I've always loved this aphorism, taken from
Twilight of the Idols.
Quote:
[FONT=Times New Roman]Christian and anarchist.— When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend [/FONT]why[FONT=Times New Roman] he actually suffers—what it is that he is poor in: life ... A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way ... Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight intoxication of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too": on such logic are revolutions made.— Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself—the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter—really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering—in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian—to repeat it once more—he finds them in himself ... The Christian and the anarchist are both décadents.— But when the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches the "world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge—the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off ... The "beyond"—why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world? ...[/FONT]
For Nietzsche the symptom of weakness and decadence is the revolutionary spirit because it initial stimulus is that of being reactionary- it says "no" to what is outside itself, what threatens itself, while the strong "affirming" spirit, as Nietzsche calls it, does not resent but invites, challenges, wants to overthrown out of an instinct to dominate rather than to be compensated for one's own failure.
Now it is no argument that capitalism is an expression of cultural decadence as well, of squandering and excess to the point of gluttony. That much is certain. But this does not
justify the origins of the revolutionary spirit- the revolutionary does not
first conceive of the need to abolish capitalism for such reasons. He does so because he feels cheated. And why does he feel cheated? Because he is powerless and poor,
not because capitalism should not be. Honestly, ask yourself "
what should be"? Nothing "should" be, and if one conceives of what he thinks "should" be, if he is a revolutionary, his stimulus is reactionary rather than affirmative.
Politics will always only be the expression of strong wills conspiring together for power. They are never justified on moral grounds, on teleological grounds, or epistemological grounds. One must realize that politics do not become because they are "rational".
What does "rational" mean? What is "the truth" about anything. Is such a thing possible? Certainly not. There is only
perspective, no "facts".
Against positivism, that last epistemological stage where the intellect is exhausted- "there is nothing but change", "where is pure reason", "the world is only an appearance", ad nauseam.
Then one reasons "the senses lie.....let's trust science." But then isn't science only the testimony of the senses? A scientific truth is true only in so far as the senses interpret the world. Now we accept what is "convenient", not what might be "true".
And we talk about "truth" and use our signs and symbols to represent it in language and mathematics....but again we have only posited a "subject" as a real, enduring representative of reality. We are psychologistic- the degree to which we call something "true" is the degree to which our sense have the capacity to
be in error. Man is only the sum of his errors. There is no "subject". We have invented this concept, a necessary illusory thing, so that we can make the world calculable. Without this will to control and dominate the world...there would be no need need for such convenient lies.
Quote:
[FONT=Times New Roman]Today we possess science precisely to the extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses—to the extent to which we sharpen them further, arm them, and have learned to think them through. The rest is miscarriage and not-yet-science: in other words, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology. Or formal science, a doctrine of signs: such as logic and that applied logic which is called mathematics. In them reality is not encountered at all, not even as a problem; no more than the question of the value of such a sign-convention as logic.- Nietzsche[/FONT]
Where now does the revolutionary stand? Do you not realize that there are no moral or rational grounds on which politics are founded?
I don't want to
stop a revolution....I only want the revolutionaries conscience to bite him once and for all. Nobody and nothing
owes you anything.
Why are you a revolutionary? Do you have the courage to look behind yourself to answer this question?