The October Revolution, which took place on November 6 and 7, 1917, according to the Western calendar, was one of the most pivotal events in world history. For the first time in history, one of the world's largest nations was to not only establish a republic but also end the era of private ownership of the means of production and the soil and build a completely classless society. In "A Sixth of the World"—the proud title of a 1926 Soviet film by Dziga Vertov that celebrates the Soviet Union's achievements and showcases its diverse peoples—socialism was to prevail, and a "new man" was even to be created.

It was an experiment that failed, yet it shaped the history of the 20th century like no other and remains a subject of debate to this day: Was it doomed to fail from the start? Was the price of the undeniable, gigantic successes of this vast empire too high? At what exact point did it take a wrong turn?

Nietzsche would likely have chosen the first answer—and conversely, he was, to put it mildly, not exactly the most popular philosopher in the Soviet Union. He was considered a bourgeois reactionary and a mastermind of fascism; his writings were removed from libraries and censored, and academic engagement with his work was virtually impossible. At the same time, individual motifs of his philosophy lived on in revolutionary culture, in literature, and in the vision of a "new man"—often without ever mentioning his name.

In this two-part series, Ukrainian philosopher Vitalii Mudrakov provides an overview of the reception of Nietzsche in the country where he was born, which has long since ceased to exist. The first part examines the official attempts to censor Nietzsche's thought and interpret it solely through the lens of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The second part will focus on the unofficial, subversive reception of Nietzsche.

Is there a connection between place and thought? How might Nietzsche’s philosophy and the forest be linked?

In German culture, the forest often appears as the epitome of the idyllic. In the penultimate part of our series “The Forest as a Living Foundation”, our author Michael Meyer-Albert argues that Nietzsche gave this idyll a completely new form by dynamizing it.

He begins by discussing two forms of the traditional idyll. While the classical idyll in Southern European traditions (such as in Virgil) tended to celebrate the sunny, Arcadian pastoral landscape or the orderly garden, the philosophical idyll is found within the walls of the academy. A refuge from doxa, a tribute to the logos.

Meyer-Albert then analyzes the German forest as a specifically German form of the idyll using the term “Waldeinsamkeit” (forest solitude), coined by the Romantic writer Ludwig Tieck (1773–1853). Here, the forest is understood as a near-religiously charged sanctuary from the demands of modernity. If defended aggressively, this romanticism can quickly turn into reactionary mythology—even in a modern, left-wing guise.

Nietzsche’s modification of the anti-modern German forest idyll into a heroic idyll that affirms modernity serves as a counter-proposal to all these traditional forms of the idyllic—this will be the focus of the second part of this article (link).

Our author Paul Stephan has finally had enough. The internet is being flooded with cheap A"I" content, often called "AI slop," which is just plain annoying—and is even being rewarded with countless likes and followers. Often, this content is about philosophy, too—specifically Nietzsche. How much damage is being done when this artificial Nietzsche increasingly displaces the real one, as A"I" outputs that repeat the same half-truths and falsehoods replace nuanced human interpretations? When machine-generated caricatures literally push out genuine photographs and artistic portraits? Paul Stephan embarked on an often frustrating search for answers and presents you with a few "highlights." Although he still believes that A"I" opens up positive possibilities—and occasionally makes use of them himself—in his third piece on the subject (feel free to read the first and second commentaries here and there), he feels it is time to take off the kid gloves and bring out the hammer. Stop the slop!

Throughout his life, Nietzsche was a great critic of nationalism. The burgeoning German national sentiment, in particular, was anathema to him, and he wrote scathing remarks about his home country, such as "definition of the Germanic: obedience and long legs..."¹. At the same time, nationalists and patriots of all stripes count among his fans. How can one be a Nietzschean and a (German) nationalist? What exactly is "nationalism," and is it possible to give this term a positive meaning?

Paul Stephan discussed these delicate topics, which are gaining increasing relevance given the successes of nationalist parties worldwide, in written form with YouTuber, Nietzsche expert, and nationalism researcher Michael Drescher, also known as PhrasenDrescher.

Additionally, they continued this dialogue verbally on YouTube – feel free to check out the result here (or as an audio-only version on SoundCloud).

On April 15, 1980, one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Jean-Paul Sartre, died at the age of 74. Paul Stephan spoke with Jens Bonnemann, chairman of the German-speaking Sartre-Gesellschaft, about his basic ideas, his relationship with Nietzsche and his significance for our time. What does it mean to live in freedom after the “death of God”? What are the limits of individual freedom? What are the differences and similarities between Sartre and Nietzsche?

You can also view the unedited version of the conversation, in German, on YouTube and listen to it on Soundcloud.

‍

The filmmaker, writer, lawyer, and philosopher Alexander Kluge, born in 1932, died on March 25. Kluge, who became known to a large audience not least through his films and his artistic television interviews, was repeatedly inspired by Nietzsche. In his diverse work, he not only dedicated himself decisively to him, but also followed a profoundly Nietzschean, perspectivist approach throughout his life. That should be reason enough to dedicate an obituary to him on our blog, which art historian and curator Barbara Straka thankfully wrote for us.

Barbara Straka's newly published book Nietzsche Forever? explores the question of how Nietzsche is received in 20th century art, in particular that after 1945. But the reception of Nietzsche's reception raises the question of whether the philosopher's monumentality is lost sight of. Does this reveal a fundamental problem of our age with monumentality? In any case, starting from Nietzsche, Michael Meyer-Albert argues against Straka for a “post-monumental monumentality” as an alternative to aesthetic postmodernism. In the first part of the two-part series, he dedicated himself to her book, and now he is accentuating his opposite position.

Nietzsche was repeatedly elevated to a figurehead by right-wing theorists and politicians. From Mussolini and Hitler to the AfD — Nietzsche is repeatedly seized when it comes to confronting modern society with a radical reactionary alternative. Nietzsche was particularly fascinating to intellectual right-wingers, such as authors like Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger, who formed a cultural prelude to the advent of National Socialism in the 1920s, even though they later partially distanced themselves from it. People also often talk about the “Conservative Revolution”¹.

What do these authors draw from Nietzsche and to what extent do they read him one-sidedly and overlook other potentials in his work? Our author Paul Stephan spoke about this with philosopher Robert Hugo Ziegler.

After Christian Saehrendt took a primarily biographical look at Nietzsche's relationship to music on this blog in June last year (link), Paul Stephan focuses in this article on Nietzsche's content statements about music and comes to a somewhat different conclusion: For Nietzsche, music has a liberating power through its subjectivating power. It affirms our sense of self and inspires us to resist repressive norms and morals. However, not all music can do that. With late Nietzsche, this is no longer Richard Wagner's opera, but Georges Bizet's opera carmen. Our author recognizes a similar attitude in Sartre's novel The disgust and in black popular music, which is not about comfort or grief, but affirmation and overcoming.

It is well known that Nietzsche's history of influence has been read and absorbed across all political camps. But what about our present tense? Paul Stephan examines the writings of two authors who are about the same age as himself, in their mid/late 30s, and whose perspectives on Nietzsche could hardly be more different: While French journalist and YouTuber Julien Rochedy declares Nietzsche a pioneer of a right-wing cultural struggle, the German philosopher and political scientist Karsten Schubert attacks him for a left-wing identity politics. Both positions do not really convince our authors; rather, they are entirely within the framework of the prevailing simulation of politics as a cultural struggle, which would need to be countered by focusing on the really pressing life problems of contemporary humanity.

Paul Stephan talked to Jenny Kellner and Hans-Martin Schönherr-Mann about the interpretation of one of the most important Nietzsche interpreters of the 20th century: Georges Bataille (1897—1962). The French writer, sociologist and philosopher defended the ambiguity of Nietzsche's philosophy against its National Socialist appropriation and thus became a central source of postmodernism. Based on Dionysian mythology, he wanted to develop a new concept of sovereignty that transcends the traditional understanding of responsible subjectivity, and criticized modern capitalist rationality in the name of an “economy of waste.” With all this, he provides important impulses for a better understanding of our present tense.