1/ Original Translation Thread: The opening pages of F. Laruelle's *Nietzsche contre Heidegger* (1977) p. 9-11: 1. Thesis 1: Nietzsche is the revolutionary thinker who corresponds to the era of Imperialism in Capitalism, and more specifically to the era of Fascism in Imperialism.
9/ This is about your relation to Nietzsche and about what divides it twice: a first time according to the means and techniques that effectuate it,
-
-
10/ a second time according to the political tendency that it supposes or the fascistic or revolutionary pole whose *primacy* it indicates. Complex relation in four terms, something like a “quadripartition.”
Show this thread -
11/ At the start, a scene that is both single and split, a scene of reading on your side, a scene of writing on Nietzsche's side, two scenes which together make but one.
Show this thread -
12/ But these terms are too ineffective, the relation slides away elsewhere: recto scene of expression, verso scene of signifying practice. Still too idealist: scene of signifying practice or textual Domination on the one hand and, on the other,
Show this thread -
13/ atextual forces, forces of Resistance against textual mastery which are intrinsically political. The terms, as we see, seem to matter little. If not the second, which openly acknowledges its political meaning and will function as a pivot of the quadripartition,
Show this thread -
14/ such that Nietzschean practice will imply both an intervention or a detachment of atextual forces, of anti-signifying powers *in* the signifying scene, and a *primacy* of the relation of the terms over the terms themselves.
Show this thread -
15/ This first relation is divided in turn according to an expressly political split that overdetermines it, but in an internal way, as if it were the relation, not its terms, that is divided:
Show this thread -
16/ reading, writing, signifiying practice, or atextual forces can receive a fascistic usage (subordination of the revolutionary pole to the fascistic pole) or a revolutionary pole (inverse subordination).
Show this thread -
17/ We don't know what to put under these words of force or of atextual power, nor under the categories of Fascism and Revolution, of Mastery and Rebellion, which, of course, no longer have their expected meaning.
Show this thread -
18/ It doesn't matter: let's forget the terms, let's attempt to move into the Quadripartition as relations-of-relation, let's stretch out the political subject to the four corners of the chiasmus.
Show this thread -
19/ It's precisely the categories of Fascism, Mastery, Rebellion that will change their political meaning according to this complex apparatus:
Show this thread -
20/ the fascistic pole will take on the meaning of an unlimited, planetary usage of the negation and production of technical, organizational effects of power and of mastery.
Show this thread -
21/ For the revolutionary or the rebel, a certain usage of the affirmation and production of effects of *active* resistance to all the powers that be.
Show this thread -
22/ We do not yet know what meaning to give these aforementioned categories, if not—this is too much or too little—that the singular logic of the quadripartition wills that Mastery and Rebellion in the Nietzschean sense be determined by specific criteria,
Show this thread -
23/ that they not be confused with what traditionally circulates under these names, and that they not be historical phenomena given immediately, but the manner for certain forces or powers to go to the end of what they can do. (End thread)
Show this thread -
PS: the first section of the book is called Political Materialism, and the first chapter of the book is titled The Two Politics of Nietzsche. Full citation: François Laruelle, *Nietzsche contre Heidegger*. Payot: Paris, 1977.
Show this thread -
24/ 3. Be that as it may, these four terms are indissociable, you compromise and you crucify just as they crucified Nietzsche. No possibility of taking refuge in a historicist and neutral reading, no possibility of fleeing into the labor of Nietzschean writing,
Show this thread -
25/ without also having to enter contradictorily *and without mediation* into an intense scene of forces, drives, relations of power that are no longer textual or signifying “in the last instance.” No possibility of denouncing, like Heidegger, the fascistic positions of Nietzsche
Show this thread -
26/ (for this is indeed what he does: technical machination, worldly planification, planetary organization, exaltation of raw energy) without piling on the limits that affect them (without mediation) with their own subversion, counter-tendency, or militant critique.
Show this thread -
27/ One does not enter into Nietzsche as though into a bourgeois institution, a Marxist apparatus, a historian's corpus, or in the manner in which certain naive interpreters enter into the Eternal Return as though into a windmill.
Show this thread -
28/ Nietzsche is not an individual, but more so a psychologist, an artist, etc., more so complete works, a labor of writing, sufferings, several themes, sources, and premeditations.
Show this thread -
29/ In the sense in which we talk about logical or mathematical machines, reading automata, calculators, infernal machines, there is a “Nietzsche Machine,”
Show this thread -
30/ Machine here first means a set of relations (of power) without terms, criss-crossed in a chiasmus or a problematic. Afterwards, all its cogs are flowing relations, vanishing syntaxes.
Show this thread -
31/ Whence the great (syntactic) rule that a political intervention in Nietzsche must oppose—with its limitless consequences—“readings” and their ideological prejudices:
Show this thread -
32/ there are only relations to be produced, hierarchies, disjunctions, breaks [coupures], inclusions, reversals, re-inscriptions: there is no doctrine, for Nietzsche-thought is a question of immanent syntax and the flowing matter proper to this syntax.
Show this thread -
33/ Ultimately, one piece of the machine is more visible than the others, and this piece serves as the machine's surface of apprehension.
Show this thread -
34/ A strange statement is inscribed there, which is neither its social reason in the manner of multinational businesses of imperialism (IBM, ITT), nor the name of its inventor (Turing machine), nor even the denomination of a Party machine (PCF, PS, UDR, etc.),
Show this thread -
35/ [Translator's note: ITT is the name for the former International Telephone and Telegraph Inc.; PCF is the French Communist Party; PS is the French Socialist Party; UDR is the Union of Democrats for the Republic.]
Show this thread -
36/ which is instead the code name—one which is itself archaic as well as misleading—of a political conspiracy: ERS/WP (Eternal Return of the same, Will to power).
Show this thread -
37/ The *possible* type of opposed but complicit approaches are well known, among which are divided the interpreters of the history of philosophy, and among others those of Nietzsche:
Show this thread -
38/ historicist reading of themes and signifieds, hermeneutic interpretation of meaning, deciphering of signifying scenes, of formal, rhetorical, and philological codes, lexicological quantification, discursive statements and non-discursive institutional formations, etc.
Show this thread - 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.