Review: Nietzsche in the Streets

When is an anarchist a real anarchist? When his thoughts are in line with the teachings of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin and the like? When he engages in direct political action behind a black flag? Or when his thoughts are clearly libertarian? News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Interactivist Info Exchange
Collaborative Authorship, Collective Intelligence
http://info.interactivist.net/
Title: Ruud Kaulingfreks, "Nietzsche in the Streets"
Date: Sunday October 02 2005, @10:08AM
Author: stevphen
Topic: Book Reviews
from the writing-the-spirit-of-gravity dept.
http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=05/10/02/1813222

Nietzsche in the Streets
by Ruud Kaulingfreks

Reviewing I Am Not A Man, I Am Dynamite! Friedrich Nietzsche
and the Anarchist Tradition

When is an anarchist a real anarchist? When his thoughts are
in line with the teachings of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin
and the like? When he engages in direct political action
behind a black flag? Or when his thoughts are clearly
libertarian? Anarchism has always struggled with the
impossibility of becoming a movement. In a sense it fits
Groucho Marx's famous paradox of not wanting to become a
member of a club who would like to accept him as a member.
By its own principles, becoming an anarchist is a kind of
paradox -- that is as long as one thinks in terms of
movements or affiliations. Libertarianism, freedom for man
to choose his own rules (and definitely not the so-called
democratic freedom for man to accepts his ruler) and be
master of his own destiny in a society without private
ownership goes against affiliation. The struggle against all
forms of authority and the permanent revolt against
institutions that coerce freedom make it quite difficult --
if not impossible -- to define somebody as an anarchist. In
a sense the last thing an anarchist accepts is being pinned
down as such. He will probably deny it.

Does a philosopher who preaches the transvaluation of all
values, who defines mankind as a sick animal in need of a
herd, and as full of resentment because he is not able to
live by himself qualify as an anarchist? Can a philosopher
that writes in almost every line about the old adagio "ni
dieu ni maitre" (nor god nor master) and pleads for a
morality of laughing and mocking at all moral precepts to
the point of attacking social movements all together still
be considered a libertarian? Would this thinker who wanted
us to live and dance and not to be preoccupied with the
oughts and don'ts but who was realistic enough to realize
that this is an impossible task to ask from this weak animal
called man so he had to invent a new name for it: Overman,
be pleased with the qualification anarchist? Can we still
ask the question if the writer of Zarathrustra, the preacher
of the strong will, of living beyond moral precepts, of
being able to invent ones own life and not to be submissive
to anything at all, the most libertarian of all
philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche, is an anarchist?

As said he would be the first to roar with laughter at such
a question. Probably he would take his hammer out and attack
anarchism with the same vehemence he attacked almost
everything. He would remind us that the only life worth
living is the one we make ourselves beyond any label or
ideology: 'primum vivere deinde philosophare' (live first
philosophize later).

Still the book I have in front of me poses this question and
tries to answer it in eleven essays. I Am not A Man, I Am
Dynamite edited by John Moore with Spencer Sunshine claims
to look in detail to Nietzsche and the anarchist tradition.
It may be of no surprise all the authors consider the German
moustache in line with anarchism. Still this is remarkable.
Nietzsche is so overtly against authoritarianism that it is
almost impossible to read him otherwise. Yes Nietzsche has
had some bad publicity in the past but that was mainly by
people who didn't make the effort to read him and because of
the travesty his sister made of his unpublished work. Since
the beginning of the eighties, when the edition of the
complete works by Colli and Montinari appeared, we are not
dependent any more of dubious editions of the 'nachlass'.
This edition was also responsible for new books on Nietzsche
who left behind them the so-called relation with fascism and
other dubious figures. French philosophers paid tribute to
him and with the discovering of modern French philosophy
outside France Nietzsche has widely been acclaimed as one of
the most influential source of post-modern philosophy.
Nowadays almost 30 years after very few will even think of
Nietzsche's involvement with oppressing philosophies.

Although some of the essays draw on the work of French
Philosophers like Deleuze Foucault and Derrida (for instance
Franco Riccio's analysis of the death of God and
contemporary thinking) the main canon of the book is seeking
for parallels between Nietzsche's philosophy and the
classical writings of anarchism and libertarian socialism
such as Saul Newman's article on the relation between
Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and the writings of Bakunin
and Kropotkin, Daniel Colson's contribution on the relation
between Nietzsche and the Libertarian Workers Movement, and
Leigh Starcross on Emma Goldman's lectures in the USA. This
difference in approaches is not explained in the
introduction. The editor sadly passed out before the
completion of the book which was subsequently finished by
Spencer Sunshine. So the introduction is a necrology of John
Moore. The article by Guy Aldred more or less sets the stage
in presenting the main issue of Nietzsche as an anarchist.
He explains the importance of Nietzsche's individualism for
social movements. In the end Nietzsche is of course an
advocate of individualism. But in order to have a social
movement we need individuals who are able to be social. A
real social movement should not be purely an expression of
resentment but a movement of free individuals. As the
authors clearly explain, Nietzsche shows the way.

So it sounds like it is a book proving a point already well
made. But that is not fair. What is interesting is the
struggle to identify Nietzsche as an inspiration source for
libertarian social action and therefore an attempt to take
him out of academic philosophy. It shows how squatters,
antiglobalists, anarcho-syndicalists, find in Nietzsche and
Deleuze's reading of him a ground for their actions and a
broadening of Nietzsche's philosophy into the praxis of
social movements. Philosophy almost becomes practical and
enriches a tradition of social struggle with the libertarian
morality of the free spirit.

By doing that it opens the way to a further integration of
Nietzsche's thought into protest movements. It brings
Nietzsche outside academia into the streets, the squatted
buildings, alternative cultural centrums and the like. And
then of course the old nagging question appears again; how
can we make theory that is useful for political action?
After all I'm writing this review from a very comfortable
office surrounded by books and trying to be erudite. A
transvaluation of all values looks quite different from the
streets. Maybe radical political activism has leaned too
long on an established social theory and has now turned into
the moral struggle Nietzsche envisaged. After all God is
dead. Even the God of socialist utopia. A concept of
Dionysian politics for instance as is put forward by Andrew
Koch in his essay on Dionysian politics opens up a new
perspective on radical protest. A light hearted protest that
is willing to dance and to laugh even about serious matters
like social change. In the end Nietzsche expresses a
libertarian political philosophy of living without imposed
structures that make us despise ourselves. As said he leads
the way into a politics of creation of aesthetic judgement
without founding morality. Therefore man has first to
recognize the lack of a foundation of values; he has to be
able to live in a bottomless world beyond metaphysics. It is
the light heart ness of Koch's programme, the willingness to
laugh at the own enterprise that brings it beyond the mere
translation of a philosophy into praxis. Nietzsche as a
strong antidote against all too high ideas of ourselves
makes us laugh even at our ideals. This is not only an
inspiration for libertarian activist but also for academics
and certainly for management scholars.

I Am Not A Man, I Am Dynamite! Friedrich Nietzsche and the
Anarchist Tradition (2004) John Moore with Spencer Sunshine,
editors. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries.
-- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
George Washington