Differences and Similarities in Karl Marx's and Friedrich Nietzsche's Ideologies

Nazi or Communist German scholars find pride in the fact that their country can claim multiple historic philosophers, including greats like Nietzsche and Marx. Although these two come from similar geographical backgrounds, there are differences in how each views historical progress.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche’s views on history are negative to say the least; he claims that people have become content with mediocrity. The factors that create this attitude for Nietzsche is a concept he calls “herd morality;” in short this term is another word for humanities openness to mediocrity. Marx has a different opinion on how humanity has progressed throughout history. He does not have the issue with mediocrity that Nietzsche has, but rather, in his Communist Manifesto, he sees economic problems within different classes to be problem with how history has developed. The difference between these two historic philosophers is where their issues lie with why history has been stagnant. Nietzsche centers his argument around morals, while Marx asserts that economic class struggles are the obstacle.

The discontent Nietzsche has on history is due to “herd morality.” This term has a few different meanings that create the entire image of unhappiness that he feels regarding historical progress. “Herd morality” incorporates common man, legislators, scholars, etc… and states that they are all floating through this world without adding anything to it. Furthermore, he argues that past philosophers are one of the greatest culprits of this definition; he says that most philosophers before him describe the world without adding any meaning or giving direction on how to right the wrongs that were committed. When someone just depicts what is going on in the world they become a critic, which, according to Nietzsche, no true philosopher wants to be seen as this.

One of the largest factors in “herd morality” is Europe’s unwavering belief in Christianity. In Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil a quote that depicts how he thinks compared to the common man incorporating both religion and herd morality is “First of all, we must also put an end to that other and more disastrous atomism, the one Christianity has taught best and longest, the atomism of the soul. Let this expression signify the belief that the soul is something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, that it is a monad, an atomon: this belief must be thrown out of science! Between you and me, there is absolutely no need to give up “the soul” itself, and relinquish one of the oldest and most venerable hypotheses – as often happens with naturalists: given their clumsiness, they barely need to touch “the soul” to lose it.

But the path lies open for new versions and sophistications of the soul hypothesis – and concepts like the “mortal soul” and the “soul as subject-multiplicity” and the “soul as a society constructed out of drives and affects” want henceforth to have civil rights in the realm of science. By putting an end to the superstition that until now has grown around the idea of the soul with an almost tropical luxuriance, the new psychologist clearly thrusts himself into a new wasteland and a new suspicion. The old psychologists might have found things easier and more enjoyable –: but, in the end, the new psychologist knows by this very token that he is condemned to invention – and, who knows? perhaps to discovery.”

This perfectly shows Nietzsche’s thought process and how religion adds to the “herd morality” within Europe. In the excerpt he gives an example of religion and how the soul is viewed in Christianity. He states that Christianity has taught that the soul is atomic and therefore that is what everyone throughout Europe believes. Nietzsche, however, goes on to explain that there are many different types of hypotheses other than just the one Christianity gives, saying that all it takes is for one man to open his mind to create or invent new ways of thinking for the masses.

The excerpt portrayed Nietzsche’s thought process on breaking a barrier of Christianity but it did not give a clear enough example of why religion should not be followed blindly. On page fifty of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche provides examples of the horrors that religion created. He refers to this as a “ladder of religious cruelty” that has three specific points all incorporating the idea of sacrifice. The first thing he wants to make clear is that people were sacrificed throughout history due to religious beliefs. Next, he states that humans give up their strongest instincts or nature, and finally, people sacrifice hope. He states, “Finally: what was left to be sacrificed? In the end, didn’t people have to sacrifice all comfort and hope, everything holy or healing, any faith in a hidden harmony or a future filled with justice and bliss? Didn’t people have to sacrifice God himself and worship rocks, stupidity, gravity, fate, or nothingness out of sheer cruelty to themselves? To sacrifice God for nothingness – that paradoxical mystery of the final cruelty has been reserved for the race that is now approaching: by now we all know something about this.'

Nietzsche argues that by blindly following religion mankind is sacrificing their ability to believe in something greater than themselves. He argues that religion creates a world of nihilism, saying that by worshipping something without questioning it takes away all of man’s freedom or choice. Nietzsche asserts that this is a cruelty that man commits against oneself. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche does a type of call to action for all philosophers; he makes comments on the ones in the past and gives advice for the ones in the future. He argues that a big part of “herd morality” for philosophers is that in the past they never added anything new to the world; they only ever described what happened around them, which can also be called a critic. Nietzsche states Plato created this world that prevented philosophers from progressing through history. Plato is a genuine philosopher but his philosophy conceals itself, which is the root of the problem for Nietzsche. Plato’s philosophy aimed to answer broad questions and because he was so well respected in Christian Thought philosophers after him framed all of their ideas to fit in the world that Plato created. However, Nietzsche’s argument is there is not just one answer to the questions that Plato asks; there can be hundreds of different explanations. The issue is that not many philosophers after Plato realized this, they all just argued the same points that he already made. Thus, Plato feeds into the “herd morality.”

Nietzsche has an argument that he calls a genealogy; this essentially means that there has been changes in the way people think throughout time. He discusses this in order to disprove Plato’s teachings and show people that the way they understand the world needs to be changed. His genealogy of morals best shows how Western Thought has morphed. One of the concepts in this specific genealogy is his argument about slave morality versus master morality. He argues that throughout time the way people have thought about good and evil has shifted dramatically; he gives the example of slave versus master morality to show the shift. Slave morality is the way that slaves think about good and evil based on the perception of their masters versus themselves; therefore, slaves view good as kindness, humility, or hard working and bad as independent, ruthless, or successful. Masters see good as noble or wealthy and bad as uneducated, dirty, or poor; this also differs from slave morality because masters are the creators of the “herd morality” that the slaves follow[4]. The history of morals is the conflict between the two; Nietzsche says that coexistence is impossible because the herd (masters) look to impose their morality upon everyone.

These morals, for Nietzsche shift, all the time, there will always be a group that holds the slave morality and a group that holds the master morality. The master morality is usually held by the same group of people, wealthy, white men in a position of power. However, slave morality can be seen in any group of people that are oppressed: African-Americans, homosexuals, women etc… Nietzsche has an interesting quote on page one hundred and fifty-six of Beyond Good and Evil, “A final fundamental distinction: the desire for freedom, the instinct for happiness, and subtleties in the feeling of freedom necessarily belong to slave morals and morality[5].”

This distinction that comes from a member of the oppressed class creates historical progress by breaking out of the “herd morality.” Nietzsche states that this “desire of freedom” belongs solely to the members that hold the viewpoint of slave morality, so therefore the oppressed is the only class that creates historical progress. This desire of freedom, in the words of Nietzsche, can be put as the will to power; this is his definition of a drive to avoid being ruled over. This way of thinking that the slave morality class has is what shapes historical progress. The will to power of the oppressed class is one way to drive historical progress. The solution to break “herd morality” has to come from future philosophers however. Nietzsche’s analysis of past philosophers would just be a critique, as scholars before him had done, if it was not for his guidelines for future philosophers. His argument is that philosophers, simply, do not do enough; they don’t add anything to the world. His way to avoid this is the same as it is for every man, to break through the herd morality. The advice Nietzsche gives is to ask questions about Plato’s philosophy; Plato claims that virtues like good and truth are synonyms, but Nietzsche asks one to think about that conclusion. Throughout Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche claims that the value of truth is not always the same as good. He argues that a world without deception may not be a world that people can live in; these are arguments he wants future philosophers to consider. He accuses a majority of philosophers in the past of being naive to Plato’s teachings, but advises philosophers of the future to not make those same mistakes.

Nietzsche gives a framework of what he believes a true philosopher entails, “The preparatory labor of many generations is needed for a philosopher to come about; each of his virtues needs to have been individually acquired, cared for, passed down, and incorporated: and not only the bright, light, gentle gait and course of his thoughts, but above all the eagerness for great responsibilities, the sovereignty of his ruling gazes and downward gazes, the feeling of separation from the crowd with its duties and virtues, the genial protection and defense of anything misunderstood and slandered, whether it is god or devil, the pleasure and practice in great justice, the art of command, the expanse of the will, the slow eye that hardly ever admires, hardly ever looks up, hardly ever loves...”

In this excerpt, Nietzsche states the characteristics of his future philosophers’. This philosopher must be a leader who does not feel the need to be loved by all; he should be a creator or legislator. He should not follow or look up to anyone; but instead be strong and independent. His opinions should be his own and unwavering to any critique that is made. This philosopher, to put it simply, should be exactly like Nietzsche; someone who isn’t afraid to question everything that people thought was law before him. This is his key solution to his problem, “herd morality.”

Marx sees a different issue with how humanity progresses through history. Marx has a theory called historical materialism; this theory states that historical progress is driven by one’s desire to reach an economic goal. Where Nietzsche sees morals to be flawed throughout history, Marx sees economic drives to be the issue. The economic concept that Marx sees as the route of all evil is capitalism, which creates a division of classes in society. One of the classes that are created from this division is the bourgeoisie (capitalists) who own the means to production. The other is the proletariat or working class that sells their labor to the bourgeoisie. For Marx, history has been hindered because of capitalism, and thus the bourgeoisie is where his problem lies. He argues that the Bourgeois class has impeded past development. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx sarcastically states that, “The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.” He goes on to show all of the negative impacts capitalism has on society. Marx describes the bourgeoisie as tyrants who attempt to crush any change or development of the proletariat class. In the paragraph to follow the previous quote Marx portrays capitalists as the root of all evil, and in his eyes they are. He states that capitalism and the bourgeoisie have taken away everything enjoyable in life and left man with nothing other than a calculation of one’s wealth.

Marx argues that the bourgeoisie only survives because they constantly change the means of production, and that this is the only real change that the class makes. The reason why his quote in the previous paragraph is a sarcastic one is because capitalism does create evolution but it is not the correct category of change for Marx. When the bourgeoisie changes the means of production they do whatever it takes to make something as profitable as possible; they create cities, machinery, civilizations around capitalistic ideals. Marx states that this creates uncontrollable production; in the Communist Manifesto, he describes this as a “sorcerer who can no longer control his spells.” Marx claims that overproduction is an epidemic; he states, “Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them[10].”

In this excerpt, Marx explains how the world that bourgeoisie have built creates chaos. He says that the things that were once productive become the things that disrupt society; thus, this hinders humanity as a whole to progress. The things that were once productive for bourgeois class are the proletarians; while the capitalists were doing everything they could to make a profit, the working class was doing everything they could to survive. During production, the bourgeoisie was building inventions like new machinery; the proletariat class was growing in numbers and frustration as the divide between the groups grew. The frustration comes from their lack of ability to move economically, which creates labor unions. These unions make it harder for capitalists to control the means of production; therefore they have to make a change. For Marx, this is the only way history progresses in a capitalist system, but it isn’t progression, it is just a cycle.

Marx claims that there is one way history progresses in a capitalist system, which has similarities with Nietzsche’s philosophy. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx argues that all movements in society come from minority classes. This coincides with Nietzsche’s argument that historically only the oppressed class’ desire for freedom leads to humanities development. However, Marx takes this argument a step farther and twists it; he states that when the bourgeoisie starts to cater to the needs of the oppressed rather than have the proletariat answer to their needs is proof that capitalists should not rule anymore. He says,

“Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes....

It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.”

 In this quote from Marx, he argues that the bourgeoisie is no longer fit to rule because they forget that they are supposed to be the oppressors. They are not supposed to be affected by the condition of the proletariat class; the bourgeoisie is supposed to control the means of production, but when the means of production controls them they no longer rule in a way that fits in society.

Marx’s solution to the unfit bourgeois class is for communists to take over. Like Nietzsche, Marx also provides a type of call to action in his work; his is to the communist party who are a part of the proletariat class. In his chapter Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto, Marx explains what the communist party has given to society, but he thinks that there can still be more done. He states that communists have the same overarching goal as the proletariat class, which is to overthrow the bourgeois class. Yet, the bourgeois class is still the ruling power over society; thus, not enough has been done. Marx’s solution for the lack of historical progress is communism. In the Communist Manifesto, he lays out procedures that generally can be applicable in any developed country[13]. There are ten acts that Marx think should fix the problems of class struggles. In short, these procedures aim to abolish most privately owned things and to centralize most things that were not previously centralized. This call to action, Marx argues, will successfully end class struggles, because it will eliminate classes entirely. The only societal ruler will be an association that holds all of the political power for the entire nation, and this will allow for humanity to progress correctly[14].

In both Beyond Good and Evil and the Communist Manifesto Nietzsche and Marx make arguments of what is wrong within historical progress. There are similarities in their philosophies for certain; both can agree that history has not progressed the right way. However, their opinions on the reasons why humanity has not hit it’s potential could not be more different. Nietzsche holds “herd morality” and past philosophers as the problems with humanity’s development, whereas Marx argues that capitalism and class struggle are the reasons why there has been stagnation in history. The question then becomes who makes the more compelling argument looking at today’s modern history, the Nazi or the Communist? Nietzsche’s idea of historical progress in Beyond Good and Evil is that there was not any really. Before his call to action to the human race, he would argue that Western Thought was frozen around virtues that Plato had defined ages ago. His argument that “herd morality” is the cause of stagnation in history can be viewed as correct.

Look at civil rights cases in multiple countries like the United States or South Africa. Segregation or the apartheid were injustices against an oppressed, minority class that caused evolution within in each society. Influential members of each party to end the movement like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, or Nelson Mandela all would be considered genuine philosophers in the eyes of Nietzsche. These were people who fit the philosopher he outlined in Beyond Good and Evil, and these leaders from an oppressed class will be studied and remembered forever. This is the argument that Nietzsche makes, that individuals from a class of people who are wrongly persecuted are the ones who are able to truly drive change and break out of the “herd morality.” One could look at, just about, any movement across the world and see Nietzsche’s philosophy. He would look at today’s modern history with pride; unfortunately, he would also look at the Nazi party’s history and feel the same sense of pride. His solution for historical progress can either be viewed as genius when looking at great leaders like MLK Jr. or murderous when looking at horrendous actors like Hitler; but for Nietzsche, those viewpoints depend on which side of morality one falls on.

Unfortunately for Marx, but no one else, if he looked at today’s modern history he would not feel the same sense of pride as Nietzsche would. Marx’s solution for class struggles in his ideal world would work perfectly, but much of his ideal world excludes free will. There are two prominent cases of communism in modern history, the Soviet Union and China. The Soviet Union was ruled by a communist state, and based much of it’s policy on Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Ultimately, however, the USSR became Russia and is now a democracy with a type of capitalist system. The case that Marx would be happier about is China who still is ruled by the communist party. China has seen the most success in a system that incorporates Marx’s philosophy; the country is extremely centralized and property is state owned and regulated. China is the best possible scenario of Marx’s philosophy, even with it’s large number of problems, including: monitoring of the media by the state, lack of free speech, and a cap number of children a family is allowed to have, to just name a few. Marx would be proud of what China has accomplished, but disappointed because the country is an outlier compared to all other highly developed countries in the world.

In today’s society, Marx would have to open his eyes up to the fact that democracy/capitalism is the best way to drive historical progress. Humanity has developed immensely without incorporating Marx’s philosophy, but there are very little cases of historical progress that does not involve Nietzsche’s.