Friedrich Nietzsche — The Will to Power — A response and Critique Part 2

Friedrich Nietzsche — the Will to Power a response and Critique Part 2 Nietzsche states that ‘the modern European is characterised by two seemingly opposite traits: individualism and the demand for equal rights’. (Page 436) ‘The pride which makes a man prefer solitude or the company of a few admirers defies comprehension; a truly great “success” is achieved only through people, although one scarcely understands that in reality, a popular success is only a petty success’. (Page 436) ‘The principle of individualism rejects truly great men, and among equals requires a keen eye for, or ready recognition of a talent; and because in a mature civilised culture where such a principle prevails, everyone had his share of talents, and can therefore expect to receive his share of honour, today we find an emphasis on minor achievements as never before — this gives the age a patina of being infinitely fair. Where it is unfair is in its infinite hatred, not of tyrants and sycophants… but of noble men who scorn popular acclaim. The claim for equal rights ( eg to sit in judgement of everything and everybody) is anti aristocratic.’ (Page 437) ‘Socialism is merely a means of agitation employed by individuals: the Socialist grasps the fact that in order to achieve something, one must be organised, take collective action and become a ‘power’. But what the Socialist desires is not that the individual sacrifice himself to society as an end in itself, but that society serve as a means of enabling many individuals to pursue ends of their own’ (Page 437) ‘Anarchism is merely a means of agitation employed by Socialism; with fear he begins to fascinate and terrorise: above all — he draws the courageous and bold to his side, even those who are so as yet only in spirit’. (Page 438). It is necessary to quote Nietzsche in some detail in order to see the development of his thinking. At first glance, there appears to be a shrewdness in his observations. It is this first impression that indicates his ability to observe and draw conclusions. However, it is in his conclusions that he strays from the logical development of these observations. In the first sentence quoted he observes that individuals and the demand for equal rights are two traits in the modern European that are seemingly opposite. That Nietzsche cannot resolve this seeming paradox is because he rejects the ideas of dialectical logic. He is unable to recognise that in certain ways both the negative and the positive can apply. Whether he is actually correct in his view that modern thinking believes in both individuality and equal rights is open to debate. But the view of Socialists is that the two concepts go hand in hand. Socialists believe in the rights of the individual but see those rights being exercised within the whole community. They recognise that individuals can only enjoy those rights if everyone else is able to enjoy those same rights. I found the idea that it is ‘pride’ that makes a person prefer solitude quite challenging. As a solitary person who spends a great deal of time alone with my thoughts and someone, whilst happy to receive any form of support or commendation, is largely resigned to fighting for my own views against widespread opposition, I do not regard that as a result of my pride. I regard myself as a cog in a wheel, putting forward views which I believe are held by most members of my class. The problem is that many members of the working class have not had the benefits,for example in terms of education, that I have enjoyed. Nor the freedom to read and to think and develop their own ideas. Their lives have largely been consumed with the need to provide for themselves and their families. Their experience of living is different to that which is projected by the dominant view coming from Government, the press, the television, the church, or any of the other means by which the ruling class obtains and maintains their control over the domination ideology. As Marx correctly stated, the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class. The third of the paragraphs I quote, to my mind gives an inverted idea of individuality. My impression of those who argue strongly in favour of individualism do so in support of that minority who are in a position of eminence and in opposition to the large majority within any society. He counters the idea of ‘tyrants and sycophants’ to that of ‘nobles’ but it is hard to think of many rulers around the world as ‘noble’. They may not actually come under the definition of ‘tyrants’ but they are supportive of an economic system which can easily be considered tyrannical, certainly it is a system which condemns large numbers of people to deprivation and poverty and brings conflict and death to many of them. It is difficult to know whom Nietzsche is talking about. The impression is that he is talking about a small, influential section of the community and not of the mass of people. NIetzsche claims that ‘the principle of equality rejects truly great men' Certainly amongst the mass of people this is not the reality. The mass are far more likely to acclaim individuals who come to prominence and are held up within the media as distinctive in some way. There is, within the mass, a deep sense of their own inferiority, a sense which they personally reject but outwardly accept by following the line taken by the so called elite. It is a fact, that Nietzsche seems to accept, but only as a means to undermine, that everyone has talents. Recognition of these talents is not a means to honour but as a step towards developing the individual to achieve even greater success. The success of each individual, when geared to the needs of the whole, brings value to that whole community. If we only look to the success of noble characters we limit what the community as a whole can achieve. If we count every limited success, even that of the least able, as part of the general success of the whole community, everyone benefits. Those within the working class are fully aware that nothing comes solely from individual action but that everything depends upon the combined action of many hands, and brains. Nietzsche view of Socialism and of Socialists is simply wrong. He is correct when he writes that ‘the Socialist has grasped the fact that in order to achieve something, one must be organised, take collective action and become a ‘power’. But he is wrong in the conclusion that he expresses in the next sentence. A socialist is someone who brings together the needs of the individual and the needs of the community in which they live. The Socialist recognises that these needs are interrelated and that one cannot be resolved without resolving the other need. What Nietzsche ignores, throughout this book, is the economic foundation on which society is based. A society in which a small minority owns and controls the wealth and the means of producing that wealth can never be fair or just. In order that individuals can live full lives within a society of equals, the economic base has to be changed. The ownership and control of the means of production must be in the hands of those who do the producing. There must be a system of Democratic control through which the individuals forming the community, acting as a community, determine how that community will operate. His views on anarchism would be accepted by neither the Socialist nor the anarchist. Though both challenge the prevailing economic system of capitalism they each see the solution as different. The anarchist is opposed to a formal structure whilst the Socialist believes that a new structural order of society is necessary. Both are revolutionary but the revolutions they seek will lead to different outcomes. To return to Nietzsche initial statement, individualism and equal rights need not be seen as conflicting concepts. It is within the competitive structure of capitalism that the individual becomes the opponent of equality. To succeed in a capitalist society one has to put oneself first. The Capitalist may at times make common cause, particularly in defence of their system, but there will always arise contradictions and conflict. That is the basis of the system, the pursuit of profit to the neglect of any other consideration. This goes against the whole nature of mankind. Humans are a social animal. We need the cooperation and support of others. To be forced to compete is against our nature. It is when we seek individual power for ourselves, to the neglect of the community, that leads to conflict and ultimately war. The Socialist does seek to organise and hopes for collective action, because the Socialist knows that as an individual they are powerless, strength lies in combined action. It is to obtain this collective action that the Socialist begins to agitate, to educate and to organise. Scribar 25.1.25