Despite that, for more than a century Nietzsche has been a hugely popular—and surprisingly influential—figure in American thought and culture. In American Nietzsche, Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen delves deeply into Nietzsche's philosophy, and America's reception of it, to tell the story of his curious appeal.
American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas ... — Amazon
When Hintz professed her reverence for Nietzsche in 1913, the American “Nietzsche vogue” (as it was referred to at the time) was only in its infancy. Indeed, what looked like a fleeting intellectual fashion in the 1910s proved so durable that by 1987 it had accomplished, in the words of University of Chicago classics scholar Allan Bloom, nothing less than the “Nietzscheanization” of the American mind. In The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom surveyed the wreckage of late-20th-century “value relativism” in American culture and traced it back to the 1930s and ’40s, when German-speaking intellectual émigrés fleeing Nazism brought Nietzsche’s philosophy with them as they found refuge in the American academy. According to Bloom, though they introduced Americans to Nietzsche’s terrifying insights into the bankruptcy of Western thought and morality, these refugee scholars also instructed them in the larger European cultural framework from which they had come. But as his philosophy made its way from the academy into the radicalized culture of the 1960s, it became transfigured into a blank check for late-20th-century “nihilism, American style.” — JENNIFER RATNER-ROSENHAGEN
I think it was evident to everybody when every large city or town was bombed and the country was occupied. The corrupt Nazi organization couldn't (and wouldn't) take care of the people once the fighting came inside Germany's borders. The absolute collapse could also be seen that there wasn't any resistance afterwards the surrender: no large scale Werewolf units continued the fight afterwards. You don't hear about nazi-insurgents fighting on and being captured in the 1950's or 1960's in either East or West Germany. The Third Reich just evaporated into thin air afterwards and became just an idea.The racist thing is a distraction from the wanting a totalitarian system and I am so glad you brought in the rest of the world. Through the internet, I know a Portuguese man and the brutality of fascism is still with him. Why not go with what works? Except as you said. in Germany, it was clear it did not work. But exactly what piece of it did not work? — Athena
For many Russians, Putin seem to bring back stability to Russia and someone to contain the robber barons that had stolen the largest companies of Russia. Of course what Putin did was start his rule by killing innocent Russians by staging a terrorist attack in order to get the Chechen war going again (as the last had ended in humiliating defeat) and then put his friends and basically the St. Petersburg mafia in charge. And until now (at least), starting wars has made him extremely popular.It is mind-boggling that people could want Putin in charge, but in the US many people want Trump in charge and I can't explain this. But somewhere in this soup of thoughts is a burning need to be superior and in control, and to have no qualms about exploiti8ng or crashing others.
Why is being a Nazi attractive to some? — Athena
Actually, the Prussian Model is not that every detail is planned. Actually quite contrary: It's that lower leaders will take initiative as they understand what the intention of their commanders is and can use their own judgement to achieve those goals. Every detail, especially after the initial stage, isn't planned as no plan survives contact with the enemy. What is taught is a method of warfare and hence lower commanders, even soldiers, can use their own thinking and their own initiative.The Prussian military model means that even if all your generals are destroyed, the war will proceed as planned. Every detail of the operation is planned. Every job is planned in detail so everyone who does the job will do it the same as the person before. Kings die, but bureaucracies never die. — Athena
The Weberian Model
The classic model of bureaucracy is typically called the ideal Weberian model, and it was developed by Max Weber, an early German sociologist. Weber argued that the increasing complexity of life would simultaneously increase the demands of citizens for government services. Therefore, the ideal type of bureaucracy, the Weberian model, was one in which agencies are apolitical, hierarchically organized, and governed by formal procedures. Furthermore, specialized bureaucrats would be better able to solve problems through logical reasoning. Such efforts would eliminate entrenched patronage, stop problematic decision-making by those in charge, provide a system for managing and performing repetitive tasks that required little or no discretion, impose order and efficiency, create a clear understanding of the service provided, reduce arbitrariness, ensure accountability, and limit discretion.[8
[https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/amgovernment/understanding-bureaucracies-and-their-types/
ssu
5.8k
↪Athena Referring to the Prussian military model I really didn't think about Max Weber, actually. After all, there are different models and ideologies that are German / Prussian. Starting from the fact that Karl Marx was born Prussian! (But for some reason we don't look at Marxism as part of the cultural heritage Prussia has given to the World)
But yes, Weber is also one of my favorites and his views have been very influential. Indeed in his works on bureaucracy are important as it's been a framework on how bureaucracy has been studied. It's not only that Americans have adopted Weber, it's quite universal at least in the West. The faceless Weberian bureaucrat has been seen an antidote antidote patronage, nepotism and corruption. Of course as person living in the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries he didn't live to see what modern bureaucracies developed into (someone as smart as Weber could have made interesting observations) and for him modern bureaucracy was part of the modern industrialized world. We have to understand that a professional, impartial and meritocratic government bureaucracy have been the exception throughout history. In Weber's time there was in Germany still the Kaiser and when you do have an autocrat, bureaucracy can be passed by going directly to the monarch. Hence sociologists that lived in the late 19th Century had still much things around from the past like the last remnants of feudalism in their day to day life. — ssu
:kiss: Now this discussion can flower. This is the first time in many years on many forums that someone has said something that can move the discussion forward. :grin:
Yes, the government programs we have today would not be possible without this bureaucratic order. I don't see the number for post? On the first page about halfway down I give quotes from Huxley, Tocoquiville, and Tagore
(click on Athena to see the thread) that draw our attention to the problems with this bureaucracy.Athena
2k — Athena
Agent Smith
4.3k
There's nothing American or German about governance/politics. All we have to remember is that when we make a choice, it's not the best of the best but the best of the worst (least worst). — Agent Smith
And you appear to be ignoring information. — Athena
Agent Smith
4.3k
And you appear to be ignoring information.
— Athena
:blush: Yep, you're on the mark. It's just it doesn't feel right to attribute anything to a particular group of people or to a country as a whole. When we do that, we do it for the sake of simplicity, but there's the real and deadly risk of oversimplification. — Agent Smith
But reactionary politics destroy everything because people are acting on their feelings, not their knowledge. They know they do not understand and do not have the power and they seek a leader who will take good care of them.Stability and security is what all authoritarians proclaim. And usually, they portray every opponent of theirs as being against this and that those before them were evil and had no desire to serve the people, unlike them (the populism). The situation is so dire, that tough measures are needed. And many fall for that — ssu
how they would change things so they would be happy voters instead of angry voters. — Athena
Reactionary politics is all about feelings. — Athena
Neitzche — Athena
Neitzche
— Athena
Nietzsche!!! :D
The post does not say much. Nietzsche might be popular in the US but only in some circles, literary criticism, as a progenitor post modernism maybe. Nietzsche is abused, used, held as a conservative and a revolutionary. But anyway, I think Nietzsche would be on your side in this debate. He abhorred mediocrity and 'herd spirit'. He admired the ancient thinkers just like you do. He abhorred democratization in the sense of populism because it made men ripe for tyrants. Nietzsche does not seem to be your target. I would recommend you to study him. Take your eyes from wikipedia and videos about the Prussian education system, and read Nietzsche. I thin you will find it wonderful.
I also do not think bureaucracy is a European disease. The US have their own fair share. Fordism, Taylorism... We are not living in the 19th century anymore, however if you want to understand it correctly, study the 19th century and study Germany, because it was the German golden age. If Germany is your enemy you have to get to know him and know the US as well. Nazism was only one side of the German coin... — Tobias
The organization could be doing a lot better if it were a religious organization with a focus on giving compassionate care, instead of a hierarchy of power and legalities and rules. And leave the volunteers free to do what needs to be done. Being American used to mean being our own authority and being trusted to do the right thing but today's bureaucracy has changed all that. — Athena
This is so true. For a modern public sector to operate you do need that modern bureaucracy. When this bureaucracy is professional and doesn't fall into the pitfalls of corruption, favoritism or nepotism etc. things work well. This also has an impact on the populace: they trust and depend on the government in a totally different manner. Literally one's social safety net isn't anymore family (as it has been for thousands of years), but your public sector employee.My argument is the change in bureautic technology is essential to programs such as Social Security, but it also has social, economic, and political ramifications. — Athena
I think this is very much American thinking, where individual freedom is promoted. And as it's a huge country without real enemies lurking at the border (Canada and Mexicon don't impose a threat), American thinking has differed a bit from Europe. The collective isn't so important and seems to be something leftist. In a small country as mine where people understand that the existence of the people hasn't been and isn't self evident. Hence the collective thinking of "us" and it's link to the country and government is far closer than in the US. The government isn't a threat, it's something that people actually also voluntarily work for free. There's voluntary defense training, voluntary fire brigades, voluntary rescue and so on, which is controlled and lead by the government/public sector. It's far different from ordinary charity work in this case.This would not be as true as it is, if we had maintained education for good citizenship and independent thinking and if we continued to transmit the culture we had. — Athena
Education is vital to democracy and that is not education for technology. — Athena
the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the i958 National Defense Education Act replaced domestic education the US had with Germany's model. — Athena
I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies. — Athena
We are no longer teaching national values when we enter wars and I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies. — Athena
The full name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (English: National Socialist German Workers' Party) and they officially used the acronym NSDAP. The term "Nazi" was in use before the rise of the NSDAP as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person, a yokel. In this sense, the word Nazi was a hypocorism of the German male name Igna(t)z (itself a variation of the name Ignatius)—Igna(t)z being a common name at the time in Bavaria, the area from which the NSDAP emerged.[11][12][/quote
The link may say even more important things, but what jumps out at me is "Nazi" was a derogatory word meaning backward farmer or peasant. Trump appeals to these people. He was a Wrestlemania star
It is a total humiliation to have a president who behaves like this, and he still has a large following. — Wikipedia
↪Athena Referring to the Prussian military model I really didn't think about Max Weber, actually. After all, there are different models and ideologies that are German / Prussian. Starting from the fact that Karl Marx was born Prussian! (But for some reason we don't look at Marxism as part of the cultural heritage Prussia has given to the World)
But yes, Weber is also one of my favorites and his views have been very influential. Indeed in his works on bureaucracy are important as it's been a framework on how bureaucracy has been studied. It's not only that Americans have adopted Weber, it's quite universal at least in the West. The faceless Weberian bureaucrat has been seen an antidote antidote patronage, nepotism and corruption. Of course as person living in the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries he didn't live to see what modern bureaucracies developed into (someone as smart as Weber could have made interesting observations) and for him modern bureaucracy was part of the modern industrialized world. We have to understand that a professional, impartial and meritocratic government bureaucracy have been the exception throughout history. In Weber's time there was in Germany still the Kaiser and when you do have an autocrat, bureaucracy can be passed by going directly to the monarch. Hence sociologists that lived in the late 19th Century had still much things around from the past like the last remnants of feudalism in their day to day life. — ssu
Tobias
707
We are no longer teaching national values when we enter wars and I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies.
— Athena
I do not now your age exactly, but culture is no monolithic entity. My mother is born directly after the second world war. She grew up in the 60s and lived in the 70s... there were so many cultural strands, the rise of the left, flower power, pacifism, conservatism, militant anti- communism... Which 'culture' would it be when your generation is gone? I think the culture you refer to has been taken down already by a double punch: flower power from the left and chicago school shareholder capitalism from the right... — Tobias
Isaac
7k
the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the i958 National Defense Education Act replaced domestic education the US had with Germany's model.
— Athena
Directly contradicts...
I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies.
— Athena
The 'culture [you] had' was the one which decided to 'adopt the German model of bureaucracy and replace the domestic education the US had with Germany's model'.
If the 'culture you had' was so great as to lament its loss, then how come it made such a 'terrible' choice? It was clearly either stupid, or unethical, neither worthy of lamenting the loss of. — Isaac
Tobias
709
I agree with you for a very large part. I guess the erosion happened before the onset of the Reagan/ thatcher years and maybe before the onset of the sixties. These phenomena would then be symptoms of our technological age. It is still a thorny issue though. The German philosopher Martin Heidegger had a very similar critique of technological society as what you give. We have eroded our ability to ' let things be' and came to see them as resources, as objects with which we could wield power. I think his critique holds water. The problem is it drove him straight in the arms of the Nazi party because he thought both the US and Russia were ' metaphysically the same' i.e. overtaken by the wish to produce.
Therefore, even though I really like your critique, it is always tricky to point out where it exactly began. Heidegger had these views in the 1930s... The uncorrupted society and nature has been a theme in 20th century Western consciousness. All too often it is forgotten that that society, in which we taught for citizenship was hardly inclusive. Only in todays mass society do we have really a mass citizenry. Hitherto citizenship was only for the happy few, the well to do and in the US the White Anglo Saxon and Protestant. The dark side of the coin of the old days is easily overlooked. What you call 'culture' another class of people might call oppression. Culture was only homogenous in tribal societies. A monolithic culture in a country that is a melting pot of peoples can only be sustained by domination of a certain class who determines what 'culture' is.
Nonetheless, I share much of your critique. I am also thinking of ways a new 'metaphysics of culture' that is, a binding force drawing people together, might emerge. I think it is indeed not around technology or technological education. I also do not think a return to the past is the answer. — Tobias
I think this is a general way populism works. The populist favors "the ordinary people" and creates a dividing line between the people and the elite...or people they call as the elite. Now this elite can be the political, the financial, but also the educational elite. Hence if a leftist or conservative / nationalistic political movement can be very popular in academic circles, a populist movement isn't as it likely will depict the "academic world" as part of the problem.We have a growing conflict between sophisticated, cosmopolitan people and those who are not, those who favor their religious beliefs and those who favor science. — Athena
Do note that this changed already during the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon and Revolutionary France gained such powerful military because implementing an universal draft and making military service compulsory. And also creating the "wartime economy", start of the military industrial complex. The other militaries of the time had been smaller professional armies. The defeat to Napoleon was the initial start for Prussia to reform it's military, starting with mimicking Revolutionary France with the levée en masse, the universal military conscription, and carrying out several reforms like creating the Auftragstaktik, which then became the "Prussian Model".I do see Marx and Prussian as complimentary. The military takes care of their own. There was a shift from the military being rather limited, and certainly, the officers were an exclusive group of people above the peasants, to a greater equality created by technology and wars that involve everyone as a military-industrial complex. Economic decisions are vital to the military-industrial complex. — Athena
And it should be noted that for example the national pension plan was made by Bismarck, one of the most conservative figures in German history. The thinking was more to counter the demands (and the threat) from the socialists than to embrace government welfare thinking in my view.German had workers' compensation, and a national pension plan, and a national health plan, and a healthier population than Britain had when war began. That gave Germany a very important military advantage. — Athena
Essential is both scientific thinking and good moral judgment that is based on knowing truth, universal/nature's laws, and good manners. This is not materialistic but intellectual and that is the pursuit of happiness. It is the path to raising our human potential and it is worth defending. The men who understood this ended our relationship with monarchy and the Biblical kingdom of kings, subjects, and slaves. Technology can greatly benefit us or put us back to being subjects.
I am saying education for technology is making us subjects rather than free citizens. Education for technology has always been the education of slaves. Liberal education is for free men. — Athena
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.