
Max Horkheimer, a key figure in the Frankfurt School, was not a man to shy away from difficult philosophical confrontations.
In Dawn & Decline: Notes 1926-1931 and 1950-1969, Horkheimer takes on Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche’s conception of morality, especially his disdain for the “weak” and his emphasis on the “master” and “slave” moralities, provided a fertile ground for Horkheimer’s incisive analysis.
Horkheimer understood Nietzsche as a deeply complex thinker who, although fiercely critical of modern society, was not a liberator of the masses in any conventional sense.
Nietzsche’s ideas about morality, particularly his rejection of traditional Christian values, have long been seen as radical, yet Horkheimer argues that Nietzsche’s framework still ultimately serves the interests of the ruling class.
Nietzsche, according to Horkheimer, does not offer a radical break from capitalist structures, but rather reinforces them under the guise of intellectual rebellion.

Nietzsche’s Dismissal of the Masses
For Nietzsche, the weak and the oppressed cling to ideals like love, justice, and meekness not out of genuine virtue, but out of cowardice.
These ideals allow the weak to avoid confronting the harsh realities of life.
Nietzsche’s critique is unmistakably brutal: the weak misinterpret love as a virtue because they are too powerless to take revenge on their oppressors.
Despite this searing criticism of the masses, Nietzsche does not desire their destruction.
In fact, he sees their existence as essential for the preservation of a ruling class—the “utopian aristocrats.”
These aristocrats are envisioned as individuals capable of transcending traditional morality and forging a new path toward greatness.
But in this vision, the mass remains a necessary foundation—one that must serve the needs of the elites.
Horkheimer’s take on this is clear: Nietzsche’s praise for the aristocrat is not liberating; it is, in fact, a reinforcement of the existing power structures.
“Nietzsche is extremely pleased that the mass should exist,” Horkheimer observes, “Nowhere does he appear as the real enemy of a system based on exploitation and misery.”
Nietzsche’s apparent advocacy for the ‘superman’ and individual greatness is empty if it leaves the underlying social systems intact, Horkheimer argues.
In a sense, Nietzsche is an intellectual apologist for the very structures that the proletariat must destroy.
Nietzsche’s philosophy does not offer a blueprint for liberation but instead instructs the masses to accept their subjugation.
According to Horkheimer, Nietzsche’s view of morality, as he criticizes it, is simply a way of reinforcing the status quo.
This “conciliatory” morality that Nietzsche critiques is a deception—a way for the ruling classes to maintain control over the working classes.
Nietzsche’s moral philosophy fails to recognize the potential for a revolutionary transformation. The hope that the masses might become “creative aristocrats” in the Nietzschean sense is not only impractical but entirely counterproductive.
Nietzsche, in Horkheimer’s view, cannot contribute to a proletarian revolution because his entire framework is based on sustaining elitism and aristocratic power.

Breaking Nietzsche’s Chains
Horkheimer doesn’t completely reject Nietzsche’s ideas. While his critique is strong, it acknowledges that Nietzsche’s challenge to traditional morality can still be useful for change.
Horkheimer sees Nietzsche’s “slave morality” as a way to understand how morality can be changed.
He believes Nietzsche’s ideas could help the working class see that the system is held up not by merit, but by fear and false ideas.
A Simplified Explanation for “Apprentice” Philosopher
Imagine that society is like a giant factory where some people work really hard and don’t get much in return, while others, the bosses, relax and get rich off their work.
Nietzsche says that the people who work hard (the masses) are taught to be kind, humble, and obedient, but he thinks that these are just tricks to keep them from fighting back.
Nietzsche thinks that the strong people (the “supermen”) are the ones who should rule, and they can only do this if the weak people stay weak.
This sounds harsh, but Nietzsche believes it’s how the world should work. However, Horkheimer disagrees.
He says that Nietzsche’s ideas actually help the bosses keep control.
He also points out that Nietzsche’s call for the masses to stay weak doesn’t actually solve anything—it just keeps things the way they are.
To make it clearer: imagine if you were told that the world is unfair, but you should just accept it and try to be better than others, while those in charge keep making all the rules.
Horkheimer says that Nietzsche’s way of thinking makes this unfair system seem like it’s okay, but that’s a lie.
Table: Key Points in Horkheimer’s Critique of Nietzsche
Nietzsche’s Ideas | Horkheimer’s Critique |
---|---|
Nietzsche critiques traditional morality for promoting weakness and cowardice. | Nietzsche’s critique is valid but serves to reinforce the existing system. |
Nietzsche praises the “superman” and aristocracy. | This ideal keeps the masses oppressed and reinforces elitism. |
Nietzsche believes in the preservation of the masses to serve the elite. | Horkheimer argues this is a deception that preserves exploitation. |
Nietzsche sees morality as a tool for the ruling class. | Horkheimer agrees, but sees potential for a revolutionary shift in values. |

Balancing:Critique of Horkheimer’s Take on Nietzsche
(Note: My personal stance is somewhere in the middle.)
It wouldn’t be fair to discuss Max Horkheimer’s critique of Nietzsche without offering a counterpoint.
While Horkheimer’s analysis is incisive and compelling, it could be missing some aspects of Nietzsche’s political and moral vision that deserve a closer look.
Nietzsche‘s views on power, the elite, and the masses are often deemed controversial, but they should not be dismissed as simplistic or irrelevant.
Rather, they form a core part of his philosophy that challenges modern conceptions of morality, politics, and human potential.
Nietzsche’s thoughts on aristocracy are often reduced to a “cool idea,” a reactionary stance against egalitarianism, but this oversimplification misses the deeper logic behind his arguments.
His conception of aristocracy is not merely a nostalgic yearning for an ancient, hierarchical society, but rather an exploration of how certain individuals—those with exceptional will and creativity—must be liberated from the constraints of conventional morality to propel humanity forward.
Nietzsche’s aristocratic vision is tied to his critique of the “slave morality” that, in his view, promotes mediocrity, conformity, and the suppression of human greatness.
This is not about preserving an old order but about creating a space for the few who can transcend the limitations of the masses.
Horkheimer’s critique of Nietzsche’s aristocratic thought overlooks the fact that Nietzsche’s rejection of socialism, democracy, and egalitarianism is deeply philosophical.
Nietzsche does not simply oppose these ideologies out of a desire to perpetuate existing power structures; he opposes them because they stem from a “slave morality” that stifles human potential.
He believes that ideas like equality and democracy are rooted in weakness. They promote the interests of the oppressed while sacrificing the possibility of individual greatness.
Horkheimer’s analysis, while extremely valuable, treats Nietzsche’s critique of socialism and democracy as mere elitist dogma, when in fact they are part of a broader moral critique aimed at questioning the very values that modern societies hold dear.
Horkheimer’s argument that Nietzsche’s views on the masses ultimately reinforce existing systems of exploitation oversimplifies Nietzsche’s position.
Nietzsche does not advocate for the enslavement of the weak or the perpetuation of an unjust system. Instead, his challenge is to the very idea of equality and the moral structures that maintain it.
Nietzsche’s “superman” is not a justification for tyranny, but a call for a new kind of human individual who rises above the limitations imposed by both traditional and modern moralities.
Explaining The Above In a Simpler Fashion
Imagine you’re playing a game where everyone has to follow the same rules, and some people are really good at the game while others struggle.
Nietzsche thought that the rules of the game—like ideas about fairness and equality—were holding back the people who could be great at the game.
He didn’t think it was fair that everyone had to play the same way, especially when some people had the skills to do amazing things.
Instead of wanting to change the game to make everyone equal, Nietzsche thought the best players should be able to rise above the rest and create a new path forward.
Max Horkheimer disagreed with Nietzsche. He believed Nietzsche’s ideas about having a special group of people at the top could lead to unfairness, because it seemed to keep the others down.
Horkheimer argued that Nietzsche’s ideas helped keep the powerful in charge, while ignoring the needs of the weaker players.
But the truth is, Nietzsche wasn’t trying to make the weak stay weak; he was questioning why we think everyone should be the same.
Nietzsche didn’t think the best people should rule over everyone else because they were better, but because they could do things that would help everyone move forward.
It’s like in a team sport: some players can do amazing things, but they need the freedom to be creative, not just follow the same boring rules that everyone else has to follow.
In the end, Nietzsche wasn’t about making the world fair for everyone, but about challenging the idea that everyone has to be the same in order to be valuable. He wanted to see a world where the most creative and powerful people could change things for the better, instead of just keeping the old rules that hold everyone back.

Final Words
In the dim light of contemporary thought, where philosophy is often served with a glossy sheen and neatly packaged for mass consumption, Max Horkheimer’s interpretation of Nietzsche remains an uncomfortable reminder that some truths are avoided for a reason.
In Horkheimer’s view, Nietzsche’s disdain for the masses — his call for an aristocratic order rooted in the triumph of the “superman” — is not a simple critique of morality but a blueprint for a society that maintains the very system of exploitation Nietzsche claims to oppose.
Nietzsche wanted to preserve the weak and the cowardly — not as a form of critique but as a necessary foundation for the creation of an elite few who could revel in their dominance.
Far from encouraging a radical overthrow, Nietzsche’s philosophy, when fully understood, reveals itself as an endorsement of the very structures of power and class oppression.
This isn’t the Nietzsche most people know — the Nietzsche whose aphorisms are quoted out of context in memes and Instagram posts.
People want their philosophers to fit neatly into the fabric of popular wisdom, to be catchphrases rather than uncomfortable revelations.
Nietzsche’s bite-sized quotes circulate easily because they give people the illusion of revolution without forcing them to confront the true cost of the systems he critiques.
Nietzsche’s vision, when stripped of its romanticized allure, is a vision where the masses are perpetually enslaved to their own ignorance, too afraid to challenge the very system that crushes them.
And the sad truth is: most can’t handle this reality.
Opening their eyes to the painful truth of servitude — the fact that they live in a world designed for the few, with the many as pawns — is simply too painful.
It’s easier to cling to the romantic image of a Nietzsche who advocates for the rise of the individual than to confront the deeper implications of his thought: that the mass of humanity, as it stands, is expendable.
The painful reality is that most philosophers, even those who might see the problem in Nietzsche’s work, are too afraid to criticize a name as proven as his.
Criticism, particularly of revered figures like Nietzsche, brings backlash — and it’s easier to appease the masses with ideas that don’t require real reflection.
But Horkheimer didn’t flinch.
Reality is not for the weak. It’s not for those who seek comfort in catchphrases and easily digestible ideas.
Horkheimer’s analysis forces us to face the dissonance within Nietzsche’s thought and our own complicity in a system of exploitation.
To truly understand Nietzsche is to see the world as it is: a battlefield where the few thrive at the expense of the many, and where the moral philosophies we so eagerly espouse are often nothing more than tools of oppression.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.