"Okay, how can [Neitzsche's anti-egalitarian views] at all be reconciled with an egalitarian, anti-capitalist political project? I think the answer lies in that the left seems to be divided between those who view politics as a _moral_ struggle versus those who view politics as a _power_ struggle."
Charles and others,
Yes, and I'm on the "power struggle" side. That's why class war really is warfare - a contest of power. You can be morally right all day long but it doesn't mean anything if you're still living hand to mouth, or in jail. Power matters.
Simply put, a lot of Nietzche's views in fact can't be "reconciled" with the left. Nor can a lot of Mencken's and Bierce's. Yet leftists employ tools from those authors anyway, whether they fit perfectly into a Marxist mold or not. (Marx quoted countless literary figures before his times to buttress his ideas, and they weren't all Marxist, either.) The whole of everyone's corpus of writing doesn't have to "be reconciled." Rather, one can go looting and pillaging around to get what's useful. Scholars know this routine well.
Randolph Bourne thought Nietzsche was amenable in some way to his anti-capitalist concerns. You know, Bourne, the one who coined the phrase "War is the health of the State."
In his essay "What is Exploitation?" Randolph Bourne tries to convince a friend of his, an owner of a factory, that whether he's aware of it or not there is a class war, a power struggle, going on in society between employer and employed. He writes:
"But as long as the employer is entrenched in property rights with the armed state behind him, the power will be his [the employer's]. My friend, however, does not like these Nietzschean ideas about power. He is sure that workmen have just as much power to exploit him as he has of exploiting them. [...] He trusts rights. I trust power."
[Randolph Bourne, The Radical Will, p. 288]
-B.