Nobody said there was no difference. I said there were clear commonalities -- a chiliastic version of history, the creation of a New Society that Would Change Everything, the Party as manifestation of History, Homo Sovieticus and Uebermensch, emphasis on mechanization. That one version of the belief was egalitarian and the other was not does not mean that they had no similarities, which they did. (Obviously I am thinking of Bolshevism more than anerch-syndicalism here.)
--- On Wed, 7/23/08, moominek at aol.com <moominek at aol.com> wrote:
>
> No, not at all. Of course in the night of the boheme all
> cows may have seemed as grey, but in every day culture
> there was a clear break between left ativities and
> institutions, following the tradition of Thomas
> Paine-enlightment linking liberation and equality - and
> the different right wing versions of anti-egalitarian
> "Übermensch".
>
> There were people crossing this break. But only one time,
> because that way they broke with their former - social,
> political, ideological - position, and they hade never had
> the chance to go back: not Sorel, Mussolini, de Man, going
> from the left to the right, not Harro Schulze-Boysen and
> Joseph Römer, going from the right to the left.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> P.S. I do not understand this much ado about Nietzsche. He
> - like the majority of german philosophers in late XIX.
> and the XX. century - was blocked by his aversion to
> Hegel. That may demonstrate the narrowness of his mind
> for the philosophers - for me the irrationality and the
> contempt for "simple people" is already
> sufficient.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch
> unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registriere
> n Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk