Nietzsche's philosophy is more than a bit fashy

traditionalism isn't proto-fascist
proto-fascism is traditionalist

Fascism follows directly from Nietzsche's philosophy. Mussolini was a huge Nietzschefag

>Nietzsche
>traditionalist

Nietzsche idealizes in one of his poems in The Gay Science a man who is "neither slave nor master"; the master is enslaved by his own slaves, by the fact that he must devote all his time to overseeing them. Fascism imagines one abstract State/Society which everyone is subservient to, whether it's the master class by doing and ordering what is harsh and necessary to further it or the slave class by obeying the masters, no matter how harsh they must be with themselves. (Obviously, Nietzsche would not like to be either in such a society.)

Just because Nietzsche believes people are not equal, just because he glorifies harshness and strength of will, just because he thinks certain conquerors, cruel people and strongmen from history are admirable characters, doesn't mean he's a fascist.

Funnily enough, you could call him apolitical. His stuff is more psychological, more concerned with changing the reader's viewpoint than with talking about the "world" and systems of politics and trying to change them. A revolution in the minds of artists, instead.

he was tho

he wished to return to the traditions of antiquity

No he didn't. The character of the modern Ubermensch is necessarily non-traditional. Just because he glorified the past doesn't mean he yearned for it, he always thought about the "next step"

it is not that nietzche was a fascist, it is that fascism is nietzchean.

let me elaborate: the ultimate goal for fascism, behind all the authoritarianism and policies et cetera, is to form a new man, a better man, obviously not in materialistic terms as much as in intellectual and moral ones. that is why most fascisms looked up and got inspiration from the nietzchean ubermensch.

t. a person who is usually considered a fascist

can I have sauce on these socrates and aristotle my dude?

Fascism glorifies struggle and conflict though. It's not as simple as "listen and obey".

>Fascism emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, as a core part of its politics.[10][188] Fascism views violent action as a necessity in politics that fascism identifies as being an "endless struggle".[189] This emphasis on the use of political violence means that most fascist parties have also created their own private militias (e.g. the Nazi Party's Brown shirts and Fascist Italy's Blackshirts).
Sounds very Nietzschean.

>liberate yourself from the tyranny of labor
>Larp as if you're part of the aristocracy while working a dead end job and constantly being dissatisfied with your life

>No he didn't. The character of the modern Ubermensch is necessarily non-traditional. Just because he glorified the past doesn't mean he yearned for it, he always thought about the "next step"
he wished for both

you can be multiple things you know
>fascism is nietzchean
no it isn't

the sources are "the republic" and "the politics", also the racism in aristotle is anti-white

>fascism is nietzchean
>no it isn't

nice argument faggot. care to elaborate?

The thing about fascism is that in the caricature most burgers are taught, the state "oppresses" the people and forces them to obey.

Fascism is just politics stripped to the bare without pretense. People forcing their wills and ideas on others and they, in turn, struggle for their wills to dominate others. Democracy and communism, in their search for a utopia, creates degenerate, stagnant, weak, and corrupt empires that no one wants to rebel against. Endless political conflict and anti-Utopianism is how things move forward. We need another Alexander the Great.

Nietzche's work doesn't contain any Ethno-Statist or Racial Supremacist ideas though.

Which are what most chucklefucks both for and against modern so-called "Fascism" recognise as being the key elements thereof.

Also, he wouldn't have cared much for Hitler's ideas about the German "Volk" - Nietzche held common people in utter disdain, German or not - Nietzsche's conceptions of nobility are not in commonplace folkish things, but in the powerful elite who rises to dominate the masses.

Also, he didn't really give much of a fuck about Jews.

People trying to associate Nietzche to fascism are usually doing so for ideological reasons - ironically, like his sister under the Nazis, who collaborated with the german government, and certainly helped to put more of a Nazi spin on Nietzche's works - shamelessly attempting to co-opt his ideas after his death for a cause he most likely would have found absurd.

Joke's on you, I come from an aristocratic European family whose history goes back for centuries. We're involved in diamonds.

People are just catastrophising. He can arguably be called an anarchist as much as a fascist, and both are very superficial characterizations of anything he has written.

post proof

>the ultimate goal for fascism, behind all the authoritarianism and policies et cetera, is to form a new man, a better man, obviously not in materialistic terms as much as in intellectual and moral ones
the fascist man is a hermaphroditic herd man

nietzsche wished for the creation of a herd man and a higher man, not some kind of hermaphroditic compromise between the two
did your family know napoleon

Ethnonationalism isn't the central defining element of fascism though. Just because he doesn't support the specific ideas doesn't mean that his stances weren't early fascism.

The "powerful elite controlling the masses" still exists. It's the Jews. But the issue with democracy is that it's manipulated people into being unable and unwilling to rebel. The Last Man. And in Nietzschean terms Hitler and Mussolini were both Ubermensch.

You might be interested to know what in a letter, one of Nietzsche's friends referred to him as a "radical aristocrat."

Nietzsche wrote back and called it the "shrewdest observation/evaluation" made about him thus far.

So "Radical Aristocrat" is as good as you'll get. His definition of 'Aristocracy' was either partially meritocratic, however. His 'Anti-Education' lectures make this somewhat obvious. On the other hand, he did clearly believe in a physically/mentally superior Human race - created by the interbreeding of superior Europeans/Jews. He believes the Greeks were correct in their belief that a strong body begets a strong mind - rather than vice versa, or worse, the (modern) belief that physicality and mentality are unconnected.

He was a bit of a clusterfuck.

Fascism essentially creates both herd men and higher men. But higher men can come from any system, because the "elite" can never go away.

We have our roots in the Antwerp Diamond District. My ancestor was Lodewyk van Bercken. That's all you'll get outta me.

I think so. European nobility, certainly.

>But higher men can come from any system
that's not really true is it

>/k/ and Veeky Forums browser
My nigger

it seems to me that you have on fascism a distorted vision of what burgers are taught in school.while I agree that it is less pretentious than other ideologies it has no more "people forcing their wills and ideas on others and bla bla" than any other form of government has, and fascism too aims to obtain a utopia: one that will be heralded by a new man.

in this fascisms are clearly nitzchean.

It's decidedly anti-fascist. The only way one could arrive at the conclusion that it was fascistic is by reading about his work rather than reading his work. To use some of his own words, the text has disappeared beneath interpretation. Stop perverting his words.

>the fascist man is a hermaphroditic herd man
no

the fascist man is the best version of oneself that everyone should be. there is no "herd", there is a spirit of unity and collaboration, that is a very different thing

What are your political views? The only people I've heard call themselves "anti-fascist" are liberal cucks and commies.

>He believes the Greeks were correct in their belief that a strong body begets a strong mind
yeah but a strong body does not mean lifting, like the 20 yo betas think

See, this is the problem.

A lot of people whitewash Nietzsche's work. Much of his work is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities.

>the fascist man is the best version of oneself that everyone should be
>that everyone should be
fine, that's not a nietzschean idea

his philosophy is a rank-ordering, not a universal ideal for everyone to strive for

>Much of his work is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities.

Which I don't see as a problem.

yeah strong body means a strong self or individual

it's not literal, he's not saying get buff yo

So we're agreed that just because it's anti-fascist, does not mean he's opposed to the use of violence/etc.

This, Nietzsche has a huge individualist component. He really liked Ralph Waldo Emerson for example.

This is also true. He was very decidedly anti-state, which a lot of people don't know.

His ideal society would probably look something like Stirner's Union of Egoists - with no formal bonds/etc.

>A lot of people whitewash Nietzsche's work. Much of his work is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities.

Which doesn't make you a fascist. "Modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities" are at most, 400 years old.

>He was very decidedly anti-state, which a lot of people don't know.
a lot of people don't know it because it's not true
>His ideal society would probably look something like Stirner's Union of Egoists - with no formal bonds/etc.
that's a load of shit
his ideal society would be ancient rome with a bunch of ubermensch at the top and a bunch of plebs at the bottom

>a lot of people don't know it because it's not true

“Where the state ends—look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the overman?”

“I, the state, am the people!’ That is a lie!”

“Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it...”

“The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist.”

“All-too-many are born: for the superfluous the state was invented.”

“Culture and the state—one should not deceive oneself about this—are antagonists... All great ages of culture are ages of political decline: what is great culturally has always been unpolitical, even anti-political.”

he hated the herd, doesn't mean he was anti-herd

the herd and the state need to exist, but they need to be suboordinate to the individuals and culture

He's very clearly anti-state you illiterate moron.

Anarchists like Renzo Novatore and Emma Goldman share the most with Nietzsche's philosophy out of people who are actively into politics. Literally the only reason that Nietzsche shat so much on anarchism was because he didn't actually know what anarchists believed. He never quotes any or references them by name. All in all, his philosophy isn't really a political project though.
>he hated the herd, doesn't mean he was anti-herd
wew

nietzsche isnt fashy at all.
to put oneself in the service of the state is slave moral. nietzsche is a stirnerite

>waah I need my opinions validated by philosophers long since dead and their works long since made redundant or built upon by others

Why are alt-leftards so fucking insecure?

what the fuck does anti-state even mean

nowhere in your post does he say he wants to abolish the state, he just says it's an antagonist

nothing he says here is worse than what he says about the herd, but he doesn't want to abolish the herd

inb4 you say he's anti-herd
he was not anti-herd, he recognised the need for the existence of the herd, that the rule creates the exception

But how can you hate something without being anti-that thing?

He mistook Anarchism for Socialism in a lot of cases, which he rightly hated.

the values of the herd should rule in the herd

you fucking anarchists haven't even read nietzsche
>But how can you hate something without being anti-that thing?
this explains all marxism in a nutshell

i hate you but i don't want you to not exist

wow look it's that easy

I don't know goldman, but wasn't renzo a fucking stirnerist? Not exactly the common model of anarchist.

But if you hate me while still wanting me here more or less, then does it actually mean anything that you hate me?

"Solidarity is therefore the state of being in which Man attains the greatest degree of security and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, that is the exclusive consideration of one’s own interests, impels Man and human society towards solidarity; or it would be better to say that egoism and altruism (concern for the interests of others) become fused into a single sentiment just as the interests of the individual and those of society coincide. " - Malatesta

>then does it actually mean anything that you hate me?
yes, because you can do things to things you hate OTHER than destroy them

wow i have just found the missing piece to marxism, it all makes sense now

What can you do with those things?

>What can you do to those things?
enslave them
extract resources from them
etc.

>ah of course if you're being mean to others you are literally hurting yourself
sounds like a justification to me

This tbqh.

If you look it's pretty easy to find leninist-nietzschean, marxist-nietzschean, fascist-nietzschean and capitalist-nietzschean materials out there, mostly because N didn't wrote about the state as a project, he only mentions the state in relation to the individual, never in relation to a better state.

But hating something that you rely on is not a strong position to be in.
That's not what it says user. The whole point of the Union of Egoists in the first place is wellbeing for all, that nobody gets left out.

This is literally the fastest moving Veeky Forums thread in the past 2 years.

so don't hate things you rely on then

If you don't rely on something, and you hate that thing, what makes you think it should exist?

You respect the fact that others rely on it and don't hate it.

>what makes you think it should exist
no the state DOES exist

this is a fact, we're not debating whether it should exist or not

you're like those stoners who think DUDE SHOULD OUR HANDS EXIST

>That's not what it says user. The whole point of the Union of Egoists in the first place is wellbeing for all, that nobody gets left out.
What will the union of egoists do if my creative nothing conflicts with the creative nothing of another egoists in a way that cannot be resolved to the benefit of both of us?

Doesn't sound very independent user.
wow philosophy is over congratulations!
It would stop existing.

this isn't about philosophy though

don't get pissy just because your ideology is out of whack with reality

But I thought that egoism impelled me towards solidarity as the expression of my egoism?

It's a thread about Nietzsche's philosophy
It does for most people, Stirner talks about his fellow-feeling with all people. A Union of Egoists is just an arrangement that nobody has to sacrifice themselves for.

Don't worry, user, I know you're right.

>Anarchists like Renzo Novatore and Emma Goldman share the most with Nietzsche's philosophy out of people who are actively into politics.

Of all the ambiguous things N. said that we could argue about, he explicitly says exploitation is central to human society and the creation of great individuals, c'mon. Anarchism is antithetical to N.'s hierarchical view of life.

"should the state exist or not" is not philosophy, it's politics

it's a politics that doesn't make any sense because politics presupposes the existence of a state but whatever

>Of all the ambiguous things N. said that we could argue about, he explicitly says exploitation is central to human society and the creation of great individuals
Where does he say that? He says that arbitrary restrictions can help you to be free, but to me it seems odd to think that he would support the kinds of restrictions that leveled people in a collective way, with all his individualistic feelings.
anti-politics

stop saying anti-this as if it means something

anti-christ
t. nietzschee

>259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;

BGE, Chapter IX

it's antichrist not anti-christ

Bent u een jood ? Alsook voor wie heeft u gestemd in Antwerpen ?

stop being so anti-"-"

>this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization).
Anarchism wants to raise people to that level and have this be the end of it, it's not Babouvism, or equality before God/under the law or something like that where nobody is allowed to be smarter or stronger than anyone else.

Stirner's work was kept "alive" exclusively by anarchists up until Foucault, my dude

But all anarchists aren't stirnerites, right?

The american left (and americans as a whole) will never understand this. It almost looks like they're all equally capped at mediocrity save for the absolute elites. I blame it on protestantism, but I can't exactly explain why, it just seems very clear to me.

Nietzsche doesn't believe a society could consist and produce solely Great Men, though, and therein lies the fundamental difference between N. and Anarchism, imo. The quote even says "life itself is essentially... conquest of the strange and weak." I suppose if you interpreted "conquest" as "eliminate" then I could see where you're coming from, but we both know that's a misreading.

No, but non-anarchist stirnerites are a new thing, as far as I know.

Couldn't you say that conquest of the strange is something that herds would be doing? You're probably right though.

Read On the Genealogy of Morals

Nietzsche was a syphilitic weakling, of course he was a fashy.

I guess they would be, but only at the whims of the 'greater men' though, and I doubt that's what you're asking.

>Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").

I think it's clearer to interpret 'strange' in #259 to mean 'foreign'----that is, Great Men seek to express their inner Will upon the world, and because your Will is different we must battle for domination.

Thanks for the conversation, I love talking about N. on here.

>r Racial Supremacist ideas though.
Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly racist and quite a bit social Darwinist as well.

>Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly racist

Eh, not really, you definitely have to infer it from the text, and arguments to contrary aren't wholly without merit.

>His ideal society would probably look something like Stirner's Union of Egoists - with no formal bonds/etc.
More like one portion of the population would be a union of egoists. The rest of the population would be their property.

Kind of like the Ancient Greeks.

>what is Athenian democracy

This is an insightful post. Political interpretations of N. are almost always painfully bad in the sense of misrepresentation via de-contextualization of quotes.