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.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche are often contrasted as the two great thinkers of the 19th century. The opposition between their views is evident: on one side, the critic of all class societies, schooled in Hegel; on the other, the critic of "slave morality" who drew on Schopenhauer and considered exploitative conditions to be indispensable. On one side, the sharp analyst of the capitalist mode of production, who dissected it with surgical precision over hundreds of pages in his magnum opus Das Kapital; on the other, the aphorist who thought while strolling, for whom economics was at best a peripheral topic.

Time and again, there have been attempts to bridge these contradictions and create fruitful symbioses between Marxism and Nietzscheanism. Yet there are also voices, particularly among those Marxists who rely heavily on Hegel, that emphasize the fundamental incompatibility of the two approaches.

This two-part series presents both less successful and more compelling Nietzsche interpretations by such "Hegel-Marxists," while simultaneously asking whether and how critique is possible between such philosophically divergent positions.

We begin with Georg Lukács and Hans Heinz Holz. The Hungarian philosopher Lukács lived from 1885 to 1971 and is considered the founding father of Hegel-Marxism as a philosophical movement. Hans Heinz Holz (1927–2011) was a student of Lukács’ former friend and later rival Ernst Bloch, and is counted among the most influential representatives of Hegel-Marxism in the second half of the 20th century.

The second part features an examination of the extensive "intellectual biography" of Nietzsche written by the Marxist historian Domenico Losurdo.

Nietzsche questions truth as an adequate understanding of the world. This implies there is no longer a true world, as modern sciences assume. Radical constructivism, emerging in biology, which posits that living beings perceive their environment only as their internal structures allow, confirms Nietzsche's analyses and, consequently, postmodern philosophy, where truth is also considered merely a construction and not an objective grasp of something. From this, it follows not only that the world can be interpreted in various ways, but also that there is no single, uniquely correct truth and, therefore, no single correct way of life.

If you prefer to watch or listen to this article, read by the author himself in German, you can also find it on YouTube and 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.

‍

A fixed feature at the annual conference of the Nietzsche Gesellschaft [Nietzsche Society] conference is the Lectio Nietzscheana Naumburgensis: a particularly distinguished scholar delivering an extended lecture on the conference theme on the final day, thereby providing a pointed conclusion. The most recent conference in October 2025 awarded this special honor to Werner Stegmaier to recognize his long tenure as editor of the influential Nietzsche-Studien [Nietzsche Studies] and his authorship of numerous seminal monographs on Nietzsche’s philosophy. Running from October 16-19, 2025, the conference focused the theme “Nietzsche’s Technologies,” as Emma Schunack reported.

Generously granting his permission to publish his lecture in full and in this translation, Stegmaier takes on the conference theme from an unexpected perspective. Rather than examining what is commonly understood as “technologies”—machines, cyborgs, or automata—he explores instead Nietzsche’s philosophical techniques, both intellectual and rhetorical. Weighing up the original and idiosyncratic methods Nietzsche deployed while writing, Stegmaier reflects on how best to interpret and assess them. How were they able to enthuse and win over successive generations of readers? What can we learn from these today?

Comparing Nietzsche’s techniques with those of two other modern philosophical giants, Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), Stegmaier retraces all three philosophers’ break with the classical and conceptually oriented techniques of thinking inherited from antiquity, and their discoveries of radical and experimental means of developing philosophy in the age of “nihilism.” Replacing a one-dimensional, metaphysical understanding of rationality, these means cultivate a plural, perspectival mode of thought that necessarily relies on entirely different techniques. Situating Nietzsche’s methods within these broader developments in intellectual history, the Lectio establishes an utterly new framework for understanding his thought and its place within modern philosophy.

Translated by Henry Holland.

On the occasion of the 125^th anniversary of Friedrich Nietzsche’s death on August 25, we spoke with two of the most internationally renowned Nietzsche scholars, Andreas Urs Sommer and Werner Stegmaier. While the conversation with Sommer focused primarily on Nietzsche’s life, our discussion with Stegmaier centered on Nietzsche’s thinking, its relevance today, and Stegmaier’s own philosophy of orientation. What are Nietzsche’s central insights – and to what extent can they help us find our way in the present? What does his concept of “nihilism” mean? And what are the political implications of his philosophy?

Translated by Reinhard Müller.

Our author Natalie Schulte traveled by bicycle for nine months Vietnam, Kampuchea, Thailand and malaysia. In her penultimate contribution to the series ”Hikes with Nietzsche“ she muses on encounters with wild animals that she met or could have met on her journey. It is hardly surprising that this includes considerations about the importance of animals, as they occur in Nietzsche's philosophy.

It is no secret that one of Nietzsche’s most important philosophical references was the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). That’s reason enough to trace the history of Nietzsche’s reception of Schopenhauer in a two-part article. In the first part, Schopenhauer scholar Tom Bildstein examines how the young Leipzig philology student Nietzsche was first inspired by Schopenhauer’s magnum opus The World as Will and Representation (1818), only to turn into a harsh critic of the Frankfurt “sourpuss” within a few years. — Link to part 2.

As a Marxist, Nietzsche was an early nuisance. But with the Nietzsche Renaissance in the eighties, I couldn't get past him anymore. That's when I discovered Nietzsche as an innovative thinker. - Part II of the series “What does Nietzsche mean to me? “, in which our regular authors introduce themselves.