Marx and Nietzsche
Last class we went over some of Marx's critiques of capitalism. Marx of course advocated for socialism, but what exactly would socialism be like? Marx was vague on what socialism would be like but he did explain these ideas to some extent in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (1875, although not published until 1891). The Gotha Programme was a political platform of the German Social Democratic Worker's Party of Germany which Marx and his writing partner Engels worked in association with. As the title suggests Marx was critical of many aspects of this platform. This party eventually became the Social Democratic Party of Germany and is one of the major political parties in Germany even today. Marx's main argument was against what he saw as the reformist approach to socialism advocated by the party as opposed to the revolutionary approach he advocated. The debate between reform and revolution is still a major issue that separates many socialist movements today.
Marx believed that socialism would entail a classless society where everyone's work would be valued, and where people would share the resources of society, in his famous phrase, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!":
Marx believed that socialism would entail a classless society where everyone's work would be valued, and where people would share the resources of society, in his famous phrase, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!":
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
He also outlines what will happen to the state in a socialist society. If socialism is to be a classless society, it will also be stateless, since there will no longer be a need to use the coercive power of the state. In this regard, it is quite clear that Marx regards the state solely as an organization or an instrument to maintain the power of the ruling class which in his era would of course be the bourgeoisie. However, Marx argues that the transition to socialism would not be possible without the proletariat using the power of the state to prevent the bourgeoisie from re-taking power once they have been removed, he refers to this as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a stage that is supposed to temporary as the transition to socialism is made:
In late nineteenth century Russia, socialism was one radical movement that competed with anarchism also known as nihilism in Russia.
Friedrich Nietzsche is associated with the philosophical idea of nihilism. A nihilist referred to a revolutionary and is usually attributed to the Russian writer Ivan Turgenev in the novel Fathers and Sons (1862). The nihilist movement in Russia in contrast to moderate liberals and conservatives openly pushed for the overthrow of the czar (the Russian emperor) and the destruction of traditional Russian society. This idea of a complete break with the past and the desire to create new values and institutions has been a signature feature of nihilism since then.
Nietzsche however was very conservative in his politics, and was opposed to both socialism and anarchism.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche declared that "God is dead" in aphorism 125 of The Gay Science. Christianity in effect destroys itself. God is commonly identified as the source of truth and knowledge and the "bringer of light." But it is the same relentless pursuit of the truth that in the modern scientific age undermines the foundations of religion. In his view, these moral beliefs were completely incompatible with our "life-affirming" vital instincts, and to that extent they were nihilistic in that were against "life." Nietzsche was searching for a "cure" for nihilism. In contrast the phrase "Amor fati" a Latin phrase that literally means, "love of ones' fate," but specifically in this context, one who does not shut themselves off from life.
Besides the "denial of life" which he sees inseparable from most traditional moral systems (Christianity is a model) he believes that the priests who manage and oversee morality and the institutions which support them secretly have the same desires for power and glory that they outwardly condemn in the less "good" warrior classes, as sociologists C. Wright Mills and Hans Gerth said: "Nietzsche modified Matthew's statement, 'He who humbles himself shall be raised,' into 'He who humbles himself wants to be raised.' Thus he ascribed volitions to the speaker which lay beneath the content of his ideas. 'I did that,' says my memory, 'I could not have done that,' says my pride and remains inexorable. Eventually the memory yields" (Gerth and Mills, 1944, pp. 61-62). It is Nietzsche's insight into the deepest desires which drive humanity and his biting social criticism and ability to point out hypocrisy that helped build his reputation as a writer:
Humanity itself still suffers from the aftereffects of these priestly cure naïvétes! Think, for example, of certain dietary forms (avoidance of meat), of fasting, of sexual abstinence, of the flight “into the wilderness”…in addition, the whole anti-sensual methaphysics of priests, which makes lazy and overrefined, their self-hypnosis after the manner of the fakir and Brahmin–brahma used as glass pendant and idée fixe–and the final, only too understandable general satiety along with its radical cure, nothingness (or God–the longing for a unio mystica with God is the longing of the Buddhist for nothingness, Nirvana–and nothing more!) With priests everything simply becomes more dangerous, not only curatives and healing arts, but also arrogance, revenge, acuity, excess, love, lust to rule, virtue, disease;–though with some fairness one could also add that it was on the soil of this essentially dangerous form of human existence, the priestly form that man first became an interesting animal, that only here did the human soul acquire depth in a higher sense and become evil–and these are, after all, the two basic forms of the previous superiority of man over other creatures!...(Nietzsche 1998 pp. 15-16).
He contrasts the "priests" with the "warriors" especially the Romans or the Greeks, which also reinforces the idea of "amor fati." Note again the recurring theme in Nietzsche's writing about the conflict between our 'natural' and 'human' or moral qualities. The other major themes of this passage is the historical recognition that 'culture' and 'civilization' are built on violence and oppression. So then the Greeks, who have the reputation of the being the most civilized and advanced of ancient people had an unmistakable power lust and even cruelty which is inseparable from their other cultural achievements. In fact, Nietzsche suggests that these achievements would be impossible without the cruelty and violence:
When one speaks of humanity, the idea is fundamental that this is something which separates and distinguishes man from nature. In reality, however, there is no such separation: “natural” qualities and those called truly “human” are inseparably grown together. Man, in his highest and noblest capacities, is wholly nature and embodies its uncanny dual character. Those of his abilities which are terrifying and considered inhuman may even be the fertile soil out of which alone all humanity can grow in impulse, deed, and work.Thus the Greeks, the most humane men of ancient times, have a trait of cruelty, a tigerish lust to annihilate—a trait that is also very distinct in that grotesquely enlarged mirror image of the Hellenes, in Alexander the Great but that really must strike fear into our hearts throughout their whole history and mythology, if we approach them with the flabby concept of modern “humanity.” With the same feeling we may also observe the mutual laceration, bloody and insatiable, of two Greek parties, for example, in the Corcyrean revolution. When the victor in afight among the cities executes the entire male citizenry in accordance with the laws of war, and sells all the women and children into slavery, we see in the sanction of such a law that the Greeks considered it an earnest necessity to let their hatred flow forth fully; in such moments crowded and swollen feeling relieved itself: the tiger leaped out, voluptuous cruelty in his terrible eyes. Why must the Greek sculptor give form again and again to war and combat in innumerable repetitions: distended human bodies, their sinews tense with hatred or with the arrogance of triumph; writhing bodies, wounded; dying bodies, expiring? Why did the whole Greek world exult over the combat scenes of the Illiad? I fear that we do not understand these in a sufficiently “Greek” manner; indeed, that we should shudder if we were ever to understand them “in Greek” (Nietzsche, 1976 pp. 22-23).
Laocoön and His Sons, The Vatican
We will discuss Nietzsche more next week. For the assignment choose a reading by Nietzsche or Marx.
He also outlines what will happen to the state in a socialist society. If socialism is to be a classless society, it will also be stateless, since there will no longer be a need to use the coercive power of the state. In this regard, it is quite clear that Marx regards the state solely as an organization or an instrument to maintain the power of the ruling class which in his era would of course be the bourgeoisie. However, Marx argues that the transition to socialism would not be possible without the proletariat using the power of the state to prevent the bourgeoisie from re-taking power once they have been removed, he refers to this as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a stage that is supposed to temporary as the transition to socialism is made:
The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problemby a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.However, the experiences of communist states like the Soviet Union seems to suggest this is not a temporary stage but becomes permanent. This is assuming the proletariat really took power after the Russian Revolution.
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
In late nineteenth century Russia, socialism was one radical movement that competed with anarchism also known as nihilism in Russia.
Friedrich Nietzsche is associated with the philosophical idea of nihilism. A nihilist referred to a revolutionary and is usually attributed to the Russian writer Ivan Turgenev in the novel Fathers and Sons (1862). The nihilist movement in Russia in contrast to moderate liberals and conservatives openly pushed for the overthrow of the czar (the Russian emperor) and the destruction of traditional Russian society. This idea of a complete break with the past and the desire to create new values and institutions has been a signature feature of nihilism since then.
Nietzsche however was very conservative in his politics, and was opposed to both socialism and anarchism.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche declared that "God is dead" in aphorism 125 of The Gay Science. Christianity in effect destroys itself. God is commonly identified as the source of truth and knowledge and the "bringer of light." But it is the same relentless pursuit of the truth that in the modern scientific age undermines the foundations of religion. In his view, these moral beliefs were completely incompatible with our "life-affirming" vital instincts, and to that extent they were nihilistic in that were against "life." Nietzsche was searching for a "cure" for nihilism. In contrast the phrase "Amor fati" a Latin phrase that literally means, "love of ones' fate," but specifically in this context, one who does not shut themselves off from life.
Besides the "denial of life" which he sees inseparable from most traditional moral systems (Christianity is a model) he believes that the priests who manage and oversee morality and the institutions which support them secretly have the same desires for power and glory that they outwardly condemn in the less "good" warrior classes, as sociologists C. Wright Mills and Hans Gerth said: "Nietzsche modified Matthew's statement, 'He who humbles himself shall be raised,' into 'He who humbles himself wants to be raised.' Thus he ascribed volitions to the speaker which lay beneath the content of his ideas. 'I did that,' says my memory, 'I could not have done that,' says my pride and remains inexorable. Eventually the memory yields" (Gerth and Mills, 1944, pp. 61-62). It is Nietzsche's insight into the deepest desires which drive humanity and his biting social criticism and ability to point out hypocrisy that helped build his reputation as a writer:
Humanity itself still suffers from the aftereffects of these priestly cure naïvétes! Think, for example, of certain dietary forms (avoidance of meat), of fasting, of sexual abstinence, of the flight “into the wilderness”…in addition, the whole anti-sensual methaphysics of priests, which makes lazy and overrefined, their self-hypnosis after the manner of the fakir and Brahmin–brahma used as glass pendant and idée fixe–and the final, only too understandable general satiety along with its radical cure, nothingness (or God–the longing for a unio mystica with God is the longing of the Buddhist for nothingness, Nirvana–and nothing more!) With priests everything simply becomes more dangerous, not only curatives and healing arts, but also arrogance, revenge, acuity, excess, love, lust to rule, virtue, disease;–though with some fairness one could also add that it was on the soil of this essentially dangerous form of human existence, the priestly form that man first became an interesting animal, that only here did the human soul acquire depth in a higher sense and become evil–and these are, after all, the two basic forms of the previous superiority of man over other creatures!...(Nietzsche 1998 pp. 15-16).
He contrasts the "priests" with the "warriors" especially the Romans or the Greeks, which also reinforces the idea of "amor fati." Note again the recurring theme in Nietzsche's writing about the conflict between our 'natural' and 'human' or moral qualities. The other major themes of this passage is the historical recognition that 'culture' and 'civilization' are built on violence and oppression. So then the Greeks, who have the reputation of the being the most civilized and advanced of ancient people had an unmistakable power lust and even cruelty which is inseparable from their other cultural achievements. In fact, Nietzsche suggests that these achievements would be impossible without the cruelty and violence:
When one speaks of humanity, the idea is fundamental that this is something which separates and distinguishes man from nature. In reality, however, there is no such separation: “natural” qualities and those called truly “human” are inseparably grown together. Man, in his highest and noblest capacities, is wholly nature and embodies its uncanny dual character. Those of his abilities which are terrifying and considered inhuman may even be the fertile soil out of which alone all humanity can grow in impulse, deed, and work.Thus the Greeks, the most humane men of ancient times, have a trait of cruelty, a tigerish lust to annihilate—a trait that is also very distinct in that grotesquely enlarged mirror image of the Hellenes, in Alexander the Great but that really must strike fear into our hearts throughout their whole history and mythology, if we approach them with the flabby concept of modern “humanity.” With the same feeling we may also observe the mutual laceration, bloody and insatiable, of two Greek parties, for example, in the Corcyrean revolution. When the victor in afight among the cities executes the entire male citizenry in accordance with the laws of war, and sells all the women and children into slavery, we see in the sanction of such a law that the Greeks considered it an earnest necessity to let their hatred flow forth fully; in such moments crowded and swollen feeling relieved itself: the tiger leaped out, voluptuous cruelty in his terrible eyes. Why must the Greek sculptor give form again and again to war and combat in innumerable repetitions: distended human bodies, their sinews tense with hatred or with the arrogance of triumph; writhing bodies, wounded; dying bodies, expiring? Why did the whole Greek world exult over the combat scenes of the Illiad? I fear that we do not understand these in a sufficiently “Greek” manner; indeed, that we should shudder if we were ever to understand them “in Greek” (Nietzsche, 1976 pp. 22-23).
Laocoön and His Sons, The Vatican
We will discuss Nietzsche more next week. For the assignment choose a reading by Nietzsche or Marx.
I struggled with both these readings, but after reading this it help me understand a little more of what was happening.
ReplyDelete