The Ubermench - Can Nietzsche & Communism Be Reconciled?

[Fires of History]

I am a seriously hardcore reader of Nietzsche. I appreciate everything the man had to say and think he ranks as among the most brilliant thinkers ever.

However, I have of late had trouble trying to reconcile his concept of the Ubermench ('Superman') with much more egalitarian concepts in communism.

The nature of Nietzsche's existentialism, perhaps bordering on nihilism, leads me to think that my two philosophical heroes, Nietzsche and Marx, are, in the end, opposed to each other. I feel the battle raging in my own psyche.

Just wondering if anyone would like to see if a reconciliation is possible. I'll get into this more if anyone would like to explore this...

Power To The People,
Trance

[peaccenicked]

The irrationalism of Nietsche is the subject of Lukacs on the Destruction of Reason by Lukacs.This article makes similar criticisms.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/.../niet-o20.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/niet-o20.shtml)

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:56 pm on Mar. 20, 2002)

[TheDerminator]

Fires of History,

There is complete opposition to the idea that a "superhuman" elite can exist in stark contrast to the rest of humanity, who become sub-human by their very inferiority.
There can be no reconcilliation with this essentially fascistic conception of the human condition. I do not simplisitically blame Neitsche for fascism, but we have to call a spade a spade, and the "superhuman" is an artificial displacement of humanity with a higher form of human beings rather than a higher form of human consciousness within every individual being developed in commonality.
We want human beings to have a higher form of consciousness, and sure U can call that a higher form of spiritual being, but that higher form is not "super" it is still, only human. No more and no less.
We do not know the limitations upon technology, so it could be that living matter will be preserved so that humans can live into eternity, it could be that we can genetically improve the capacities of human beings, and I am not a luddite creationists with an abhorrence to the so-called "realm of God". An ethical socialist society can develop all scientific development on an ethical basis.
Just how "super" do U want us to get? I prefer the vision of Marx than Neitsche to the free development of each individual.

Resistance is Futile!

May the Force with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

Dermy, have you ever paid attention on "superhumans are the ones with no needs?"...etc, cant quote it bcs have borrowed the book to a friend, but in "Will for The Might"? ...it seems to me that Marxs idealistic attitude (like: every worker can become free & a creator of his world) wasn't realistic: the fact is that Nietzsche had never considered racial elements as criterium of differentiation betw "super" and "subhumans", so you can't call him a nazist, or facist, bcs he never pledged the military dictature.
Just called superones= free of artificial needs.
i assume that this might make you angry, but am very anxious ab y answer.

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,

U see Rosa, U are still have to make a differentiation between the superhuman and the "non-superhuman". It is this differentiation which appears as an apriori classification, that makes the term fascistic. It is nothing to do with an ethical differentiation. Even as just an intellectual differentiation it is still open to abuse.
The superhuman is the objective and the intreretation of the attributes of that superhuman are open to speculation. Even though it is an objective, it is still apriori, because it is an artificial invention at the begining of the development process. Why use "superhuman" as an objective. At best, it is just extremely clumsy, and I doubt we can that kind.
It does not really matter, that the superhuman is a self-actualised human. It was that "self-actualisation" means for the believer in the philosophy.
U put words in my mouth:
"I do not simplisitically blame Neitzche for fascism, but we have to call a spade a spade, and the "superhuman" is an artificial displacement of humanity with a higher form of human beings rather than a higher form of human consciousness within every individual being developed in commonality."
Neitzche was not responsible for fascism or naziism. I never said that. The very opposite! It is extremely simplisitic to view Neitzche for that bastardom. Yet, Neitzche was an essentially bourgeois philosopher, essentially espousing their mindset, other than socialism. U should not idealise Neitzche.

May the Force with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

am not idealising Nietzsche, I just like that "the one with no needs", and that "they will look as the poorest ones" etc, etc.
I wouldn't consider his clasification aprioristic, bcs he made coherent description of current situation when it's about human spirit, and I would rather describe his clasification as "conclusion", not "aprioristic".
some things, like " beyond goodness and evil", I am still questioning.
Simplification would be considering Nietzsche's superhuman just as "healthy, strong & goodlooking".(actually, he never said anything about goodlooking)
2. It has nothing to do with ethical differentiation, but it seems to me that his system has a chance to become the real one,
and that "superman" will be "the-one-outside-from-borg". hmm...well, there are always infinite possibilities of interpretation (of any author).

[deadpool 52]

Nietzsche believed in one man changing the world, whereas Marx believed in the masses.
Nietzsche is my second favorite psychologist, and it is not all pseudo-science.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 3:44 pm on Mar. 20, 2002
The irrationalism of Nietsche is the subject of Lukacs on the Destruction of Reason by Lukacs.This article makes similar criticisms.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/.../niet-o20.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/niet-o20.shtml)

Thanks Peaccenicked, that was quite an interesting article. Have to brew on that for a bit ;-)

Power To The People,
Trance

(Edited by peaccenicked at 3:56 pm on Mar. 20, 2002)

[Fires of History]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 4:03 pm on Mar. 20, 2002
Just how "super" do U want us to get? I prefer the vision of Marx than Neitsche to the free development of each individual

This conflict I've been having, between my two philosophical 'heroes,' has forced me to two different libraries, and about 35 internet sites exploring the idea of the Ubermench.

Nietzsche once said, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

And I think this is the case here. I interpret the Ubermench as a person who has seized their freedom, one who has broken their chains.

You can try to 'blame' the author for how their writings are perceived, but that doesn't stand up to me. After all, Pol Pot used Marxist writings to fuel his Khmer Rouge. All things can be INTERPRETED for good or bad purposes.

After all, it is *BECAUSE* of Nietzsche that I am a Communist at all.

Just a thought, and thanks for yours,
Trance

(Edited by Fires of History at 7:58 am on Mar. 21, 2002)

[vox]

I don't believe that there can be philosophical reconciliation between Nietzsche and Marx. Nietzsche is often cited in the work of the anti-Marxist poststructuralists, invoked to destroy the grand narrartive of Marxism. I believe you can find this in Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari and in the work of Foucault.

vox

(Edited by vox at 1:16 am on Mar. 22, 2002)

[Fires of History]

Thanks Vox,

I'll look for those.

I am definitely leaning towards no reconciliation between Nietzsche and Marx, hence the post.

Not sure how to sort that out in my psyche.

Although I clearly see how Nietzsche attacked foundations of 'knowledge,' whereas Marx attacked foundations of the 'state.'

By chance, does anyone see Marx addressing epistemology?

Thanks,
Trance

[vox]

Trance,

Actually, I think I can give you a better resource. You might want to pick up the very good An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism by Madan Sarup, which provides a very good overview of both and deals heavily with Marxism and Nietzsche, including a passage called "Nietzsche contra Hegel," which you may find interesting.

I'm not sure where you are in your reading, so you may have already read this or something similar, but if not, I think it's a very good place to start, both because it points out the debt post-strucutarlism and postmodernism owe to Nietzsche and because of its defence of Marx, though never does it become polemical.

vox

[TheDerminator]

Rosa, I may be misinterpreting Nietzche, but it seems to me the conlcusion is the objective. The objective is "what we should become". We should become the "superman". There is nothing wrong with having an objective it is a good objective, but it is the apriori causation that changes the will, in the sense that the objective must exist to direct all actions.
It could be misinterpretation, but it seems to me that there is a differentiation in the abstract between man and superman, and again, I cannot but see how this can be viewed as an artificial displacement of man from himself, so to speak (without wishing to be sexist).
It seems to me the idealisation of the perfect being, since only a perfect being can really ever be "superhuman". The "super" bit is a denial of our humanity. To err is human. At the very least it is a very clumsily put objective, and others would argue that it is more than just clumsiness.

deadpool,

The main materialist work on the role of the individual in history was written by Plekhanov rather than Marx.
The error is to believe that you can be reductive. It is not a question of either, or. It is a question of recognising the necessity for mass organisation as well as the necessity for outstanding individuals. On this level you can indeed reconcile Marx to Nietzche. The driving force of history is the force of the combination of both elements.
You are wrong to confuse philosophy with psychology. Nietzche, was much more a philosopher than a psychologist. I have never actully heard anyone calling him just a psychologist before. A psuedo-science? No just a poor science at this point in time.

Fires of History

The attack on the BORG State is a philosophy. It is entrenched in the understanding of knowledge. It is the understanding of political consciousness within knowledge. All Marx is epistemological! Though deeper than electic epistemology. It is understanding based upon ontological method, and upon the best analysis of best of previous BORG philosophy.

May the Force be with U!

derminated.

[deadpool 52]

Yes, he was more of a philosper than psychologist, but his writings actually show a lot on the human mind.

[Rosa]

No Dermy, if you call present man "human" then "super" bit isn't denial of humanity, but humanity itself.
"without artificial needs" doesn't mean that that kind of being would be less human but just the opposite.

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,

Does not the "super" transcend the "man"?

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

no. it transcends "a man of present times".

[peaccenicked]

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/d/...dietzgen-joseph (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/d/i.htm#dietzgen-joseph)
This is a good place to start an investigation of epistemology

[TheDerminator]

Rosa, there are no other types of men.

The "super" is an idealistic objective potential, because not everyone has the capacity to become a "super". The social capacity does not exist in present times, and to classify people in relation to this capacity or lack of capacity, lacks any notion of the equality of spirit of human beings no matter their capacities.

May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

yes, there are! and I will create them...at least, one of them...don't attack my idealism, for it makes me go on.
Ever heard of "imitation" and "learning by the model"?
Creating one superman can emerge others of that kind.
sorry, will continue tomorow, am tired.

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,
"learning by model". In management terms U could put it as learning through best practises. Fair dinkums, if that all there is to it, but I still don't think it makes U superman or superwoman! Sorry, but I can't get my head around that one. It still seems idealisation of perfection to me.
May the Force be with U!

derminated

[Rosa]

you don't know what's realistic untill you try to realize it.
Ideas can be realised, and they were realised many times.

[honest intellectual]

Consider that 'ubermensch' could be translated more correctly as 'overman' than 'superman'.
Thus the perfection of ubermensch is not just in and of itself, but lies in his superiority to 'underman'. This is, needless to say, an anti-Marxist view and easily twisted to fascism (although not specifically fascist in itself, like Rosa said)

[Rosa]

yes...hyperanthropos (Lukian from Samostata in Syria)...but let' go back to Nietzsche: "I'm teaching you about overman (agree that it feels more correctly), a man is something that should be prevailed. What have you done to prevail it?"+...all the gods are dead, and there's no benefits of them any more. So we want overman to live.
...see no rationalistic arguments for nazi interpretation of that idea.

[TheDerminator]

Rosa,

I do not disagree with "Ideas can be realised, and they were realised many times." only "you don't know what's realistic untill you try to realize it."

The latter is an erroneous generality. All forward planning is centred upon projection of what can be realised in reality. We do not need to wait for practise in order to possess theory. The latter is looking at the theory-practise relationship upsided down.

The realisation is the realisation of potential and we have Aristotle to thank for that logical conclusion. The reaching of any potential is completely hinged upon the capacity to realise that potential. We possess the ability to realistically estimate some of our human capacities, but the latter is far removed from placing an ideal on a pedastil as an objective too be reached.

We have to ground potentiality in reality, and potentiality not based upon capacity is the cart before the horse.

If U aim unrealistically too soon U are maybe flogging the soul of a dead horse, that has went to some big stable in the sky [excuse the sad metaphor]!

"["I'm teaching you about overman (agree that it feels more correctly), a man is something that should be prevailed. What have you done to prevail it?"+...all the gods are dead, and there's no benefits of them any more. So we want overman to live.]"

Must admit overman is preferable to superman! Undoubetdly, there is a spirit in the conception, which is in line with socialist theory. That is that there is no higher purpose in the sense of the deification of supreme being, there is the only the higher purpose for human being.

All socialists would wish to do is to ground that higher purpose for the individual in society, and transcend it with the higher purpose for the whole community, for every individual in that community, as well as ground it in the practical capacity of the organisation of socialised humanity within communities.

The higher purpose for socialists has to be a tangible higher purpose and not an abstract ideal, and that goes for advanced socialism too. The greater the abstraction, the more nebulous the purpose becomes and the vision becomes clouded.

"So we want overman to live"

We want the higher purpose to be realised!
Only then can overman transcend man, because man has become overman through the historical process which transforms to a higher level the capacities and potentials of the individual within society.

I prefer a socialist intrepretation!

May the Force be with U!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 6:40 pm on Mar. 30, 2002)

[Rosa]

Dermy:1. exactly: we possess theory about ubermensch, and in practise he doesn't exist yet.
2. historical process is not something what some higher.being is creating, and is not some "transcendental law indenpendent of human will", but is result of human actions.
3. So, let me try...and you should try - at least to start that process. But you are trying. So, what's this discussion about? ha-ha, yes, socialist interpretation is similar to mine.
L

[honest intellectual]

The reaching of any potential is completely hinged upon the capacity to realise that potential.
And Nietzsche's vision of the potential was not the creation of someone who was really fit, strong, intelligent etc. (superman) but a vision of someone who was superior to others (overman)

[Fires of History]

I have thouroughly enjoyed this thread so far, so a personal thanks to Vox, Dermy, Rosa, and Honest (and anyone I forgot, sorry).

I had the day off yesterday, and I spent a lot of time reading. I have been asking myself over and over: Why do I appreciate Nietzsche so much?

The simple fact is that he was an answer for me at a time in my life when I didn't even know to ask. It was his barrage at the very foundations of Western thinking that led me to be where I am today. His critiques of religion are masterful. His damnation of herd thinking is awe inspiring.

Perhaps the problem is that the Superman does not mesh with Communism, just as Marx wouldn't mesh with Capitalism. I have come to realize that I apply Nietzsche's thinking to overcoming capitalism in a personal sense, but I would never prescibe his thinking as the basis for the just state. I know I am probably alone in seeing Nietzsche as liberating, but he is to me. Derm and Rosa, in terms of your ongoing conversation, I think that if Communism was finally established, there would be less need to overcome your fellow man. Who knows. In the meantime, I will continue to quote Nietzsche in my intellectual assault of the system as it is now.

All I know is that everyone I meet is a dumbass. They happily chase the carrot at the end of the stick everyday, and blindly enjoy the fruits of capitalist exploitation.

Nietzsche once said, "Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end." Perhaps the 'beast' is the capitalist man, the hierarchial man, the patriarchial man. Fortunately this quote points directly to a process, one I believe humanity has yet to complete.

Let's just say, my anger at the state of affairs was first given base by Nietzsche, and then my action given fuel (and base) by Marx.

People Over Profits,
Trance

[guerrillaradio]

My thanks to Dermy for directing me to this forum...

I don't think Nietzsche can be reconciled with any way of leftist thinking. Equally, he cannot be linked with any capitalist way of thinking. The very basis around which Nietzsche is based is pessimism and even nihilism. He claims that life is worthless, and man's trivial pursuits are just that...trivial.

Although I have not read Zarathustra all the way through (I lost it during the third chapter somewhere...lol), I feel that forging a link between Nietzsche and fascism (which I'm not accusing anyone here of doing, it's just often claimed) on some flimsy talk of a superbeing is ludicrous. Are we to blame Darwin as well, as Hitler was known to have believed in "survival of the fittest" very strongly?? Maybe the people who accuse Nietzsche of creating fascism should remember the fact that Nazism (and neo-Nazism) has deep roots in Christianity, a religion which rejects anyone who does not believe in Christ (Nietzsche's beliefs in God must be questioned, let alone his conviction in Christ!!).

FoH - you hit the nail on the head as to why you (and I) like Nietzsche so much. I would just like to add that he helps fuel my cynicism, something I'm proud of. I think that Nietzsche's contempt for common existence is something I had before where Germany was, let alone who Nietzsche was.

[Alejandro C]

There is a fantastic comparison called Marx, Nietzsche, and Modernity by Nancy S. Love that would clear up your questions.

[deadpool 52]

Also, Nietzsche was big on self discovery, and NOT reading books which he thought was a waste of time.

super in Latin mean over.
So Superman = Overman.

[Fabi]

the problem is just that 'super' in english (and also for example in german) sounds like 'perfect', super in a sense of 'as good as it gets' while it does not actually mean quite that. doesnt say how 'super'. get my point?

I dont know enough to say anything else bout the Übermensch, but i suppose i am still young enough to read all the millions of important books out there... ;)

[deadpool 52]

They are all pointless untill you actually use the information and action . . ;)

[Maaja]

I do admire Nietzsche. I can't agree with hi always but he does have good points. I would never call him a facists as I've heard some people do. There's something very attractive with his texts...