Will to Power as cooperation

Life is mostly about solving problems using common sense; things don’t need to be very complicated as long they work.

Most conservatives tend to simply “trust their guts” when evaluating problems; consequently, they focus on this freedom to choose, and they individually assume the consequences — to the conservative mind, each to his place.

It is common sense to understand things for their visible and regular outcomes. It is not that common sense is always right, or that all things are as they appear, but on the other hand, common sense can tell us things that are evident because they are simply true.

This is probably why you’re more likely to find conservatives in business than in academics. In academics people “problematize” ad infinitum, very often reaching conclusions that end wandering in their own realm of political correctness without going back to reality, while in business, things are evaluated by their patent productivity. If conservatives are criticized for not “questioning the system”, liberals can be criticized for doing nothing but questioning the system, getting closed in a prescriptive cage made of good intentions.

Perhaps the most important part of this common sense about the world is the understanding of will as a fundamental element of success. A successful society is that which gathers disciplined individuals who have clear ideals in mind, and that are responsible of their actions.

On the other hand liberals tend to think that this will is just a product of structure and that the individuals are not ultimately responsible of their actions, their lack of discipline or will. The will to power, in their minds, is just a pretext to some sort of institutional savagism, as in Fascist regimes where strength and the strong are socially fixated in their positions above the weak.

I’ll follow the leftist train of thought for a while to rebuild their vision, and start by thinking of a world completely dominated by the will to power. A jungle-like scenario, where the strongest rule as long as he can watch his own back, the survival of the fittest as an endless race that gets nowhere but only to selfish and temporary triumph, a scenario whose inhabitants live in permanent restlessness.

Robbery, abuse, death. A terrible picture. That’s the pure will that we commonly praise so much in our “common sense”, without thinking in the importance of the structural socialization around it to make it bearable, or human. Essentially, it is natural selection, and we haven’t imposed our values on it, the will to be selected trumps ethical considerations and results in an everlasting battle.

But if we favor socialization over the will to power, what would we have?

True, it’s called civilization, and in its more advanced form, democracy. But in order to be in such state of harmony, this will to power must be suppressed for the sake of cooperation, tranquility, and equality.  And we will need to evaluate our social constructs over that, otherwise, cruel isolated will. Let’s be leftists to foster socialization over nature. Although we had not so fortunate moments like monarchy and aristocracy, with their legitimately veiled but rampant dominions based on these will as an exclusive attribute, we have progressed.

Aristocratic will ends in tyranny. It is known that power corrupts, and therefore, in order to avoid that corruption, power must be partitioned as much as possible; this ends, ideally, with every individual having the same amount of power as the next. Hence, power in the hands of the best means the exploitation of those ‘who are not the best’.

Much of our modern culture is a way to prevent aristocratism, whether through art, media or law, our culture just seeks to avoid the exploitation of the ‘not best’ through the complete denial of differences among humans. If not will, what we praise then? Meekness.

Meekness is cooperative, don’t you think?  The simple notion of will is domineering, are you going to exert your will against the wind? No, it’s towards other man. Everybody, in common sense, knows that, but we politically correct types praise not will but submission, because as more people submit, the more cooperative our society is: where no one has private property, everyone has private property, where no one has power, everyone has power.

However, this collective submission doesn’t include the leaders of these revolutions, we have to submit ourselves to their peace, but that’s only a gradual step towards the emancipation of the masses. When we look at our current times, in clear distinction to old ages of cruelty, we feel happy of living in safer ages, and we must move forward!

We are afraid of the dominant, willful, and strong, because they are discriminatory towards the meek. It’s simple: we arrange our goals as society and we punish or ostracize those who don’t follow them, either they’re aristocratic values or humanist pursuits, and so we come with very interesting conflicts.

In an aristocratic order, sure, the meek are relegated by the so called “patriarchal” values, but in the individualist society, everything that smells like aristocracy or hierarchy, is despised and sealed with politically correct accusations. There’s nothing impressive here.

Individualism is the optimal form of cooperation, because aristocratic values of strength and honor, are so inherently conflictive, discriminatory, selfish and bellicose, how could a bunch of willful beasts manage to have harmony? We have changed and we have now civilized individuals that are cooperative.

So — that is enough leftist train for me. We know that this modern project failed. Why?

Because it went too far on its appraisal of socialization, and, denied the will to power, confusing it with a naively cruel via of exploitation. Nietzsche, would you explain how, really, aristocratic will works in society?

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is–namely,a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay.

CHAPTER IX. WHAT IS NOBLE? – Beyond Good and Evil. 259

Nietzsche was right when he emphasized cooperation not only in terms of kinship, but in terms of “force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization”. But also, he brilliantly recognized that a society that forces to create this co-relation is destined to fail.

Cooperation is possible if there are individuals of similar worth and purpose. A society with an average of worthy individuals it’s going to minimize its class conflict, and therefore the tyranny that emerges from the existing distance between the peasants and the rulers. But, the reader could ask: isn’t that the same purpose of the Left, to produce people of good attitude? And that’s precisely the spin: it is the purpose, not the consequence.

It is the disgrace of making it the fundamental principle of society, according to Nietzsche. It is a diabolic inversion, whereas social harmony may naturally come from naturally worthy individuals, liberalism tries to produce social harmony to bring worthy individuals.

What do we really need to look for? To equate worth, but from bottom-up: no assistance, no charity, but look for the foundations of a good collective society: worthy individuals that incarnate the will to power as a via to communal transcendence.

The will to power is natural, and so, here we know that the will to power depends on the nature of the individual. The lesson is very simple, if we want to level up society, we need to work with human nature to bring worthy individuals that include creative cooperation as part of themselves.

One Comment

  1. Pretty Epic article it must be said. This situation of oppression and anarchy, where only a temporary ‘king of the hill’ mindset can prevail, is essentially Hobbes’ state of nature. Of course, ‘the left’ is afraid of this because it implies submission of the weak to the strong. This is what Thrasymachus brought forward in Plato’s Republic: the social contract rests upon the weak wills of the many, who came together because they were too afraid to be hurt, so they decided to give up this power voluntarily. Yet there are those, the strongest, who would do well in this anarchistic state of society. Today, those are the ones who uphold a public image of piety, yet secretly profit from all the evils and goods a sinful life have to offer and combine that with a good reputation.

    We could say that this goes back to everything (The Republic pretty much obsoletes philosophy as such): On the one hand there’s the notion of the mass which gives up some possibilities (the right to take the property and lives of others) in exchange for some rights (to be protected by the power of an oppointed sovereign against those who intend to harm you) – this is the idea that Thomas Hobbes stole from The Republic and made it into a political doctrine of his own. On the other hand, there’s the slave morality, the leftists, the hidden will to power of the meek, directed in envy against the strong; against those who could probably do well in the state of nature. Their aim is to seek such individuals out and to gang up on them.

    Sokrates’ response to this doctrine of Thrasymachus was to say: “Sure, there’s herders, and there’s sheep. Sure, the herder may be slightly better off in comparison, but it’s still in the objective best interest of the sheep that there’s such a herder at all. This is what seperates a ‘good’ herder from a bad one.”
    When Thrasymachus tried to argue that ‘good’ was but perception of the higher classed (like you say, Federico, “this will is just a product of structure … as in Fascist regimes where strength and the strong are socially fixated in their positions.”) Sokrates responded that good is an objective quality – the doctor makes a living from curing other patients, but it’s still in your objective best interest to visit a good doctor.

    Likewise, this again boils down to the Characterless-thesis: This way, Sokrates tried to make clear that the most gifted, the Über or ‘natural aristocrat’ should lead. It’s pointless to say this will to power is a construction in the interest of the rulers since their rule is also in the objective best interest of the followers. Yet to accept that as true also conflicts with the will (and whims) of the masses.

    Two further remarks: – one could say that this is really not the promotion of a specific class ‘those with the will to power’ but of an agenda. After all, would those with the will to power agree upon decisions? What people want is a specific true ideology, one in accordance with the facts of reality, to prevail rather than just persons that could disagree among themselves.
    - In the state of nature or in hunter gatherer societies, people would perish if they would not have their most gifted to take the lead. In today’s society, everyone is sustained in life. It’s evolution of people to over-estimate themselves (having a good perception of yourself makes you mentally and physically stronger and healthier, and thus more successful). For this reason people look down on those more giften than they are, to boost their self-esteem in comparison. Combined with consumerism, technology and the welfare state, this is why the class of noobs will replace the class of Übers in the Characterless-society.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.558 seconds