Hillary Clinton’s American Economy will Be Very Different than Bush’s: a Macroeconomic Analysis of Hilary’s Policies

Since public consciousness is important for the effectiveness of a democracy, it is important to know the policies of the candidates before voting. Not only a superficial knowledge, but also a critical evaluation of the policies is essential. These evaluations should be made with regard to the outcomes on various fields such as sociology, economics and psychology. A macroeconomic analysis is fundamental to understand how these policies would affect the nation’s wellbeing as a whole. Every policy has different impacts on the macroeconomic level, even if it is not an economic policy. The leading Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, has diverging policies from what Bush government applies now. In order to have a stronger middle class, she proposes more accessible colleges and an increase in the minimum wage, in addition to a mandatory healthcare program for everyone. All these policies will bring about significant changes on the economy, if she becomes the first female president of the United States.
The Democrat presidential candidate thinks that America’s middle class is insecure. “People are working harder and longer for less and less”[1]: she thinks that as elite increases its income, the middle class receives a lower real income. In fact, statistics support this idea; the middle quintile earned 17% while the highest quintile earned 44% of income in 1990. However, in 2004, the middle quintile earned 15% while the highest quintile earned 48% of the income[2]. She offers a more affordable college education system as a solution. Thus, more people will be able to reach higher income jobs, which will not be an inherited privilege. In the long run, this policy will lessen the imbalance in the income distribution and additionally lower the unemployment rate. It may even enlarge the labor force by making more people able and willing to work. With a better and larger legal labor force, the GDP will also increase because of an outward shift of aggregate supply curve. The downside is that more government grants will worsen the federal budget deficit, while Mrs. Clinton aims at a balanced budget. Nevertheless, the benefits of a more common college education outweigh the costs associated with it.
Another policy given under the title of strengthening the middle class is an increase in the minimum wage, which is 5.85$ per hour at the moment. Essentially, this policy is not related to the middle class, but to the lower class. The policy, by causing the wages to less able to respond to the market shifts, can exacerbate the unemployment rate, which fell from 6.3 to 4.7 since 2003 June.[3] Pushing the labor costs higher and preventing some unqualified labor from participating in the economy, the higher minimum wage can result in a fall of the GDP. Hillary Clinton has good intentions about the middle class, but increasing the minimum wage would not help this aim, even can harm the lower class too.
Closely related to the middle class problem, the healthcare reform is one of the policies of Mrs. Clinton. If she becomes the president, all Americans will be required to have coverage, while her competitor, Obama, asks for a voluntary and affordable plan. A mandatory healthcare coverage will really pull the costs of the healthcare coverage down, because as more healthy people get the coverage, it is less costly for insurance companies to sell healthcare insurances. Thus, Hillary’s plan seems more secure than that of Obama. Also, this healthcare plan would bring about a change in the composition of the GDP due to the government sponsored more affordable insurance programs. As government’s share of the aggregate expenditure rises, private sector’s share will fall. The cost of the Hillary plan is estimated to be 110 billion dollars per year.[4] Consequently, the budget deficit will grow if there is no increase in taxes. The income distribution will be evened because of the alleviated health costs of the lower and the lower middle class. This redistribution can be supported further by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the affluent. Although there is no assertion on the campaign website, many sources claim that Hillary would increase the taxes on the affluent to balance the federal budget. Besides redistributing the income and enlarging the government’s role, a mandatory healthcare plan can cause many social goods. Nonetheless, the costs both to the federal budget and to the private sector should not be underestimated.
Having analyzed policies on college education, minimum wage and healthcare plan, the voter can ascertain that Hillary’s policies have beneficial aspects and some harmful costs. Making it easier for common people to receive a college education is a good example of the well planned policies of Hillary. However, increasing the minimum wages seems irrelevant to the main point of a stronger middle class and can be too costly. Unlike these two easily evaluated policies, her healthcare plan is open to debate, with its macroeconomic advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, its social goals should also be considered. Just like other candidates, Mrs. Clinton should be weighed with regard to economic plusses and minuses of her policies. Nevertheless, these pluses and minuses are not absolutes, and changes relative to the expectations of the voters from the economy.


Bibliography:
“Issues”. Hillary Clinton Campaign Web Site. www.hillaryclinton.com
Toner, Robin. “A New Populism Spurs the Democrats on the Economy”. The New York Times. July 16, 2007.
Healy, Patrick and Zeleny, Jeff. “In Iowa, Democrats Focus on Economy and Experience”. The New York Times. November 20, 2007.
Cooper, Michael. “It was Clinton vs. Obama on Health Care”. The New York Times. November 16, 2007.
Economagic: Economic Time Series Page. http://www.economagic.com/

[1] Issues – Strengthening the Middle Class, www.hillaryclinton.com
[2] Income Distribution in the U.S., 1947-2004 (handout)
[3] Unemployment Rate, Civilian Labor Force. http://www.economagic.com/
[4] Cooper, Michael, “It was Clinton vs. Obama on Health Care”. The New York Times. November 16, 2007

The Three Evils and Total Destruction in the Modern America: an Analysis of Nietzsche’s Influence on Underworld

In his best seller novel Underworld, Don Delillo comprehensively analyzes the American culture since the Second World War. The novel consists of random narratives that ultimately converge, showing both ugly and beautiful with full realism. This analytical narrative shows the characteristics and the origins of the American culture, by the prominent events in the recent American history and by the effects of those events on the lives of the ordinary citizens. The ideas behind the culture are given in the thoughts of the characters, tracing the philosophical sources of the American culture. The reader can see that the American culture is shaped by many European thinkers, as well as the American ones. Terminologies that Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche have created are always in the language across the Atlantic from Europe. Especially Nietzsche’s way of thinking is embedded in American thought, thus in the thought of the characters of Underworld. Nietzsche discloses the realities hidden under the cultural illusions in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and also offers a mindset to deal with the heavy reality, a mindset that can be called the “religion” of Zarathustra. As the illusions in the American culture are uncovered by Delillo, it becomes clear that Zarathustra’s religion has settled in the minds of the American society.
Nietzsche’s influence in Underworld begins with the juxtaposition of illusions and reality. In the novel, the people who still live with the illusions that Nietzsche denied are the religious characters and the characters that lack will. Through these characters Delillo displays the remnants of the forces that Nietzsche fights against in his writings. However, the examples of Nietzsche’s indirect followers are more common. The three evils that the German philosopher endorsed are among the strongest characteristics of the modern capitalist culture Delillo illustrates. Sensual pleasure, selfishness and will to power are the three evils, which are depicted through the characters and subplots in the novel. To Delillo, the total destruction, which is the inevitable and desired end according to Nietzsche, is a very close possibility. A possibility transforming the American thought system.
Both Nietzsche and Delillo show that what we see on the surface with the eyes that our culture shaped may not be the truth. Very often, thoughts that seem to belong to us are imposed by the culture upon us. “What good is my reason? Does it long for knowledge as the lion for its food? It is poverty and dirt and a miserable ease!”[1]: To Nietzsche, the judgment is useless as long as it is not used to find the real knowledge underneath the cultural illusions. Man should search the truth by himself without any outside influences. The reader can see this inability to see the truth due to the cultural way of reasoning in the novel by the example of waste. The waste manager Brian Glassic understands that there is something strange about waste: “To Understand all this. To penetrate the secret. The mountain was here, unconcealed but no one saw it or thought about it, no one knew it existed”[2] Although its presence is so big that it is impossible to ignore, the common mindset can ignore it. No one except a few is able to break through the limitations of perception and recognize the important presence of waste. Another culturally ignored reality shown in the novel is death, which is reminded to the reader by a Brueghel painting in the hands of J. Edgar Hoover: “It is the “real” hidden in the dream, enveloped in the underworld of the cultural unconsciousness, that the novel probes, and one aspect of this real is precisely linked to the Brueghel painting”[3] Although death is the inevitable end of every single life, and thus extraordinarily common, the culture makes people unable to recognize it. Using the themes of waste and death, Delillo shows that Nietzsche is right about the fact that if a person does not break through the cultural way of reasoning, he is unable to search for the truth.
Not yet disillusioned, the religious people in Underworld have a mindset that Nietzsche opposes strongly. Delillo criticizes them the same way Nietzsche does, showing their humbleness. Nietzsche explains the origin of the religion by the lack of desire to live: “ Weariness, which wants to reach the ultimate with a single leap, with a death leap, a poor ignorant weariness, which no longer wants even to want: that created all gods and afterworlds.”[4] This description is still true for the religious people of today, who always look down on to the worldly desires. In Delillo’s work this hypothesis is supported by the character Sister Edgar, who is an old nun in the Bronx. “She eats the food without tasting it because she decided years ago that the taste is not the point. The point is to clear the plate”[5]: In addition to showing the insensitivity to pleasure of the nun, this is also a metaphor for her whole life. The nun lives to fulfill her ostensibly predetermined duty in life, lives to “clear the plate”, not to enjoy life or have desires, not to “taste”. Nietzsche would certainly agree with Delillo on the characteristics of a mind that has a strong belief in God. They are tired of life, and are not able to create new values in the world because they do not possess a desire.
The problem of lacking will is not unique to the religious people in the American society of Underworld, but very common in other characters, too. The lack of will is explained by Nietzsche as a result of the marketplace economy, which has become even more dominant in modern world. “All great things occur away from glory and the marketplace: the inventors of new values have always lived away from glory and the marketplace.”[6] In the capitalist America, where fame and affluence are the dreams of every growing individual, Nietzsche would be sure that there would be no will for creating new values. In the novel, the relationship between Janet, a nurse living in New York City, and Matt, an engineer working in a desert in the Mid-West, shows that Nietzsche’s opinion on capitalism is true. When Matt possesses will to stop working on weapons because of moral reason Janet says: “And you should do the thing you do best. That’s what safe is.”[7] His girlfriend represents the pressure of the capitalist norms that want to make him do the job he does best to maximize the material gain, regardless of his will. Real individuals with their own wills are not wanted by the capitalist system, and certainly this system does not create such individuals: “Willing liberates for willing is creating: thus I teach. And you should learn only for creating!”[8] The liberty that capitalism brings about is not the real liberty, as it is also shown by Delillo. Following the relationship of Matt and Janet, the reader sees that they, conforming to the social norms, become insignificant as they grow older: “He felt little. He felt small and lost. His wife was little. He had undersized kids. They did nothing in the world that would ever be noticed.”[9] This is an incarnation of lack of will that Nietzsche certainly despises. Like Matt and Janet, many characters in Underworld conform to others so much that they forgot that they can desire things.
Although Delillo shows that phenomena that Nietzsche dislikes still exists in modern society, the German philosopher’s ideas have an increasing influence in the modern world. The increased acceptance of desire for sensual pleasure is the establishment of first evil of Nietzsche. It was supported by the German philosopher nearly a hundred years before it became accepted in America: “Sensual pleasure: A sweet poison only to the withered, but to the lion-willed the great restorative and reverently-preserved wine of wines.”[10] He believes that it is beneficial for the people who have strong will, harmful only to the people who can not handle it. In Underworld, this restorative comprehension of pleasure is shared by the character Donna, with whom Nick has sexual intercourse although he is married to Marian, in Underworld: “Sex is what you can get. For some people, most people, it’s the most important thing they can get without being born rich or smart or stealing… And it’s not religion and it’s not science but you can explore it and learn things about yourself.”[11] Sex is not only a pleasure but also a way of learning and of revenging against injustices. Nietzsche would classify such people as “lion-willed” who have right to enjoy sensual pleasures as much as they can. Furthermore, the character of J. Edgar Hoover shows the importance of the sensual thoughts in the modern mind by his reading of the Brueghel painting. “`the positioning is sexual, unquestionably’ Hoover is momentarily mesmerized by the Brueghel painting’s ecstatic death fugue, by the conjunction of sex and death, by the death drive itself, implied in the images: `Edgar loves this stuff’”[12] Although it is juxtaposed with death, or perhaps since it is juxtaposed with death, sexual image pleases Hoover. Delillo proves the success of Nietzsche’s thoughts in making sensual pleasures covertly or at times openly desired.
Another “evil” of Nietzsche is selfishness, which is very common in the American culture as it is depicted often in Underworld. Nietzsche rediscovered the value of selfishness that has been condemned to be evil by the many cultures. “Yes, this Ego, with its contradictions and confusions, speaks most honestly of its being – this creating, willing, evaluating Ego, which is the measure and value of things.”[13] Since only selfishness comes from the non-conformist and thus creative side of man, it is more valuable than communal behavior. Every important person develops a very strong sense of self, which is also narrated by Delillo. Lenny Bruce, the entertainer satirically explains the difference between common people and people who has the power; “I am just another Lenny… But that’s not what ordained people do. McGeorge, Roswell, Adlai. They remove themselves from any taint of big middle… Doesn’t matter where they go to church. Their name is their church.”[14] To become important and to change the world according to their will, the initial step is worshiping the self, making the name the church. This satire of Lenny Bruce is more than a satire, but the claim of Nietzsche about the validity of his assertions about selfishness.
Closely related to selfishness, the will to power is another common “evil” of the modern society, affecting world perhaps more than everything else. Delillo, certainly, does not miss this aspect of the modern America, and depicts it in his work. Both Delillo and Nietzsche believe that the will to power is inherent in everybody. “Where I found a living creature, there I found will to power; and even in the will of the servant I found the will to be the master.”[15] Here Nietzsche shows how common this will is, even common among the people who are most distant to power. Delillo shows the same fact by the son of Nick, using the child’s imagination as a proof: “My son used to believe that he could look at a plane in flight and make it explode in midair by simply thinking it. He believed, at thirteen, that the border between himself and the world was thin and porous enough to allow him to affect the course of events.”[16] Delillo’s claim is that we all have the inner will to change the world, but as we experience defeats to this end, we lose the necessary will. As a person who lost his will, Nick can feel good about his life only when he reclaims his will to power by hitting Brian Glassic, who has an affair with Nick’s wife: “Someone bigger than he is, readier to act, sitting between him and the door.”[17] This is the return of the will to power, which means the return of his personality. He experiences it once more in the novel as he kills George Manza, a middle aged waiter. “The latter [shooting], which happens when Manza inexplicably tells Nick the gun he has just handed him is not loaded, is a confrontation with death in all its horrifying arbitrariness.”[18] This event will change Nick’s life in a good direction, although the cultural norms would assume that it should be in a noxious direction. As Nick feels the will to power, he gathers some personal strength that helps him change his own life, starts reading books and thinking about his future in prison. Despite the number of characters who lack the will, Delillo shows us the instants in the modern world when the will to power is working in a very powerful way.
As a result of the dominance of the three evils, the end that Nietzsche predicts, the total destruction, becomes a very probable event in the modern life. Narrating the Cold War era, when the will to power of two super powers was about to create a nuclear total war, Delillo emphasizes the importance of this possibility on daily life. Nietzsche’s description of peace can be the summary of what peace meant during the Cold War in Underworld: “You should love peace as a means to new wars. And the short peace is more than the long.”[19] The peace during the Cold War is a preparation for the upcoming war, which can be the last war. The line that Lenny Bruce loves to repeat “We’re all gonna die”[20] is a vocal version of the cry that is always present in the mind of man of the era, either consciously or unconsciously. A generation that keeps the total annihilation in its mind for a few decades becomes an omen coming true of Nietzsche. This unconscious knowledge is so ordinary that people see it as a daily fact of life: “The front page astonished him… to his left Giants capture the pennant… and to the right, symmetrically mated, same typeface, same-size type, same number of lines, the USSR explodes an atomic bomb - kaboom - details kept secret.”[21] A source of total destruction is an ordinary piece of news now; thus, it is very easy to commit themselves to sensual pleasure, selfishness and the will to power. Wilcox explains how the trauma of the A-bomb helps with the annulment of old values: “Shocks and aftershocks radiate outward from this traumatic point, disturbing the symbolic order much as the gravitational force of a black hole, with its presence/absence, disturbs trajectory of neighboring astral bodies.”[22] As the trauma caused by the presence of nuclear bombs damages the validity of old symbols and the old morals, Nietzsche’s new values based on the recognition of destruction replace the “old law tables”, as Nietzsche calls them.
Reading Underground, the reader can trace the Nietzsche’s values becoming eventually more powerful in the modern American culture. Delillo makes this possible by emphasizing the difference between appearance and reality throughout his novel. In the novel the reader can see the assumptions of Nietzsche about the people who lack will are true. The characters who conform to the capitalist system can not be the leaders of new advancements, just as the life-weary religious people are unable to contribute to the progress of humanity. “The three evils” are not considered evil in Underground, because like Nietzsche the “underground people” has seen the futility of the old values. The sensual pleasures are commonly practiced and even appreciated by the characters. The selfishness is a common trait in the novel, and widely approved by the culture under the name of individualism. The will to power, although often suppressed, is realized in different ways in characters’ lives, and becomes a very important factor in their lives. The people of the modern America, as shown in the novel, are able to appreciate these “three evils” because just like Nietzsche they can recognize destruction and death staring at their faces.
[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 43
[2] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 185
[3] Wilcox, Leonard. Don Delillo’s Underworld and the Return of the Real, 123
[4] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 59
[5] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 818
[6] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 79
[7] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 456
[8] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 223
[9] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 221
[10] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 207
[11] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 297
[12] Wilcox, Leonard. Don Delillo’s Underworld and the Return of the Real, 121
[13] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 60
[14] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 593
[15] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 137
[16] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 88
[17] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 797
[18]Wilcox, Leonard. Don Delillo’s Underworld and the Return of the Real, 125
[19] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 74
[20] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 506
[21] Delillo, Don. Underworld, 668
[22] Wilcox, Leonard. Don Delillo’s Underworld and the Return of the Real, 128

The Will to Change that Causes a War against Nature: an Essay on the Nature of Man

Man is a social entity that needs to interact in a group for various reasons including survival. These social structures need some kind of governing, because they are not useful without any order. Since a good administrator is the one who governs according to the needs of others, it is important to understand what the human nature is, despite its difficulty. Since the beginning of the 19th century, the thinkers have made numerous assumptions on the nature of man, and thereby derived many superstructures to govern people. Some of those assumptions have been widely accepted, and the corresponding superstructures have been put into application.
Based on very different understandings of the needs and the nature of man, with very different ideals, Communism, Fascism and Capitalism are the most prominent superstructures in the recent history. However, they all produce similar outcomes when put into practice, because they all govern over men who have one common fundamental nature. Communism has a scientific understanding of man, in which the class struggle is fundamental. Its ideal is equality, which is mostly economic. Nazism, in contrast, assumes the fundamental nature to be instinct for the self-preservation and domination. In Nazi understanding, the struggle is not to be ended, but to be supported. This idea is rooted in the teachings of Nietzsche, but when it is applied according to the pseudo-evolutionary science of Nazis it becomes racism. Unrelated to the idea of Übermensch, the Nazi ideal is the Germanic domination on the world. Modernity, supported by its Capitalist economy, assumes the human’s most important need to be freedom. The approach of modernity is not scientific idealism or medieval blood-line preservation, but utilitarianism. Although these three ideologies have very different ideals and systems of thought, they all produce exploitative striving of man, for a more effective production and technology, which brings about more advanced control over nature. This common characteristic proves that the fundamental nature of man is the will to overcome nature, due to his will to change his dissatisfactory conditions.
Karl Marx analyzes the history scientifically from a materialist perspective, reaching the Communist ideology as a conclusion. The history that he classifies and analyzes leads to a conclusion: “What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed?”[1] Instead of studying the nature of man, Marx studies the modes of production to determine the needs of people, because to him the human nature is always determined by the economic activities. He describes the modern capitalist ideas as “the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property”[2]. Never an idea is completely original, because it is always rational consequences of modes of production. In the Communist system of thought, there is no room for unscientific ideas, since its ideals come from the analysis of history with regard to the materialistic values. This scientific character is not limited in the leaders of the movement, but expected from the whole proletariat. “The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of immense majority”[3] Consciousness is the key element of this movement; without it worker is a rebel, not a revolutionary. Marx does not want rebels because they are Dionysian, not suitable for his Apollonian understanding of historical progress. The Communist approach to man is limited to a view of the Apollonian forces inside man, unable to see the chaos.
After their purely Apollonian analysis of humanity and its history, the Communist thinkers reach some ideals for the future of man. It must not be forgotten that these ideals are results of an analysis that cannot see the Dionysian half of man. Since they think that the problem is only material, “forever freeing the whole society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles”[4] is the aim of their revolution. Lenin further explains the mechanics of the society that will be created after the revolution: “Every worker, therefore, receives, from society as much as he has given it.”[5] By bringing justice to the income distribution, the Communists solve the problem of exploitation. Nevertheless, because of their Apollonian understanding, the Communism only wants to solve the problems that can be seen on the surface.
When Communists try to apply these ideals they see that there is something missing in their analysis. Although their plans look purely logical on the paper, they cannot be applied with success. The initial event that proves that the world is not fully logical is the fact that the only place the revolution succeeded was Russia which “had been late to emerge from Feudalism and late in industrializing.”[6] If the history worked as logically as Marx expects the Communist revolution would have happened in the Western industrialized countries. Because of the half Apollonian and half Dionysian human nature, which always have the will to have more control over nature, people in Soviet Russia started willingly exploiting themselves for ideals. “The withering away of the money that indicated how close the society had already come to communism”[7] was in fact an hyper-inflation showing the unpleasant economic conditions. “The Soviet Union must built more and produce more than any other country.”[8]: Unable to perceive that they exploit themselves, Russian workers worked very hard to produce more. Although the Communists believe that the aim is to end the exploitation of working class, in practice it is clear that the Communist man ambitiously works to get more out of nature even without any individual benefit. In Communist Russia, the Apollonian veil over the Dionysian fight against the nature was the competition between the Communist Russia and the Western Capitalist powers.
Another result of the man’s will to change the world is Nazism. The means of the change in Nazism is analogous to Nietzsche’s thoughts. Hitler describes the Nazi approach in Mein Kampf: “the realization of the theoretician’s ultimate purpose can never be realized… complete fulfillment will fail due to the general imperfection and inadequacy of man.”[9] Nietzsche would agree with Hitler on the inadequacy of man and impossibility of reaching ideals. Hitler’s and Nietzsche’s ways to the ideals are also very similar. “But the natural law of all development demands, not the coupling of two formations which are simply not alike, but the victory of the stronger… and the strength made possible alone by the resultant struggle.”[10] Although they both think power struggle is essential, their understandings of struggle are very divergent. The struggle is racial for Hitler, but creative and selfish for Nietzsche. Hitler tries to apply the modern ideas of Nietzsche according to his own medieval mindset. The result is a totally mislead understanding of the nature of man, which sees man as a wild animal. Since Nazi perspective lacks the Apollonian logic, the results of this understanding are totally Dionysian.
The Dionysian Nazi’s will, as well as Dionysian Nazi methods, finds its way to becoming another method of progress against nature. Unlike the other modes of production, Nazi mode of production is based on a chaotic system with a high amount of brutality. “There was no law to prevent their random cruelty.”[11]: This system consists of both death and chaos, thus is Dionysian. The will to overcome nature, despite Hitler’s preaching about the laws of nature, is inherent in the Nazi system. However much they assert that they are against results of industrialization and technology, their plans about creating a colossal industrial zone in the Eastern Europe leads to advanced rule over nature. “It is certain that the first culture of humanity was based less on the tamed animal than on the use of lower human beings.”[12]: Unlike his many statements, in which Hitler sees the animals as a role model, this statement is the necessity to recognize some aspects about production that makes man different than animals. Even the retrograde and Dionysian culture of the Nazis obeys the will to have a better standing against nature.
The modernity and Capitalism have very different ideals than that of Communism and Fascism. Capitalist ideals are freedom, utilitarianism and individualism to the point of selfishness. Unlike Communism and Nazism, in which the individual attitudes should obey the group’s attitude, the modern ideal is the full expression of every individual. John Stuart Mill states the importance of this freedom: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”[13] Lenin, Stalin and Hitler’s stands against oppositionist ideas show the difference between modernity and the two authoritarian ideologies. Although some thinkers claim that this freedom of expression is an innate right, John Stuart Mill sees it as a design for more utility. “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in largest sense, grounded on the permanent interest of man as a progressive being.”[14] This emphasis on utility, which exists in all three ideologies, is most openly expressed only in modernity. The coexistence of freedom and utilitarianism leads to individualism for Mill, but to selfishness for Nietzsche: “Entirely hateful and loathsome to it is he who will never defend himself… too patient man who puts up with everything, is content with everything; for that is the nature of slaves.”[15] Here Nietzsche lays the ambitious and selfish foundations of modernity, by emphasizing the will to change for one’s self. Modernity idealizes a world in which everybody works for his own benefit, which would create most utility for everyone, in an environment of freedom.
This system, which is ostensibly rational, creates a complete Dionysian chaos when applied. Competition is the main Dionysian force in the modern society; as the world gets more global, everybody has to compete with an infinite number of competitors. This creates a paranoia that leads to an ambitious and endless struggle of man. The chaos of competition overwhelms man so much, that he loses his consciousness in this hectic environment. The Underground Man confesses the condition of modern man: “we’ve all grown unaccustomed to life, we’re all lame, each of us more or less. We’ve even grown so unaccustomed at times we feel a sort of loathing for real “living life” and therefore cannot bear to be reminded of it.”[16] Man who can not postulate on his own life, and who prefers to ignore it, can never have consciousness. “They do not stop to think whether the aims they are pursuing are something they themselves want.”[17]: Not conscious about his desires, modern man follows the crowd, and tries to suit desires of other people. This lack of consciousness, together with the spirit of competition, brings about a powerful exploitation of man. Just like in Communism, in Capitalism man exploits himself for ideas that are not his. Again the struggle against nature, and thus hard work, overcomes other desires. The Apollonian looking modernity is a great Dionysian struggle for progress of humanity.
Although Capitalism, Fascism and Communism have very different aims, they all result in exploitation of man for better mastery over nature. People’s chaotic Dionysian forces always lead to this struggle, regardless of the leading superstructure. This progressive nature of man is related to the condition of man. Man is born to a world that is already designed according to a system. Whether it is monarchy, democracy, fascism or communism in political sense, or subsistence farming, industrial production or overseas trade in economic sense, it is never his creation. He has to conform to this design, but still there is dissatisfaction left in his psyche. When the system is powerful and working, man persuades himself that he does not have any dissatisfaction, thus makes it subconscious. Nonetheless, when system is not powerful, he feels this dissatisfaction strongly and can put it in words. When aristocracy lost its power the liberal idea, and when capitalism was shaken, the Communist and the Fascist ideas were formulated. This “will to change” is the main motivation behind all revolutions and reforms in human history. Man is always alien to the system he is born to, and always possesses a “will to change”.
This “will to change” is the main reason for human progress over nature. Every individual possessing this will strives for better conditions. This creates a continuous struggle along with progress. If we think the humanity as a whole, the most affective way to make humanity’s condition better is domination over nature. Man initially was a part of nature, and as the Dionysian “wills to change” of every man are added up, they bring about a gradual progress. Since the will to change is chaotic, it causes struggle among people too, but the ultimate result is always another victory against nature.
Because of the innate will to change, all three ideologies of the 21st century create results that are divergent from their initial ideals. Communism and Capitalism create a self-exploitation, whereas one was aimed at the annihilation of exploitation and the other was aimed at the complete freedom. Fascism overtly admits that its aim is exploitation of other races. Even though Nazis think that they are exploiting in order to obey nature, the ultimate result of the Nazi struggle is better mastery over nature for a stronger country that is supposed to survive the pseudo natural selection of races. It is necessary to repeat the fact that man never returns to nature, but goes further away from nature.
Man is separated from other animals because it does not obey the nature but tries to change it for his own purposes. He is always dissatisfied with his conditions. The nature of man is the will to change due to constant dissatisfaction, and a war against nature. Man made a colossal progress since the pre-historic ages. However, these victories over nature inevitably lessen the strength of nature, and cause phenomena like global warming and diminishing natural resources. Because he is dependent on nature, when man totally wins over nature, he will bring about his own destruction too. The end that Zarathustra longed for can be a result of the human nature that always fights the nature. If “man is a bridge not a goal”[18], he will overcome himself by overcoming nature.
[1] Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto, 73
[2] Marx. Karl. The Communist Manifesto, 70
[3] Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto, 64
[4] Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto, 35
[5] Lenin, Vladimir. State and Revolution, 150
[6] Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution, 15
[7] Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution, 80
[8] Sheila, Fitzpatrick. The Russian Revolution, 134
[9] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, 211
[10] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, 350
[11] Rees, Laurence. The Nazis, 129
[12] Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, 295
[13] Mill, John S. On Liberty, 76
[14] Mill, John S. On Liberty, 70
[15] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 209
[16] Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes From Underground, 129
[17] Fromm, Erich. Escape From Freedom, 251
[18] Nietzsche. Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 215