Architectual Ascetisicm and the Will to Devour

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche expounds upon class, no more so than in the section What is Noble:

In the past, every elevation of the type 'human being' was achieved by an aristocratic society- and this will always be the case... (151)

To Nietzsche, the elevation of the individual could only become realized through a social body that held great value differentiation between individuals of various castes. Conversely, in a society whose basic principles restrict its citizens from exploiting one another, the overcoming of the self would not be possible (I am assuming that no caste system, or any aristocracy would be present in such a system). In fact, according to Nietzsche, this would even foster what he coins as the will to deny life:

Without the grand feeling of distance that grows from inveterate class differences, from the ruling caste's constant view downwards onto its underlings and tools, and from its equally constant practice in obeying and commanding, in holding down and holding at arm's length- without this grand attitude, that other, more mysterious attitude could never exist, that longing for even greater distances within the soul itself, the development of ever higher, rarer, more far-flung, extensive, spacious inner states, in short, the elevation of the type 'human being,' the continual 'self-overcoming of the human...' (151)

Comparing this to Slavoj Žižek's discourse on what he refers to as cultural capitalism, seems to create an interesting dialectic, or in the very least, a thought experiment using the two thinkers' attitudes and ideas toward the bottom classes:



If the sublimation of one's will to power in order to overcome the self is only possible through a system which allows exploitation, and if charity is only prolonging the agony of the lower classes, is it necessary for us to allow capitalism to run its tyrannical course in order for society to manifest the its highest possible form? In other words, should we have the attitude of "hands off?"

The architects of post-WWII American capitalism are still at it, but the influence of humanitarianism and environmentalism has tempered it's monstrosity in recent decades. But, if we were to pull back, and allow capitalism to devour its victims, would that sooner put an end to famine and disease than keeping individuals alive, allowing these small third-world societies to exist despite their agony? If the death toll were to decrease ten-fold by allowing these individuals to die sooner, rather than allowing them to repopulate and put their children through the same suffering, would it be worth it? Žižek's insight as to how the very same system (especially those individuals who fuel it, like George Soros and corporations like Starbucks) that is keeping the third world alive is also destroying it is very compelling. If we withdraw ourselves from these concerns, would capitalism eventually devour itself? And would the result be Nietzsche's ideal society, without the burden of slaves or lower castes? It is a startling idea.