[Marxism] Nietzsche on MLK

shaun may mnwps at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 22 03:19:35 MST 2014


With all due respect Gary, you're article on Nietzsche is ideological. With certain limitations, "Kaufman's defence" actually addresses the questions which you raise. But even with him, we find a descent into the ideological "muck of ages". If we are to critique a great thinker like FN, it is fundamental - within the tradition of revolutionary critique established by Marx - not to "trot" him out ideologically which is what you actually do. "Truth, morality and power" are not metaphysical, ahistorical abstractions but located within the historical conditions of their specific creation, relations and development. You approach Nietzsche formalistically, ahistorically and metaphysically within the spirit of "false or true", "wrong or right", "revolting" or palatable, etc, i.e. within the very spirit which we must subject to a historical dialectical critique. Speak truth unto power, as they say
We must try to critique FN with the aid of the explicit or implicit criteria and parameters which clearly came across in his correspondence where he actually opposed anti-semitism and nationalism. His correspondence, in this regard, tells us more about his approach than his published work. The usual cliche is to implicate Nietzsche in the rise of fascism which is what some have actually done. The Nazis, of course, admired and "adapted" Darwin to try to justify their ideology. Does this establish a "genealogical" lineage from Darwin to Hitler? 
"Effluent" was intended as a figure of political speech and not to pejoratively dismiss your contribution. I do hope you have not taken it as such. We are looking at each other's work and not at each other. If you actually approach FN within a revolutionary critique and present it as such, it might just take my breath away. (And I, for one, would not be compelled to "hold" it)  
revolutionary regards
Shaun May 


http://shaunpmay.wordpress.com
 
http://spmay.wordpress.com

> Well Shaun,
> 
> this is the first, if I may so, false note in this thread. You simply
> repeat Kaufman's defence and then describe those who do not agree with you
> as producing  "effluent". No one has made the simple mistake of saying
> Nietzsche was anti-semitic. No one.  Yet you simply trot out the bit about
> the sister. As my post this morning pointed out I addressed Nietzsche on
> truth, morality and power.  On all of which he was wrong and often
> revoltingly so. Defend him on that territory if you can and I won't hold my
> breath while I'm waiting.
> 
> 
> comradely
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:44 PM, shaun may <mnwps at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ======================================================================
> > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> > ======================================================================
> >
> >
> > That old chestnut, once again, of Nietzsche's work as a philosophical
> > source of anti-semitism and fascism. I am disappointed to hear such
> > hackneyed effluent and misrepresentation tediously rolled out on this list.
> > (Yawn, yawn)
> > Nietzcshe himself was virulently opposed to anti-semitism ("anti-semitic
> > canaille") and nationalism in his lifetime. It was sister Elizabeth and
> > others who doctored his writings which served the purposes of Fascism.
> > There is no direct road from FN to Fascism. Just as there is no direct
> > road from Marx to Stalin. If the writings of great thinkers are
> > sufficiently twisted, and dogmatically and doctrinally relocated out of the
> > historical conditions of their creation, it is entirely possible to make a
> > stinking and decaying pig's ear out of an embroidered philosophical silk
> > purse.
> > http://shaunpmay.wordpress.com
> > http://spmay.wordpress.com
**************************
 		 	   		  


More information about the Marxism mailing list