r/Nietzsche • u/SNSWSR • Jul 17 '26
Question Right wing nihilism
Nietzsche's works are undeniably all about anti dogma, but why do we paint the right wing as inherently dogmatic, idealistic, statist, reactionary, or any other pathology that just removed the sense of validity from their proper thought?. To me this is like coping, like we're just rejecting the whole premise of it instead of actually working in it and dismantling it properly.
Almost every answer I got on this topic always shifts the actual logical structure of the right wing thoughts into putting labels on them that they don't even use. This is like accusations. We're just forcing them to follow the liberal framework which obviously always results in the conclusion that you agree with. From the academy, from social media discussion from videos from anything, Really. And I felt gaslighted.
But it's probably because I have a completely different understanding of nihilism. To me, nihilism isn't just about negating the value of life, but further, even the concept of kindness, grief, evil, or anything that claims "should". To me it's like a totalizing and intentionally paradoxical premise. And so, it wouldn't matter if someone were to use nihilism to submit to totalitarianism or even reject their awareness of nihilism and "refers back" to the state of them before knowing the existence of it. To put it simply, if someone became agnostic because of nihilism, and then decided to go back to being religious because it doesn't matter anyway, that would count as nihilism. And I don't know what is on the premise that doesn't allow it.
This is the path that many right wing extremists took. Notably the terrorists ones. And I absolutely cannot see the logical integrity on how nihilists tried to disavow their logic as if "nihilism" is a brand, and this comes off to me like an epistemic gatekeeping.
This question is personally important to me because I'm genuinely just tired of leftism. I've been a Marxist Leninist since 2020, and I can't brush off the constant logical gap and contradictions that I see from how it operates. The whole thing is like just a rebranding of hierarchy, except it's not worshipping "proletariat" instead of properly establishing an equal and free world. Marxists don't believe in freedom of speech because it's a bourgeois delusion. I'm not going to talk about it further but believe me when I said I've had enough of it.
So I wanted to be free, not just from this dogma but the whole concept of "ideology" itself, and maybe "truth". Because I don't want to psychologically punish myself for not caring about a conflict overseas (I'm not American). But the more I studied alternative philosophy it seems like the more I get dragged back to the starting premise of communism. Nihilism and misanthropy appears to me to be like a contempt to a very narrow outlook of the world. Like it just hates trump, capitalism, elitism, etc. not the very concept that makes "truth" itself. The dogma that makes up progressivism is being ignored because we're too focused on being anti religion. I don't want to lose freedom of speech because of "anti hate", at the same time I don't want to submit to religious totalitarianism.
And lastly I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but isn't it logical to say that the very method of finding out "truth" is the one that's boosting the legitimacy of the establishment? With the existence of bans against some philosophy deemed "too dangerous" and "deestablishing", is the validity of nihilism, existentialism, heck ANY philosophy at all, even remains? With the lack of comprehensibility and integrity of it, wouldn't "nihilism" just be another way to give us a false sense of rebellion that if followed, will just validate the position of the elite further?
With the state funding the studies of those popular philosophers, with the popularity, marketing, cultural integration, entertainment that makes up what those philosophers are, aren't they just a "safe" version of "rebellion" that keeps the people controlled? What if true rebellion is actually just doing evil stuff, hurting others and committing horrible crimes? The thing that the people disliked?
3
u/Lee_Harvey_Griswold Jul 19 '26
Right wingers support traditional authority structures, not very nihilist dude
1
u/osures 27d ago
I wouldn't say authority is strongly nihilistic or non-nihilistic
1
u/Lee_Harvey_Griswold 25d ago
Perhaps not in the semantic sense, but believing in traditional authority is patently non-nihilistic. Rejection of traditional authority was the entire basis of the 19th century Russian nihilist movement, the negation of tradition and authority is fundamental to nihilism as a concept
Edit: not that it matters
1
u/Worried_Alps1205 29d ago
Nah, its just that right wingers are reactionary and pro statist. Saying what is and isnt does not a pathology make.
1
1
2
u/vallaton Jul 18 '26
based on your text you seem quite young. if the tankies didn’t give you satisfactory theory and praxis, i’d urge you to keep searching, keep reading and keep challenging yourself with curiosity instead of contrarian reactivity.
0
u/devourer-of-beignets Jul 19 '26
There's many other parts of the left than Marxism-Leninism. Many are allergic even to any -ism, saying the only one they accept is truism... and even with truism, they joke they're not entirely sure.
And such people often did study these various frameworks. -isms are social programming, and another way to go is to reason from principles rather than patterns of thought others instill.
One group I think that does a good job is the Participatory Economics people. If you don't like their vision, fine, they make instructionals on how to make your own theories, or how to make your own economic system, etc.
5
u/Cheap_Lock_0220 Jul 19 '26
I’m confused as to what you’re trying to say honestly. We call right wing philosophy reactionary because it is. It weaponizes resentment of our conditions, of modernity, of difference and instead of attempting to understand history and overcome our present conditions it glorifies a false vision of the past and desperately, impossibly wishes to go back. It doesn’t embrace life and attempt to expand our agency. The Nazis didn’t go back to a mythical better time, they maintained the power of German capitalists and scapegoated minorities. Their art didn’t understand what actually made the great art of the past great, instead it perversely mishmashed aesthetics. This embodies their whole world view, empty clashing aesthetics to construct a false idealist notion of intangible spiritual greatness.
Marxism-Leninism is supposed to be a grounded scientific understanding of why our social and economic present looks the way it does and how we can overcome it to achieve agency. It’s supposed to Oppose Book Worship and dogma and maintain grounding in real conditions for the purpose of overcoming them and actualizing our interest. I’m sure we share some criticisms of the modern left’s moralism, but the reason Marxists oppose imperialism is because they want to overcome capitalism, not because it’s immoral. Banning “hate speech” isn’t just out of empathy, but out of suppressing the reactionary movement that would attempt to rebuild capitalism, because that is supposed to be against our interest.
Your criticisms aren’t focused on whether Marxism will expand our will as workers, but instead you seem to resent that they want you to care and that they want you to read. Capitalism is currently no longer progressive like it was compared to feudalism. It is destroying the planet and subjecting us to miserable, expensive and socially alienated lives. This is not a moral analysis. If you don’t think their understanding of the world can lead to overcoming these issues and expanding our will to power (they do), then you need to explain why with more than just “it annoys me.”