However, he does believe that history can be employed to modernity when adopting only the "strengths of the past" as opposed to historic weaknesses (Nietzsche, 34). The author develops his argument by using the animal's ability to forget or "live unhistorically," as a demonstration of pursuing happiness by living in the present (Nietzsche, 34). In contrast, Nietzsche claims "the power of the past to enforce its claims on the future always forms a threat to the project modernism" which ultimately leads to generational unhappiness (Nietzsche, 34). However, if humanity adopts the animal's ability to forget, the species will also enable the ability to only appropriate elements of the past that are "life-serving" and forget those that are unnecessary or harmful to our happiness (Nietzsche, 36). While Karl Marx see's history as an opportunity for man to transform from a stratified society to an egalitarian one, Nietzsche may criticize Marx's use of empirical analysis when establishing the historic relationship between economic structure and class conflicts. Such an analysis is incompatible with Nietzsche's belief in forgetting history because it eliminates the qualitative and progressive differences between history and modernity. Instead Nietzsche believes history is a threat to modern man's happiness. Furthermore, the author may argue that monumental history should not be depicted by empirical analyses, but rather as a phenomenon that is critically dissected and evolved. Ultimately, he theorizes that modern man must not see the past as a model to guide the present but rather, as an influence to evolve historic concepts in order to suit and progress modernity (Nietzsche, 40).
Though their methods differ, Marx and Nietzsche are allied on one major point, being the refutation of religion. The central critique of Marx against religion is a critique on how elites have historically used religion to exercise sovereignty on the masses.
