On Becoming a Nietzschean Society

November 1, 2013
greg horsman
http://questioningandskepticism.com/2013/11/01/on-becoming-a-nietzschean-society
/
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) claimed there are no facts only interpretations.
In his view there was no objective fact about what has value in itself culture
consisted of beliefs developed to perpetuate a particular power structure. The s
ystem, if followed by the majority of the people, supports the interests of the
dominant class. For Nietzsche power, strength and dominance, and control are of
the highest value. Morality that supports ideas such as equality, and virtues li
ke humility and pity, he claimed, were artificial boundaries that constrain the
strong from reaching their full potential.
It is generally accepted what made civilization possible was the invention of ag
riculture, but more fundamentally than agriculture were ethics. For only through
ethics is it possible for large groups of people to live together. Agriculture
was clearly necessary to support a large sedentary population, but there would h
ave been no significant grouping of co-operative people to invent agriculture if
they did not have a unifying, objectively valid code to begin with. Fundamental
ethical principles include concern for the well-being of others and an obligati
on to bring about good in all our actions. We have an obligation to respect the
autonomy of others, which includes respecting the decisions made by other people
concerning their lives. We have an obligation to prevent harm to others, or at
least dont increase the risk of harm to others. In public life we have an obligat
ion to treat all people equally, and fairly, refusing to take unfair advantage o
f them. These principles are applied equally to all people, with no distinction
between strong and weak, and are what we expect of one another without needing t
o articulate the expectation or formalize it in any way.
Nietzsche, in contrast, viewed the imposition of the will of the strong over the
weak as an inevitable consequence of nature. Nietzschean behaviour is not predi
cated on the good and the bad, but only on the strong and the weak. The strong s
eek their self-interest without inhibition of conscience, while the weak have no
means of resistance. Nietzschean political culture is clearly bad by being unet
hical. There are economic consequences of the unethical exercise of authority. S
ocieties where the strong behave unethically can be shown to be inefficient and
the cost of these inefficiencies is born exclusively by the weak.1
The two sources of inefficiency in the Nietzschean society are (1) that the weak
are not working (no work, lack of transportation to jobs, etc.); (2) that resou
rces are diverted from productive activity when the strong attempt to appropriat
e. The greater the likelihood for the weak to be productive (make more money); t
he greater the likelihood the strong will spend resources in appropriation. The
corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) develops model bil
ls such as No Rights at Work bill (promoted under the guise of creating jobs and
job security) and bills attacking prevailing wage, minimum wage and living wage
laws (that support a wage suppression agenda). Americans for Prosperity, funded
by the Koch brothers, supports ALEC, as well as pushes other anti-worker, pro-b
usiness agenda by supporting union-busting activities such as concession bargain
ing. These activities benefit global corporations and billionaires, not the work
ers or the weak.
In a Nietzschean society people who do not work (or who do not work consistently
) are not parasites encouraged to be lazy by misplaced benevolence, but merely t
he weak confronting the strong. Poverty becomes institutionalized poorer schools
, poorer transport, and the weak are left behind in their own cities. Because th
e strong are unaffected by the inefficiencies of the economic system, they have

no personal incentive to implement a program to correct the source of the ineffi

ciencies, and a policy dialogue aimed at reforms cannot expected to be effective
.
Interactions between the strong and the weak are repeated over time. With repeat
ed encounters the weak announce they are prepared to work, but they will never w
ork again if their output is ever appropriated. However, the threat of the weak
that the appropriation (the action) will trigger indefinite withdrawal of their
productive effort is an empty one. 1 The utility of the strong is to maximize th
eir value (profits) by such actions as moving manufacturing plants. When strong
unions got good wages for the workers in Detroit, the car manufacturers moved th
e industry to states with weaker unions and lower wages. Detroit and the suburbs
are now a tale of two cities one city with such things as excellent schools, ra
pid response security and efficient transportation, and the other city, Detroit,
at the opposite extreme with terrible schools, high crime and third-rate servic
es.
Democracy is inconsistent with the Nietzschean principle that the strong are des
tined by nature to do as they wish to the weak. In the face of perceived politic
al change, the strong have an interest in the rule of law and the assurance of t
he rights of ownership. The interest in the rights of ownership is more pressing
for the strong than for the weak. A democracy favors or provides an opportunity
for the re-distribution of the property of the strong. The strong expend resour
ces to secure a plutocracy (government by the wealthy) to ensure their vulnerabi
lity to appropriation by the weak through voting by the majority is countered.
The tax base is more extensive when the weak are productive and provide taxable
income. In an efficient system both the strong and the weak are productive. In t
his model, the strong gain by having the weak share in the financing of public e
xpenditures. This arrangement is only effective in changing the behavior of the
strong provided the strong place sufficient weight on long term benefits the str
ong have an interest in circumstances where the weak are consistently productive
. However, the corporations imperative for short-term profits and providing manag
ers maximum compensation creates an obstacle to this alternative. In fact, to en
sure this model works in depressed economies the strong call for opportunistic c
uts in corporate taxes with corresponding reduction in government programs.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) observed societies with poverty and inequality, and, in re
sponse, developed a theory based on exploitation and class antagonism. Marx prop
osed the solution of collectivization of property. His thought is not the compre
hensive system evolved by some of his followers under the name of dialectical ma
terialism. The very dialectical nature of his approach meant that it was usually
tentative and open-ended. Marx sought to end exploitation, but the system that
sought to apply his ideas gave rise to its own version of exploitation of the we
ak by the strong.1
Nietzsche explains how social constructs of guilt and conscience work to control
us by burning moral values into memory. He says we must let go of these inscrib
ed memories to be liberated from obstructions that inhibit intensity. Because th
e weak alone bear the cost of inefficiency, the strong have no incentive to intr
oduce efficiency enhancing change to break the cycle of poverty, and society rem
ains under the rule of the strong, and not the rule of the law. Without interven
tions many unemployed and under employed workers will either endure sustained pe
riods out of work or drop out of the labor market entirely leading to permanent
skills erosion. The consequence of the prolonged recession for workers in manufa
cturing related industry is long-term unemployment. Consequently, one finds broa
d poverty in the midst of selective and privileged plenty.
Nietzsche believed that true genius is innate and never acquired one is born sup
erior which determined social rank. This Nietzschean hierarchy is none other tha

n a meritocracy a system of success based on persons luckiest in health and gene

tic endowment, luckiest in social and economic resources. Charles Murrays Coming
Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010 describes the development of a merit
ocracy in the US a new upper class that still hews to traditional American values
of industriousness and intact families, and a new lower class in which hard work a
nd marriage are, fatally, no longer the norm. Murrays new upper class is smart, m
arry within itself, and flourish as a self-sustaining upper class. In the US, lo
wer-income Americans have a higher incidence of a range of diseases. Lower incom
e Americans are much more likely risk ratio of 2.52 to die from cardiovascular d
isease than highest income Americans (US Department of Health and Human Services
1998). There are three main ways in which low income contributes to cardiovascu
lar disease. Low income is associated with material depravation during early lif
e and adult, excessive psychological stress, and the adoption of health threaten
ing coping behaviours. Each of these serves as a pathway from low income to card
iovascular disease the leading cause of mortality among Canadian and US citizens
.2
Nietzsches philosophy is pessimistic life is disappointing and that for every sat
isfaction that occurs there are many more negative experiences. Neitzschean beha
vior yields pessimistic conclusions about economic progress. Over the last coupl
e of years we have been told to get used to the new normal. The new normal is ch
aracterized by slow economic growth and what some call a natural rate of unemploym
ent that is higher than in the past. This is creating a chronic under class that
years of entitlements have not significantly reduced. The pessimism is consiste
nt with the growing inequality between the rich and the poor following the econo
mic debacle of 2008 the consequence of Wall Street bankers manipulating the syst
em and almost tanking the economy. Five years later the overall economy has stil
l not recovered and remains a dysfunctional system in which the burden of inse
curity is borne by the weak.
Accountability is the key requirement of good governance. Accountability is abou
t the obligation to answer for ones actions. In addition to being responsible for
ones actions, one may be required to explain them to others. A government is acc
ountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Central to t
he principle of accountability is information sharing and transparency, which sh
ould be promoted by governance structures. Accountability cannot be enforced wit
hout transparency and the rule of law. Triggering these characteristics of good
governance requires the recognition of the role of ethics in governance. The la
ck of good decision-making accountability and transparency of corporations puts
us on track for becoming a Nietzschean society.
1Hillman, Arye L Poverty, Inequality, and Unethical Behavior of the Strong. IMF
Working Paper, International Monetary Fund, 2000. http://www.imf.org/external/pu
bs/ft/wp/2000/wp00187.pd
2 Raphael, Denis and E. Sarah Farrell. Beyond Medicine and Lifestyle: Addressing
the Societal Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease in North America. Leadershi
p in health Services 15/4 (2002).