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.

The connection between Marx(ism) and Nietzsche(anism) has repeatedly been a topic on our blog. To what extent can the ideas of arguably the most important theorist on the left and the philosophical chameleon, who was an avowed anti-socialist and anti-feminist and inspired Goebbels and Mussolini, among others, be meaningfully combined. While there have been repeated attempts at left-wing Nietzscheanism, Estella Walter's conclusion in this controversial thesis article is skeptical: The contrast between “historical-dialectical materialism” and Nietzsche's idea of will to power is too irreconcilable. Beyond his time diagnosis, his thinking only provides little emancipatory content.

Taylor Swift is one of the most important “idols” of our time. Reason enough for our regular authors Henry Holland, Paul Stephan and Estella Walter to pick up on the Nietzschean “hammer” and get to grips with the hype a bit: Does Swift deserve the cult around her that goes down to philosophy? Is it grossly overrated? And what explains the discrepancy between appearance and reality, spectacle and life?

You can watch the entire unabridged conversation on the Halcyonic Association for Radical Philosophy YouTube channel (link).

‍

For a total of 20 years, Bangladesh was ruled by an iron, authoritarian regime under Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of the first president since the country's independence from Pakistan, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But within a very short period of time, nationwide uprisings of such violence broke out in July 2024 that they overthrew Hasina after just one month and drove him into exile. How did this victory come from below and how does Nietzsche help us The will to power and continue his elaborations by Foucault and Deleuze to understand this historic moment?

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.

After two previous contributions to Nietzsche in the Anglosphere For this blog, Henry Holland interviewed American thinker Daniel Tutt about his perspective on Nietzsche as the most important antagonist of the left. The discussion included Huey Newton, leader of the Black Panthers in the 1970s, and what his “parasitic” way of reading Nietzsche prompted him to read. An unedited and unabridged version of this interview, in original English, can be heard and watched on Tutt's YouTube channel (link).

‍

After discussing Jonas Čeika's book How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle and bis YouTube channel (CCK Philosophy) (link), Henry Holland interviewed the American about the blockages of academic philosophy, Nietzsche's relevance as a thinker on the “guideline of the body,” and about tensions between his claim as an anti-philosopher and his social position.