Nietzsche Paper II: Thus Spoke Zarathustra

This paper was about Nietzsche's most important work, Thus Spoke (or Spake, depending your translator) Zarathustra (Also Sprach Zarathustra, in the German). Yeah, the one that inspired Strauss to write his tone poem which is most famous as the theme from 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is a weird book... it's part novel, part essay, and part epic poem. But as much as I hate Nietzsche, it's fantastically written, and was a lot of fun (if also very difficult) to read.

It is probably safe to say that there is no single philosopher more controversial than Friedrich Nietzsche. His attempt to violently overthrow all existing morality and philosophy, coupled with his sarcastic and biting writing style have secured him a place among philosophy's greatest thinkers, but also among its most disliked. He wrote a great deal, but the work of which he was most proud was Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a work of literature which spans the gaps between essay, novel, and epic poem. There are a plethora of possible topics in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but this paper shall look at the political philosophy (such as it is) that is contained in the work; first, to briefly outline it, and second to evaluate it both in a more objective sense and upon its own ground.
The first important thing to note about Nietzsche's political philosophy is that he never directly spells it out. Though there is a chapter in Thus Spoke Zarathustra that is concerned with the State, it is brief, and consists primarily of Zarathustra ranting against the evils of the contemporary view of the State rather than actually spelling out how he thinks society ought to be organized. Thus, any attempts to discover Nietzsche's political philosophy in Thus Spoke Zarathustra have to be inferred from his declarations about personal ethics and a few scattered remarks about the nature of man. Nevertheless, Nietzsche leaves enough clues strewn throughout the text that one can construct a fairly coherent, if not terribly specific, picture of Nietzsche's ideal State.
Arguably the most important characteristic of Nietzsche's political philosophy (and, indeed, his philosophy in general) is that it is entirely concerned with the individual. It is the individual's attempts to overcome himself and become the Superman that drives every aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy, to the point that he, through his mouthpiece Zarathustra, tell his followers to "Flee… into [their] solitude, and to where the raw, rough breeze blows," far away from everyone else (Zarathustra 81). He fears the state, saying that it causes "everyone, good and bad, [to lose] himself," and generally makes it clear that his concern is not with people, but rather with individual persons (individual men, to be specific, but Nietzsche's rampant misogyny is not the subject of this paper) (Zarathustra 77). Thus, any State Nietzsche is going to associate himself with is going to have to have a great deal of respect for the individual, and must not be concerned with promoting any sort of "common good." Nietzsche, however is not concerned with the good of all individuals, but rather only with those individuals who can strive to become Supermen. He quite clearly states that "Men are not equal. And they should not become so, either," (Zarathustra 124). Nietzsche very quickly divides humanity into two categories, and though he never standardizes his names for these categories, we shall call them in this paper the Masters and the Rabble. The Rabble is continually described as little more than an annoyance, pointless people milling in droves, living in fear and resentment. The Masters, on the other hand, are those people who stand some chance of becoming Supermen, and who transcend traditional morality.
It is here that the fundamental purpose of Nietzsche's political philosophy becomes obvious: he wants to create a State that will best serve the needs of the Masters. The Rabble ought to be treated merely as annoyances, and means to the greater good of the Masters. Nietzsche therefore seems to be arguing for a loose form of aristocracy; an "aristocratic anarchism," as Bertrand Russell described it (Russell 729). In direct contradiction to much of the Enlightenment thinkers, especially Kant, Nietzsche does not argue that "all men ought to be considered as ends in themselves." Rather, only the Masters, the aristocratic minority, should be considered as ends in themselves. The Rabble should be viewed merely as means to the good of the Masters. He justifies this distinction by arguing that the Rabble stands no chance of becoming Supermen, and therefore are fundamentally unimportant, as the Superman is the entire point of Nietzsche's conception of human life. Anyone who cannot become a Superman himself, therefore, can only serve a purpose in helping someone else to become a Superman.
The question then becomes how to identify the Masters. Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, probably puts it best when he says that in practice, they [the superior few] have usually been a conquering race or a hereditary aristocracy-- and hereditary aristocracies have usually been, at least in theory, descendants of conquering races," (Russell 736). He then goes on to argue that Nietzsche would probably accept this definition, drawing upon Nietzsche's statement that, "No morality is possible without a good birth," and arguing that for Nietzsche, a "good birth" constitutes a biological superiority rather than simply the better environment generally associated with an established aristocracy (Russell 736). Thus, Nietzsche, if Russell's interpretation is to be accepted, would seem to argue that the Masters ought to be a hereditary aristocracy, and the Rabble is everyone else. The purpose of the State, then, should be to help those at the top in their desire to become Supermen, while those at the bottom should be treated merely as means to this end.
This sort of philosophical thinking is fairly unpopular today-- the majority of Western political philosophy tends to agree upon some form of "all men are created equal," whether they be die-hard Communists or anarchists. Even during Nietzsche's time, the majority of the old monarchies and aristocracies were ending, taken over by either democracy or socialism, though there still remained a few vestiges of the old guard. Nietzsche's conception of the State would have been taken a lot more seriously a few hundred years back than it was during his time. It is important to note, however, that at least one major, Western civilization declared itself much in debt to Nietzsche's writings, and must therefore be considered as part of any discussion of the consequences of Nietzsche's philosophy. Germany under Hitler attempted such a State-- arguing that the Germans were the Masters and more or less everybody else was the Rabble. Nevertheless, it is important to note that although Nietzsche did support being cruel to the Rabble if it would help advance the cause of the Masters, he probably would not have condoned the wholesale slaughter of millions of said Rabble, and would therefore probably have rather not had his name associated with the Nazis. Nevertheless, his name has become permanently associated with the Nazi party, such that anyone who might want to resurrect Nietzsche's politics for a contemporary audience would have his work cut out for him. The Third Reich is not necessarily the end of Nietzschean thought, however. As Russell points out, "The Egyptian government was conducted on Nietzschean principles for several millennia," and, "The governments of almost all large States were aristocratic until the American and French Revolutions," (Russell 737). However tempting it may be to think otherwise, therefore, Nietzschean thought does not find its fullest expression in Nazi Germany, but rather in something resembling an older aristocracy.
As one might imagine, Nietzsche's political thought has produced a wide variety of critics, and these critics can primarily be divided into two camps. In the first camp, you find the majority of modern critics. They object to Nietzsche's declaration that "All men are not equal," and argue, along with Kant, that "all men should be treated as ends in themselves." The purpose of the State, they argue, should not be to advance the cause of the upper echelon of society, but rather to help everyone equally. These critics can be very different from one another-- both J.S. Mill and Karl Marx would likely agree on this objection, though they could probably agree on nothing else. The second camp consists of those who agree with Nietzsche's declaration that some men are better than others, and that the purpose of the State should be to serve their interests, but would argue that Nietzsche's State does not really best serve those interests. The question then becomes whether or not Nietzsche can be successfully defended from these critics.
The simple answer to this question as regards the first camp of objectors is "No." There is no way to read Nietzsche such that he satisfies the demand for equality for all, and a government which serves everyone's interests equally. But equally important is the fact that Nietzsche would not particularly want to be defended against these objectors. The difference between the two boils down to a difference in fundamental postulates: the objector believes that all men are created equal, and Nietzsche does not. These postulates run to the very core of these people, and cannot really be proven true or false. It cannot be concretely proven whether all people are equally worthwhile. While it is true that some people certainly make better use of their lives and talents than others, it is more or less impossible to prove whether or not these differences came out of an essential moral inequality or out of circumstantial inequality and personal decisions. Any debate between Nietzsche and objectors in this camp would necessarily boil down to this fundamental difference, and, as it is impossible to philosophically prove one postulate right over the other, they must simply go their separate ways. They have no common ground on which to argue-- Nietzsche does not care that his philosophy does not provide the best opportunities for all people.
The second camp, however, because it does share some common ground with Nietzsche himself, can actually debate with him. The fundamental question here would consist of a discussion about whether or not Nietzsche's proposed State best serves the interest of the Masters. This debate would, as previously mentioned, center around the question of identifying the Masters. Nietzsche restricts the Masters to those who either are a conquering race or are descended from one such conquering race, those whom he believes to have a biological claim to the quest to become the Superman. Nevertheless, it would seem that Nietzsche is glossing over the possibility that someone might be a biologically possible Superman without necessarily being in a position of power. Many of the great people of the ages have not come from existing aristocracies, and many of those in the aristocracy have not been great people. To restrict the ranks of the elite to those who have an obvious hereditary line is to severely handicap these people who might become Supermen in other situations. It might be better, therefore, to allow a bit more flexibility in the system, to allow those who might have been accidentally or wrongfully placed among the Rabble to become Masters, and to allow those who might appear to be Masters by their place in the aristocracy to sink back down into the Rabble where they belong. Even Plato allowed for some possibility of movement between his classes in the polis of the Republic.
Nietzsche never did provide a very clear, direct attempt to define his conception of the perfect State, and it is indeed possible that he did not have such a conception. From the bits and pieces scattered throughout the rest of his work, however, it would appear that although there may be quite a bit of validity to his personal ethics, it is probably better to seek elsewhere for clear and insightful political theory, regardless of where you stand on the subject of human equality. Nietzsche's politics is ultimately either based on entirely the wrong premise, or too flawed to properly satisfy the premise it is based upon.