Two New Left Critiques of Nietzsche

[redstar2000]

OVER-MAN AND THE COMMUNE

Few thinkers have enjoyed such widespread appeal over the last forty years as Nietzsche. The instrumentalization of the Nazi period seemingly left behind—Lukács’s dissenting voice notwithstanding—Nietzsche’s almost Heraclitean metaphors and images, visceral incarnations of some mythological wisdom which always seems to be in excess of itself, have fascinated theorists from the whole range of the political spectrum. For some, such as Kaufmann and Rorty, Nietzsche dissolved philosophy into an aesthetic play and a relativism entirely in accord with, but lying beyond, the values of the liberal democracies. For others—in the so-called ‘New Nietzsche’ emerging from post-war France—his critique of the overweening pretensions of the western philosophical tradition seemed to offer the possibility to begin philosophy again, as a post-philosophy. While this current of interpretation was not too shy to appropriate some of Nietzsche’s concepts for a radical critique of contemporary bourgeois society—one thinks in the first instance of Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze—its presupposition was that Nietzsche himself was an essentially apolitical philosopher, an innocent victim of right-wing distortion whose ‘indeterminacy’ permitted an attempt to expropriate him for the Left.

http://www.newleftreview.net/Issue31.asp?Article=07#pagetop

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Hmm, nothing new there at all really Redstar.

With somebody like Nietzsche nobody really cares what his politics were, if you read the guy its not important what he says, the whole point is to take up his kind of philosophy for yourself, a mode of thinking not a dogma.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Pedro Alonso Lopez
With somebody like Nietzsche nobody really cares what his politics were...

That's a pretty "limp" response, PAL. I expected a more vigorous rebuttal from the pro-Nietzsche folks.

Certainly I care about the politics of people whom we are told are "great thinkers" whom we "must take seriously".

Now along comes this Italian scholar (with credentials out the ass) who says, look, Nietzsche despised the working class and, indeed, all forms of emancipation in his own era.

That doesn't make him necessarily a "proto-fascist", but it certainly qualifies him for the appellation turd.

Doesn't it?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Sure, everybody knows Nietzsche was an elitist, that he hated socialism. You can find this as far back as Kaufmann (himself a Jew who managed to save Nietzsche's reputation from fascism).

Nietzsche certainly wasnt a fascist in the large oppressive state manner Redstar, its simple, the guy was an old style Victorian/nice manners/elitist/art is great/and his number one rule of politics is:

'As little state as possible'.

Clearly the words of a fascist eh, Redstar.

[Trissy]

Sorry in advance for the length of this response…


Losurdo is one of the most innovative and prolific left intellectuals of contemporary Italy. Born in 1941 in the Mezzogiorno, educated at the Universities of Urbino and Tübingen, he is currently ordinario (full professor) at the University of Urbino and regular commentator on contemporary Italian and international politics in his capacity as a member of Rifondazione comunista
We can but guess what Nietzsche would have made of an academic pouring over his work! I feel that as much as he would have enjoyed some of the recognition he has received after his death (due to the fact that he was almost totally ignored during his sane life), he still wouldn't be too pleased with academics assessing him. I'm sure Prof. Losurdo has tried his hardest to present a 'fair' view of Nietzsche and his works, and yet I cannot refrain from feeling he'll bore and trick his scholarly readers into submission. In dissecting Herr Nietzsche in such a cold, dusty, remote and academic manner I feel he's making a big mistake. To value Nietzsche you first have to be alive and full of life! How can someone who is his antipode hope to successfully evaluate him in an 'objective' manner?

I can't really comment without reading Losurdo's work but then I cannot be bothered to read a 1,000 page book that is likely to leave me angry, tired and empty. I've based my comments on the review and a guess as to what the book in question is like. Prejudiced I know, but then who isn't prejudiced in some way or another? I'm not a Nietzsche scholar and I'm sure this professor knows a lot more about Nietzsche than I do, but then as a Nietzschean who pours over his work for pleasure (and not business) I retain the right to disagree with the conclusions reached.


Nietzsche, il ribelle aristocratico represents the summation of Losurdo’s long study of Nietzsche’s work and the cultural and political environment in which it was formed. His principal thesis is that Nietzsche’s thought, in all its stages and transformations, was fundamentally determined by a central engagement: the critique and denunciation of the tradition that derived from the French Revolution, traversed 1848, and arrived, in Nietzsche’s youth, at the Paris Commune
It is widely accepted that we're all moulded by the times that we live in but it is something else to suggest that all of Nietzsche's thoughts are driven by the politics that surround him. From my own reading of his various works and his letters I can draw links from Nietzsche’s life to his works, but then again I fail to see a deliberately political aspect in his writing. If we think of political philosophers such as Marx, Hegel, Locke and Hobbes then we can see that they are systematic writers....where is the systematic writing displayed by Nietzsche? I can see a few threads that can be found that loosely tie together some of his works (such as the will to power) but it is hard to see a political thread that unites them in such a way.


Several years later he was still writing: ‘The same when the news of the supposed burning of the Louvre arrived—a feeling of the autumn of culture. Never a deeper pain.’

Er...Nietzsche was a lover of art...it's not really hard to see why he was upset is it? :huh:

The feeling that society's modern values are decadent is a view that Nietzsche held in various different forms throughout his whole sane life. It can be noted in his early works when he was close to Wagner and it can be seen in his final works such as 'The Anti-christ' and 'The Twilight of the Idols'. I'd argue that it was aimed at society as a whole and the weaknesses within society's herd mentality and not just at the socialism of the time.


Through a careful comparative analysis of this text, along with others by Nietzsche from the same period and those of his contemporaries, Losurdo demonstrates that whatever else The Birth of Tragedy became, it must also be understood in its own historical moment, as a theoretical response to a specific political event—the uprising of the Commune—articulated within a constellation of ideologies which include various forms of anti-Semitism, secular and not-so-secular critiques of Christianity and conservative opposition to a consolidating transatlantic liberalism; all united by a belief in a redemptive Imperial German Sonderweg leading back to the virtues of pre-Enlightenment Greece
It may be seen that way I guess but I doubt the evidence he uses to support such a view is strong. If you look at Nietzsche's life at the time then this work is primarily a work devoted to Wagner and Wagner's philosophy. The main influences are Wagner, Schopenhauer and the rationalism exemplified by Socrates. To relate these to the Paris Commune seems a farfetched thing to do...almost as farfetched in fact as presenting Nietzsche as a nationalist (the Franco-Prussian war put an end to any chance of him becoming a jingoist).


Although Nietzsche claimed to be a solitary thinker who did not enjoy a confidence with the currents of his time, Losurdo has meticulously recorded the wider social echoes that provided a context for his formulations during these decades. Thus, for instance, the terms of Nietzsche’s critique of Socrates, singularly severe if considered in relation to the disciplinary etiquette of late nineteenth-century classical philology, become less exceptional when placed within earshot of the rhetoric of certain anti-Semitic currents of the time.

Nietzsche wrote in a Wagnerian style and surprisingly it was enjoyed by Wagnerians <_< . It was laughed at by most of the philology scholars of the day. The book had a very limited reception in Europe.

However Wagner’s political views (such as nationalism and anti-Semitism) did become increasingly more popular to the point that they play a leading role in the path to both world wars. If you asked me to consider whether anti-Semitic thoughts or anti-Socratic thoughts were more repellent then I think I&#39;d say the former was. As for how anti-semitism makes a critique of Socrates less exceptional then don&#39;t ask me&#33; Er...was Socrates a Jew? :huh:


What distinguishes his account, however, is the attempt to demonstrate the fundamental underlying unity of these diverse orientations, all over-determined by Nietzsche’s deepening hatred of working-class militancy and the concomitant radicalization of his original thesis. […] Nietzsche, however, remaining true to his traumatic experience, traced the origins of modernity’s democratic degeneration much further. Not the French Revolution, the Reformation, or even the Greeks, but Judaic resentments—the base, ‘Semitic’ Adam against the ‘Aryan’ Prometheus—now constituted the source of a cycle of revolutionary movements that accompanied Europe as its original sin, preventing it from becoming itself.
For pity&#39;s sake&#33; Nietzsche disliked certain ideas and their unseen role in ideologies. Nietzsche disliked weakness and hence he disliked ideologies that he saw as containing it in some sense. This is why he disliked Christianity, and indeed the Socialism of his day. Does that make him a raving Conservative? Er...no&#33; He also disliked the state, Germany and modern culture. To present him as a fascist or a conservative is laughable.


The famous call for an amoralism, ‘beyond good and evil’, is analysed as emerging in opposition to socialist appeals to notions of justice and moral conduct
Nietzsche called himself an immoralist and his appeal was for a &#39;revaluation of all values&#39;, which seems to me to be able to coincide with socialism (where capitalist values such as &#39;just&#39; and &#39;unjust&#39; are replaced with socialist ones). Amoralism is not what Nietzsche called for since that would lead him towards nihilism (and please let us not get started on that debate&#33;&#33;&#33;).


Nietzsche’s final position (insofar as the unstable constellation of competing elements which make up his thought can be regarded as reaching a final position) is seen as striving toward a ‘radical aristocratic’ critique of modernity, liberalism, notions of equality and the ‘rights of man’.
I know that I present Nietzsche as too rosy and liberal for most peoples&#39; liking but even in his support of aristocracy I prefer to see his position as that of a radical meritocrat. It makes little sense to speak of a Superman in genetic terms, and likewise it makes little sense to talk of noble ethics in purely economic terms. If Nietzsche taught mankind to aim for the Superman and the ethics of the Superman then it makes little sense to think that it should be the aim of only a small section of society (those with the right genes or financial status). It&#39;s about primarily about the mentality people hold, and since we all possess minds then it is theoretically possible for even the most wretched person.


In particular, he demolishes the myth that the traces of anti-Semitism were introduced by Nietzsche’s sister; on the contrary, he maintains that, if anything, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche sought to make the posthumous image of her brother more palatable to enlightened bourgeois taste. Even though Nietzsche does break with the explicit and extreme anti-Semitism of his youth, Losurdo demonstrates that the theoretical structure of this ideology and its fellow travellers had an abiding influence on his thought—as amply evidenced in the call by the late Nietzsche, the prophet of the innocence of becoming, for the extermination of the weak and ill-born
How groundbreaking&#33; It’s not like this has been debated time and time again <_<

This just relates back to Nietzsche’s view of weakness. It makes little sense to say ‘I dislike all Jews’ when in fact a closer proposition is ‘I dislike the orthodox Jewish ideology’

[Trissy]

I must admit that I didn&#39;t read much of the rest of that article as I found it too hard going. I hate it when academics desire to make their ideas seem more complicated and clever then they are by dressing them up in long and complicated language. In my mind it shows a weak person&#39;s desire to hide their lack of understanding from view, and as such they are driven by vanity and insecurity. I do wish that academics would write as if they desired to communicate with the average joe and not just so they can show off to their academic chums. The overall impression I got was that these critical reviews of Nietzsche are ill-founded and generally designed to support the writers own political and historical views rather then to shed light on Nietzsche&#39;s &#39;true&#39; meaning.


Now along comes this Italian scholar (with credentials out the ass) who says, look, Nietzsche despised the working class and, indeed, all forms of emancipation in his own era.

That doesn&#39;t make him necessarily a "proto-fascist", but it certainly qualifies him for the appellation turd.

Doesn&#39;t it?
Mmm...well said Italian scholar and his reviewer seemed to be talking a funny language and speaking out of their asses in my humble view. I agree that Nietzsche said many things that still shock us today but to charge him with being &#39;a radical aristocrat&#39; (again&#33;) just because some of us don&#39;t understand these passages seems to me to be an unnecessary move. I prefer Hollingdale and Kaufmann anyday purely because their evaluation of Nietzsche seems far more plausible to me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Trissy
To value Nietzsche you first have to be alive and full of life&#33;

What then of people who study philosophy seriously and write long books about it?

Are they "dead" and "full of death"?

Granted, having to read one of those lengthy and needlessly obscure tomes may make you wish you were "dead"...but that&#39;s not quite the same thing.

It seems to me that your response is circular. To value Nietzsche, one must be "alive and full of life". So if you don&#39;t value Nietzsche, it&#39;s "because" you&#39;re "dead". And the "fact" that you&#39;re "dead" means, "therefore", that you can&#39;t possibly value Nietzsche.


I know that I present Nietzsche as too rosy and liberal for most peoples&#39; liking but even in his support of aristocracy I prefer to see his position as that of a radical meritocrat.

Bob Avakian would probably agree -- he thinks he has the "merit" to rule. Otherwise, I would imagine most sensible lefties would question the idea of "meritocracy" at its obviously vulnerable roots: what is "merit" and "who makes the call"?

It&#39;s the sort of concept that has subjectivity (bias, prejudice, etc.) dripping from every orifice.

I am the meritocrat...or, if not me, then people who resemble me as much as possible.

Certainly not those "lifeless oafs" responsible for the Paris Commune, right?


I hate it when academics desire to make their ideas seem more complicated and clever then they are by dressing them up in long and complicated language.

Well, I certainly agree with you here.

But that is the philosophic "tradition", isn&#39;t it?

I&#39;m told that the Germans (who else?) have an idiom that they use to describe such books: They do not permit themselves to be read.

Or at least read and understood.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:41 AM
.....Are they "dead" and "full of death"?....

(Throwing myself into the discussion)

If you had any grasp of metaphors, you would&#39;ve understood. In a way of living, they are. As but a shell writing nonsense for a living. If you live trough pain and by self-destruction is the only way you can live, then "philosopher who write long books" do not. They are as dead as God, Nietszche surely would&#39;ve said.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:41 AM









What then of people who study philosophy seriously and write long books about it?

Are they "dead" and "full of death"?

Yes, Nietzsche hated academics hence the aphorism form of his books.



Granted, having to read one of those lengthy and needlessly obscure tomes may make you wish you were "dead"...but that&#39;s not quite the same thing.


Resorting to Ad Hominem&#39;s again RS, maybe you should everyone you have never read anything by Nietzsche beyond one or two articles making you somebody who irrationally argues against philosophers?


It seems to me that your response is circular. To value Nietzsche, one must be "alive and full of life". So if you don&#39;t value Nietzsche, it&#39;s "because" you&#39;re "dead". And the "fact" that you&#39;re "dead" means, "therefore", that you can&#39;t possibly value Nietzsche.

No, Nietzsche simply wants people to love life and in turn by loving and living life they will value what Nietzsche says since as a philosophy it is about embracing life.

If you don&#39;t value Nietzsche you are not dead but you simply do not like him and lo and behold RS Nietzsche says that ok because he dosent really care. In fact he asks that we all find our own path, our own philosophers, he is no system builder and hated followers, and would most likely hate the cult that has built up around him. It would be like how Che is idolised for what he done in life, same with Nietzsche but for what he wrote but both would rather you followed the example in practise rather than the ideal.




Bob Avakian would probably agree -- he thinks he has the "merit" to rule. Otherwise, I would imagine most sensible lefties would question the idea of "meritocracy" at its obviously vulnerable roots: what is "merit" and "who makes the call"?

It&#39;s the sort of concept that has subjectivity (bias, prejudice, etc.) dripping from every orifice.

I am the meritocrat...or, if not me, then people who resemble me as much as possible.

Certainly not those "lifeless oafs" responsible for the Paris Commune, right?



Bob and Nietzsche, yeah RS I can really see the analogy here...

:blink:




Well, I certainly agree with you here.

But that is the philosophic "tradition", isn&#39;t it?

I&#39;m told that the Germans (who else?) have an idiom that they use to describe such books: They do not permit themselves to be read.

Or at least read and understood.

This is where it is so obvious you have never read Nietzsche.

A, Nietzsche hated the tradition of philosophy and is noted as the first to turn against it.

B. He disliked Germany&#39;s philosophic tradition.

Hence why he writes in a fluid style.

[Monty Cantsin]

Yes, Nietzsche hated academics hence the aphorism form of his books.

why is the aphorism form of writing against academics? Hegel somtimes used that style and he was an academic high prist for some time...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

It is anti-systematic.

Hegel&#39;s works are notably dense with long paragraphs whereas Nietzsche&#39;s are short, 3-5 lined aphorisms.

[Monty Cantsin]

Fair enough....but his aphorisms are not always that short somtimes you get ones over a page and a bit....

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

He didn&#39;t write entirely in aphorisms&#33; Just noticeable a hell of a lot.

Most of his work is in essay form I think you mean, like the Geanology of Morals.

[OleMarxco]

Writing in aphorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism) is good ;)