Send Marxism-Thaxis mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Marxism-Thaxis digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Nietzsche in NLR (Ralph Dumain)
2. Re: [marxistphilosophy] Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography [4]
(Ralph Dumain)
3. RE: Re: [marxistphilosophy] Anti-NietzscheBibliography [4]
(Phil Walden)
4. RE: Nietzsche in NLR (Phil Walden)
5. Re: Nietzsche in NLR (Sebastian Budgen)
6. Cornel West on Spinoza and the Mid-East (robert montgomery)
7. Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography (Charles Brown)
8. Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography: postscript (Charles Brown)
9. Re: Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography: postscript (Ralph Dumain)
10. Re: spam: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cornel West on Spinoza and the
Mid-East (Ralph Dumain)
11. Landa article on Nietszche; NC econ as social darwinism
(Charles Brown)
12. Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography: postscript (Charles Brown)
13. Re: Landa article on Nietszche; NC econ as social darwinism
(Ralph Dumain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:40:49 -0400
From: Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Nietzsche in NLR
To: [email protected]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Ransacking my poor brains about all the left journals I've read in the past
15 years, it occurred to me that New Left Review is a possible candidate
for the phantom Nietzsche article I once read. I don't think that's quite
right, but it feels closer than any of the others so far. I have no idea
of where my old issues of NLR are, nor do I even remember whether I ever
subscribed. Anyway, searching the online index for all the Nietzsche
articles, I came across one that looks mighty familiar:
MALCOLM BULL
WHERE IS THE ANTI-NIETZSCHE?
New Left Review 3, May-June 2000
Opposed to everyone, Nietzsche has met with remarkably little opposition.
In fact, his reputation has suffered only one apparent reverse—his
enthusiastic adoption by the Nazis. But, save in Germany, Nietzsche's
association with the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust has
served chiefly to stimulate further curiosity. Of course, the monster has
had to be tamed, and Nietzsche's thought has been cleverly reconstructed so
as perpetually to evade the evils perpetrated in his name. Even those
philosophies for which he consistently reserved his most biting
contempt—socialism, feminism and Christianity—have sought to appropriate
their tormentor. Almost everybody now claims Nietzsche as one of their own;
he has become what he most wanted to be—irresistible.
http://www.newleftreview.net/?view=2249
As I don't have a subscription, I can't download the whole article. But
somehow I think I've seen this before. Dammit, I need to read the whole
thing.
Other Nietzsche articles of interest:
PETER THOMAS
OVER-MAN AND THE COMMUNE
New Left Review 31, January-February 2005
Few thinkers have enjoyed such widespread appeal over the last forty years
as Nietzsche. The instrumentalization of the Nazi period seemingly left
behind—Lukács's dissenting voice notwithstanding—Nietzsche's almost
Heraclitean metaphors and images, visceral incarnations of some
mythological wisdom which always seems to be in excess of itself, have
fascinated theorists from the whole range of the political spectrum. For
some, such as Kaufmann and Rorty, Nietzsche dissolved philosophy into an
aesthetic play and a relativism entirely in accord with, but lying beyond,
the values of the liberal democracies. For others—in the so-called 'New
Nietzsche' emerging from post-war France—his critique of the overweening
pretensions of the western philosophical tradition seemed to offer the
possibility to begin philosophy again, as a post-philosophy. While this
current of interpretation was not too shy to appropriate some of
Nietzsche's concepts for a radical critique of contemporary bourgeois
society—one thinks in the first instance of Foucault, Derrida and
Deleuze—its presupposition was that Nietzsche himself was an essentially
apolitical philosopher, an innocent victim of right-wing distortion whose
'indeterminacy' permitted an attempt to expropriate him for the Left.
http://www.newleftreview.net/?view=2548
Ishay Landa
Nietzsche, the Chinese Worker's Friend
New Left Review I/236, July-August 1999
In his 1947 essay 'Nietzsche's Philosophy in the Light of Contemporary
Events', Thomas Mann evaluates in the following way Friedrich Nietzsche's
attitude to the worker:
It does not testify of enmity against the workers, it testifies to the
contrary when he [Nietzsche] says: 'The workers should learn to feel like
soldiers: a fee, a salary but no payment. They should one day live like the
bourgeoisie at present; but above them, distinguishing itself by its lack
of needs, the higher caste, poorer and simpler, but in possession of the
power.' [1]
http://www.newleftreview.net/?view=1997
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:28:47 -0400
From: Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: [marxistphilosophy] Anti-Nietzsche
Bibliography [4]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Speaking of stupid and tired, the law has made Justin lose whatever was
left of his mind that analytical philosophy left behind, rendering him
incapable of attentive reading and thinking. Nowhere did anyone claim that
Nietzsche would have approved of the Nazi regime, or that the Nazis were
competent readers of Nietzsche. The article makes a very important
argument about the anti-socialist, anti-egalitarian thrust of Nietzsche's
atheism, and about the tenor of Nietzsche's vitalism as well. Nietzsche's
aversion to practical politics is well known; that makes him no less a
forerunner of the reactionary trends of 20th century bourgeois
thought. See Stuart Hughes' CONSCIOUSNESS AND SOCIETY to see the rising
tide of reactionary thought from the 1890s on.
Some time ago I wrote a primer on the history of ideology critique and
social theory for a bunch of local highly educated but clueless philosophy
yokels (educated in analytical philosophy of course, making them incapable
of understanding European social theory or getting their heads unstuck from
their assholes). In particular I argued that Nietzsche represents a
regression rather than an advance in social theory. I'll have to put this
stuff together and make a web page out of it.
The punchline: it's Marx vs. Nietzsche--either/or, not both/and.
Silly goose that I am, I forgot that a shelf of Raymond Williams' books is
sitting right above me. THE POLITICS OF MODERNISM has only three passing
references to Nietzsche, in connection with August Strindberg, who adored
Nietzsche and who was also celebrated by the Stockholm Workers'
Commune. Williams explains this complex conjunctural political affinity in
chapter 3, "The Politics of the Avant-Garde." Both workers and
modernist/avantgardists has a common enemy in the philistine bourgeoisie,
both factions expressing their wish to destroy the existing order from
different vantage points. Here is a brief extract on the characterization
of the concepts with which this avantgardist hostility was expressed:
"But it is not only that the enemies have changed, being identified now as
those tendencies which had hitherto been recognized as liberating:
political progress, sexual emancipation, the choice of peace against
war. It is also that the old enemies have disappeared behind these; indeed
it is the strong and the powerful who now carry the seeds of the future:
'Our _evolution_ . . . wants to protect the strong against the weak
species, and the current aggressiveness of women seems to me a symptom of
the regress of the race.' The language is that of Social Darwinism, but we
can distinguish its use among these radical artists from the relatively
banal justifications of a new hard (lean) social order by the direct
apologists of capitalism. What emerges in the arts is a 'cultural
Darwinism', in which the strong and daring radical spirits are the true
_creativity_ of the race. Thus there is not only an assault on the weak --
democrats, pacifists, women --but on the whole social and moral and
religious order. The 'regress of the race' is attributed to Christianity,
and Strindberg could hail Nietzsche as 'the prophet of the overthrow of
Europe and Christiandom.'" [p. 50]
Williams highlights the ambiguous loyalties of this conceptual language,
perhaps clarifying how Nietzsche, acclaimed by many socialist
_intellectuals_ (but by workers?) could be assimilated by the Romantic left
as well as right. This gives us a more elaborate picture of what's
happening here, more complex, I would say, than Lukacs' condemnation of
Nietzsche. The question then would be, is Landa
missing out on something here?
Well, Nietzsche's contempt for the common herd doesn't seem to be
supplemented by any social understanding of what makes the herd a herd,
because he is completely lacking a social theory and has only his idealist
genealogy and crackpot (non-racist) racialism to offer. His rage against
the perceived mediocrity of the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie (the
two forming, perhaps, a social unity in his mind--sort of a
non-dialectical, anti-marxist Marx?--an anti-Kautsky!) exemplifies a
sensibility itself molded by a mystified relation to society. Nietzsche has
a harsh view of his society--perhaps he is justified in it--he's got a bad
attitude toward the poor and miserable, seeing them as the enemy; he even
needs their mediocrity so his genius can stand out so much the more.
Indeed, it's easy to see how Nietzsche would have disdained being part of
any political movement, even a right-wing one. His adoration of the Laws
of Manu, his abstract glorification of coldness and war--his fantasy
life--is rather aloof from any conception of organizing society in the
modern world. His particular petty bourgeois fantasy is a prophetic one,
not a political programme. But what is it prophetic of? Nietzsche has
created all the elements of the new sensibility. All that is required is
to connect it to a dissatisfied class that _does_ want to seize power.
So Justin, you should look up Brian Leiter, and maybe you two can rent a
room. You'll have more fun with one of your own than you will with me.
At 09:24 AM 7/31/2006 +0200, Tahir Wood wrote:
> >> Justin Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/29/06 9:55 PM >>>
>Ralph, haven't read the article, but what you have
>here is stupid and tired stuff, unworthy of you.
>Nietzsche the proto-Nazi, Yawn. Nietzsche the
>anti-democratic, antisocialist, anti-egalitarian,
>that's news? Nietsche an atheist? Not really. He's a
>geneaologist of religion -- in that respect like Marx.
>Niezsche the advocate of cruelty to others,
>repreppression, political dictaorship, mass murder,
>war? Walter Kauffman wrote a long book patiently
>burying these tedious lies 50 years ago.
>
>Especially Russell's lies; but then that was the way he related to
>almost all German philosophy at the time.
>Tahir
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:37:25 +0100
From: "Phil Walden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Marxism-Thaxis] Re: [marxistphilosophy]
Anti-NietzscheBibliography [4]
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ralph wrote:
"Some time ago I wrote a primer on the history of ideology critique and
social theory for a bunch of local highly educated but clueless
philosophy
yokels (educated in analytical philosophy of course, making them
incapable
of understanding European social theory or getting their heads unstuck
from
their assholes). In particular I argued that Nietzsche represents a
regression rather than an advance in social theory. I'll have to put
this
stuff together and make a web page out of it."
Phil Walden replies:
Please do! I'm sure there are a large number of embattled Marxists out
there who, like me, would benefit from such a web page by you. I have a
great deal of agreement with what you wrote in your previous post where
this quote (above) appears, and I'm also conscious that I don't know
enough about Nietzsche. As an aside, in order to differentiate Marx
from Nietzsche I think it might also be possible to bring in the idea
that Marx was interested in ontology whereas Nietzsche wasn't (Bhaskar
-largely implicitly - argues this in his books before his spiritual
turn, and I think he would still argue it). By "ontology" Bhaskar, of
course, means something very different from Heidegger's fundamental
ontology, the latter being a rather forced, 'poetic', attempt to ignore
social processes in the name of an abstract aristocratic vision.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:55:20 +0100
From: "Phil Walden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Marxism-Thaxis] Nietzsche in NLR
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ralph, see reply below:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph
Dumain
Sent: 31 July 2006 03:41
To: [email protected]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Nietzsche in NLR
Ransacking my poor brains about all the left journals I've read in the
past
15 years, it occurred to me that New Left Review is a possible candidate
for the phantom Nietzsche article I once read. I don't think that's
quite
right, but it feels closer than any of the others so far. I have no
idea
of where my old issues of NLR are, nor do I even remember whether I ever
subscribed. Anyway, searching the online index for all the Nietzsche
articles, I came across one that looks mighty familiar:
MALCOLM BULL
WHERE IS THE ANTI-NIETZSCHE?
New Left Review 3, May-June 2000
Opposed to everyone, Nietzsche has met with remarkably little
opposition.
In fact, his reputation has suffered only one apparent reverse-his
enthusiastic adoption by the Nazis. But, save in Germany, Nietzsche's
association with the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust
has
served chiefly to stimulate further curiosity. Of course, the monster
has
had to be tamed, and Nietzsche's thought has been cleverly reconstructed
so
as perpetually to evade the evils perpetrated in his name. Even those
philosophies for which he consistently reserved his most biting
contempt-socialism, feminism and Christianity-have sought to appropriate
their tormentor. Almost everybody now claims Nietzsche as one of their
own;
he has become what he most wanted to be-irresistible.
http://www.newleftreview.net/?view=2249
As I don't have a subscription, I can't download the whole article. But
somehow I think I've seen this before. Dammit, I need to read the whole
thing.
Phil Walden replies:
I can photocopy this at the Bodleian Library in Oxford (UK) and could
send it to your postal address (which I don't have - if you want to let
me know it off-list I'm at [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Is this too slow?
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:56:15 +0200
From: Sebastian Budgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Nietzsche in NLR
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
and the thinkers he inspired <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
There is also a review article by Peter Thomas of a major study of
Nietzsche by Domenico Losurdo. I can send it to you if you contact me
offlist.
Le 31 juil. 06, à 12:55, Phil Walden a écrit :
> Ralph, see reply below:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph
> Dumain
> Sent: 31 July 2006 03:41
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Nietzsche in NLR
>
> Ransacking my poor brains about all the left journals I've read in the
> past
> 15 years, it occurred to me that New Left Review is a possible
> candidate
>
> for the phantom Nietzsche article I once read. I don't think that's
> quite
> right, but it feels closer than any of the others so far. I have no
> idea
> of where my old issues of NLR are, nor do I even remember whether I
> ever
>
> subscribed. Anyway, searching the online index for all the Nietzsche
> articles, I came across one that looks mighty familiar:
>
> MALCOLM BULL
> WHERE IS THE ANTI-NIETZSCHE?
> New Left Review 3, May-June 2000
> Opposed to everyone, Nietzsche has met with remarkably little
> opposition.
> In fact, his reputation has suffered only one apparent reverse-his
> enthusiastic adoption by the Nazis. But, save in Germany, Nietzsche's
> association with the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust
> has
> served chiefly to stimulate further curiosity. Of course, the monster
> has
> had to be tamed, and Nietzsche's thought has been cleverly
> reconstructed
> so
> as perpetually to evade the evils perpetrated in his name. Even those
> philosophies for which he consistently reserved his most biting
> contempt-socialism, feminism and Christianity-have sought to
> appropriate
>
> their tormentor. Almost everybody now claims Nietzsche as one of their
> own;
> he has become what he most wanted to be-irresistible.
> http://www.newleftreview.net/?view=2249
>
> As I don't have a subscription, I can't download the whole article.
> But
>
> somehow I think I've seen this before. Dammit, I need to read the
> whole
> thing.
>
> Phil Walden replies:
>
> I can photocopy this at the Bodleian Library in Oxford (UK) and could
> send it to your postal address (which I don't have - if you want to let
> me know it off-list I'm at [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Is this too
> slow?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> [email protected]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> [email protected]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:30:11 -0400
From: "robert montgomery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cornel West on Spinoza and the Mid-East
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
The spirit of Spinoza
By Cornel West | July 28, 2006
THREE HUNDRED and fifty years ago this week, Baruch Spinoza, the
greatest philosopher ever produced by the Jewish community, was
excommunicated, expelled, cursed, and damned by the exilic Portuguese
Jewish authorities in Amsterdam. The dark shadow of the Christian
Inquisition in Portugal still traumatized this most free and
enlightened Jewish community of its time. The exact nature of his
``abominable heresies" and ``monstrous deeds" were not specified. Yet
the challenge of Spinoza (then only 23) to his beloved Jewish
community was primarily Socratic: to examine themselves and question
the narrow framework they deployed by elevating unarmed truth and
moral integrity over parochial prejudice and myopic vision.
Twenty-one years later this most noble and beloved of modern
philosophers died with his masterpiece, ``Ethics," unpublished and his
eyes weakened by his painstaking job of grinding lenses. His
pioneering and profound conceptions of religious tolerance and
democratic government would influence another future refugee in
Amsterdam, John Locke. And the rest is history. Even the greatest Jew
of the 20th century (and a hero of mine), Albert Einstein, described
himself as a disciple of Spinoza -- one who boldly pursued truth and
justice.
As we witness another sad chapter in the Middle East -- the loss of
precious human beings, the presence of deep hatred and revenge, and
the absence of Socratic questioning and empathy for all -- the spirit
of Spinoza haunts us.
Where are the courageous thinkers who ask the hard questions that
shatter our simplistic and sentimental frameworks of pure Israeli
heroes and impure Arab villains (or vice versa) in the conflict? Is it
possible for Jews to reject the ugly Israeli subjugation of
Palestinians, the plight of their prisoners in Israeli jails
(especially the women and children), or the anti-Arab bigotry in
Israeli society without being demonized a self-hating Jew?
Is it possible for Arabs to reject the pernicious rhetoric of pushing
Israel into the sea, the barbaric practice of suicide bombers and the
anti-Jewish bigotry in Arab communities without being demeaned a
traitorous Arab? Have the wars of the blood-soaked region so coarsened
consciences, hardened hearts, and closed minds such that the spirit of
Spinoza is dead and buried?
This spirit of Spinoza is not hard to define at the present moment. It
requires security for Israelis, justice for Palestinians, and dignity
for Lebanese. The colossal failure of Arab politicians to speak boldly
and act courageously for these three aims is pathetic. Oil interests
and fear of democratic reform at home cripple Arab political
leadership -- and now threaten their legitimacy and stability.
Here in the United States, oil dependency and moral hypocrisy drive
our policy. We rightly support the security of Israelis -- the world
must never ever permit another Holocaust against Jews. Yet we wrongly
talk and act as if the life of an Arab -- especially Palestinian or
Lebanese -- has less value than that of an Israeli -- especially
Jewish. Hence the low priority on the lives of those under the vicious
Israeli occupation or on innocent Lebanese victims of Israeli bombs.
This moral hypocrisy yields a double standard regarding which UN
resolutions we call to enforce -- no to those that condemn occupation
like 242 and 338 and yes to those that call for disarming people who
resist occupation like 1559. It also seems that American moral outrage
focuses on precious Israelis more so than equally precious
Palestinians or Lebanese.
Spinoza pleads for resurrection. Unlike his fellow Jew, Jesus, only we
flesh-and-blood humans can resurrect Spinoza by our bold Socratic
questioning and our genuine compassion for Jews and Arabs.
Cornel West is a professor of religion at Princeton University and
author of ``Democracy Matters.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:31:35 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I got it, and read it. I've been posting on it on other lists. Thanks for
your summary below. I may post it elsewhere (?)
Oh, it's on the website. Thanks
Charles
^^^^^^
Ralph D
You really must get hold of this article, which just appeared in the past
month or two:
Landa, Ishay. "Aroma and Shadow: Marx vs. Nietzsche on Religion," Nature,
Society, and Thought, vol. 18, no. 4, 2005, pp. 461-499.
http://webusers.physics.umn.edu/%7Emarquit/nst.html
This has got to be one of the most important articles on Nietzsche I have
read.
^^^^
CB: Likewise
^^^^
The author's thesis is that Nietzsche's atheism is not only not
similar to Marx's, but its direct opposite. That is, Nietzsche's atheism
was constructed in conscious opposition to socialism and egalitarianism and
thus to Marxism. Atheism as such was not a novelty in Nietzsche's
time. It was linked to humanism and it already had a role in demystifying
and combatting the right to rule of the ruling classes. The minions of the
ruling classes, e.g., John Henry Cardinal Newman, were quite anxious about
this. The Death of God was the key issue for Nietzsche, in that the
positive value of religion was its ability to sustain hierarchy, and what
he most despised about Christianity was its egalitarian and democratic
dimension, and thus the Death of God must be exploited as an occasion for
the transvaluation of egalitarian values into a new apologia for
hierarchy. God "humanized" the universe; but the pessimistic nihilism
issuing from the Death of God is the frisson of coldness and
heartlessness. How does the naturalization of humanity according to
Nietzsche's prospectus differ from Marx's? Since the universe does not
strive to imitate man, "_humans_ should _imitate the universe_, bow before
the indifference and absurdity of existence and rearrange their lives
accordingly. . . .Thus, it does not suffice to affirm that the world is
nonhuman; somehow we must all exult in this nonhumanity, come to applaud
the magnificence of the void; we may even wish to consider a glorious
plunge into its 'chaotic' depths." (472)
This is in direct opposition to the vision of socialist atheism. Above
all, Nietzsche's Zarathustra dissociates himself from "these poisonous
spiders" the "preachers of equality." Socialists are excoriated as
continuators of the Christian disease. (479-83)
To me this sounds akin to the Nazi Heidegger. Heidegger is not mentioned,
but this peculiar 'naturalism' is linked to the Nazi desecularization and
reenchantment of the world. (474) The view of nature as alien, hostile,
pitiless, and meaningless is of course a staple of existentialism, and
Marxists--Frederic Jameson is cited--have fooled themselves into thinking
it compatible with Marxism, though it is in contradiction with Marx's
conception of de-alienation (cf. 1844 mss.). (475)
Since life is not about peace and self-preservation but war and conflict,
the the affirmation of life entails the affirmation of cruelty and death,
and ultimately a "yes-saying to death," i.e. a death cult. This is one
paradox of Nietzsche's Lebensphilosophie; another is the curious
reification of life (apart from concrete lives) as an abstract force,
linked to the Ubermensch. (483-5)
The final section of the article is devoted to Marx's and Engels'
refutation of the Ubermensch. Landa analyzes their critique of Eugene Sue's
_The Mysteries of Paris_ in _The Holy Family_. Religion is criticized as a
dehumanizing and inegalitarian force. 'Good' and 'evil' are criticized as
moralistic abstractions in contradistinction to the empirical experience of
good and evil of the poor. The overcoming of moralism and metaphysics for
Marx and Engels lead to conclusions diametrically opposed to Nietzsche's
'beyond good and evil'. Working class 'anthropomorphism' is an anticipatory
manifestation of the drive to humanize the world, in opposition to
Nietzsche's dehumanizing naturalization of the human.
Marx and Engels provide only an indirect preemptory refutation of Nietzsche
in retrospect. But Engels' critique of Carlyle's aristocratic Romantic
anti-capitalism cuts closer to the bone. Carlyle is remarkably observant
of the realities of capitalist "progress", but from a mistaken
metaphysical, moralistic and aristocratic perspective. Engels accepts
Carlyle's empirical observations but directly attacks Carlyle's mysticism
and all notions of the superhuman. On the contrary, for Engels "Man's own
substance is far more splendid and sublime then the imaginary substance of
any conceivable 'God'. . ." Engels also defends democracy, limited and
transitory as it is, against Carlyle's anti-democratic perspective. In
other words, to hell with irrationalism, pantheism, vitalism, and all the
alternative mysticisms.
Landa concludes with the ironies of the ensuing century: with secularism
and religious revivals crossing back and forth between social classes and
political loyalties, with both God and godlessness fighting on both sides,
at various times. The ideology of contemporary society is ruled by a
schizophrenic God.
References to note:
Engels, Frederick. "The Condition of England. Past and Present by Thomas
Carlyle, London, 1843"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/carlyle.htm
Gedö, András. "Why Marx or Nietzsche?", Nature, Society, and Thought, vol.
11, no. 3, 1998, pp. 331-346.
http://webusers.physics.umn.edu/%7Emarquit/gedo113.htm
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:35:59 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography: postscript
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ralph Dumain :
I considered adding more on the contemporary appeal of Nietzsche, though
that has been done elsewhere. There's some article I have on the conceits
flattered thereby, but I can't place it, and some of my references
discussed the Nietzsche-based French poststructuralism. One could pose the
question of why this stuff appeals to intellectuals who fancy themselves
leftish. This question is probably easy to answer for the French
intellectual elite, as the situation may be more complex in the academic
brainwashing that transpires elsewhere. But the severely regressive nature
of this movement, masked by layers of self-indulgent alienation, needs to
be clearly seen for what it is.
I am thinking of adding this to my biblio:
Williams, Raymond. The Politics of Modernism, T. Pinkney (ed.) London and
New York: Verso, 1989.
I have no idea where my copy is buried, but I'm guessing it's relevant
because Williams analyzes the logic behind the allegiances of avant-farde
intellectuals and artists. I can't remember whether he mentions Nietzsche,
but I'm guessing that Nietzscheanism is an exemplar of what Williams is
talking about, and thus Williams' framework can explain Nietzcheanism as am
alienated avant-garde that can go right or left depending on historical
conjunctures.
^^^^^
CB; Sydney Finkelstein, Marxist, wrote some critique of Nietzsche in a book
on existentialism et al, attributing Nietzche's irrationalism to alienation
in the imperialist epoch.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:46:26 -0400
From: Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography: postscript
To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sounds familiar. I think he wrote a book on existential themes or
alienation in American literature. He was surprisingly sympathetic--no
party line here. I'm sure I have this book somewhere.
I recall being quite impressed with Finkelstein's critique of Marshall
McLuhan, whom I could not stand.
At 12:35 PM 7/31/2006 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
>CB; Sydney Finkelstein, Marxist, wrote some critique of Nietzsche in a book
>on existentialism et al, attributing Nietzche's irrationalism to alienation
>in the imperialist epoch.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:54:10 -0400
From: Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: spam: [Marxism-Thaxis] Cornel West on Spinoza and the
Mid-East
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
It's propaganda, but I agree with it. Now if the spirit of Spinoza could
wash over the USA reenchanting it with the Enlightenment and purging it of
our fundamentalist rednecks and Louis Farrakhan and the dumbass preachers
who support him and turn Cornel himself from a preacher with footnotes to a
real philosopher.
At 12:30 PM 7/31/2006 -0400, robert montgomery wrote:
>The spirit of Spinoza
>
>By Cornel West | July 28, 2006
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:58:16 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Landa article on Nietszche; NC econ as
social darwinism
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here is some dialogue generated out of my reading the Landa article.
CB
^^^^^^
Is neo-classical economic theory a version of social darwinism ?
Charles
What about the notion that competition will produce the best, individual
rational man maximizing his self-interest and profit, may the best man win,
the fittest man, roughly speaking ?
Aren't the rich rich because they are the fittest economic competitors,
naturally constituting themselves as economic overseers ?
How is it that NC explains that some people become richer than others ?
Charles
* From: Michael Perelman
The NC school often does refer to Darwinistic ideas -- not necessarily
social darwinism -- to explain how competition works. Firms do not know
they are maximizing, but those that do are selected for survival ...
This line is used when people point out that the theory makes assumptions
that are ridiculous. I don't know if anyone pushed this idea before
Friedman.
^^^^^^
CB: Yes, that's the type of thing I'm thinking about. "Darwinist" ideas in
the above social, non-biological context is social darwinist.
Oddly I started thinking about this based on a critique of Nietzsche as
deriving an atheist philosophy that is propaganda for the ruling classes
based on social darwinist notions of the supermen/ruling class being more
naturally fit rather than chosen by God. Social darwinism is a broad atheist
counter-Marxist movement in bourgeois intellectualdom.
But also, the capitalists are atheistic in essential function qua
capitalists. NC is a bourgeois atheist discipline ( so to speak, as it
were). This makes me wonder if it participates in the broad social
darwininst paradigm.
* From: Jim Devine
On 7/29/06, Charles Brown wrote:
> CB: Yes, that's the type of thing I'm thinking about. "Darwinist"
> ideas in the above social, non-biological context is social darwinist.
Jim D:
there's a whole field of "evolutionary game theory" which has a certain
Darwinist tinge without being social Darwinist. Some old radical econmists
(Herb Gintis, Sam Bowles) are into it.
^^^
CB: Yes, "darwinist" shades to materialist.
^^^^^^^
> Oddly I started thinking about this based on a critique of Nietzsche
> as deriving an atheist philosophy that is propaganda for the ruling
> classes based on social darwinist notions of the supermen/ruling class
> being more naturally fit rather than chosen by God. Social darwinism
> is a broad atheist counter-Marxist movement in bourgeois intellectualdom.
Jim: I don't think Nietzsche was a social Darwinist. It's more a matter of
feudal ideas of superiority.
CB: I was thinking the same thing on the feudal superiority ( It's the
author Landa who marks his social darwinism, though I have heard that
elsewhere). In fact, I was thinking that Nietzche intellectual power might
be in that he is representing the feudal and old Greek and Roman slave
powers in European history, as well as the new bourgeoisie. In other words,
N. atheism represents all the European ruling classes down through history;
because all of them had to have a certain level of atheism, really, in order
to keep a heads up and ahead of the classes they were ruling over. They may
have professed belief in religion ( as many political reps of the
bourgeoisie do today), but did the "masses" of the ruling classes really
believe in Gods or God ?
The article I read argues that N. developed an explicitly atheistic and
social darwinist ideology in support of ruling classes ( "overmen")in the
abstract, based on the notion of the "fittest" constituting that overclass.
The article argues that he does this to counter the pro-working class
atheism of Marxism.
^^^^^
Jim: Also, social Darwinism doesn't have to be atheist. It seems to me that
social Darwinism can be merged with Calvinist ideas about financial success
as being a symptom of God's grace. And there are a bunch of Protestants who
like free market ideology.
CB: Agree that it doesn't have to be. But of course it can be, and in the
case of Nietzche, this writer , Ishay Landa, is arguing that it is a social
darwinist atheism, with a sort of cruel and harsh Nature forcing social
hierarchy on humans. It claims that Nietzche is arguing ( or "poet-ing")
that ruling classes exist as a natural phenomenon.
> But also, the capitalists are atheistic in essential function qua
> capitalists. NC is a bourgeois atheist discipline ( so to speak, as it
> were). This makes me wonder if it participates in the broad social
> darwininst paradigm.
NC isn't truly atheistic. They believe in the Invisible Hand (a.k.a., the
Auctioneer).
^^^^
CB: OK. Gotta think about that.
How about the capitalists, though ? And then I'm thinking that in fact,
down deep, _all_ ruling classes have had to be more atheistic than the
classes they ruled - religion was for keeping the masses in confusion. And
maybe Nietszche's atheism represents the essential or de facto atheism of
the feudal ( as you mention), capitalist and Greek and Roman slave rulers,
all in one big reactionary atheist ideology.
* From: Michael
I don't think that most economists would admit to believing in a hereditary
component to the class system. Individual initiative can lift anyone out of
poverty and into prosperity, according to this theory.
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 08:07:11AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> no. The Chicago school (Milton Friedman _et al_) and neo-liberalism
> are effectively versions of social darwinism, but most of the rest of
> NC economics isn't.
>
> On 7/28/06, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is neo-classical economic theory a version of social darwinism ?
> >
> > Charles
>
>
> --
> Jim Devine / "An economist is a surgeon with an excellent scalpel and
> a rough-edged lancet, who operates beautifully on the dead and
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:08:27 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Anti-Nietzsche Bibliography: postscript
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx and the thinkers he inspired'"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ralph D:
Sounds familiar. I think he wrote a book on existential themes or
alienation in American literature. He was surprisingly sympathetic--no
party line here. I'm sure I have this book somewhere.
^^^^^
CB: Yes, _Existentialism and Alienation_. Somebody took my copy, but I had
copied it on xerox.
I'm not in favor of "separating" Party members from the Party when they do
some agile , good thinking. The Party is not just its dumbest members but
it's smartest members too.
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:31:41 -0400
From: Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Landa article on Nietszche; NC econ as
social darwinism
To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Interesting. I'm not sure what to say about the practical 'atheism' of the
ruling classes. This doesn't seem quite right except in the modern
period. You know, the most profound understanding of the secularization
and superstition of the modern elite and apspirants to power can be found
in CLR James's MARINERS, RENEGADES, AND CASTAWAYS. Nobody but me and Loren
Goldner has any deep insight into this book. Mark my words, it will go
down in history as a masterpiece.
At 12:58 PM 7/31/2006 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
>............
>CB: I was thinking the same thing on the feudal superiority ( It's the
>author Landa who marks his social darwinism, though I have heard that
>elsewhere). In fact, I was thinking that Nietzche intellectual power might
>be in that he is representing the feudal and old Greek and Roman slave
>powers in European history, as well as the new bourgeoisie. In other words,
>N. atheism represents all the European ruling classes down through history;
>because all of them had to have a certain level of atheism, really, in
order
>to keep a heads up and ahead of the classes they were ruling over. They may
>have professed belief in religion ( as many political reps of the
>bourgeoisie do today), but did the "masses" of the ruling classes really
>believe in Gods or God ?
>..................
>How about the capitalists, though ? And then I'm thinking that in fact,
>down deep, _all_ ruling classes have had to be more atheistic than the
>classes they ruled - religion was for keeping the masses in confusion. And
>maybe Nietszche's atheism represents the essential or de facto atheism of
>the feudal ( as you mention), capitalist and Greek and Roman slave rulers,
>all in one big reactionary atheist ideology.
..............
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
End of Marxism-Thaxis Digest, Vol 33, Issue 21
**********************************************
