What do you think?
Rate this book
Nietzsche's Great Politics
"A superb case of deep intellectual renewal and the most important book to have been written about [Nietzsche] in the past few years."―Gavin Jacobson, New Statesman
Nietzsche's impact on the world of culture, philosophy, and the arts is uncontested, but his political thought remains mired in controversy. By placing Nietzsche back in his late-nineteenth-century German context, Nietzsche's Great Politics moves away from the disputes surrounding Nietzsche's appropriation by the Nazis and challenges the use of the philosopher in postmodern democratic thought. Rather than starting with contemporary democratic theory or continental philosophy, Hugo Drochon argues that Nietzsche's political ideas must first be understood in light of Bismarck's policies, in particular his "Great Politics," which transformed the international politics of the late nineteenth century.
Nietzsche's Great Politics shows how Nietzsche made Bismarck's notion his own, enabling him to offer a vision of a unified European political order that was to serve as a counterbalance to both Britain and Russia. This order was to be led by a "good European" cultural elite whose goal would be to encourage the rebirth of Greek high culture. In relocating Nietzsche's politics to their own time, the book offers not only a novel reading of the philosopher but also a more accurate picture of why his political thought remains so relevant today.
Nietzsche's impact on the world of culture, philosophy, and the arts is uncontested, but his political thought remains mired in controversy. By placing Nietzsche back in his late-nineteenth-century German context, Nietzsche's Great Politics moves away from the disputes surrounding Nietzsche's appropriation by the Nazis and challenges the use of the philosopher in postmodern democratic thought. Rather than starting with contemporary democratic theory or continental philosophy, Hugo Drochon argues that Nietzsche's political ideas must first be understood in light of Bismarck's policies, in particular his "Great Politics," which transformed the international politics of the late nineteenth century.
Nietzsche's Great Politics shows how Nietzsche made Bismarck's notion his own, enabling him to offer a vision of a unified European political order that was to serve as a counterbalance to both Britain and Russia. This order was to be led by a "good European" cultural elite whose goal would be to encourage the rebirth of Greek high culture. In relocating Nietzsche's politics to their own time, the book offers not only a novel reading of the philosopher but also a more accurate picture of why his political thought remains so relevant today.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published June 21, 2016
12 people are currently reading
192 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 13, 2025
So, I want to preface this review with two comments. First, this book was recommended to me by a good friend, and I read it to understand his philosophical development. Second, I read this book in two parts. I read like half of it before June, and I read the other half in August.
Things I liked about this book:
The book gave a good overview of the history of Nietzsche’s work. I especially liked the focus on his relationship with Wagner. I always knew he was Wagner’s protege before their falling out, but I never knew the nature of it. So, I appreciate the overview provided by Drochon.
Second, I really liked the focus on Nietzsche’s views of the modern state and critiques of democracy. I always struggled to understand his issue with democracy, but the book illustrated his critiques in a straight-forward manner. To be quite honest, I strongly sympathize with his critiques of democracy, and I think in this context we can say he is critiquing liberal democracy as well. Democracy has the effect of leveling the differences between citizens and promoting equality (read “sameness”). Now, it should be clarified that his problem with the idea of equality or sameness is that it prevents the formation of new moralities and new modes of living. Nietzsche is someone who wants to leave space for experimentation and transgression, and he does not believe that democracy allows for that. The reason is that, if the majority rules against experimentation and new modes of living, there is nothing the minority can do.
Third, I agree with his critique of the state’s utilization of culture for its own utilitarian ends. I don’t really know how to articulate my reasons for agreeing with Nietzsche. I just find it apparent that the modern nation-state cultivates and forms a certain culture to suit its own ends. For example, I think that it is safe to say American culture is predicated on certain foundational myths that give rise to certain cultural practices. The most immediate example that comes to mind is Thanksgiving— the myth of a peaceful dinner between Anglo-Saxon settlers and Native Americans. As anyone above the age of six knows, this isn’t true, but that’s not the point. The aim of teaching and perpetuating the myth of Thanksgiving is to promote the buy-in to a certain conception of American identity. Even though most Americans and educators know the myth of thanksgiving to be a lie, they continue to practice it to foster a sense of Americaness amongst the general populace. This is also the reason why immigrants celebrate Thanksgiving. It’s a way for them to signal they’re “American.”
My critiques:
So, I think I should explain what Drochon claims Nietzsche’s politics are. According to Drochon, Nietzsche sees the emergence of European nihilism and the leveling caused by democracy working in conjunction to give rise to a new aristocratic class that will reshape society. This aristocratic class will be transnational in nature and be composed of differing groups of people that embody the right aspects of the will to power. Drochon maintains that for Nietzsche this class will be formed by Jewish financiers and Prussian military officers because they are the ones most capable of reforming society along Nietzschian lines. To resolve the nihilism and lack of purpose caused by the Death of God, the new aristocratic class will organize society into two spheres. One sphere will be for the masses where they will be allowed to practice “herd morality” (read Christianity, liberalism, communism, etc). Their task is to perform the manual labor that will allow the overall society to function by serving as lawyers, businessmen, statesmen, construction workers, etc. Their manual labor will allow the second sphere of society—composed of the new aristocrats—to focus on creating great art and new moralities. Due to the death of God, Nietzsche believes that life can only be justified along aesthetic lines, and so, the labor of society must be directed towards creating great art.
Now, it is important to note that Nietzsche does not believe that the sphere of the herd will be poorer than the sphere of the aristocratics. Drochon maintains that he concedes that the herd will probably be financially better off than the aristocrats, but that does not matter to Nietzsche. The point of this division is to resolve the crisis of nihilism caused by the emergence and decline of Christian morality. For him, centering human society around the aesthetic experience is the only way to resolve this dilemma. The labor of the herd is justified by their contribution of the means that allow the aristocrats to experiment and create great art. In return for their contributions, the aristocrats do not have to work and can live off the surplus of the herd.
With this tafsir out of the way, I want to say that I don’t think I’m qualified to comment on whether Drochon’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s politics is accurate. I often struggle to understand Nietzsche, and I have not read the secondary literature discussing the relation between his politics and philosophy. So, I am just going to assume that Drochon’s interpretation is correct. If it is correct, then I think Nietzsche’s ideal political system suffers from one fatal flaw: I don’t think most people will feel that their existence is justified by great art. After taking a philosophy of art class in my first year of university, I think that you need to be inducted into the culture and history of the art world to fully appreciate art. A lot of art—particularly post-modern art—is a response to previous artistic and historic movements. For example, the Dada movement was a response to the horrors of World War 1. Marcel Duchamp was a part of this movement, and his “ready-made” pieces critique the supposed rationality underlying European culture. However, if you didn’t have this historic background, you wouldn’t be able to appreciate his “Fountainhead”—an art piece that belongs to his “ready-made” pieces—because it would just look like an upside-down urinal rather than a critique of European culture.
I think the same problem would emerge in Nietzsche’s ideal society. Since the aristocratic class is operating under a different set of values, I do not believe that the herd will understand the art that comes out of this sphere because the values and concerns of the aristocrats are not the concerns and values of the herd. Even Nietzsche acknowledges this when he describes how the masses cry for the last man when Zarathustra preaches to them of the coming of the overman. The only way to resolve this contradiction would be to induct the herd into the values of the aristocrats, but I don’t think Nietzsche believes this is possible or desirable.
Anyway, good book. Would recommend.
Things I liked about this book:
The book gave a good overview of the history of Nietzsche’s work. I especially liked the focus on his relationship with Wagner. I always knew he was Wagner’s protege before their falling out, but I never knew the nature of it. So, I appreciate the overview provided by Drochon.
Second, I really liked the focus on Nietzsche’s views of the modern state and critiques of democracy. I always struggled to understand his issue with democracy, but the book illustrated his critiques in a straight-forward manner. To be quite honest, I strongly sympathize with his critiques of democracy, and I think in this context we can say he is critiquing liberal democracy as well. Democracy has the effect of leveling the differences between citizens and promoting equality (read “sameness”). Now, it should be clarified that his problem with the idea of equality or sameness is that it prevents the formation of new moralities and new modes of living. Nietzsche is someone who wants to leave space for experimentation and transgression, and he does not believe that democracy allows for that. The reason is that, if the majority rules against experimentation and new modes of living, there is nothing the minority can do.
Third, I agree with his critique of the state’s utilization of culture for its own utilitarian ends. I don’t really know how to articulate my reasons for agreeing with Nietzsche. I just find it apparent that the modern nation-state cultivates and forms a certain culture to suit its own ends. For example, I think that it is safe to say American culture is predicated on certain foundational myths that give rise to certain cultural practices. The most immediate example that comes to mind is Thanksgiving— the myth of a peaceful dinner between Anglo-Saxon settlers and Native Americans. As anyone above the age of six knows, this isn’t true, but that’s not the point. The aim of teaching and perpetuating the myth of Thanksgiving is to promote the buy-in to a certain conception of American identity. Even though most Americans and educators know the myth of thanksgiving to be a lie, they continue to practice it to foster a sense of Americaness amongst the general populace. This is also the reason why immigrants celebrate Thanksgiving. It’s a way for them to signal they’re “American.”
My critiques:
So, I think I should explain what Drochon claims Nietzsche’s politics are. According to Drochon, Nietzsche sees the emergence of European nihilism and the leveling caused by democracy working in conjunction to give rise to a new aristocratic class that will reshape society. This aristocratic class will be transnational in nature and be composed of differing groups of people that embody the right aspects of the will to power. Drochon maintains that for Nietzsche this class will be formed by Jewish financiers and Prussian military officers because they are the ones most capable of reforming society along Nietzschian lines. To resolve the nihilism and lack of purpose caused by the Death of God, the new aristocratic class will organize society into two spheres. One sphere will be for the masses where they will be allowed to practice “herd morality” (read Christianity, liberalism, communism, etc). Their task is to perform the manual labor that will allow the overall society to function by serving as lawyers, businessmen, statesmen, construction workers, etc. Their manual labor will allow the second sphere of society—composed of the new aristocrats—to focus on creating great art and new moralities. Due to the death of God, Nietzsche believes that life can only be justified along aesthetic lines, and so, the labor of society must be directed towards creating great art.
Now, it is important to note that Nietzsche does not believe that the sphere of the herd will be poorer than the sphere of the aristocratics. Drochon maintains that he concedes that the herd will probably be financially better off than the aristocrats, but that does not matter to Nietzsche. The point of this division is to resolve the crisis of nihilism caused by the emergence and decline of Christian morality. For him, centering human society around the aesthetic experience is the only way to resolve this dilemma. The labor of the herd is justified by their contribution of the means that allow the aristocrats to experiment and create great art. In return for their contributions, the aristocrats do not have to work and can live off the surplus of the herd.
With this tafsir out of the way, I want to say that I don’t think I’m qualified to comment on whether Drochon’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s politics is accurate. I often struggle to understand Nietzsche, and I have not read the secondary literature discussing the relation between his politics and philosophy. So, I am just going to assume that Drochon’s interpretation is correct. If it is correct, then I think Nietzsche’s ideal political system suffers from one fatal flaw: I don’t think most people will feel that their existence is justified by great art. After taking a philosophy of art class in my first year of university, I think that you need to be inducted into the culture and history of the art world to fully appreciate art. A lot of art—particularly post-modern art—is a response to previous artistic and historic movements. For example, the Dada movement was a response to the horrors of World War 1. Marcel Duchamp was a part of this movement, and his “ready-made” pieces critique the supposed rationality underlying European culture. However, if you didn’t have this historic background, you wouldn’t be able to appreciate his “Fountainhead”—an art piece that belongs to his “ready-made” pieces—because it would just look like an upside-down urinal rather than a critique of European culture.
I think the same problem would emerge in Nietzsche’s ideal society. Since the aristocratic class is operating under a different set of values, I do not believe that the herd will understand the art that comes out of this sphere because the values and concerns of the aristocrats are not the concerns and values of the herd. Even Nietzsche acknowledges this when he describes how the masses cry for the last man when Zarathustra preaches to them of the coming of the overman. The only way to resolve this contradiction would be to induct the herd into the values of the aristocrats, but I don’t think Nietzsche believes this is possible or desirable.
Anyway, good book. Would recommend.
September 11, 2021
Scholarly overview of Nietzsche’s political philosophy that downplays some of his more controversial ideas and ends with very doubtful conclusions. The author argues that Nietzsche was actually a political thinker and identifies specific themes in his philosophy such as conqueror theory of the state, necessity of stratified society and economic exploitation, critique of democracy etc. He explains that for Nietzsche the purpose of state and society is the creation of superior culture which is possible only by talented upper-caste individuals. While such cultural creation is occasionally possible by individuals, to maximize it Nietzsche saw it necessary to change the political system and saw himself as similar to ancient philosophical lawgivers.
The book attempts to explain some of his less clear ideas about how such society should be established, focusing on Nietzsche’s predictions about democratization of Europe which will by necessity lead to the creation of the new aristocracy. Not only will new masters naturally rise to their positions, but even the masses, tired from the meaninglessness of commercial, free society, will gladly jump at the opportunity to become slaves to the amazing cultured elites. Drochon adheres to the interpretation that such fantastical society doesn’t have to be a brutal slaveholding dictatorship but a more comfortable coexistence of the two castes that need each other. He argues that Nietzsche started with quite harsh views while contemplating the past, especially the Greek society, but was more moderate when thinking about European future.
The book is based on author’s dissertation and you notice that while reading. He spends a lot of time discussing contemporary scholars before arriving to the main point. It is a bit uneven in its focus on particular topics, and it doesn’t go deep into the details of 19th century politics as would be expected. Also, while it doesn’t completely ignore Nietzsche’s more controversial ideas, it glosses over them. In the conclusion it presents him as some sort of committed anti-racist pacifist while mentioning that he sadly "fell victim to popular ideas about eugenics" and that "some of his ideas from a certain perspective are potentially condemnable and it is hard not to characterize them as at minimum patriarchal" (yeah, that’s a real sentence on page 170). A mediocre book with some readable parts; it doesn’t give a complete, unbiased view of Nietzsche’s politics.
The book attempts to explain some of his less clear ideas about how such society should be established, focusing on Nietzsche’s predictions about democratization of Europe which will by necessity lead to the creation of the new aristocracy. Not only will new masters naturally rise to their positions, but even the masses, tired from the meaninglessness of commercial, free society, will gladly jump at the opportunity to become slaves to the amazing cultured elites. Drochon adheres to the interpretation that such fantastical society doesn’t have to be a brutal slaveholding dictatorship but a more comfortable coexistence of the two castes that need each other. He argues that Nietzsche started with quite harsh views while contemplating the past, especially the Greek society, but was more moderate when thinking about European future.
The book is based on author’s dissertation and you notice that while reading. He spends a lot of time discussing contemporary scholars before arriving to the main point. It is a bit uneven in its focus on particular topics, and it doesn’t go deep into the details of 19th century politics as would be expected. Also, while it doesn’t completely ignore Nietzsche’s more controversial ideas, it glosses over them. In the conclusion it presents him as some sort of committed anti-racist pacifist while mentioning that he sadly "fell victim to popular ideas about eugenics" and that "some of his ideas from a certain perspective are potentially condemnable and it is hard not to characterize them as at minimum patriarchal" (yeah, that’s a real sentence on page 170). A mediocre book with some readable parts; it doesn’t give a complete, unbiased view of Nietzsche’s politics.
May 10, 2023
Drochon no solo refuta las tesis de un Nietzsche apolítico, sino que ofrece un recorrido por toda su obra a través de un lente original y muy interesante. La argumentación es precisa y clara, y hace justicia a la complejidad del pensamiento nietzscheano. Excelente.
August 10, 2018
I’m consistently, yet unintentionally, drawn back to the political thought of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s thought often fustrates me and often enlightens and it’s undoubtedly this divisiveness, along with my perception of Nietzsche himself as somewhat of an enigma, that draws me back time and time again.
Drochon’s thesis argues that, whilst Nietzsche’s thought has oftentimes been depoliticised or dismissed politically, Nietzsche’s thought is inherently and fundamentally political. This book is necessarily esoteric and is wholly directed towards those who are already well-versed in Les oeuvres de Nietzsche. Whilst interested in Nietzsche I’m by no means an expert in the subject of his writings and so this made it hard to engage with the book at first but perseverance definitely paid off and by the end of the book I was captured by Drochon’s thesis.
Drochon’s thesis argues that, whilst Nietzsche’s thought has oftentimes been depoliticised or dismissed politically, Nietzsche’s thought is inherently and fundamentally political. This book is necessarily esoteric and is wholly directed towards those who are already well-versed in Les oeuvres de Nietzsche. Whilst interested in Nietzsche I’m by no means an expert in the subject of his writings and so this made it hard to engage with the book at first but perseverance definitely paid off and by the end of the book I was captured by Drochon’s thesis.
January 10, 2020
I count myself fortunate enough to run into this lying amongst a heap of books at the curb on a side-street in Crown Heights. I always wanted to break into Nietzsche's philosophy since I was a kid in high school. I read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", but I was so perplexed throughout it that I did not include it as a book I have read on this site. I still remember the splitting headaches I would get cracking that book open, and it was a Herculean struggle just to complete it. Granted, this book does require you to surmount the wall of Academia, but it is still accessible to the layman. I think I finally got the bigger picture of Nietzsche's philosophy, and I am hungry for more. Dr. Drochon clears Nietzsche's name from the shadows cast upon it by the Nazis while showing that Nietzsche still has much to teach us about our own times. To delve into Nietzsche's corpus, Dr. Drochon recommends to start with "Beyond Good and Evil" so that is what I intend to do.
August 27, 2024
Does not deliver on its promise to contextualize Nietzsche's thinking: apart from a situating within broad political conditions there is not attempt to link Nietzsche with broader intellectual conversations and trends - here I'd contrast it with Christian Emden's "Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of History," which situates Nietzsche's political thinking in a variety of debates about the uses of the past in 19th century Germany and Europe. That being said, Drochon's book is an able exegesis of Nietzsche's writing on politics, one that gives it more seriousness and substance than other analyses. However, this "great politics," which he excavates is in the end is a ludicrous and utterly unrealizable program that is simply not as interesting, illuminating, insightful, or useful as Drochon thinks it is.
March 21, 2017
Meh. Gave up after about 50 pages. Up to that point, he had spent most of his time explaining how others don't think Nietzsche had a political philosophy, but he really, sort of, does. Tedious. Scholarly, but not in a good way. Didn't learn anything in 55 pages, that's enough.
January 24, 2025
A bit dry but good nonetheless.
March 28, 2023
Toe-curlingly bad
The book is half-readable, but it's a pretty terrible argument involving a belligerent, mainstream-ignoramus half-breed interpretation of Nietzsche "as leader of liberty", one I personally cannot abide and I imagine Nietzsche would turn in his grave if he was aware. Despite it's highbrow academic appeal, it manages to be misinformed and misguided in its liberal overshadowing and pointless argumentation. I can't even tell you how bad the book is on that front without reverting to profanity. There is absolutely nothing useful in this book, but the Cambridge badge probably makes it reference material for some university skanks.
The book is half-readable, but it's a pretty terrible argument involving a belligerent, mainstream-ignoramus half-breed interpretation of Nietzsche "as leader of liberty", one I personally cannot abide and I imagine Nietzsche would turn in his grave if he was aware. Despite it's highbrow academic appeal, it manages to be misinformed and misguided in its liberal overshadowing and pointless argumentation. I can't even tell you how bad the book is on that front without reverting to profanity. There is absolutely nothing useful in this book, but the Cambridge badge probably makes it reference material for some university skanks.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews