<
p style=”text-align:center;”>.
Image: Henry Schnautz’s Trotsky (1950s)
<
p style=”text-align:justify;”>.
Here are a few preliminary, still very rough translations of passages from Trotsky writing on Nietzsche not available in English. There is probably some background required to know the various philosophical and literary (idealist and symbolist, respectively) movements he’s talking about, but I think that Trotsky makes a few essential points that are in line with later interpretations advanced by Adorno. Which makes me wonder, did Adorno et al. perhaps read this essay? Was it available in German, even if not in English? The essay’s title in English would be “Starved for ‘Culture'” or something like that, from 1908.
Note the succession in the last paragraph: Nietzsche, Kant, the Marquis de Sade! Recall the second chapter of Dialectic of Enlightenment, where precisely these figures were juxtaposed with respect to the morality of the individual under enlightened bourgeois subjectivity.
Our impoverished “decadence†of the 1890’s was not the first declaration of aristocratic, or even intellectual-bourgeois aestheticism. But from the outset, how gutless (even cowardly) it was! It scarcely dared stammer on about the absolute end-in-itself of the aesthetic (though principally erotic) “tremor†[«трепета»], or of its protest against “tendentiousness†— i.e., in practice, against the grand morality of political obligations, which gravitated toward literature and strove to give the appearance of struggling against moralizing populism. This helped it come under the aegis of the journalistic Marxism of the time, which was of little interest to the Decadents taken on its own terms. They were both still psychologically connected, if you will, by the fact that both proclaimed a “new word†and both were in the minority. The Petersburg journal Life, a combination of third-rate Marxism and kitschy aestheticism printed on good paper for an inexpensive price, was the fruit of this strange coupling. Increasing colossally overnight, the vogue appeal of Gorkii developed in the same period. According to the current definition, the tramp symbolizes the revolt against petit-bourgeois philistinism. Untrue! On the contrary! For broad groups of intellectuals, the tramp turned out to be precisely the symbol of the sudden rise of petit-bourgeois [мещанÑкого, also connotes “philistineâ€] individualism. Off with one’s burdens! It’s time to straighten one’s back! Society is nothing more than an imperceptible abstraction. I — and this is me! — here came to the aid of Nietzsche. In the West, he appeared as the final, most extreme word in philosophical individualism because he was also the negation and overcoming of petit-bourgeois individualism. But for us Nietzsche was forced to perform a quite different task: we smashed his lyrical philosophy into fragments of paradoxes and threw them into circulation as the hard cash of a petty, pretentious egoism…
Ðаш жалконький «декаданÑ» 90-Ñ… годов — и был Ñтим первым провозглашением не дворÑнÑкого, а интеллигентÑко-мещанÑкого ÑÑтетизма. Ðо как он был по первоначалу робок, даже труÑлив! Он едва Ñмел заикатьÑÑ Ð¾Ð± абÑолютной ÑамоцельноÑти ÑÑтетичеÑкого (главным образом ÑротичеÑкого) «трепета» и Ñвоему протеÑту против «тенденциозноÑти», Ñ‚.-е. на деле против больших нравÑтвенно-политичеÑких обÑзательÑтв, Ñ‚Ñготевших на литературе, ÑтаралÑÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¸Ð´Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒ вид борьбы против морализующего народничеÑтва. Ðто помогло ему Ñтать под защиту тогдашнего журнального маркÑизма, который Ñам по Ñебе декадентов мало интереÑовал. Их, пожалуй, еще пÑихологичеÑки ÑвÑзывало то, что оба провозглашали «новое Ñлово» и оба были в меньшинÑтве. ПетербургÑкий журнал Жизнь, ÐºÐ¾Ð¼Ð±Ð¸Ð½Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð¸Ð· дешевого маркÑизма и дешевого ÑÑтетизма, на хорошей бумаге и за недорогую цену, ÑвилÑÑ Ð¿Ð»Ð¾Ð´Ð¾Ð¼ Ñтой Ñтранной ÑвÑзи. КолоÑÑальнаÑ, в 24 чаÑа выроÑшаÑ, популÑрноÑÑ‚ÑŒ Горького — Ñвление той же Ñпохи. По ходÑчему определению, боÑÑк был Ñимволом бунта против мещанÑтва. Ðеправда! Как раз наоборот! Ð”Ð»Ñ ÑˆÐ¸Ñ€Ð¾ÐºÐ¸Ñ… групп интеллигенции боÑÑк оказалÑÑ Ð¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾ Ñимволом воÑпрÑнувшего мещанÑкого индивидуализма. Долой ношу! Пора выпрÑмить хребет! ОбщеÑтво — лишь Ð½ÐµÑƒÐ»Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ð¼Ð°Ñ Ð°Ð±ÑтракциÑ. Я — Ñто Ñ! — Ðа помощь пришел Ðицше. Ðа Западе он ÑвилÑÑ, как поÑледнее, Ñамое крайнее Ñлово филоÑофÑкого индивидуализма и потому — как отрицание и преодоление индивидуализма мещанÑкого. У Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¶Ðµ Ðицше заÑтавили выполнÑÑ‚ÑŒ ÑовÑем другую работу: его лиричеÑкую филоÑофию разбили на оÑколки парадокÑов и пуÑтили их в оборот, как звонкую монету маленького претенциозного Ñгоизма… Continue reading