Critiques of Nietzsche

[K=x'uksami]

Anyone know any good anarchist critiques of Nietzschean philosophy? I can't seem to figure out a way around this guy, how to get around the übermensch or will to power thing and so on. How do I show that "slave morality" isn't bad as he says it is and that his criticism of anarchism is invalid? Thanks in advance.

[Lemming]

Slave morality is as bad as he says it is -- it's just that master morality is no better :P

Autonomedia published a collection of essays on Nietzsche and anarchism a couple of years ago. Most of the contributors (including Saul Newman and Peter Lamborn Wilson) identified both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian elements in his works.

A short article on Nietzsche by the anarchist Brian Morris can be read here. I don't know of any longer pieces online. (Let me know if you find any.)

[K=x'uksami]

I see, so what is the case against master morality, then? I have looked for a solid refutation of Nietzsche, but thusfar have not been able to find one of any real quality. The article you linked only told me what I already know, that he was strongly opposed to anarchism. What I am interested in is finding a way to prove his conclusions on anarchism wrong.

[booeyschewy]

strange critique of nietzsche actually, because that was the whole point of the geneology of morals. slave morality is the worst, but master morality is itself trapped in that world which defiles it. nietzsche argues again and again for a rethinking and recreating new values that leave them both behind.

a better critique: i can't remember where i saw the quote, but i think it is in the will to power or some other fragments piece. it was something to the effect that socialism betrays the downtrodden since it robs them of the only thing they had, pride in their toil.

yeah not so cool. In general he had a clear ruling class hierarchical consciousness, though you could read him as championing natural hierarchy.

[cultureslum]

See,I always thought Nietzsche's works were not critical of anarchism until I have actually read him critique them.When I did,I just thought his political side was underdeveloped and we should just view this as a blemish on his otherwise great work(along with his similes relating to women,like Kauffman has talked about).
At 1st,I never saw the master/slave morality as a political subject.I viewed it more in the personal category.
At other times,I sense that he agrees with anarchism,but he was just taking a critical look at it.I am not sure,and that's why I was going to ask the same question.People always seem to say Nietzsche can be difficult to understand.I get mixed feelings about the whole thing.Maybe it could've been that Nietzsche only read a few like Bakunin,who was more of an activist than a good writer.What's also strange is that I've read somewhere that Emma Goldman said something of Nietzsche being somewhat of an anarchist.My memory may be shoddy,so I may be misconstruing something.I'm just as clueless as how to take it.

[chernoe_ znamia]

i think she whipped an ex-lover/bum b/c he said neitszche was Bourgeois

[VichyInsurrection]

Nietzsche did not promote master morality. He promoted making your own morality. To etch yourself upon brass, harder than brass, nobler than brass and so forth. I think most people miss this because #1 they haven't read Nietzsche, #2 if they do they read him with a lot of preconceptions.
He's hard to argue with philosophically, since he had no real theory of epistemology or metaphysics, nor did he argue most of his ideas or even present them clearly and abstractly. I do think he was a very intelligent man and a very good writer, though.

[Noleaders]

Ive only read beyond good and evil but ive got a few ways to critique him.

First he asserts the will to power exists but doesn't prove it. Think about a world where you were all powerful, you could do anything. In other words you would be absolutley free. Power is just a way to defend that freedom. The will to power is rather the will to freedom. The difference is freedom can exist co-operatively (in fact it has to if its to last) wheras power has to exist at the expense of others. This small difference alters the rest of his theory because its now possible for a more altruistic vision.

Second the ubermensch is pure fantasy. The examples he gives such as napolean, caeser etc. were all brought down by the herd and this seems to show they weren't that powerful afterall. Their power was built on others serving them and brought down when they were fed up. He also describes the ubermensch as someone not only capable of coping with loneliness and harsh situations but constantly living under them. Why would anyone want to live like that if there motivated by power and self interest?

Also he goes on about binary opposites being flawed thinking yet states theres either slave or master morality...also he doesn't believe in progress he believes in eternal recurrence but his theory is basically things are bad because we dont have any ubermenschs and they will be better when we have them. Theres more examples of his misguided thinking when he simultaneously exaggerates the decline of religion while at the same time saying its a good tool for social control. Not only is this a contradiction but also religion has far from dissappeared but still nowhere near influential enough anymore to be used for social control. Theres more examples of flaws in his logic if you look hard enough bu the reply is getting long enough.

Last but certainly not least his theory ,briliantly, defeats itself in the first chapter when he claims all philosophers have just expressed their own prejudices as a philosophy then goes on to justify the world should be run by philosophers with a thinking style and lifestyle remarkably close to his lol. All his emphasis on the aggressive side of our nature can easily be traced back to him being an outcast. His famous statement "GOD IS DEAD" could be a link to his dad dying when he was young. God is often seen as a father figure and his dad was also a preacher. He went crazy when he saw a horse being whipped and felt so much compassion for it, it just seems his theory was a bit of a tough front put up as a response to his loneliness. Its quite sad really. He was a smart guy but not as smart as his supporters would have you believe.

[Zazaban]

I like to take the idea of the ubermensch, but I use it to describe artists. Like instead of Napoleon or Caesar, I would use Wilde or Rimbaud as examples. This is inspired by Nietzche's words 'one should live their life as if it was a work of art' (I paraphrase a bit). I find those words very inspiring.