Fascist or Republican?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
where do you get this from? Martin Heidegger was the premiere Nietzsche scholar and a philosophy himself... he philosophied the metaphysics that he believed were a result of Nietzsche. Heidegger, of course, was a supporter of Fascism.

Heidegger is not the sole interpreter of Nietzsche-his ideas are his own.

this sums it all up. The will to power is a biological and physical fact. Competition is the way of the universe. the chapter "The strong man is mightiest alone" that i quoted from Hitler's Mein Kampf shows fascism's rise from Nietzscheanism...

Ah, no. Nietzsche did not peddle is pseudo-biological nonsense that marked the National Socialist movement. You also utterly ignore Nietzsche's ideal of man as creator vs. the Nazi and general fascist notion that the nation follows one single leader without thinking. Specially after he condemns the state.

Hitler describes how men become disillusioned with religion and the strong among them create new values on new tablets... they are new creators leading a movement to replace the old... these men compete among each other in order for the strongest man, the strongest view, to be dominant. How is Hitler's description of history and of fascism any different than Nietzsche?

Hitler may use Nietzsche's language, but that in no way means he got it- otherwise he would have seen Nietzsche's vehement attacks on anti-semitism and against Germanic influences which he saw as weak. And fascism came AFTER Nietzsche, so Nietzsche says nothing in particular about facism.

What are you two trying to argue? that Nietzsche favoured equality? I'm trying to understand... if so, that is very much not true... the chapter entitled "the tarantula" in Zarathustra addresses this and Nietzsche addressed it in nearly all of his works.

Certainly Nietzsche does not favor equality, but he is also against Mass Politics, and fascism is a Mass political movement. Totalitarianism by a state is the impossition of values on all men, even the superior ones, by scared underlings. Note how he sees rampant anti-semitism as a sign of weakness, and for someone to peddle a mass political movement based on that is a grand testament to their slavish mindset.


yeah but he makes it quite clear that there will always be a massive rabble that is too inferior to be the overman... these will be the chandalas that the Christians pander to... strong of espirit but weak. their sheer numbers will tend to crush the uncommon men.

Do you think Nietzsche believed that all common men could become uncommon men? is that what you're arguing?

maybe we need to get some foundation here... is moral perspectivism necessarily egoistic? can we agree on that? If an individual himself is the fashioner of his reality (the existentialist/perspectivist viewpoint which Nietzsche postulated) can he be anything but egoistic? he only knows himself and he operates under the biological fact of will to power, seeking with every part of his being to impose his will upon the reality that he creates. Can we agree on that?

For the most part, yes.

if so, Nietzsche can not possibly be a libertarian philospher... where do you see equal rights and liberty in Nietzsche? Hitler, in Mein Kampf, seems to have extended the will to power and moral perspectivism to it's logical conclusion... history becomes a competition between millions of individuals, all seeking to impose their will upon others.

Sorry, that is NOT the logical conlusion whatsoever. That is where you are totally wrong. Because Hitler postulates a struggle between Nations, not individuals. Nietzschaen ideals taken to an extreme resemble something Ayn Rand said than anything Hitler says.

Unfortunately, Nietzsche felt, the masses had too much espirit and too many numbers. they could flood over the few uncommon men and impose their own will upon society... a will of a slavish society... a will of an equal society... equal rights and liberty were slavish ideals to make the uncouth masses feel like the equals to the uncommon men.

And what does a totalitarian fascist system do but just that?

Nietzsche wanted these uncommon men to surpasses the masses, despite their numbers and espirit. He respected the rabble for managing to create new values (good and evil, etc.) and impose them so sucessfully by castrating the uncommon men but he hoped his ideas, along with the ideas of the times which he felt were already making God irrelevant and disproving equality, would give new strength to the uncommon men so that they may impose their will upon a society with it's precious chandala values of equality and liberty being made obselete.

HItler does not at all fit this notion, for his is simply a very successful slave who came to lead slaves-

what Asian religion? Nietzsche liked the relegation of the chandalas to an inferior status, exhibited in Hinduism... Buddhism has no after-life to speak of... and anyway, Nietzsche seemed to greatly prefer Buddhism over Christianity... I quote from The AntiChrist...

In the first sentence he calls Buddhism another nihilist religion like Christianity.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
not to sound... what's the word? but this thread was about me

there's a number of crucial differences between fascism and american conservatism. both are socially conservative and at least marginally free market capitalist but beyond that...

fascism is irreligious (actually being existentialist), is not opposed to social programs, supports Keynesian fiscal policy, supports corporatist capitalism, supports a strong gov't especially with respect to security and defence, is nationalistic, and has an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy.

as we know, the GOP has at times been somewhat supportive of the above (Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind) but mostly not.

what option do i have? will the GOP represent me more fully, as some people claim or am i stuck with picking the closest option availible (the GOP)?

There is no fascist option in the US. A Fascist in America wouldn't vote, or would have to write in someone. The Fascist parties in America are more concerned with the mystical-racial aspects than the socio-economic aspects of Fascism. If you're really a fascist then you couldn't in good conscience support either the Dems or the GOP.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Fascism is not socially conservative: its socially disruptive.

But the fact Nietzshce was anti-nationalist makes him anti-fascist.

Fascism is a political ideology that at its base assumes that the most important association people make is to their culture and the nation it creates. This puts it in conflict with communism, that assumes ones job title is the most important association-hence the notion of class- worker vs capitalist and so forth. Just as Marx has proleteriat vs. bourgeouis, fascists have X nation vs. any others. Fascists hate communism because for them it destroys national unity (by pinning the proleteriat members of the nation from the bourgeouis members) and undemrines the common culture that makes the nation the nation.

The state, as he embodiment of the nation, is also a crucial piece of fascist ideals. One body is necessary to unite the nation and give it cohesion and purpose- and that body is the State.

Nietzsche was anti-State and anti-Nation. You can;t be anti-State and anti-Nation and be a fascist.

Good summary Gepap.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Fascism is by far the greatest slave morality system. Social conservatism is not far behind.

I'd put Stalinist Communism on the exact same footing as Fascism in this regard.

[OzzyKP]

Hitler may use Nietzsche's language, but that in no way means he got it- otherwise he would have seen Nietzsche's vehement attacks on anti-semitism and against Germanic influences which he saw as weak. And fascism came AFTER Nietzsche, so Nietzsche says nothing in particular about facism.

Hitler says the same thing about the german people. He thought they were weak too, which is why he came along to fix things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Hitler says the same thing about the german people. He thought they were weak too, which is why he came along to fix things.

Hitler said the German people were being defiled by lower elements that had to be removed- but Hitler did not question the whole notion of a German identity or German Culture, like Wagner.

You and Speer make the mistake of thinking that Nietzsche would simply view a remorseless conqueror as some overman worthy of praise. But the slave mentality is not the same as saying someone is physically weak- one could hold great temporal power through fear and remain in the slave mentality- one could be sitting alone in a mountain meditating some action and be an overman.

[Az]

Even great men can say some dumb things.

OK, good we cleared that one up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfortunately, Nietzsche felt, the masses had too much espirit and too many numbers. they could flood over the few uncommon men and impose their own will upon society... a will of a slavish society... a will of an equal society... equal rights and liberty were slavish ideals to make the uncouth masses feel like the equals to the uncommon men.

Thanks Speer for in one paragraph proving mine and GePap's argument. Fascism does NOT argue that there is inherant inequality among people within a nation. Fascists argue that there is inequality among nations. All Germans are equal, all Italians are equal, etc. The problem is the other nations who are weakening the pure ethnicity.

Hitler never considered himself to be better than other pure Germans. Mussolini never considered himself to be better than pure Italians. They were just those who were opening the eyes of the pure nationals over their destiny.

Your paragraph quoted above describes Fascism to a tee In Fascism, the masses of a single ethnicity could impose their will over the uncommon. Creativity was stifiled if it did not fit what the German people should be about. Sure it was run by one person, but that was so there would not be dissention among the Germans or Italians based on simple party politics, because all Germans were equal, all Italians were equal.

[Al B. Sure!]

Heidegger is not the sole interpreter of Nietzsche-his ideas are his own.

true but he was still heavily influenced by Nietzsche. If Nietzsche was so opposed to proto-fascism, as you claim, how would his philosophical successor by a devout national socialist?

and it wasn't just Heidegger... Dadaist, expressionist, and futurist artists like Salvador Dali, Primo Conti, etc. who are often interpreted as the visual artistic sucessors to Nietzsche, with their emphasis on a devaluation of values, individualism, manly heroism, etc., were all fascists.

if Nietzsche wasn't at least neutral to fascism, why did all his intellectual and artistic successors embrace it?

Nietzsche did not peddle is pseudo-biological nonsense that marked the National Socialist movement.

the will to power is a biological fact. Nietzsche said every organism (and perhaps even non-living forces) sought to impose their will upon the universe.

Hitler may use Nietzsche's language, but that in no way means he got it- otherwise he would have seen Nietzsche's vehement attacks on anti-semitism and against Germanic influences which he saw as weak.

only the national socialists were anti-semitic. the majority of fascist states were not so this is a bit of an irrelevancy. fascism is not necessarily anti-semitic.

and Nietzsche's beef with Germany was similiar to Hitler's. Both didn't care much for modern Germany yet both cherished the pagan barbarism of ancient Germany. Both despised the Germany of Kant, Goethe, and Marx yet both loved the Germany of the Nibelungenlied.

HItler does not at all fit this notion, for his is simply a very successful slave who came to lead slaves-

a very successful slave who came to lead slaves by paraphrasing Nietzsche in his manifesto of Mein Kampf? Hitler said clearly that history was made up of competing movements led by competing uncommon men. so no one would make a mistake that he wasn't referencing Nietzsche, Hitler even mentions the reason of a new, fascist movement... a disillusionment with religion necessitating a need for a revaluation of values.

your own interpretation of fascism is irrelevant. read the words of its proponents.

In the first sentence he calls Buddhism another nihilist religion like Christianity.

and yet he goes on to say only positive things about Buddhism. did you even read it? His attitude seems to be that Buddhism may be a nihilist religion but it is a positivistic one and therefore, is the best there is. Its problem is that it assumes a certain high level of peace and civilization.

Nietzsche says that though the Buddhist concept of respecting and ignoring (transcending) suffering is far better than the Christian attitude of embracing suffering for a heavenly reward, it still does not match the barbarian attitude of preventing suffering. Taking suffering on the chin because that is all you can do is fine (far better than turning the other cheek to have heaven) but it is better to prevent it and struggle against it (as Nietzsche would favor)

[Imran Siddiqui]

if Nietzsche wasn't at least neutral to fascism, why did all his intellectual and artistic successors embrace it?

What bollocks! All existentialists, Post-structuralists, and Postmodernists were not Facists. Sartre was involved in the French resistance, Derrida wasn't really involved in any political parties but was more with the Socialists in France, Foucoult was anti-Communist (after he joined the Communists in his youth) but decidely not Fascist, etc.

the will to power is a biological fact. Nietzsche said every organism (and perhaps even non-living forces) sought to impose their will upon the universe.

I think you misunderstand the Will to Power.

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietszche

The Will to Power is something like the desire to exert one's will in self-overcoming, although it may well be unconscious. Arthur C. Danto says that "aggression" is at least sometimes an approximate synonym. However, Nietzsche's ideas of aggression are almost always meant as aggression toward oneself, as the energy one motivates toward self-mastery.

[GePap]

I have read Hitler- having taken a course on Fascism I have also read Mussolini and the other writers who gave birth to nazism.

a very successful slave who came to lead slaves by paraphrasing Nietzsche in his manifesto of Mein Kampf? Hitler said clearly that history was made up of competing movements led by competing uncommon men. so no one would make a mistake that he wasn't referencing Nietzsche, Hitler even mentions the reason of a new, fascist movement... a disillusionment with religion necessitating a need for a revaluation of values.

An overman is NOT a leader- the overman does what he needs to do, if other people chose to follow, then whatever. Being an extraordinary slave still makes you a slave.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by DanS


Not my GOP.

Erm.... what exactly is a GOP?

[Arrian]

Grand Old Party - The Republican Party. It's their nickname.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even though the Dems are older .

[Arrian]

Yeah, I imagine it was originally conceived as a way to make them seem more respectable/experienced. Am I right?

-Arrian