Christian, anarchist and socialist

[Trissy]

It has been a while since we last had an enthralling philosophical debate about Nietzsche and so I thought I’d highlight the following passage in a bid to gain the views of all Christians, socialists, anarchists and Nietzscheans present. What do you make of the passage? What do you agree with? What do you disagree with? How is it to be interpreted?


34. Christian and anarchist.— When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a righteous indignation "his rights," "justice," and "equal rights," he is only acting under the influence of his want of culture, which prevents his understanding why he is really suffering - in what respect he is impoverished, in life... A cause-creating drive is powerful within him: someone must be to blame for his feeling vile... His 'righteous indignation' itself already does him good; every poor devil finds pleasure in scolding - it gives him a little intoxication of power. Even complaining and wailing can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a small dose of revenge in every complaint, one reproaches those who are different for one's feeling vile, sometimes even with one's being vile, as if they had perpetrated an injustice or possessed an impermissible privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be so too": on the basis of this logic one makes revolutions.— Complaining is never of any use: it comes from weakness. Whether one attributes one's feeling vile to others or to oneself—the socialist does the former, the Christian for example the latter - makes no essential difference. What is common to both, and unworthy in both, is that someone has to be to blame for the fact that one suffers - in short, that the sufferer prescribes for himself the honey of revenge as a medicine for his suffering. The objects of this thirst for revenge as a thirst for pleasure vary according to the circumstances: the sufferer finds occasions everywhere for cooling his petty revengefulness - if he is a Christian - to say it again, he finds them in himself ... The Christian and the anarchist are both décadents.— And when the Christian condemns, calumniates, and befouls the "world," he does so from the same instinct from which the socialist worker condemns, calumniates, and befouls society: even the "last judgment" is still the sweet consolation of revenge - the revolution, such as the socialist worker too anticipates, only conceived as somewhat more distant... even the "Beyond" - why a Beyond, if not as a means for befouling the Here-and-Now? ...

Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man

I find it fascinating myself. The implication that the Christian and the anarchist/socialist are alike I find refreshing after all the usual debate between them. The idea that in both lies a drive to blame I agree with but I’d better explain myself in greater detail before people decide to jump on what I’m saying in order to say that it clearly shows Nietzsche hated socialism/anarchism because he was a fascist.

This passage I see as criticising a trend in socialism/anarchism and not socialism/anarchism itself (and the same could be said for Christianity). The trend I speak of (in respect to socialism/anarchism) is the willingness to complain and then do nothing more. This is the same trend that Marx criticised philosophers for when he said that they had ‘interpreted’ the world and not ‘changed it’. As such it is a call for practical philosophers. It is a criticism of the socialist who identifies problems in his/her world but fails to see how they are related to them, that is the socialist who believes their own actions have nothing to do with the class war that is being waged all around us on a daily basis. As such I think it does show a lack of will to power, and so is a sign of decadence. My actions are the centre of my world, and believe otherwise is sheer folly.

Perhaps another way of understanding this is by examining Sartre’s term 'bad faith'. By this he meant the denial of complete human freedom due to the fact that this means we must accept responsibility for the consequences of our choices and actions. With that in mind we can reinterpret this passage as a criticism of Christianity and socialism due to bad faith on the part of the respective parties. The Christian is living in bad faith if they attribute their suffering to the wickedness of human nature, and the socialist is living in bad faith if they attribute their suffering to society alone. Only the socialist who recognises their freedom and the role it has to play in the suffering of mankind is living free from bad faith and in this respect they are a step further from decadence. Total equality is neither desirable nor enforceable, and one cannot separate one’s essence from the choices one makes and the actions one takes. The revolution shall depend upon the consciousness of the workers and so is not a necessary step, and as the revolution depends on class consciousness it cannot be separated from bad faith.

Marxism without Existentialism will struggle, and so will Existentialism without Marxism. There are issues where the two appear not to be reconcilable but one must be aware of the other if anything is to be achieved. This calls for us to examine the ideas of both of them in their entirety. If the revolution will not come to us, then it is for us to move towards the revolution.

[NYC4Ever]

As a Christian Existentialist I can see where you're going with this. But why Marxism? Why has that had the only appeal to people of the Existential belief?

[Trissy]

I never said that only Marxism is appealing to Existentialism. No doubt there are other fields of thought that could be appealing to Existentialism and I'm sure Christianity would stake a claim here. I just think that Marxism and Existentialism will prove the most successful when they are applied together, rather then on their own.

I fail to see the advantage of combining Existentialism with Christianity though because I see it merely as the last straw by which Christianity shall try continue it's existence. The death of God is creeping ever closer and all people who hold power based on the superstitions that surround the old and sick deity will desperately try to cling to whatever drift wood that happens to pass their sinking ship. Kierkegaard is famous for his 'truth is subjectivity' but he failed to realise the effect of these words on religion. As soon as religion moves from being objective claims in the hands of people, to being subjective claims in the hands of the individual then it gradually ceases to be. First it become the choice of the individual...it depends upon faith if you will. Then it becomes unspeakable because it is subjective (see wittgenstein). Finally is ceases to be because there can be no private langauge in which to communicate it either. When the Christian becomes an Existentialist then they have taken the first step towards renouncing the very faith they sought to secure.

[kroony]

I would not say I was ambitious for humankind. However, there is one thing that I want, most fervently -- it is that those who are unhappy are so because they cannot make themselves happy, and not because others hold them back. You might argue that they are to blame for their unhappiness. You may well be right, but that does not preclude other people holding them back.

Perhaps when the oppressed are "unchained" (forgive the melodramatic marxist metaphor, and the alliteration) they will fair no better than if they were still held down. But it doesn't matter -- what does is that they have the chance to achieve greater things, and Nietzsche's ideas would appear to deny them even that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:30 PM
the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a righteous indignation "his rights," "justice," and "equal rights,
Rights presuppose that there is an answer. Anarchists do not believe that there are factual answers to this question. For an anarchist to say "my rights" is to assume that the authority of that person is greater than anothers, it is not and it is imposisble for people to be equal.


the socialist who believes their own actions have nothing to do with the class war that is being waged all around us on a daily basis.

I don't understand this?


Only the socialist who recognises their freedom and the role it has to play in the suffering of mankind is living free from bad faith

I agree with this, but it isn't always that simple.


If the revolution will not come to us, then it is for us to move towards the revolution.

Again, I couldn't agree more.

I think also that existentialism has a lot to offer everyone, not just Marxists.

[Trissy]

I would not say I was ambitious for humankind. However, there is one thing that I want, most fervently -- it is that those who are unhappy are so because they cannot make themselves happy, and not because others hold them back. You might argue that they are to blame for their unhappiness. You may well be right, but that does not preclude other people holding them back
That is why I argue that Existentialism needs Marxism, and that Marxism needs Existentialism. We could all be Existentialists and live in chaos if society were to collapse because we all decided to pull in different directions. It could be a Hobbesian nightmare!

What an Existentialist requires is a society in which our actions can influence our lives to the greatest extent and is not restricted by the bad faith of others, and this I believe is only possible with the help of Marxism. If Marxism requires class consciousness then it requires freedom from bad faith, which is what Existentialism requires. Existentialism can do little if it remains only the tool of the few which is what we could argue is the case with Nietzsche's Noble man. As I've argued before, what is required is a struggle amongst the slaves to become noble...a struggle which requires Existentialism and Marxism if it is to reach the widest audience possible and so change the world to the greatest degree. The weak shall fall whatever the case. The Noble man is just a stepping stone to the Superman.


But it doesn't matter -- what does is that they have the chance to achieve greater things, and Nietzsche's ideas would appear to deny them even that
Well I still deny this is the case Arie. All Nietzsche's ideas state is that we must wage war on weakness...on weakness in society and on weakness in ourselves. If the worker feels that he is not free then it is because he has decided he is not free, and so not responsible for the state he finds himself in. The slave cannot free himself because he is already free. What he is required to do is to destroy the weak parts of himself. He cannot progress unless he first rids himself of his dead wood.


Rights presuppose that there is an answer. Anarchists do not believe that there are factual answers to this question. For an anarchist to say "my rights" is to assume that the authority of that person is greater than anothers, it is not and it is imposisble for people to be equal
I think what Nietzsche is criticising here is again a trend in anarchism instead of anarchism itself. He is arguing against the anarchist, who armed with the sword of 'Reason' lays claim to 'rights' as if they were rightfully theirs. That is to say those who read the Rationalist writings of Kant and Rousseau, and who believe that being human provides us with rules by which we may survive.


I don't understand this?

By that I meant the armchair socialist. The socialist who seperates himself from society and believes that how he acts has no influence on the world. The socialist who buys stocks and shares thinking that what he does cannot effect the strength of capitalism or the strength of the workers. The socialist who sees the Revolution as inevitable and so sits down to wait for the people to rise up and then the dust to settle. Perhaps this is what I think about those who are willing to see the revolution as necessary, rather then dependant on the choices we make.


I think also that existentialism has a lot to offer everyone, not just Marxists
Oh I agree. It would be silly of me to argue that Existentialism is not strong enough to survive on its own, just like it would be silly of me to argue that Marxism cannot function without Existentialism. What I am willing to argue however is that the best results will be achieved if they are applied together.

[kroony]

Since you're a fellow simon and Garfunkel fan, I'll use this song to illustrate my point:

Blessed are the meth drinkers, pot sellers, illusion dwellers.
Blessed are the sat upon, spat upon, ratted on.

I quizzed you once about drunk people and freedom. You claimed something like it affects our judgment, not our actions. So, what about the retard, the the schizophrenic, and the madman? It seems to me that you will either have to take the untenable position of saying that these people are "free", or else admit that not everyone is even close to "free".

Secondly, slaves do indeed have a slave mentality. Yes, indeed! But that is the mentality which is FORCED upon them for survival. If they chose another mentality, they would be killed, or severely punished in some way. You could argue that they should or could choose death. But slavery is the only mentality on offer -- refuse it and before long, you won't have a mentality at all.
In short, slavery is the cause, not the effect of the slave mentality. While revolution is possible, it is not so without a mass-rejection of what you would call "slave mentality".

This is an extreme example, of course, but it is true to an extent for all oppressed peoples. It is necessary for the oppressed to care about each other before they can go on a self-discovering journey. And I remain convinced that the only way forward is dogged, piecemeal reform. It's very frustrating and boring, but it requires a glance at our country's history to see that that is how we have ever achieved anything for anyone who was sat upon, spat upon, and ra-aaa-ted on.

[Trissy]

I quizzed you once about drunk people and freedom. You claimed something like it affects our judgment, not our actions
Well I actaully said that alcohol influences our consciousness but doesn't determine out actions, but go on...I'm just being picky.


So, what about the retard, the the schizophrenic, and the madman? It seems to me that you will either have to take the untenable position of saying that these people are "free", or else admit that not everyone is even close to "free".
The problem with the mad is that one soon ends up following the route of Nietzsche and Foucault which leads us to question what madness is.

Personally I wouldn't wish to speculate too much on how the mad see the world or why they see the world in the manner they do. The position I'd hold is that they are still free to choose in the manner that you and I are free to choose, the only difference being that the world appears a different way to their conscious minds. Sartre and Kierkegaard talk about the actions of Abraham when he goes to sacrafice his son Isaac because God tells him to. They point out that he makes many choices...that the voice he heard was God, and that he was the Abraham that the voice was talking to, etc, etc. I see no reason that we cannot say that mad people are free in the same way. They chose to believe what they see in front of them, to listen to the voices, etc. They may not choose to hear the voices or see spirits but they are free.


Secondly, slaves do indeed have a slave mentality. Yes, indeed! But that is the mentality which is FORCED upon them for survival
It wasn't forced upon them. They chose it. They chose to survive. They don't HAVE to survive. They may have a survival instinct, but as we have dsicussed instincts only influence us, not determine our actions.


While revolution is possible, it is not so without a mass-rejection of what you would call "slave mentality"
That is where Existentialism comes into play.


This is an extreme example, of course, but it is true to an extent for all oppressed peoples. It is necessary for the oppressed to care about each other before they can go on a self-discovering journey. And I remain convinced that the only way forward is dogged, piecemeal reform. It's very frustrating and boring, but it requires a glance at our country's history to see that that is how we have ever achieved anything for anyone who was sat upon, spat upon, and ra-aaa-ted on.
yes...well you struggle to reform the corrupt system, while I shall write. I shall attempt to awaken the masses from their slumber.

A small passage from Thus Spoke Zarathustra may help me express my views better. It's better in the Hollingdale translation I think but this will have to do because I cannot find an online copy of a Hollingdale translation and I'm not typing it all out :(


34. Self-Surpassing

"WILL to Truth" do ye call it, ye wisest ones, that which impelleth you and maketh you ardent?

Will for the thinkableness of all being: thus do I call your will!

All being would ye make thinkable: for ye doubt with good reason whether it be already thinkable.

But it shall accommodate and bend itself to you! So willeth your will. Smooth shall it become and subject to the spirit, as its mirror and reflection.

That is your entire will, ye wisest ones, as a Will to Power; and even when ye speak of good and evil, and of estimates of value.

Ye would still create a world before which ye can bow the knee: such is your ultimate hope and ecstasy.

The ignorant, to be sure, the people—they are like a river on which a boat floateth along: and in the boat sit the estimates of value, solemn and disguised.

Your will and your valuations have ye put on the river of becoming; it betrayeth unto me an old Will to Power, what is believed by the people as good and evil.

It was ye, ye wisest ones, who put such guests in this boat, and gave them pomp and proud names—ye and your ruling Will!

Onward the river now carrieth your boat: it must carry it. A small matter if the rough wave foameth and angrily resisteth its keel!

It is not the river that is your danger and the end of your good and evil, ye wisest ones: but that Will itself, the Will to Power—the unexhausted, procreating life-will.

But that ye may understand my gospel of good and evil, for that purpose will I tell you my gospel of life, and of the nature of all living things.

The living thing did I follow; I walked in the broadest and narrowest paths to learn its nature.

With a hundred-faced mirror did I catch its glance when its mouth was shut, so that its eye might speak unto me.

And its eye spake unto me. But wherever I found living things, there heard I also the language of obedience. All living things are obeying things.

And this heard I secondly: Whatever cannot obey itself, is commanded. Such is the nature of living things.

This, however, is the third thing which I heard—namely, that commanding is more difficult than obeying. And not only because the commander beareth the burden of all obeyers, and because this burden readily crusheth him:—

An attempt and a risk seemed all commanding unto me; and whenever it commandeth, the living thing risketh itself thereby.

Yea, even when it commandeth itself, then also must it atone for its commanding. Of its own law must it become the judge and avenger and victim.

How doth this happen! So did I ask myself. What persuadeth the living thing to obey, and command, and even be obedient in commanding?

Hearken now unto my word, ye wisest ones! Test it seriously, whether I have crept into the heart of life itself, and into the roots of its heart!

Wherever I found a living thing, there found I Will to Power; and even in the will of the servant found I the will to be master.

That to the stronger the weaker shall serve—thereto persuadeth he his will who would be master over a still weaker one. That delight alone he is unwilling to forego.

And as the lesser surrendereth himself to the greater that he may have delight and power over the least of all, so doth even the greatest surrender himself, and staketh—life, for the sake of power.

It is the surrender of the greatest to run risk and danger, and play dice for death.

And where there is sacrifice and service and love-glances, there also is the will to be master. By by-ways doth the weaker then slink into the fortress, and into the heart of the mightier one—and there stealeth power.

And this secret spake Life herself unto me. "Behold," said she, "I am that which must ever surpass itself.

To be sure, ye call it will to procreation, or impulse towards a goal, towards the higher, remoter, more manifold: but all that is one and the same secret.

Rather would I succumb than disown this one thing; and verily, where there is succumbing and leaf-falling, lo, there doth Life sacrifice itself—for power!

That I have to be struggle, and becoming, and purpose, and cross-purpose—ah, he who divineth my will, divineth well also on what crooked paths it hath to tread!

Whatever I create, and however much I love it,—soon must I be adverse to it, and to my love: so willeth my will.

And even thou, discerning one, art only a path and footstep of my will: verily, my Will to Power walketh even on the feet of thy Will to Truth!

He certainly did not hit the truth who shot at it the formula: "Will to existence": that will—doth not exist!

For what is not, cannot will; that, however, which is in existence—how could it still strive for existence!

Only where there is life, is there also will: not, however, Will to Life, but—so teach I thee—Will to Power!

Much is reckoned higher than life itself by the living one; but out of the very reckoning speaketh—the Will to Power!"—

Thus did Life once teach me: and thereby, ye wisest ones, do I solve you the riddle of your hearts.

Verily, I say unto you: good and evil which would be everlasting—it doth not exist! Of its own accord must it ever surpass itself anew.

With your values and formulae of good and evil, ye exercise power, ye valuing ones: and that is your secret love, and the sparkling, trembling, and overflowing of your souls.

But a stronger power groweth out of your values, and a new surpassing: by it breaketh egg and egg-shell.

And he who hath to be a creator in good and evil—verily, he hath first to be a destroyer, and break values in pieces.

Thus doth the greatest evil pertain to the greatest good: that, however, is the creating good.—

Let us speak thereof, ye wisest ones, even though it be bad. To be silent is worse; all suppressed truths become poisonous.

And let everything break up which—can break up by our truths! Many a house is still to be built!—

Thus spake Zarathustra.
:( Stupid old wordy version...if you want me to write the Hollingdale modern translation for any of the verses (so that it can be understood easier) then just ask.