Overthrow

Marx and Engels are often seen as being interchangeable and in absolute agreement about all topics. It is assumed there were no differences between them because they closely collaborated and indeed had plenty of agreements. Nonetheless, there were differences.  When it comes to the discussions you find about Freedom and Equality, it is usually said without much deliberation that M and E saw socialism as the true fulfillment of the ideals of the French revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity and democracy. This became something repeated throughout the history of the communist movement, shared by stalinists, trotskyists, Bernstein, Kautsky, even today in marxist-humanists, the Frankfurt school, and so on. Socialism naturally is a product of modernity, the enlightenment, liberalism.  The bourgeois revolutions overthrew the old class hierarchies between "freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman" and so on, but: "The modern bourg...

 Part 1 They both are anti-modernists who dream of uncovering a lost primordial way of being that is the true authentic spiritual essence or lost tradition of a "people/Volk" that will understand itself as the embodiment of "assertion" or free imposition of will on the world, as having a relationship to history. In other words, a racism of the spirit where people come to understand themselves as distinct racial collectives who have a historical destiny to become the true masters of the world by reuniting with an old esoteric philosophical worldview. They both undertake a deconstruction of the western metaphysical-liberal-materialist-rationalist tradition i.e. world jewry, bolshevism, enlightenment, democracy, modern technological industrial society-- all shoved into one vague blob: "modernity/the modern world, nihilism, the darkening, the reign of the Everyman,  the age Kali yuga or decay". Although Evola will often proclaim the return to the tradition of ...

 If you look at history (which itself, as a concept, is a modern invention), it would seem that all of the monumental inventions that played such an important part in profoundly shaping the world anew were never widely recognized in their true significance within their time, especially not in a general sense that it entered into thematic reflection on the part of the general population. Did the people of the Bronze age grasp the importance of the first sword forged in fire? Or even before that-- the mastery of fire itself? Was there a collective self-consciousness or general understanding that understood its place in time and the changes taking place? Doubtful. Because this was precisely the understanding developed in the concept of a universal world history, and it did not come into existence until the 17th century, and didn't reach its culmination until the 19th. And even then, this understanding was only a subject of reflection for the few philosophers and theorists who thought ...