The Priest’s Gambit & the Slave’s Revolt: Nietzsche & Marx | The Masters’ Game 3
a Short Essay for the Modern Existentialist
DISCLAIMER: This essay contains discussion of potentially sensitive or offensive topics. The Modern Existentialist does not in any way encourage, support, or condone any forms of violence, discrimination, or oppression. This series has been created strictly for educational purposes only, in order to facilitate discussion of and allow a broad audience to explore and understand the historical and theoretical context and causes which underpin such acts as war, violence, and genocide. We respect and honor the struggle and strife of all victims of discrimination and oppression, and we believe that education, open discussion, knowledge, and understanding are what will ultimately lead to the creation of a more egalitarian world for all.
1 | Of Eagles and Sheep: the Master and the Slave
MOS, MORES | mores: customs, morals
Morality: a system of values which underpin personal and/or social conduct.
A morality is a Subjective value-judgement—a personal characterization of what an individual believes to be truth. A morality, in other words, isn’t a system of innate, Metaphysical value—an ethics which claims absolute, incontrovertible, Objective truth. Instead, a morality is just a mindset—an attitude.
When Nietzsche speaks of twin moralities—of the Master and the Slave—his intention is to use these archetypes to express a socio-philosophical stratification which is evident in our world. Through every age and era of human history, Nietzsche’s Master has been a representation of the Haves—of the Nobleman, the Patron class, or the Bourgeoisie. The Master is the one who possesses privilege, wealth, and power—the one who owns the means to assert his Agency over his own life, and thus rules over those who do not.
Think of this Master, then, and what do you see? A rich merchant, or a powerful lord, or even the fat-cat capitalist of the modern day. His needs are satisfied—his stomach filled. He lives a comfortable and luxurious existence, the mundanities of a roof over his head and the clothes on his back completely out of his mind. His needs are met—and so, his attention and his concern become directed somewhere else—not at his needs, but instead at his wants. The Master is the Pragmatist: the Zealot who lives in pursuit of the projects and passions of his life—who is free to exercise his Agency, and to shape and build the world around him in whatever way he sees fit.
Thus, the Master is the one who lives a Good life… because, he has it Good.
The Slave, on the other hand is the one who lacks all of these things. He is poor and starving—his attention and concern directed at the roof over his head; at how he’ll afford to eat this month, and whether or not he’ll make rent. Through every age and era of human history, Nietzsche’s Slave has represented the Have-nots: serfs and peasants, or the working poor—the Proletariat of the world. Thus, the Slave is the one who lacks privilege, wealth, and power. The one whose freedom is constrained by his situation, and who lacks the means to assert his Agency over his own life.
The Slave is the one who lives a Bad life… because he has it Bad.
And so, we can see that “Master” and “Slave” aren’t inherent properties—not defined by a Metaphysical essence contained within some kind of “soul”. Instead, they are descriptive terms which outline a system of opposing situations: a dichotomy of mindset held between the philosophies of the Haves and Have-nots. This situation isn’t an ethics itself; not a statement about the way in which people should act or the world should be. Instead, it’s simply just obvious and self-evident—an empirical observation of the fact of the way that the world actually is.
2 | Of Lions and Serpents: the Master and the Priest
In The Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche lays out a pair of archetypical philosophical systems: twin dichotomies which stand irreconcilably opposed. Two moral theories which can never co-exist because one is designed to destroy the other. These are what he calls:
And:
The Master and the Slave inhabit the reality of a world of Good & Bad: a world in which the Slave worships Master-hood. The Slave, after all, is the one who has it Bad—who is starving and poor, and whose daily concerns are all to do with his continued survival. He looks and sees that the Master has it Good—that he has all his needs satisfied, and is control of his own time and Agency. Thus, regardless of whether a given Slave loves or hates a specific Master, his feeling towards the idea of Masterhood will remain one of either admiration or envy. After all… he wants to have it Good too.
In a system of Good & Bad, the Bad wants to become Good. The Slave wishes that he could become a Master—the he could be someone who’s in control. Someone who’s free to live the Good life, and free to determine his own fate. This dream of upward mobility seems only natural—and, is fully and entirely achievable. “Master” and “Slave”, after all, aren’t inherent qualities. There’s no such thing as the “Essence” of Masterhood, or as the “Slave’s Soul”; nothing innate to a person or people which makes one either or the other. What sets them apart is only the difference in their respective situations… and, in their mindsets regarding their own Agency.
Here, however, is where Nietzsche introduces a third and final character—the one whom he calls the Priest.
Where the Master is a Pragmatist—a Zealot who lives and dies by his mission—the Priest instead manifests within the world as either a Moralist or an Egoist; either the Charlatan or the Narcissist. Together, these three are the ones whom Nietzsche calls Nobles: they who acknowledge and embrace their own Agency, and thus choose to pursue what they desire in the world.
And so, Master and Priest—like Master and Slave—do not find their difference in essence or soul. They differ, instead only in their respective moralities: in the structure of their personal philosophies.
The Pragmatist is the Zealot—a man both driven and consumed by his passions, and who’s chosen to dedicate everything that he is to the survival and prosperity of the things which he loves. He chases this purpose which he’s chosen for himself in the face of the Chaotic nature of the world—seeking meaning in the midst of a meaningless world.
And, where the Master lives for the sake of his passion, pursuing it as its own end—dedicating every fiber of his being to its creation because he wants to—the Priest is instead the individual who lives his life in pursuit of recognition and validation, as:
The Moralist[, who] finds his obsession in the Pragmatist’s power… the ability of a master to command the Agency of those who follow him willingly.
Or:
The Egoist [who, instead]… covets the master’s glory; the praise and the worship which is willingly given to he who has won fame through the realization of great feats of power and Agency.
3 | Ressentiment: the Priest’s Gambit
The Priest is the one who covets the things which the Master owns—and so, he seeks to seize them, and to take them as his own. He feels and believes, however, in his own relative weakness, and—thus believing himself to be less capable than the Master:
Feels that he must resort to cunning methods [in order] to achieve his goals. … Toward the end of seizing that crown—to attempt to gain control of his fate—this Charlatan moves to convince both his peers and betters that he is, in reality, better than them all. He manipulates narrative and shapes public opinion in order to persuade others into believing that he is actually powerful; that he is the one who’s most worthy of respect, approval, and admiration—that the Pragmatist-king is not… and that, therefore, he is the one who deserves to become the garden’s new master instead.
And so, he hatches his brilliant plan: to tear down and defame the Master in the hearts and minds of the Slaves. To replace the Master with himself, thus stealing his power and glory away. This strategy which the Priest chooses to employ is the Priest’s Gambit—what Nietzsche calls “Ressentiment”: the reversal of morality.
The Priest’s Gambit is an attempt to fundamentally re-architecture the morality of a society. Toward this end, the Priest first goes out and lies to the Slaves, making an appeal to Complacency. He whispers and moralizes in their ears, telling them that their situation isn’t actually Bad, and isn’t something which they should actually want to improve or escape. The Priest tells the Slaves that their situation is normal—that it’s the default, natural, and therefore Good, mode of existence. He convinces the Slaves that their own powerlessness is actually a cardinal virtue—that they are not “poor”, but instead “meek”—that they are not “weak”, but instead “Innocent”. He tells the Slave that:
Because he’s never done any wrong… he must therefore be right and Good.
In this way, the Priest:
Incites the meek to rise against [their Master, arming] these bravest, densest sons of Eden, and sending them out hunting monsters and demons. Those demons, however—by moral decree—are … [now] hidden enemies which stalk in their midst, masquerading as [their peers]. Those wicked ones who hold greed in their hearts and love the Evil of the Pragmatist-king… could now be anyone—anyone at all—so long as morality decrees it.
Through this reversal-of-sentiment—this flipping of the Good & Bad—the Priest attempts to galvanize the Blameless to rise as his Faithful. No longer is the Master’s privilege seen as a Good to be strived for—but instead, it’s now an abuse of power and authority; a betrayal of the trust vested in a Master by his people. The Priest incites the meek to rise, telling them that:
Because humility and Innocence now represent absolute virtues, the Master’s wealth, power, and Agency must, therefore, have actually been absolute vices all along. To crave Masterhood is no longer Good—instead, it is now Evil.
The Master is not strong—instead, his essence is ruthless and cruel.
The Master is not wealthy—instead, he has a greedy soul.
The Master is not free—instead, he is simply a slave to his vices.
The Master is not free… because the meek and the Innocent are the ones who possess real, true freedom.
And, once he has accomplished this goal—once he has raised an army of the Blameless-turned-Faithful:
He is able to enlist the Servile [as well,] … turning them against the Pragmatist-king by [simply] promising them a greater share in the garden’s bounty.
The Priest is the architect of Dogma—the author of the system of Good & Evil. By means of Ressentiment, the Priest manufactures a Metaphysics which would flip the world on its head. He lies to the Slaves, coopting their Agency and leading them down the treacherous path of socialist revolution—inciting the rebels of the Proletarian cause to tear their Masters down. But then, in the wake of their revolutionary action, the Priest seizes his chance to install his faction as an all-new-Bourgeoise—and he alone ascends the throne, calling himself a leader and liberator; basking in all the praise and glory of the advent of his garden-kingdom.
4 | Conclusions
The relationship which exists between a Master and their people is one of consensual symbiosis. People willingly raise the best among them as leaders to guide them toward a brighter future—to organize them into a Labor force better-able to achieve their collective goals. People place sovereigns in command of themselves because they have faith in their competence and ability. Thus, in turn, those very same people will readily turn on their commanders and kings, rising up to tear them down whenever that faith is lost or betrayed.
Thus, the people are dependent on their Master, just as the Master is on their people. Masters, after all, require the Labor of the Slave in order to augment their own Agency; in order to increase their own Power to a degree with which they’re then able to accomplish their goals.
Without the Slave, a Master stands powerless and alone. Without a leader, a mass of people can be nothing but a mob.
And so, if a people is like a body, and the Master like its head, then the Priest—the Charlatan—is like a brain-eating parasite which convinces the body to attack the brain so that it can then replace it.
By injecting its poison into the body of a society, this parasite convinces the common folk that:
Because the brain directs their Agency and consumes a large portion of their collective resources—because the Master has been raised as their better and thus taxes them for their Labor—they are therefore oppressed and exploited; a body enslaved by its brain.
A Master leads, and his people follow—after all, he has proven through his own Labor and Agency that he works with competence toward their mutual well-being. And so, they love, fear, and respect him for his might, and trust that he will lead them to the best of his ability… for the sake of his own passion.
A Priest leads, and his people follow—but, in time they fall away. The Priest proves, after all, time-and-time-again, that he lacks competence in his Labor and Agency, and works only toward his own well-being. He attempts to cast off any blame for his actions by means of simply lying—by constructing a world of false morality in which he can never be wrong.
This is the Priest’s Gambit—where the Priest seizes the Master’s crown through the construction of the system of Good & Evil. Through the creation of the logic of a Dogmatic ethics, he attempts to prove to the world that he is, therefore, more worthy of Masterhood than the Master himself.
