[Fasces]

Who didn't, prior to WWII?

[Potemkin]

Sure but he was a philosopher, a highly educated person. And he still put them down, some of the time.

And Plato and Aristotle both defended the institution of slavery, despite being highly educated philosophers. They were men of their time, just as Nietzsche was a man of his time.

[starman2003]

Who didn't, prior to WWII?

I don't think Marx did, or American philosophers like Dewey.

[Potemkin]

I don't think Marx did, or American philosophers like Dewey.

You haven't read Marx's personal letters to Engels, have you?

[starman2003]

I thought marx was from a jewish background himself. Anyway, anti-semitism never amounted to much in US politics. Washington was tolerant of or favorable to jews.

[Avatan]

Anyway, anti-semitism never amounted to much in US politics. Washington was tolerant of or favorable to jews.

Did you know that the first Jew in America was a man named Solomon Franco? He was a merchant who traveled to Boston in 1649. The Puritans who lived there agreed to pay him if he promised to leave on the next boat heading back to the Netherlands.

You're right though starman, the Jews integrated well into American society and Washington was, in fact, fairly tolerant of them. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee played a large role in generating relief funds for Europe during WWI, which took a lot of the financial burden off of the allied governments ($63 million in fact), and even before that the Jewish community were active philanthropists who were (for the most part) just fine with the process of being "Americanized".

As for Nietzsche, the fact that he severed family ties over the issue of antisemitism speaks volumes about his character.

[Preston Cole]

What's the issue with the Jews, anyway?

Yes, a lot of them occupied banking and managing positions in Weimar Germany, leading to the anti-patriotic stigma placed upon them. I won't say they're little angels (in my opinion, they're doing themselves a great disservice by running these annoying Holocaust awareness organizations like the Anti Defamation League), but like someone said around here, there have been a great many patriotic Jews, even Fascists, and harping on them is pointless.

If there's going to be a crackdown on Israeli interests in the US, it's not going to be out of anti-Semitism, but out of legitimate patriotism.

[starman2003]

If there's going to be a crackdown on Israeli interests in the US, it's not going to be out of anti-Semitism, but out of legitimate patriotism.

Right, I don't give a damn about the ethnic background of anybody. But backing Israel isn't in our best interest--FAR from it--and those responsible will have to be overthrown along with the whole rotten system that enabled them to sacrifice the national interest in the first place.

[Amanita]

You lot are obviously taking both Nietzsche and fascism at extreme face value. When it comes to fascism, people seem unable to distinguish between its principles and application. Application diluted many of its principles. Nothing new, of course. As with every ideology, movement and idea known to history, fascism was appropriated by people that least grasped its principles whereas the ones that would seem to have been more in tune with it (say D'Annunzio, Evola, Jünger, and plenty of other unknowns) retreated away to their individuality. The rise of Christianity, for instance, offers a similar picture. When the Roman masses started converting to Christianity for personal profit and social convenience, the "true" Christians, which had hitherto been an exclusively urban and populist phenomenon, retreated to the caves and deserts, giving rise to the earliest waves of eremetical monasticism.

Most of you have expectedly mentioned anti-semitism and distanced Nietzsche from fascism basely solely on that aspect. But anti-semitism was nothing more than a popular sentiment that had been for centuries surfacing in times and places of crises, general confusion and lawlessness (cf. the Black Death, the Crusades, the Reformation, the free Cossack Hetmanates, post-war Germany). Sometimes the monarchies exploited anti-semitism to their advantage or just couldn't have the populist wave contained (Spain, Russia) but more generally Jewish persecution happened wherever and whenever monarchic jurisdiction and the rule of law broke down). In other words, anti-semitism was an old popular European feeling and reaction, not something integral to fascism or any other system or ideology. Not even Italian fascism, one of the most illustrative applications of fascism, if there ever was one, had anything to do with anti-semitism before Nazi encroachment.

So this argument has two dimensions: [i] that the principles of fascism, forged from a very diverse range of discourse that can however be narrowed down to being anti-modernist and anti-bourgeois, and that many choose to ignore, do not feature any regard for anti-semitism one way or another;
[ii] that the historical, manifestational aspect of fascism, as practiced in Italy, was not even anti-semitic, a fact equally ignored by many.

[starman2003]

When the Roman masses started converting to Christianity for personal profit and social convenience..

From the time of Nero to the early fourth century, it was hardly profitable or convenient.

..the "true" Christians, which had hitherto been an exclusive urban and populist phenomenon, retreated to the caves and deserts...

Joseph of Egypt was already a monastic recluse in the late third century. Many christians btw fled into deserts to escape persecution.

Of course anti-semitism is not essential to fascism.

[Amanita]

You have it all wrong. What happened is precisely the opposite. Apart from the reason I mentioned earlier, Christians partook in monastic asceticism when physical persecution and martyrdom were no longer granted by the state. Of course, you view persecution and martyrdom negatively so you're automatically assuming the Christians viewed it that way as well and thus find it logical to attribute that reason for their retreat to the desert. That, however, is nowhere near a valid approach to history.

[telluro]

Nietzschean-inspired philosophy is what drove the West towards relativistic moral decline.... The philosophy of living your life for the pure and unadulterated purpose of enjoyment...

Precisely. Nietzsche is perhaps the most un-fascist philosopher who ever lived. If any single philosopher can be said to be responsible for fascism (especially in its German anti-semitic form), then it is surely Arthur Schopenhauer - Hitler carried a copy of The World As Will and Idea in his knapsack throughout his time in the trenches in WWI, and read it voraciously.

I disagree with both. The idea that Nietzsche's philosophy is for living your life for the pure and unadulterated purpose of enjoyment seems particularly ignorant. The problem with interpreting Nietzsche as with interpreting other philosophers and thinkers who were hailed by fascists is that they were never talking in terms of absolute human ethics. To interpret Nietzsche as an individualist, as advocating an ethic for all humans to live their lives to the full, to express and assert themselves strongly and freely, is to miss the basic point of his address, that is, he is only addressing the exceptional, albeit accidental, human type.

"Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke. Art thou one entitled to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude. Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free for what?"

Clearly a very anti-individualist and fascist strain.

In many ways, Nietzsche was anti-political in the sense that if he had to accept that liberal democracy was the way things were going, then he wanted at least some spheres (mainly art) which remain untouched by the politics of the masses.

Where he was political, he was certainly both anti-liberal and anti-socialist, so it is only natural that his discourse, both intrinsically and retrospectively intertwines with fascist thought. Obviously Nietzsche is not a nationalist, and not an identitarian, not a racialist, not a benevolent communitarian, not a conservative, not a traditionalist, etc... so if your definition of fascism intertwines strongly with any of these, you will naturally find Nietzsche abhorrent. However, fascism itself in its purer pre-power form was also none of these things (except perhaps in Spain where fascism was weakest and more an extreme form of traditionalist conservatism rather than anything else). Many fascists became fascists after being expurgated of their liberal, socialist values by Nietzsche.

"Toward new philosophers, there is no choice. Towards spirits strong and original enough to provide the stimuli for opposite evaluations. To teach man the future of man as dependant on his will, and to prepare great ventures of discipline and cultivation, putting an end to that gruesome dominion of nonsense and accident that has so far been called history!"

There is little doubt in my mind that if one were to build a political ideology/state guided by Nietzsche's writings, he would end up with an ideology/state that both liberals and socialists would agree is fascist. It would be a state very similar to Hitler's National Socialist state, run by revolutionary and enlightened "noble liars", not anti-Semitic, not nationalist, but certainly driven by conquest of the world and by mass manipulation geared up towards a higher and stronger type of human that would dominate the Earth not just spatially and but also temporally.

Some real-world Communists also had a Nietzschean-type ideology in mind when they thought of their socialism. Trotsky for example would hold that: "Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman." whereas of course, ideological socialism is not concerned with human types at all, but only with the material equality of the human masses which are metaphysically interchangeable. Unfortunately some fascists tend to take this latter view to heart as well, provided that the interchangeable masses are limited to their national or racial preferences. In this case, I'd say there are Communists, such as Trotsky in this particular instance, who are more Fascist than some who call themselves "fascist".



(To dwell somewhat on my own personal development, I still hold much of the above to be true, but presently hold that given human nature, only materialist-exploitative political systems will rule, only the accidental and the absurd can truly exist, and that Fascism/Communism or indeed any overarching utopic ideology is largely impossible. As an absurdist, I now only value aesthetics and self-creation, or I try to, at least. Intellectual wanking is always very tempting.)

[Potemkin]

Some real-world Communists also had a Nietzschean-type ideology in mind when they thought of their socialism. Trotsky for example would hold that: "Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman."

This is actually in accordance with orthodox Marxism-Leninism - even Stalin talked about the need to create the "new Soviet man" and noted approvingly that the cadres had been "steel-hardened in the furnaces of the Revolution and the class struggle". To create a higher, superior type of man through struggle is an idea which is just as characteristic of Communism as it is of fascism.

whereas of course, ideological socialism is not concerned with human types at all, but only with the material equality of the human masses which are metaphysically interchangeable.

This is incorrect. It is liberal democracy which posits that individuals are monadic, equal and interchangeable. This was proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." Communism rejects the idea that individuals are monadic or equal or interchangeable. The very concept of class struggle itself negates these fundamental assumptions of liberal democracy.

Unfortunately some fascists tend to take this latter view to heart as well, provided that the interchangeable masses are limited to their national or racial preferences. In this case, I'd say there are Communists, such as Trotsky in this particular instance, who are more Fascist than some who call themselves "fascist".

You are merely noting the ideological similarities between Communism and fascism (which are to be expected, given the fact that both Communism and fascism reject many of the fundamental postulates of liberal democracy concerning human nature and human fate), without seeming to be aware of the fact that such similarities are not accidental and are not due to the personal quirks of some individual Communists.

[telluro]

Where in Communist theory can one find the notion of individual human types? Isn't the main focus mostly, almost solely, on removing exploitative arrangements of society, on removing hierarchy, rather than as both Nietzsche and Fascism would, re-arrange and authenticate hierarchy? I know you believe Stalinism to have been a pure expression of Communism. I say it was at least affected with Fascism.

[Potemkin]

Where in Communist theory can one find the notion of individual human types? Isn't the main focus mostly, almost solely, on removing exploitative arrangements of society, on removing hierarchy, rather than as both Nietzsche and Fascism would, re-arrange and authenticate hierarchy?

You need to read Engels' essay On Authority. Neither Marx nor Engels suggested that there would be no hierarchy and no authority in a socialist society. Rather, as you claim both Nietzsche and the Fascists did, they wished to re-arrange and authenticate hierarchy rather than remove it entirely, which they regarded as impossible and (if possible) undesirable. Communists are not anarchists.

I know you believe Stalinism to have been a pure expression of Communism. I say it was at least affected with Fascism.

Stalinism was not a 'pure' expression of anything - it emerged and developed through a particular historical process at a particular time and in a particular place. It necessarily bore the imprint of that time and place. And I would dispute that it was affected by Fascism, in the sense you imply that it was influenced by Fascist ideas and values. The similarities between Stalinism and Fascism are almost entirely due to the fact that they both emerged out of the same origin - late 19th century central Europe. They both belong to the set of ideologies and political movements of that time which rejected bourgeois liberalism, and which sought to fundamentally remodel the material and social world through action.

[telluro]

You need to read Engels' essay On Authority. Neither Marx nor Engels suggested that there would be no hierarchy and no authority in a socialist society. Rather, as you claim both Nietzsche and the Fascists did, they wished to re-arrange and authenticate hierarchy rather than remove it entirely, which they regarded as impossible and (if possible) undesirable. Communists are not anarchists.

Yes, they are. Engels' article merely disputes the anti-authoritarians' obsession and declares it harmful to the movement since authority has to be used as a means to ultimately remove authority.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society."

Stalinism was not a 'pure' expression of anything - it emerged and developed through a particular historical process at a particular time and in a particular place. It necessarily bore the imprint of that time and place. And I would dispute that it was affected by Fascism, in the sense you imply that it was influenced by Fascist ideas and values. The similarities between Stalinism and Fascism are almost entirely due to the fact that they both emerged out of the same origin - late 19th century central Europe. They both belong to the set of ideologies and political movements of that time which rejected bourgeois liberalism, and which sought to fundamentally remodel the material and social world through action.

I would still say that the basic metaphysic of Communism and Liberalism are the same - both are for a kind of mass individualism, and I still cannot think of anything in theoretical Communism in which a notion of human types is even thought of, let alone drawn out as an important element of Communism.

[Potemkin]

Yes, they are. Engels' article merely disputes the anti-authoritarians' obsession and declares it harmful to the movement since authority has to be used as a means to ultimately remove authority.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society."

This does not imply the end of authority or hierarchy - it merely means that such authority will no longer have a political character (in the sense of being a compromise between conflicting class interests). The end of class struggle means the end of politics as it is currently understood and its replacement with a purely technocratic administration of society. As Engels points out, modern production methods require collective endeavour which must be organised.

I would still say that the basic metaphysic of Communism and Liberalism are the same - both are for a kind of mass individualism, and I still cannot think of anything in theoretical Communism in which a notion of human types is even thought of, let alone drawn out as an important element of Communism.

Communism does have a notion of human 'types' - the differing classes into which pre-Communist society is divided. A 'human type' is a collective concept, by definition. Without such collective concepts, all you can say is that 'each individual is unique', and leave it at that.

[starman2003]

That, however, is nowhere near a valid approach to history.

Try reading Christianity the first Three Thousand Years. Many christians did flee to avoid persecution (or bribed roman officials to avoid pagan sacrifice), monasticism--at least in the case of Joseph--did begin prior to the end of persecution. It is true that some 5th century nutcases became, for example, pillar dwellers when it was no longer possible to "prove themselves" by enduring persecution. But not the vast bulk of them.

[telluro]

Communism does have a notion of human 'types' - the differing classes into which pre-Communist society is divided. A 'human type' is a collective concept, by definition. Without such collective concepts, all you can say is that 'each individual is unique', and leave it at that.

If you are equating the socio-economic classes with types, then by the same logic, Communism attempts to destroy those types,

[Potemkin]

If you are equating the socio-economic classes with types, then by the same logic, Communism attempts to destroy those types,

Indeed. However, the end of class distinctions between people will do nothing to erase other distinctions between people - some people will still be stronger than others, some will still be smarter than others, and so on. The point is that, according to Marxists, the only 'typology' which has any political significance is that which results from the division of capitalist society into antagonistic classes. Types will still exist, but they will have no political significance.