Question 3) In the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche’s central concern is the slave revolt in morality. In this paper, I argue that Nietzsche does not think Marx an example of the slave revolt in morality as Nietzsche’s view of the slave class is different to Marx’s view of the proletarians as well as their differing suggestions in terms of imaginary revenge and physical revolution.
To begin with, Nietzsche explains in the first essay that master morality is one associated with the noble who are “the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded” (Nietzsche, 11). In contrast, the slave morality is one which concerns the “lowly, low-minded, common and plebian” (Nietzsche, 11). In other words, when compared to the masters, …show more content…
For Marx, the bourgeoisie class controlled the manufacturing system and established “new conditions of oppression” to control the proletariat (Marx, 159-160). Therefore, a class struggle existed and it was worsening for the proletariat class as the bourgeoisie were “constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society” (Marx, 161). However, for Marx, the exploitation of the proletariat for capital will not continue as the bourgeoisie are digging their own graves by continuing to oppress the working class (Marx, 169). Also, in contrast to Nietzsche who says that the slaves are weak and hopeless, Marx does not consider the proletariat as inherently weak. In fact, Marx is clear in stating that the “fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” especially with the increase in the proletariat’s revolutionary consciousness (Marx, 169). Furthermore, to showcase that the proletarians are capable of responding to the bourgeoisie class through occasional revolts, Marx suggests that the proletarians “form combinations (trade unions)” and these will serve as “permanent associations” to riot against the bourgeoisie class (Marx, 166). Therefore, since proletarians are oppressed by the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie state, and are enslaved by the machines, Marx suggests a revolution that will physically re-constitute society or result “in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx, 159,
To begin with, Nietzsche explains in the first essay that master morality is one associated with the noble who are “the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded” (Nietzsche, 11). In contrast, the slave morality is one which concerns the “lowly, low-minded, common and plebian” (Nietzsche, 11). In other words, when compared to the masters, …show more content…
For Marx, the bourgeoisie class controlled the manufacturing system and established “new conditions of oppression” to control the proletariat (Marx, 159-160). Therefore, a class struggle existed and it was worsening for the proletariat class as the bourgeoisie were “constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society” (Marx, 161). However, for Marx, the exploitation of the proletariat for capital will not continue as the bourgeoisie are digging their own graves by continuing to oppress the working class (Marx, 169). Also, in contrast to Nietzsche who says that the slaves are weak and hopeless, Marx does not consider the proletariat as inherently weak. In fact, Marx is clear in stating that the “fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” especially with the increase in the proletariat’s revolutionary consciousness (Marx, 169). Furthermore, to showcase that the proletarians are capable of responding to the bourgeoisie class through occasional revolts, Marx suggests that the proletarians “form combinations (trade unions)” and these will serve as “permanent associations” to riot against the bourgeoisie class (Marx, 166). Therefore, since proletarians are oppressed by the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie state, and are enslaved by the machines, Marx suggests a revolution that will physically re-constitute society or result “in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx, 159,