar philosophers) and Fascism related? Nietzsche did seem to pave the way for Fascism with Nihilism and talk about superiority, etc. But how exactly?

Nietzsche had nothing to do with fascism, quite the contrary in fact. He often railed against large governments, states, organized parties, politicians, nationalism, bigotry, etc... If anything, Nietzsche was anti-fascist in the sense that he was apolitical and anti-political ideology.

His sister, on the other hand, was very fascist and used his writings after his death to forward fascism. It is important not to conflate the two.

[Art Vandelay]

Nietzsche had nothing to do with fascism, quite the contrary in fact. He often railed against large governments, states, organized parties, politicians, nationalism, bigotry, etc... If anything, Nietzsche was anti-fascist in the sense that he was apolitical and anti-political ideology.

His sister, on the other hand, was very fascist and used his writings after his death to forward fascism. It is important not to conflate the two.

Didn't she doctor some of his works, to make it seem he was fascist leaning?

[Decolonize The Left]

Didn't she doctor some of his works, to make it seem he was fascist leaning?

Yes. Although most of the copies in circulation are the originals so you don't really need to worry about it if you're looking to pick up Beyond Good and Evil or whatever.

[TheEmancipator]

Strange how the fascists insist Nietzsche is "one of them" though.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes. Although most of the copies in circulation are the originals so you don't really need to worry about it if you're looking to pick up Beyond Good and Evil or whatever.

I have a few different books of Nietzsche's work, however I haven't started any of them yet. I'll have to check the editions.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Strange how the fascists insist Nietzsche is "one of them" though.

In his writing Nietzsche is actually very dismissive of antisemites, biological racists and people who blame their inability to actualize themselves on other people, despite having some antisemitic views himself. There are other views he held which seem quite remote from modern fascism, such as his disdain for those who follow mass movements uncritically. That does not mean that his philosophy isn't problematic in some respects, but it's not without its virtues and it's far removed from the fascism of the 20th century.

Saying Nietzsche is responsible for Nazi death camps just as weak and tenuous as blaming Marx for Chinese famines during the 1960s

[Fruit of Ulysses]

although.............."Fascism" is a largely misunderstood blanket term today, while mainstream Nazism lauded biological racism and metaphysical mythical things, there were some Italian fascists who shared Nietzches philosophic materialism and nihilism.

[Decolonize The Left]

although.............."Fascism" is a largely misunderstood blanket term today, while mainstream Nazism lauded biological racism and metaphysical mythical things, there were some Italian fascists who shared Nietzches philosophic materialism and nihilism.

But Nietzsche was in no way, shape, or form, a nihilist...

[TheEmancipator]

But Nietzsche was in no way, shape, or form, a nihilist...

Depends. He certainly thought morality was something reserved for the weak. Same goes for most hard-line ideological fascists.

[Decolonize The Left]

Depends. He certainly thought morality was something reserved for the weak. Same goes for most hard-line ideological fascists.

Unfortunately that is far from correct - I'm afraid you need to read up on your Nietzsche. On The Geneology of Morals would be the appropriate place to start.

In short, Nietzsche thought that morality was a product of a circumstance and condition. Morals arise from the conditions of the individual who creates them: strong individuals make strong morals, weak individuals make weak morals. But in no way did he claim that morality was 'reserved' for anyone - quite the contrary. He advocated that everyone create their own moral codes (revaluation of values).

[TheEmancipator]

Unfortunately that is far from correct - I'm afraid you need to read up on your Nietzsche. On The Geneology of Morals would be the appropriate place to start.

In short, Nietzsche thought that morality was a product of a circumstance and condition. Morals arise from the conditions of the individual who creates them: strong individuals make strong morals, weak individuals make weak morals. But in no way did he claim that morality was 'reserved' for anyone - quite the contrary. He advocated that everyone create their own moral codes (revaluation of values).

He said the strong make their own morals, which therefore become strong morals due to the fact that they are successful to the individual in question. For Nietzsche, a strong moral is one that necessarily makes you strong, not that is good or evil.

He totally dismisses the idea of good and evil or good and bad that he says certain classes make distinctions of. For him, anybody who is being restrained by a "weak" morality (that can be considered good or unevil if you wish) is weak.

Therefore, he is a nihilist since he believes the only way any kind of morality can be evaluated is the end result of such morality in an individual (whether he is strong or not). He does not believe in any true morality or good morality. If two beings adopted the same moral code (which my friend Hegel would point out is nigh-impossible), all Nietzche would care about is to see which one of them managed to become a "strong" ubermench.

[Thirsty Crow]

Therefore, he is a nihilist since he believes the only way any kind of morality can be evaluated is the end result of such morality in an individual (whether he is strong or not). He does not believe in any true morality or good morality. If two beings adopted the same moral code (which my friend Hegel would point out is nigh-impossible), all Nietzche would care about is to see which one of them managed to become a "strong" ubermench.
This would be true if you twisted the notion of nihilism to fit your argument.

Instead, what Nietzsche does is to postulate and examine nihilism as a historical phenomenon - primarily cultural - of the decay of the old values, out of which new values arise. In this sense, it is incorrect to call him a nihilist since his "project" was precisely to transcend nihilism. The fact that you disagree with his notion of the foundation of morality does not mean anything here.

[Art Vandelay]

Didn't Nietzsche have some work that dealt with 'overcoming nihilism'?

[TheEmancipator]

This would be true if you twisted the notion of nihilism to fit your argument.

Instead, what Nietzsche does is to postulate and examine nihilism as a historical phenomenon - primarily cultural - of the decay of the old values, out of which new values arise. In this sense, it is incorrect to call him a nihilist since his "project" was precisely to transcend nihilism. The fact that you disagree with his notion of the foundation of morality does not mean anything here.

OK, then why does Nietzsche insist on the fact that any morality should serve what he believes is a higher purpose than morality itself i.e self-interest. For him, morality on its own is worthless. Its the end result that matters. Like Voltaire, if he does stick up for any moral principles, it is only to further one's own goals.

The fascists took this idea up too...

[BeingAndGrime]

N. basically thought that nihilism was where Europe was headed, but that we still have not realised what the implications of this are.

He saw nihilism as the natural consequence of Christianity, because Christianity (following Plato) valued Truth (with a capital T) in and of itself, as good, as opposed to valuing what was conducive to human thriving. This life denying will to truth would lead Christians to critically examine their own religion and to find that it does not stand up to scrutiny (hence the whole death of God thing).

So N. for example, would see a continum between the church and the new Atheists such as Dowrkin in their insistance of the value of truth and, ironically, on their whole opposition to religion on the same moral grounds (with a few modifications) that are based in Christianity in the first place!

So is N. a nihilist? In a sense he was, although he would deny it, and in a sense he was not. He was a nihilist in the sense that he denied that morality had any kind of objective validity that could be derived metaphysically. In this sense he was the anti-Kant. On the other hand he was also opposed (although he greatly admired) Schopenhauer, who he saw as promoting a kind of Western Buddhism and nihilism. He believed that morality(ies) was a human convention that could hinder or progress human flourishing, which was his ultimate concern. In this sense he was very much against nihilism.

[Decolonize The Left]

OK, then why does Nietzsche insist on the fact that any morality should serve what he believes is a higher purpose than morality itself i.e self-interest. For him, morality on its own is worthless. Its the end result that matters. Like Voltaire, if he does stick up for any moral principles, it is only to further one's own goals.

The fascists took this idea up too...

Well, in the first place, "morality on it's own" is worthless. It is merely a judgement and judgement without context gets you nothing. Think about it: A guy walks into the woods without any context of what is around him. He then proclaims: This stream is bad!!!! This branch is good!!!! This leaf is...... evil!!!! Those are all normative moral claims that he is making and since they are devoid of context they make no sense what-so-ever (how can a leaf be evil?).

In the second place, all humans are fundamentally self-interested, it's a part of biology. Deal with it.

In the third place, you really aren't making any argument here for, as Menocchio aptly notes in the response above, you are distorting the meanings of nihilism, morality, and Nietzsche's theory.

[Decolonize The Left]

Didn't Nietzsche have some work that dealt with 'overcoming nihilism'?

That is the conclusion of his philosophy: overcoming nihilism. For Nietzsche the modern world was progressively sliding into nihilism after the death of god and he argued it would take a new form of self-actualization to overcome this epidemic.

[Ravachol]

Nietzsche has nothing to do with fascism, regardless of however either fascists or those ignorant of Nietzsche would like to paint him. Though Nietzsche was disdainful of socialism (in which he saw christianity's slave morality preserved, something about which he is partially right and which is echoed in later ultra-left critiques of such leftist phenomena as workerism, 'the militant' and identity politics ) and even anarchism, Nietzsche has been one of my primary intellectual influences, especially when accompanied by or read through the lens of other thinkers such as Bataille or Foucault.


That is the conclusion of his philosophy: overcoming nihilism. For Nietzsche the modern world was progressively sliding into nihilism after the death of god and he argued it would take a new form of self-actualization to overcome this epidemic.

Nietzsche makes a distinction between 'passive' nihilism and 'active' nihilism, the former being the product of the death of god robbing modern man of a teleological foundation for his morality (a morality which had already been infested with a creeping passive nihilism from the start as the result of the slave morality embedded in it) whilst the latter seeks to overturn all morality in favor of a vitalist project, that of man (excuse my gendertyping) who, through a project of conflictuality (Amor Fati) (https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/amor-fati) with the many hurdles life throws at him, creates and shapes his or her own values. This is also closely related to his ideas about eternal recurrence, where one asks him or herself that if this very instant were to be lived over and over again, how would one feel about that? And, more importantly, that we ought to live as if this was the case as to actively confront our existence in the here and now. It is this life-affirming impulse that Nietzsche sees as the defining characteristic of the 'ubermensch' and what he recognizes as power seperate from both the impotent slave morality that kneels and begs for 'rights' and applauds weakness (and as such, reaffirms and reproduces the role of the slave through its act of begging) and the putrid master morality which defines good only in terms of its own historic utility.

I recommend Georges Bataille's excellent "On Nietzsche" on the matter, which also brought the following quotes by Nietzsche to my attention:



The new feeling of power is the state of mysticism; and the clearest, boldest rationalism is only a help and means toward it. - Philosophy expresses extraordinarily elevated states of soul.
(..)
The definition of a mystic: someone with enough happiness of his own, maybe too much.. seeking a language for his happiness because he wants to give away that happiness.




"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!

[Thirsty Crow]

The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house! Doesn't this imply a perspective akin to that of social darwinism (akin; not identical to it), being very close to the idea of the biological foundation for social phenomena?

And that does not even address the possibility of the internal contradictions in Nietzsche's works. I really can't recall specific works, apart from Will to Power (which has been addressed as problematic in assessing his work), so take it with a grain of salt, but still it seems to me that the drive towards command over others (though, given his anti-political stance, this cannot be interpreted as political exclusively; but it remains as a potential motif for later philosophers, writers, political ideologues to exploit) is a constituent part of the already mentioned project of overcoming nihilism, uebermensch and so on. In this sense, I suspect he let his thought be a captive of the master-slave morality dichotomy.

And through this we come to the question of the use value of his work (pardon my Marxisms). If the above stands, which is not certain but still, then he could be appropriated by a range of political positions. I can see how the labour aristocracy (l. a. proper - meaning labour organizers and leadership of parties) could, in right circumstances, show affinity for some Nietzschean ideas. So fascism is not the only player in town, though historically it has been connected with Nietzsche or to word it better, it connected itself to him.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Strange how the fascists insist Nietzsche is "one of them" though.
They also claim Darwin. Its because they're idiots.

[Forward Union]

How are Nietzsche (and other similar philosophers) and Fascism related? Nietzsche did seem to pave the way for Fascism with Nihilism and talk about superiority, etc. But how exactly?

There are two questions we should seperate here. Firstly, was Nietzsche a Fascist (Or were his philosophies Fascist) and secondly, did his philosophies justify Fascism.

I'd say no to the first and yes to the second. Nietzsche was a Nihilist. Nihilism is the rejection of the belief in any objective basis for human morality, and truth. In some cases it goes further than simply saying that truth is subjective (Or not yet known), as the Existentialists do, but claims that there is no truth to be found. This is in some ways in contradiction with any political ideology, be that Nationalism, Fascism or Communism. Most fascists reference The Will to Power, as a source of Nietzsche support for Fascism. The problem is that Nietzsche never actually wrote a book called "Will to Power" . It was a politically engineered compilation of his notes, possibly with some additions, corrections and re-interpretations with a preface by his Fascist sister - all done after he was dead. So while it's certainly true that Nietzsche was not a fascist, I am however going to put my neck out slightly here and say that, Hitler was a Nihilist. He wasn't a Socialist and not even much of a Nationalist. I won't go through a complete chronicle of his actions to justify me saying why this is, though one example which sticks in the memory involves the last few days when the Red Army had him surrounded in Berlin. He (in)famously welcomed the impending doom and tried to speed it up by ordering the complete destruction of the German State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree) .

[Philosophos]

Strange how the fascists insist Nietzsche is "one of them" though.

If they could they would take Budha, Jesus, Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles, Marx ANYONE to make them more appealing

[TheEmancipator]

If they could they would take Budha, Jesus, Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles, Marx ANYONE to make them more appealing

I know, I wasn't actually calling Nietzsche a fascist with this (which is what seems to have come across as). But even Nietzsche insisted that his thought was as he put it dynamite.

It was actually a serious question. Thank you for the answers. I remain unconvinced by Nietzsche though.

[The Forbidden Fruit]

It does seem to make sense that Nietzschean ideas would be used from an intellectual philosophy to a "rational" justification of fascist movements. The somewhat "nihilistic" nature of demanding no intrinsic moral obligations along with the "superman" concept sound pretty familiar amongst Nazi ideology. However, Nietzsche certainly wasn't a faschist and may have been more peaceful than Gandhi.