Most conservatives tend to simply â€œtrust their gutsâ€ when evaluating problems;Â 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 youâ€™re more likely to find conservatives in business than in academics. In academics people â€œproblematizeâ€ 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 â€œquestioning the systemâ€, 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. Thatâ€™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 havenâ€™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, itâ€™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. Â 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 â€˜who are not the bestâ€™.
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 â€˜not bestâ€™ through the complete denial of differences among humans. If not will, what we praise then? Meekness.
Meekness is cooperative, donâ€™t you think?Â The simple notion of will is domineering, are you going to exert your will against the wind? No, itâ€™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 doesnâ€™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. Itâ€™s simple: we arrange our goals as society and we punish or ostracize those who donâ€™t follow them, either theyâ€™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 â€œpatriarchalâ€ values, but in the individualist society, everything that smells like aristocracy or hierarchy, is despised and sealed with politically correct accusations. Thereâ€™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 â€œforce and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organizationâ€. 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 itâ€™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: isnâ€™t that the same purpose of the Left, to produce people of good attitude? And thatâ€™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.