Philosophy Now! The Plot Against Civilization pp. 211-216

 A new chapter begins, this one titled “The Revolution of 1871.” Every chapter, for those of you not following along, has a little indication of the subjects being talked about underneath the chapter titles. We know that this chapter is going to discuss “The Franco-Prussian War” — Internationalism — Karl Marx, pan-Germanist —The Commune — Conflict between Marx and Bakunin — and the End of the Internationale.

The last entry is odd, because we just did that in the chapter on the Internationale. Apparently, we’re going to retread old ground. Notice what is missing from that list: a revolution of 1871. Unless she is going to make the case that the Franco-Prussian war is the Revolution, an odd case considering the war ends in January of 1871, I don’t see a revolution here.

“What then of its Internationalism? How far was the brotherhood of man which had constituted one its fundamental doctrines to avail as a barrier against militarism?”

She gives us a fair point; was the Internationale successful in creating a brotherhood that would not succumb to militarism? No. This is a valid criticism for someone else to make, not for her, as she never concentrated any writing on the Internationale’s goal of world peace. Instead, she focused on various writers’ goals of ending religion because she knows this claim riles up the blood. Instead, she works backwards, criticism first then claims later.

“I ask myself whether because we suddenly change our political system we shall force other nations to change theirs…Until then perpetual peace will remain a dream and a dangerous dream if it leads France to disarm before a Europe in arms.”

This quotation is attributed to our friend Mirabeau and illustrated the problem. France cannot disarm if Germany does not. The Hobbesian struggle—I’ll lay down my weapon right after you lay down yours. Without anyone to enforce the peace there can be no peace. What Webster is missing is how this is the problem of the Socialists. They didn’t control the states so they couldn’t “enforce” peace.

She claims that when the first outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war began, there was hope that the Internationale would stop the conflict. The French workers wrote to the German workers, do not fight us and we will not fight you. Which is a fine plea to make. Webster thinks that this is proof of the failure of Socialism to stop the war. Which, yes, technically; but it’s also a failing of Christianity to stop the war too. Everyone failed to stop the war, but the only people that could have realistically done so were Bismarck and Napolean III. Speaking of which, “on July 19, Napolean III was tricked by Bismarck into declaring war on Prussia, the German Social Democrats rallied in a body to the standard of Imperialism…”

Napolean III would probably be considered one of the great villains of European history if not for Hitler and Mussolini in the 20th century. We can probably say he’s one of the worst leaders of the 19th century, and, as such we don’t usually see a lot of defenders of him. To claim that he was tricked into declaring war is to ignore a host of factors that led to him making the declaration. For example, one of the reasons that the war began was because of the fear that the new King of Spain would align with Germany and thus have France surrounded on both sides. There was pressure internally because France failed to make any gains following the treaty which ended the Austro-Prussian war, as well as Napolean III’s desire to preserve his legacy and the legacy of house Bonaparte.

Yes, the German’s rallied to the war, because France had declared it. We can have these long arguments debating whether the people should have served in the war, but that ignores the problem of punishment. These are conscription forces, and there are penalties for not serving. If, the Socialists were in charge of Germany/France we could agree with Webster. We cannot agree with her at all because her entire focus on the war, the Socialists’ failure to stop it, and its role in the grand conspiracy are all built on the back of her lie that Napolean III didn’t start this fight.

She sticks with the war for the next few pages, and it’s pointless to even discuss them in great detail because of her lie. Marx is worked into this conversation because as a German national we find that he supports the German people over the French. I don’t know how much legitimacy in this claim since the letters she cites of Marx seem to indicate an internal squabble between Marx’s version of Socialism and Proudhon’s.

Nietzsche enters the chat. Suddenly.

“Now it is curious to notice that Nietzsche, who as the prophet of autocracy, Imperialism, and warfare has usually been regarded as the opposite pole of Marx…”

Would Marx and Nietzsche be considered opposite poles? Not really. I know a good deal about Nietzsche and none of what Webster is saying is true. The prophet of autocracy, imperialism, and warfare? What? No. Just no.

People like Webster never get Nietzsche right. This extends into the modern day. People think that Nietzsche is two things: Ubermensch and “God is dead.” I’ll end up having to correct this for the rest of my days, but the former is very complicated, and the latter is placed into the mouth of a clown in the fictional novel that he wrote. Nietzsche hate socialists because he thought they were nothing more than whiners; but he would likely have appreciated Marx’s attempt to create a new world. Their lives overlap but only briefly. Marx will die in 1883, and Nietzsche only begins his philosophy career in 1878; it’s possible that the latter read the former (this is apparently a matter of debate) but very unlikely the reverse.

Webster claims that both hated Christianity (true, but Marx hated religion; Nietzsche definitely had anger toward Christianity—especially German Christianity). She claims that “Nietzsche desired to maintain the uneducated classes in a state of slavery.” This is entirely false. He observed, like Aristotle, that some people were incapable of learning; but this was not a recommendation.

“Nietzsche advocated the autocracy of the Superman,” again, no. The Superman (Ubermensch) is the individual free of the trappings of the world around them. They create their own values and morality rather than follow the old world. The closest fictional character to this would be Fight Club’s Tyler Durden, and that’s not a favorable comparison because the character’s entire movement is in response to the existing consumerist world of the 1990s. The Superman doesn’t respond, the Superman creates. The autocracy is created because people would willingly follow the Ubermensch through history. The person who creates the new world will attract devotees, but those devotees are despised by Nietzsche for failing to create their own value. Nietzsche is one of those philosophers that sound really cool until you begin thinking about his project at all. It’s not sustainable.

“In a word, both were in revolt against the existing social order tempered by Christian forbearance and compassion, which they regarded as debilitating to man’s highest faculties.”

And that is Webster’s broken clock moment. This much is true. It’s been several pages without anti-Semitism, so we’re going to need to jump back in to that next week.