• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On The Ideal of Nietzsce (A Polemic) Part 2

It is here we get our definition of the ‘strong’ man; he is not necessarily the man who is the strongest physically, the best mentally, or the most enduring emotionally. He is the man with the power. He has control over language itself, and thus the ability to define himself as ‘good’. But it is not only language he has power over, he has power over other people, and power in such magnitude that he is allowed to define the actions of those below him, and the people below him, as ‘bad’. This is an exercise in control; it creates a self-perpetuating loop of power and control, where the ‘good’ will always be the ones in control, never to be usurped by those who consider themselves, and call themselves, the ‘bad’.
And so, the picture of society at this point is one of, “a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man…”, one with a “…pathos of distance which grows out of the ingrained difference between strata…”. Society at this point is one in which ‘strong’ men lead ‘weak’ men, and there is no question about who belongs to which strata. No, or barely any, effort is made to “yield to humanitarian illusions” in this society, and no desire to be ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ exists. It is a society that revolves around power, and power relationships. Those with power rule; those without do not and do not even pretend to assert their power.
In the words of Marx, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Nietzsche claims that this ‘class struggle’ is a good thing, that “society must not exist for societies sake but only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to… a higher state of being”. Nietzsche never used the words ‘class struggle’, of course; that phrase has been associated with humanitarianism by Marx, by a belief in equality by Marx, and for Nietzsche to use the phrase ‘class struggle’ would be counter to all of his ideas about strength and worth.
However, there are clear parallels between Nietzsche’s idea of the ‘strong’ and Marx’s idea of the bourgeoisie. Both are caught in a self-perpetuating loop of power, based upon the exploitation of those underneath them. Nietzsche views this power loop as good, as it allows the ‘strong’ to rise to the top like one were separating curd from whey; Marx views this power loop as bad as it perpetuates the alienation of the proletariat. Both Nietzsche’s ‘strong’ and Marx’s bourgeoisie are using those beneath them to achieve a ‘higher state of being’, or at least what they themselves consider to be a higher state of being. Nietzsche considers this the natural way of things, the way that humanity was meant to be, but Marx views this as a clear example of humanity ignoring its own humanity.
In other words, Nietzsche and Marx are talking about the same thing, or very nearly the same thing. The differences between Nietzsche’s dialectic of ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’ and Marx’s dialectic of ‘bourgeoisie’ vs. ‘proletariat’ are so insignificant that it is almost not worth mentioning them. Because these parallels are so obvious, and because Nietzsche differs from Marx not on a fundamental level but on an ideological level, it is obvious that, while Nietzsche may not specifically say the phrase ‘class struggle’, this sort of struggle is exactly what he was talking about.
Our new vision of society based upon this ‘master morality’ consists of two ‘classes’; the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’, the ‘bourgeoisie’ and the ‘proletariat’. The ingrained pathos of distance, the feeling of separation that runs deep in the veins of all beings living in this society, drives the powerful, the rulers, the ‘strong’, to seek more and more power. This society is one based solely, and revolving singly around, exploitation. “ ‘Exploitation’ does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society… it is a consequence of the will to power…”. This, too, is a very Marxist idea. Though this is a statement in direct disagreement with Marx, it is obviously a recognition of the same sort of history that Marx was talking about when he proclaimed the corruption of Capitalism.
But is Nietzsche’s vision of society beneficial? Can we say that this system is the best system? Is it at all good for humanity that our society of exploitation exists? Will this create a better humanity? Or is there another alternative? A better alternative? What all of these questions are asking is, in essence; who was right? Was Marx right when he decried exploitation as the cause of human alienation? Or was Nietzsche right when he lauded exploitation as the method for propagating and bettering the ‘strong’?
As quoted above, Nietzsche firmly believes that “Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent have introduced to it”. Nietzsche, when talking about this culture of exploitation, this pathos of distance, constantly reminds us how much like animals humans were in this time, how stupid humans were. Apparently, Nietzsche’s idea of ‘interesting’ is when the norm is subverted, even when the norm is the ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’, the ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’, dialectic.
The impotent are, as Nietzsche states, the ones who started in this power-society on the side of the ‘weak’, on the side of the ‘bad’. These impotents represented the pinnacle of everything that went counter to that which we consider ‘good’. They were those who were envious of the power the ‘strong’ rightly held, they were those who were angry at their own lack of ‘goodness’, they were those who were repressed by the ‘strong’, exploited by the ‘strong’, oppressed by the ‘strong’, and eventually they were those who committed the largest act of revenge on the ‘strong’. This is exactly the reason that Nietzsche proclaims that “the priests are the most evil enemies”. He claims that it was out of this lack of power, out of the very ‘weakness’ of the ‘weak’, the very ‘badness’ of the ‘bad’, the very thing that kept the priests out of power in the first place; it was out of these that the very ability to usurp the ‘strong’ came to be. “It is because of their impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions…”.
Nietzsche believes that anything that comes out of the mouth of a ‘bad’ man must be ‘bad’ in and of itself; if it were ‘good’, then it would not have come out of the mouth of a ‘bad’ man. He then explains, that the only way that the ‘bad’ man was to be able to fulfill the desires begotten by his hatred of uncanny proportions, was if he completely redefined the whole system of morality from the ground up. Nietzsche finds this ‘slave morality’ repulsive, disgusting, and grotesque. He believes firmly that the morality of the master is the natural morality, and the morality of the slave is nothing but lies. And yet, he recognizes the power inherent in any man who is able to commit, “an act of the most spiritual revenge” on the whole of the ‘strong’. This act of revenge is so powerful, so awe-inspiring, so driven, and so dangerous that the priests, the impotent, those without power, are able to completely destroy the very foundation upon which the whole of society was founded.
Top Bottom