Materialism>idealism
I’m not trying to get into a whole debate, it’s just interesting to me the way some people cling to these idealist philosophers. Same w the stoics imo. As a guy who used to read all of them… they’re useless to actually understanding life. Like it can be helpful to read them in order to understand how the Western worldview evolved, but they really shouldn’t be taken as some sort of handbook - which many seem to do. (reactionaries). People who read Nietzsche or Plato and think they have some sort of secret insight is my biggest red flag irt pseudo-intellectual who is just going to waste your time… same with Dostoevsky btw.
Confucius is based af though.
Edit: Also, yes these kinds of people exist- my former mentor/boss who spent decades at a white shoe DC law firm would accept any idea if you found a quote by Plato to justify it lmao.
Yeah and Nietzsche also invented fascism, literally. Everything he wrote was the groundwork for fascism.
Sarcasm, right?
Not at all, he laid the groundwork for the modern nihilistic approach to “human nature” which gave the fascists their bread and butter.
Fascism is a political and economic framework but it justifies itself ideologically to the masses - that justification was given to it by nietzsche.
That’s… not how Fascist ideology started. Fascism was created by the Italian petite‐bourgeoisie, many of whom read ‘the works of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Pareto, Georges Sorel, the Nationalists and Futurists’, but the Fascists’ class backgrounds are what let them easily absorb these intellectuals rather than read them and reject them. A single lifeless intellectual could not have possibly supplied enough ideology or philosophy to help sustain a living mass movement for decades.
Yes it is. Linking to something which states when an ideology was given political life is not the same as “how fascist ideology started”. Just because Nietszche didn’t call his book fascism doesn’t mean it didn’t lay out the ideological framework for the fascist approach to social relationships. The italian fascist movement, was started by others, but we now use the term fascism more broadly than that.
However, I concede that inventing fascism was a stupid way to frame it, as if it were a solo effort, but he certainly played an outsized role and I would say that he provided fascists with some of their primary ideas irt philosophy and human relations.
What your text describes is that a group of people in Italy took those ideas and formed an organization around them… calling themselves fascist- a name which has hence been used to describe the political organization which centers around the capitalist class forcefully seizing power through the use of armed thugs which they then legitimize using their considerable wealth. But the ideas which undergird fascism at it’s key points (how to socialize brutality to the masses) are as your text describes rooted in Nietzsche.
Just because Nietzsche was not in the room when his ideas were given life in political organization does not mean that he was not important to the beginnings of fascism.
ALso not to be rude but I find your last sentence “A single lifeless intellectual could not have possibly supplied enough ideology or philosophy to help sustain a living mass movement for decades.” Ironic to say on a website full of MARXists. You may want to re-evaluate how you think about the manner in which the base and superstructure interact, or put more clearly - the power of ideas.
I’m sorry if my other comment comes across as rude- I’ve had a long day. Allow me to be more precise. you’re right that fascism can be considered a case-by-case ideology which each nation’s bourgeoisie has adapted to their cultural and political landscape.
So what I would say is that nietzsche provided some of the fundamental ideas regarding human nature which would go on to be folded into the cultural and political context of many nations. We generally refer to this marriage of Nietzsche’s ideology + the economic policies it justifies as “fascism” but each nation brings it’s own national identity/culture to the table. is that a more fair analysis.
I think we’re in agreement here you are just pulling on the definition of the word fascism and it’s historical context.