Having wandered, somewhat ahead
of time, into Part III of Nietzsche’s Menschliches,
Allzumenschliches, we are getting back in line with Part II, Vermischte Meinungen und Sprüche.
…This entry continues a previous
discussion of totalitarianism, but this time not in the Collective section,
which has a number of related entries already, but in this one, where the focus
is on Nietzsche proper.
***
So far, I have elsewhere written
extensively on the basic naturalness and undeniable moral legitimacy of
the totalitarian concept as such
(mind you, we are indeed talking about the concept of totalitarianism as a
social choice, and, of course, from being natural, objectively moral,
and legitimate, it by no means follows that everybody should like it),
and now this is Nietzsche’s turn to join the debate indirectly. Here is one of
innumerable Nietzschean passages which implicitly supports my seemingly
outrageous, but logically unassailable argument. It is from Vermischte Meinungen und Sprüche (#89):
“Mores and their victim. The origin of mores may
be found in two thoughts: “Society is
worth more than the individual,” and “Enduring advantage is to be
preferred to ephemeral advantage,” from which follows that the enduring
advantage of society must be given precedence over the advantage of the
individual, especially over his momentary well-being, but equally over his
enduring advantage, and even his continued existence. Mores must be preserved,
sacrifices must be made, but such attitude originates only in those who are not
its victims, for these claim that the individual may be worth more than many,
and that present enjoyment may have to be valued higher than a pallid
continuation of complacent states. The philosophy of the sacrificial animal,
however, is always sounded too late; and so we retain mores (Sitte) and
morality (Sittlichkeit), which is nothing more than the feeling for the whole
quintessence of mores under which one lives and has been brought up-- brought
up not as an individual, but as a member of a whole. Thus it happens constantly
that an individual brings upon himself, by means of his morality, the tyranny
of the majority.”
My reason for quoting this
passage and making a special entry out of it has nothing to do with approving
or disapproving of the totalitarian phenomenon, but just another proof that
totalitarianism is not some unnatural aberration of a power-hungry clique of
egotistic megalomaniacs, but a perfectly legitimate expression of the
democratic will of the society. The utter idiocy of the universal “Will to Democracy,” if I am permitted,
so ungraciously, to abuse Nietzsche’s terminological brilliance in describing
the neoconservative perversion of
very recent memory, is here exposed.
In a capsule, as I said before,
it is extremely difficult for any American to understand the legitimacy of the
popular roots of totalitarianism. The American-style democracy is splendid, but
it the luxury of the rich and the lucky, whereas the rest of the world may be
quite different. The rule cannot be measured by the yardstick of exceptions. If
democracy as a meaningful term means people-power, the people’s choice is
always to give the power to an exceptional individual of great strength and
wisdom, which inclination some time ago was labeled the Leader Principle,..
...And lastly, why did I put On
The Trader’s Scale in the title? The English-speaking world is known to
have been adept in the “shopkeeper” logic (this is not according to a sneering
Napoleon, but to a well-meaning Adam Smith!), hence a direct mental reference
to one of the tools of that trade.
No comments:
Post a Comment