Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx are two well renowned scholars who were both highly revered for their respective contributions to philosophy. Karl Marx was a political theorist, historian and philosopher of German origin whose highly controversial theories on economics, politics and society were collectively comprehended as Marxism. His contributions to economics made him well respected in the philosophical circles as he described the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in capitalism. Friedrich Nietzsche was born in mid-October 1844 but was highly active and influential after Marx had died (Katsafanas, 23). Nietzsche was well known for his critical discussion and analysis of topics of high sensitivity such as religion, culture, history and even politics. Nietzsche`s work had some similarities to that of Marx as they appear to agree on some points. However, despite the numerous similarities in most of their work regarding religion and morality, the two philosophers also had differences as each had their own specific definition and description of different aspects of the society in regards to class. Therefore, in a bid to understand the two philosophers and their respective contributions better, the paper shall critically examine the similarities and differences between the Marxism thought and Nietzsche`s works. This will be done through analyzing their views on morality, society, religion as well as other differences in their ideologies.
Perspectives on Society
Marx utilizes five historical epochs to critically examine the various types of societies and their characteristics. He used private property as his focal point and was keen to establish how property ownership and desire to lead better lives shaped the society. Marx analyzed the ancient epoch first, which according to him marked the start of the existence of private property. Unlike during his epoch where property was communally owned through the government and other institutions, the ancient society was characterized by the clashing relationship between slave and master (Dahrendorf, 1959. The masters owned the property while the slaves worked on the property and were even considered as among the owners` property. He also analyzed the feudalistic society which was in the epoch before industrialization. The feudalistic society came about as people learned to farm. Conflicts arose between tenants and landlords as tenants appeared to exploit the labor and contribution of the tenants due to owning the land used for tilling or occupation (Dahrendorf, 1959). However, it was Marx`s examination of the society post industrialization that accorded him much reverence from his fellow scholars. He described the industrialization era as a period of conflict between the bourgeoisie, the capital owners, and the proletariats who served as the working class. Marx remained adamant that the bourgeoisie were exploiting the working class by alienating them from their final produces. He boldly defined this as a capitalistic society where the rich and ruling classes were levels above the working class in terms of income, opportunity and even reason. Marx ideologies made him exiled by the German government due to his ‘acts of scholastic incitement’. He described socialism as the only solution to capitalism which was not well received by the German authorities since socialism was to be characterized as a reactionary force that sought to destabilize and destroy the pre-existing establishment. Thus, according to Marx, socialists are bound to enter into conflict with capitalists who would not easily relinquish their assets.
When analyzing Nietzsche`s thinking on society, the first difference of his individualistic focus becomes apparent. However, he examines society in similar fashion to Marx by tracing his societal observations from ancient times (Katsafanas, 24). He also appears to agree that there exist two main classifications that more often than not divide humanity. Unlike Marx, Nietzsche does not base his definition and description of human classes on economic ties. Instead, he classifies people based on the level of power manifested in the two classes. Simply put, there are the strong and bold ones who desire to lead, the ruling families and aristocrats who have positioned themselves as leaders. The second class comprises of the fairly weaker group, the ruled or commonly referred to as the inferior class and the slaves. Nietzsche further added that the ruling class is not common insisting that members are rare in each society (Nietzsche, 1996). The ruled members or the ‘herd’ made most of the population and preferred to hide under the tag ‘society’ according to Nietzsche. Nietzsche view on society was further different from Marx`s analysis as he focused on the development of an individual as opposed to placing much focus on the society. He built up on Darwin`s evolution theory by claiming that the ultimate goal of man is transforming into ‘free spirits’ or ‘ubermensch’ as commonly referred by Nietzsche(Nietzsche, 1996). He claimed that although there exist two main classes, the sheep and the shepherd; there was a higher form of living that would represent man`s most developed form where man would overcome himself and his various frailties. Therefore, it can be seen that the two philosophers had differences in their perception of the society more so since Marx focused more on the collective community and based on an economic perspective. Nietzsche employed a different approach whereby he placed his central focus on power and the ongoing evolution of man.
Perspectives on Morality
Both Marx and Nietzsche were critical on the topic of morality. They did not believe in morality and disregarded it as a scholastic subject. Marx remained adamant that moral beliefs emerged as a result of specific economic forces that eventually developed to ‘false consciousness’ (Marx, 1972). The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, used their influence and power to control law, the judicial and education systems. Moreover, Marx added that the bourgeoisie used their power to influence the media and enforce moral laws that would serve to their advantage. He goes ahead to challenge proletariats by claiming the only realistic way to transform their conditions is through trampling over the perceived morality and consequently overthrow every bourgeoisie principle. This is different to Nietzsche take on morality which is based on the perception of the upper class by the middle class and how the upper class perceives itself.
Although Nietzsche bears similar sentiments to Marx when it comes to morality, he clusters morality further into two basic classes. The slave morality and master morality (Nietzsche, 2003). Thus, in as much as he disregards morality, he adds that each class arrives to its morality based on the influences of the masters. The masters, according to Nietzsche determined what was right and wrong based on their individual traits. However, they would tarnish rebellious characteristics and brand them as bad or immoral in efforts to limit resistance. The slave morality was seen by Nietzsche as a form of response to the master morality. That is, the slaves perceived the masters` values as evil due to their hostility and lack of regard for humanity. Thus, to the slaves, the masters` traits were evil and to be voided. The two philosophers appear to share a similar perspective when it comes to morality. They both don’t take it seriously and believe that it is a way of the wealthy and powerful to make themselves more comfortable by manipulating the lower ranking people. They both disregard morality and see it as a way the powerful and rich seek to conserve their power.
Perspectives on Religion
Both Marx and Nietzsche disregarded religion which is a similarity in their respective works. What is more, it is their similar thoughts on morality and religion that often saw their thoughts likened for the early part of the 20th century (Dahrendorf, 1959). Max did not believe in religion as he drew his inspiration from Ludwig Feuerbach`s work on religious concepts. Feuerbach was for the idea that God is non-existent and that most of religious works are basic emotions that if well analyzed prove there is no existence of God. Consequently, Marx built on Feuerbach`s ideology and believed that instead of God being responsible for the creation of man, it was man who through his thoughts and beliefs created God. What is more, Marx remained adamant that religion was a tool used commonly and conveniently by the bourgeoisie to increase their influence in exploiting and manipulating the poor members of the community (Marx, 1972). Marx described religion as the ultimate indication of an oppressed creature. He compared religion to opium, a highly addictive drug that made addicts temporarily forget their underlying issues. Marx claimed religion was a drug used by the poor to forget their respective suffering and retain hope. Indeed, he asserted that the wealthy enjoyed their power and affluence while the proletariats sought hope in religion as they owned nothing. This explains Marx negative attitude towards religion as he believed that the socialist movement was required to end the capitalists` dominance as opposed to relying on religious efforts.
On the other hand, Nietzsche perceived religion as useless since he believed God was never alive and if he was then he already died (Nietzsche, 1996). Both Marx`s and Nietzsche`s ideologies on religion are tough as they do not believe in religion. For Nietzsche, focusing on religion forces man to live in hopes of a better, fairer world which consequently makes believers to seize putting necessary efforts in their lives on earth. He believes that God is non-existent and that it is through ancient ideologies such as Platonic philosophies that the notion of God has been passed down generations. He claims that man`s weakness led him to create religion as they needed supernatural answers to issues that appeared too difficult for man to handle. Nietzsche combines his religious perspective similar to that he held regarding society. That is, humans due to their weaknesses must find something to believe in as it is part of human nature to play safe and let others take the risk of leading (Nietzsche, 2003). This is similar to the Marxian perspective on religion as the two philosophers believe religion is man`s way of choosing the easier option. They both believe that instead of focusing on religion, they must take the necessary steps to discover themselves and become better people to the society as opposed to clinging to religion as a form of rescue. Marx believes that the proletariats must work hard to conquer the bourgeois and fight capitalism instead of losing direction by focusing on religion which was put in place by people in power to oppress the poor. Similar to Marx, Nietzsche also believed that man should focus on self- improvement instead of relying on a higher power to offer solace and hope. Instead, Nietzsche claims that the ultimate man should focus on becoming complete; that is, being capable to exercise free will and being self –dependent and not naïve to an extent of relying on something created by other people.
Other differences in ideologies
Unlike Marx, Nietzsche expressed his disgust in liberal egalitarianism or liberal democracy. He did not believe that man had to confine himself to society as this was akin to accepting and owning the herd mentality (Katsafanas, 27). Thus, for Nietzsche, the ultimate man is the one who stands acts and thinks individually. Marx was clear on his positivity towards socialism as the surest way to address capitalism. However, Nietzsche compared socialism to Christianity where he asserted that no true Christian existed during his time (Katsafanas, 30). It was easier for people to talk about socialism and its perks which transformed to a different story when it came to the moment of practicing the socialist values. He likened this to Christianity claiming it was fortunate enough that no one observed Jesus` instructions which he perceived as misleading. Therefore, without mentioning Marx or directly discussing his ideology, Nietzsche distanced himself with socialism in the process making a bold claim against observing socialist ideals. He goes ahead to describe his disgust at the naivety of members of the herd to follow instructions that were not ideal since they were not progressive. Nietzsche highlighted that the main demerit of socialism was its tendency to strip off men and women from their individual identities and instead coerce them into thinking like a group, a society whose fate was dependent on one another as opposed to individual ability (Katsafanas, 29). Thus, according to Nietzsche, socialism was an abolishment to possibilities; he further added that it served to disrespect and disregard individual potentials which are diverse by forcing people to live in pursuit of equality and fairness. Socialism transformed the human mind from striving to satisfy needs according to personal abilities to living based on immediate needs. This is a major difference in the works of Marx and Nietzsche as Marx was an advocate of uniting in weakness to create strength. Marx was for the ideology that man should live to obtain equality which can be obtained by the working class taking power from their bosses. As it appears, Marx`s ideologies had no Darwinism influence as he did not believe in the need for humans to evolve and transform into higher beings with greater abilities. Nietzsche believed and advocated for personal development as he saw this as an empirical entity in self-actualization and living as a free spirit.
Empowering the weak
Marx believed the strong could only be overpowered when the proletariats combined forces to orchestrate changes (Marx, 1972). However, Nietzsche held a contrasting perspective and believed that the weak should not be forced to live like the strong as they are not suited to perform the roles of the strong and upper echelon of their respective societies. To enumerate further, proletariats, according to Nietzsche, should not be misled into desiring power that is well beyond their ability. Nietzsche discredits the ‘naïve’ optimism held by socialists as he believes will is nothing if not supported by ability. Christianity is attacked by Nietzsche due to its desire to achieve equality similar to socialism. Thus, for Nietzsche, focus should be placed on personal development and the respect of power that is earned and not deserved. He does not believe that the weak should be supported as this would affect the status quo which comes about due to personal ability (Katsafanas, 23). In as much as both dismiss Christianity and religion, they have different reasons. To Nietzsche Christianity creates a falsehood that promotes mediocrity among masses as people become comfortable with their situations in hopes for a better afterlife. Marx disregards Christianity on the grounds that it is used to manipulate the weak. Marx is more concerned by the welfare of the weak in the society claiming that religion was made up and designed to influence the thinking of the poor and give them comfort in their poverty. Marx is therefore more focused on assisting the poor class that is not highly regarded as the bourgeoisie. Nietzsche reiterates the importance of letting individuals flourish according to their respective potentials as this allows for the natural formation of status quos which determine the class individuals fall into.
Conclusion
Marx advocates for communism and socialism as he believes the perfect form of society which is the classless society can be achieved. Nietzsche, on the other hand, advocated for Ubermensch and ability in obtaining power. For both, morality is a tool used for mass manipulation and to favor the interests of the powerful. When it comes to religion, Marx holds the perception that Christianity or any form of religion is strategically crafted to favor the wealthy. Contrastingly, Nietzsche dismisses religion claiming it is structured to assist the poor, those who are suffering and need something to believe in. They both argue against morality and religion, albeit each posting varying reasons. A common difference that emerges in their ideologies is their perception of socialism. Nietzsche frowns upon the thought of communism which was proposed by Marx. Marx believed that equality could only be attained through socialism which he believed would force the bourgeoisie into relinquishing their power. Thus, as it appears Marx and Nietzsche differed in their understanding of hierarchy. Nietzsche was for maintaining different classes in the community while Marx preferred a society without classes; one where equality would thrive throughout. What is more, the two philosophers represent similar ideologies although in different light. This can be seen in their different approaches as Nietzsche relied on individual consciousness to push his psycho-political agendas while Marx used collective consciousness to support his socio-economic stance. They all appear to challenge humanity to step up and refuse settling for less although each does it in his unique way. Therefore, in as much as the two philosophers pass across conflicting ideologies, a lot of similarities can be observed from the motive of their respective works. They both frown upon morality and religion as they all believe they are social constructs designed to limit the consciousness and responsiveness of man.
Works Cited
Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and class conflict in industrial society. Vol. 15. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1959.
Katsafanas, Paul. "Nietzsche's theory of mind: Consciousness and conceptualization." European Journal of Philosophy 13.1 (2005): 1-31.
Marx, Karl. The marx-engels reader. Vol. 4. New York: Norton, 1972.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Nietzsche: Human, all too human: A book for free spirits. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond good and evil. Penguin, 2003.
