Übermensch and gender
Due to the similarity of the word "Mensch" to the English word "man", it's often thought that Mensch refers to man.
But actually, in German the word Mensch just means "person" or "human being"; it's completely gender-neutral.
(See the bottom of the post for some elaboration on the linguistic part.)
As such, the word Übermensch has no inherent gender. It could variously be translated as "Overhuman", "Beyond-human", "Super-human" etc, with a connotation of transcending the "human" condition into something beyond it — especially in the realm of morality (transcending slave morality etc). (This actually has little to do with physical strength as such.)
In a feminist reading, the concept could refer to transcending gender essentialism, to abolishing gender itself — to transcending into a species of beings beyond "gender" and patriarchy.
And more generally, in an anarchist reading, it could refer to transcending the slavish tendencies that have hitherto characterized the human society, especially under the modern liberal order; to an anarchist society.
And such interpretations are not non-existent.
For example:
“The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer's ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Übermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Übermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves.”
— Emma Goldman,
Anarchism and Other Essays (preface)
("Mensch" is of course cognate with "man" in the same way as "human" is cognate with "man"; and this sorta relationship applies to many other related words in European languages. But limiting ourselves to modern German, Mensch is genderless. In fact, as the German word for "one" (the indefinite personal pronoun) is "man", feminists have advocated the usage of "frau" (Frau = woman) and "mensch" as alternatives, the latter specifically as a gender-neutral alternative.
Mensch is a masculine noun, yeah, but the grammatical gender in German should not be confused with colloquial gender — the two don't have much of a correlation in general. Literally every noun in German has one (even more than one in a few cases) of the three grammatical genders, and it's often arbitrary.)
Due to the similarity of the word "Mensch" to the English word "man", it's often thought that Mensch refers to man.
But actually, in German the word Mensch just means "person" or "human being"; it's completely gender-neutral.
(See the bottom of the post for some elaboration on the linguistic part.)
As such, the word Übermensch has no inherent gender. It could variously be translated as "Overhuman", "Beyond-human", "Super-human" etc, with a connotation of transcending the "human" condition into something beyond it — especially in the realm of morality (transcending slave morality etc). (This actually has little to do with physical strength as such.)
In a feminist reading, the concept could refer to transcending gender essentialism, to abolishing gender itself — to transcending into a species of beings beyond "gender" and patriarchy.
And more generally, in an anarchist reading, it could refer to transcending the slavish tendencies that have hitherto characterized the human society, especially under the modern liberal order; to an anarchist society.
And such interpretations are not non-existent.
For example:
“The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer's ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Übermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Übermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves.”
— Emma Goldman,
Anarchism and Other Essays (preface)
("Mensch" is of course cognate with "man" in the same way as "human" is cognate with "man"; and this sorta relationship applies to many other related words in European languages. But limiting ourselves to modern German, Mensch is genderless. In fact, as the German word for "one" (the indefinite personal pronoun) is "man", feminists have advocated the usage of "frau" (Frau = woman) and "mensch" as alternatives, the latter specifically as a gender-neutral alternative.
Mensch is a masculine noun, yeah, but the grammatical gender in German should not be confused with colloquial gender — the two don't have much of a correlation in general. Literally every noun in German has one (even more than one in a few cases) of the three grammatical genders, and it's often arbitrary.)
Dionysian Anarchism
Übermensch and gender Due to the similarity of the word "Mensch" to the English word "man", it's often thought that Mensch refers to man. But actually, in German the word Mensch just means "person" or "human being"; it's completely gender-neutral. (See the…
The same applies to Max Stirner's concept of der Einzige (the Unique One)…
It's a masculine noun, in terms of grammatical gender, but actually the word is gender-neutral.
So while the original 1907 English translation of Stirner's Der Einzige und sein Eigentum was noscriptd "The Ego and His Own", the alternative noscripts and translations — which followed decades later — could as well have been chosen, such as "The Unique and Its Property" or "The Ego and Its Own" (or, "The Unique One and Their Property" etc).
So, der Übermensch and der Einzige are both gender-neutral and could easily have a feminist/anarchist interpretation. The latter is, indeed, very much anarchistic/feministic; it's only the former that is, due to the contradictions in Nietzsche's philosophy and politics, up for wild interpretations.
With all the critique of essentialism in Stirner's work, with even a somewhat direct reference to gender, it's hard to imagine that he or his philosophy would be in favor of gender essentialism. The same is sometimes said of Nietzsche, but it's less straightforward in his case.
It's a masculine noun, in terms of grammatical gender, but actually the word is gender-neutral.
So while the original 1907 English translation of Stirner's Der Einzige und sein Eigentum was noscriptd "The Ego and His Own", the alternative noscripts and translations — which followed decades later — could as well have been chosen, such as "The Unique and Its Property" or "The Ego and Its Own" (or, "The Unique One and Their Property" etc).
So, der Übermensch and der Einzige are both gender-neutral and could easily have a feminist/anarchist interpretation. The latter is, indeed, very much anarchistic/feministic; it's only the former that is, due to the contradictions in Nietzsche's philosophy and politics, up for wild interpretations.
With all the critique of essentialism in Stirner's work, with even a somewhat direct reference to gender, it's hard to imagine that he or his philosophy would be in favor of gender essentialism. The same is sometimes said of Nietzsche, but it's less straightforward in his case.
“To me anarchism was not a mere theory for a distant future; it was a living influence to free us from inhibitions, internal no less than external, and from the destructive barriers that separate man from man.”
— Emma Goldman, Living My Life
— Emma Goldman, Living My Life
The man who's afraid of being seen as feminine is also afraid of a part of himself…
“Political cunning ever sings the praise of the mass: the poor majority, the outraged, the abused, the giant majority, if only it would follow us.
Who has not heard this litany before? Who does not know this never-varying refrain of all politicians? That the mass bleeds, that it is being robbed and exploited, I know as well as our vote-baiters. But I insist that not the handful of parasites, but the mass itself is responsible for this horrible state of affairs. It clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify! the moment a protesting voice is raised against the sacredness of capitalistic authority or any other decayed institution. Yet how long would authority and private property exist, if not for the willingness of the mass to become soldiers, policemen, jailers, and hangmen. The Socialist demagogues know that as well as I, but they maintain the myth of the virtues of the majority, because their very scheme of life means the perpetuation of power. And how could the latter be acquired without numbers? Yes, authority, coercion, and dependence rest on the mass, but never freedom or the free unfoldment of the individual, never the birth of a free society.”
— Emma Goldman,
Minorities Versus Majorities
Who has not heard this litany before? Who does not know this never-varying refrain of all politicians? That the mass bleeds, that it is being robbed and exploited, I know as well as our vote-baiters. But I insist that not the handful of parasites, but the mass itself is responsible for this horrible state of affairs. It clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify! the moment a protesting voice is raised against the sacredness of capitalistic authority or any other decayed institution. Yet how long would authority and private property exist, if not for the willingness of the mass to become soldiers, policemen, jailers, and hangmen. The Socialist demagogues know that as well as I, but they maintain the myth of the virtues of the majority, because their very scheme of life means the perpetuation of power. And how could the latter be acquired without numbers? Yes, authority, coercion, and dependence rest on the mass, but never freedom or the free unfoldment of the individual, never the birth of a free society.”
— Emma Goldman,
Minorities Versus Majorities
The Anarchist Library
Anarchism and Other Essays
Emma Goldman Anarchism and Other Essays 1910 Text from the Dana Ward’s copy of Emma Goldman’s Anarchism and Other Essays. Second Revised Edition. New...
“The proletariat bowed and resigned under the burden of enslavement disgusts me…. The proletariat in revolt is quite a pleasure for me. And I enjoy seeing the idiotic bourgeoisie weeping and despairing because the sacred table of the right to property has fallen broken under the rebellious fist of the new force.”
— Renzo Novatore
— Renzo Novatore
🔥2
Tell ('Murican) conservatives that private BIG property is infringing on their liberty and rights
And that BIG God is a conspiracy to suppress our sexual freedom etc
And that BIG God is a conspiracy to suppress our sexual freedom etc
The word ‘terrorist’ is politically charged and is used extensively for propaganda
Anarchists are called terrorists, maoists are called terrorists, anyone who rebels against the order — especially armed but not necessarily — maybe branded a terrorist (by the establishment)
Those who massacre civilians are called terrorists (and rightly so, but the imperialist factors which helped establish them are not mentioned)… BUT so are those who resist state terrorism!
We don't have to follow exactly the official usage of the term, because we know it's state propaganda.
Terror is not only created with bombs. You don't need such material weapons to create terror.
When a bunch of sanghis beat up a muslim, for example, that IS terror! When a bunch of upper caste people humiliate a dalit, that IS terror!
RSS, ABVP etc are all terrorist organizations for that reason. They all constantly spread terror.
I wouldn't hesitate to call them terrorists!
Fascism is terrorism, so is casteism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, etc.
The State constantly spreads terror, its very existence is based on terror. So is it with capital/private property. Every State is a terrorist organization of some scale; so is every capitalist enterprise.
Anarchists are called terrorists, maoists are called terrorists, anyone who rebels against the order — especially armed but not necessarily — maybe branded a terrorist (by the establishment)
Those who massacre civilians are called terrorists (and rightly so, but the imperialist factors which helped establish them are not mentioned)… BUT so are those who resist state terrorism!
We don't have to follow exactly the official usage of the term, because we know it's state propaganda.
Terror is not only created with bombs. You don't need such material weapons to create terror.
When a bunch of sanghis beat up a muslim, for example, that IS terror! When a bunch of upper caste people humiliate a dalit, that IS terror!
RSS, ABVP etc are all terrorist organizations for that reason. They all constantly spread terror.
I wouldn't hesitate to call them terrorists!
Fascism is terrorism, so is casteism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, etc.
The State constantly spreads terror, its very existence is based on terror. So is it with capital/private property. Every State is a terrorist organization of some scale; so is every capitalist enterprise.
Why don't we put to test the (ABSURD) idea that the capitalists have actually rightfully earned their wealth?
Let's for once get rid of all private accumulation of wealth, redistribute it, and see how long it will take these superhuman hard-working geniuses to become billionaires again (if EVER)
Let's for once get rid of all private accumulation of wealth, redistribute it, and see how long it will take these superhuman hard-working geniuses to become billionaires again (if EVER)
🔥2
Forwarded from Disobey
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
⚠️ Warning: Loud Volume ⚠️
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
— Thomas Paine
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
— Thomas Paine
“It is said that the artist of today cannot create because Prometheuslike he is bound to the rock of economic necessity. This, however, is true of art in all ages. Michael Angelo [sic] was dependent on his patron saint, no less than the sculptor or painter of today, except that the art connoisseurs of those days were far away from the madding crowd. They felt honored to be permitted to worship at the shrine of the master.
The art protector of our time knows but one criterion, one value,—the dollar. He is not concerned about the quality of any great work, but in the quantity of dollars his purchase implies. Thus the financier in Mirbeau’s Les Affaires sont les Affaires points to some blurred arrangement in colors, saying: “See how great it is; it cost 50,000 francs.” Just like our own parvenus. The fabulous figures paid for their great art discoveries must make up for the poverty of their taste.”
— Emma Goldman,
Minorities Versus Majorities
The art protector of our time knows but one criterion, one value,—the dollar. He is not concerned about the quality of any great work, but in the quantity of dollars his purchase implies. Thus the financier in Mirbeau’s Les Affaires sont les Affaires points to some blurred arrangement in colors, saying: “See how great it is; it cost 50,000 francs.” Just like our own parvenus. The fabulous figures paid for their great art discoveries must make up for the poverty of their taste.”
— Emma Goldman,
Minorities Versus Majorities