[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.


File: 1641210455435.jpg (101.69 KB, 512x383, unnamed.jpg)

 No.9179

Been reading about how the modern Right has studied and weaponized leftist thinkers like Gramsci, found it super fascinating. But it got me thinking, is there any right-wing or far-right thinker we could utilize the same way? Every major right-wing figure I've attempted to read like Rand, Guenon, Evola etc. turned to be actual straight-up hot garbage. Is there any, and I mean ANY worthwhile right-wing thinker that could be useful to study?

 No.9181

Carl Schmitt?

 No.9186

>>9181
This and add Junger.

 No.9187

>>9181
I always hear good shit about this particular right winger.
What is he about and what can be learned from him?

 No.9188

>>9187
Read it and find out. To put it simply he basically takes a massive shit on liberalism and liberal stste which is always based.

 No.9189

>>9188
Nice. Thanks. I'm not against reading. I just struggle to actually get it done. I'm very slowly getting better at it.

 No.9190

>>9189
Yeah don't worry fam wasn't judging or something. I'm like you, slow reader and always stressed seeing the reading list grow. Just found out that the best way to learn something is just reading it and form your own opinon on it. Learn that after endless years of tl;dr summaries on Marx. But finally when I read it it opened the doors to a new world. It's not important to understand every single detail unless you wanna be super well versed on something. Just take your time and enjoy the trip man.

 No.9196

Nietzsche used to be thought of as a rightist but less political readings of his work took over and now his political sentiments have become almost invisible.
I had read this article about Domenico Losurdo's analysis of Nietzsche that highlights how political his work was but it's paywalled now.
What about on rightists you read was so trash? maybe they require more craft to get good thesis out of them.

 No.9197

You could learn by their lack of shame.
>>9186
He's not even really a rightist. He's a romantic reactionary perhaps but has no affiliation with the modern right. Like Ted Kazinski isn't going to collaborate with white nationalists.

 No.9198

>>9197
I meant to add, he was an opponent of the nazis and only spared by his fame and wealth.

 No.9200

>>9196
Nietzsche is very weird, lots of people tried to appropriate him or fit him into some political category but it's pretty much impossible to do so since he already shit on pretty much all of them in his works. Very fascinating writer, definitely wouldn't count him as right wing though.
>What about on rightists you read was so trash? maybe they require more craft to get good thesis out of them.
I have to admit I did enjoy reading Evola at least, don't agree with much of anything he wrote but he is at least entertaining because he is completely out of his mind insane. I enjoyed "Ride the Tiger" more than I expected, probably my favorite of his works that I read. That being said, I am completely baffled that some people take him seriously as a political thinker and don't consider him the batshit lunatic he is.
Guenon is the guy Evola ripped off, didn't get much out of him that I didn't find in Evola so I quickly gave up. As for Rand, she is a fucking atrocious writer holy shit, I read half of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and regret ever reading any of her stuff.
I don't think I'm "too brainlet" to get these guys, I tried very hard to find anything of value but there is just nothing there lol
I guess to add to my own thread, I also enjoyed people like Cioran and Eliade as well as Heidegger, but now we're getting more into academics and philosophers when I was more interested in right-wing political thinkers.

 No.9201

>>9200
Heidegger is arguably (controversially contested as) a right-wing thinker.
What about others you didn't mention here, however? Have you tried Schmitt, Gentile, De Maistre, Yockey? They range widely in their thoughts, no real cohesiveness between them necessarily, but it's a list of figures which you might find insightful in one way or another.

 No.9203

File: 1641230108385.jpg (20.42 KB, 372x400, acephale.jpg)

>>9200
>but it's pretty much impossible

 No.9206

>>9179
>Been reading about how the modern Right has studied and weaponized leftist thinkers like Gramsci
yeah, academic sociology exists. if you're talking about like the populists, then they don't read at all, you've been duped
>Is there any, and I mean ANY worthwhile right-wing thinker that could be useful to study?
adam smith, frédéric bastiat
do NOT read carl schmitt, he's not even useful for understanding fascism

 No.9207

File: 1641232694398.jpg (53.38 KB, 700x460, amPj7Ed_700b.jpg)

>>9201
Schmitt definitely sounds the most interesting, will check him out soon. As for the others, I've read The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism a long while back as well as like 1/3 of Imperium, and I was pretty unimpressed tbh. Found them insightful in that I better understood what far-righters think and had more context to 20th century fascist movements, but didn't really get anything else out of them besides that. And I'm definitely not reading all 900 pages of Yockey's shit lmao, sorry. I'll check out De Maistre as well out of curiosity, thanks.
As for others, I've read some of Spengler, Friedman, Codreanu, and the lolbert squad like Rothbard and Mises, but I'm likewise very meh on them. If anything, I've found Codreanu and Horia Sima to be the most interesting only because I am Romanian myself and wanted to study the Iron Guard.
>>9206
>Adam Smith
Already read him, but does he even count? A lot of what we associate with Marx's critique of capitalism is pretty much just taken directly from Smith or Ricardo, although Marx did improve and refine a lot of things. Libs and conservatives would be astonished if they actually read Smith, pic very much related
>do NOT read carl schmitt, he's not even useful for understanding fascism
Is he worth a cursory look though? I've seen him mentioned in other places before and I'm pretty curious. I'm already pretty accustomed to reading trash as you can see lmao

 No.9208

Thoughts on Gentile? I've heard he was Mussolini's ghost writer. I also hear he is one of the few good right hegelians. And also the "father" of fascism. Fascism is such a dishonest and double faced ideology that I find that hard to believe.

 No.9209

File: 1641233363725.gif (1.02 MB, 1600x970, 1641219039510.gif)

>>9207
>Is he worth a cursory look though? I've seen him mentioned in other places before and I'm pretty curious. I'm already pretty accustomed to reading trash as you can see lmao
Ignore the anon you're replying to here he's probably a burger butthurt that Schmitt is taken very seriously by top Chinese theorists

 No.9212

>>9207
no. like i said, he's not even useful for understanding fascism, and he's obviously only shilled in places like /pol/ as someone serious
adam smith was still very naive on the land question, like the utopian socialists Proudhon, George, etc
marx and engels wer emore realistic
>>9209
top chinese theorists? unless they're in the politburo or PLA JSDCMC, they're just a bunch of tenured academics with a curious personal hobby

 No.9213

>>9212
Ah you dislike Schmitt because he takes a giant dump all over liberalism then

and yes the top theory nerd in the politburo has had an in depth engagement w/ Schmitt

 No.9214

>>9209
Not everything revolves around china friend

 No.9215

>>9214
It pretty much does at this point

 No.9216

>>9207
De Maistre is very interesting in the context of critiquing liberalism, and yes, it's fair to not want to read the Yockey's loquacious rantings. Figured I'd mention him just in case.
One other thing worth mentioning: Gentile has some more stuff outside of the Doctrine of Fascism which is more in-depth, but it's philosophical and not directly political.

 No.9217

>>9213
>and yes the top theory nerd in the politburo has had an in depth engagement w/ Schmitt
then i stand corrected
that's not why i dislike schmitt though. i stated clearly why i think he's not useful to read

 No.9243

I myself have onyl read rightoids of european new right like de benoist, dugin and sunic. They offer no solution, atleast not openly. When pressed they say they prefer a corporatist economic system, which should give anybody a clear indication that they are neo-fascist, although they vehemently deny it. If you see that the ENR emerged as a reaction to '68 and the Oil Crisis you should have no issue in seeing that they are fascists.

Anyway besides this, they make some useful insight into why liberalism can never defeat marxism in the long-run and why there have been so many liberal "academic historians" trying to analyse the USSR and other socialist experiments. Pretty interesting. Also de Benoist makes a compelling case to reject "human rights" as it is decried nowadays.

 No.9265

>>9243
Yes, what I appreciate most about reading certain reactionary theorists is the ways in which they critique liberalism, and how we can appropriate some of their more compatible ideas, but reinvent them from a Marxist perspective.

 No.9266

>>9243
>useful insight into why liberalism can never defeat marxism in the long-run and why there have been so many liberal "academic historians" trying to analyse the USSR and other socialist experiments. Pretty interesting. Also de Benoist makes a compelling case to reject "human rights" as it is decried nowadays.
Which books specifically deal with these points?

 No.9267

>>9266
"Against Democracy and Equality" by Tomislav Sunic

 No.9268

>>9267
thanks

 No.9332

I'm a strong believer in "letting the other side speak for itself first", as in before we judge righoids and liberals from our standpoint, we need to first hear how they think about their "theoretical framework" and how they justify it. I'll probably search on 4chan for some charts/reading list and post it here. Is there any other website that is heavily dominated by the right that I should search?

 No.9334

>>9332
Nah man this is just dishonest as fuck. If my opinions on marxism where based on how so called marxist or leninist think and justify their framework and ideas i would have never read Marx or lenin.
Same goes for anyother author. Or religion. Or really everything.

 No.9335

>>9334
Oh ok, I don't really see how its dishonest though? If I would have listened to right wingers take on marxism, then I surely would have never read Marx, don't you think?

 No.9350

I haven't read it quite yet, but I've got this book recommended by Zizek himself, written by an Italian fascist (later turned communist) on the tactics of the October Revolution, among other things. Sounded very promising.
>>9332
Honestly as someone who's checked out all the /pol/ reading charts I don't think it's worth bothering. Most of them are just PoliSci 101 shit like Machiavelli and Hobbes, maybe Burke, and then some garbage thrown in like Evola or Yockey or Gentile. Some of em even have communist authors for like 1/4 of the list, lol. I am 99% sure nobody even read anything on those lists, especially the dudes who made them.

 No.9352

File: 1641596502658-1.jpg (928.45 KB, 1600x1437, 14kdv0i.jpg.jpg)

>>9350
You're probably right, but some /pol/ack posted 2 charts in here somewhere and because of them I decided to read some stuff by de Benoist so I feel I atleast owe it to him to post them here too.
Honestly it's hard to find good reactionary nonfiction literature. Most of them just decry modernity and want le epic christianity or confucianism or whatever traditional society was before modernity. Pretty uncompelling and boring tbh.
De Benoist just stands out because he incorporates Gramsci and rejects Christianity…still a Cryptofascist though.
Oh well, have fun with those shit charts

 No.9354

>>9179
>Guenon, Evola
Are these two good if i'm into esoteric shit? Like just ignore the RETVRN TO TRADISHVN stuff and appriciate the schizo mindset?

 No.9356

>>9354
they're one and the same

 No.9360

>>9354
If that's what you want, they're exactly what you're looking for.

 No.9365

File: 1641666513241.jpg (3.43 MB, 4648x3440, 1624159315518.jpg)

>>9352
>Honestly it's hard to find good reactionary nonfiction literature. Most of them just decry modernity and want le epic christianity or confucianism or whatever traditional society was before modernity. Pretty uncompelling and boring tbh.
Yeah I know right lol. Thought I'm not sure what I expected, that's literally the core of their ideology.
Picrel is one of the reading lists I've seen before, starts out pretty good with just basic philosophical and political works, even actually complex texts like Das Kapital, Being and Time, Phenomenology of Spirit, etc. and then Part 2 recommends you follow up that with shit like Tolkien, Ted Kaczynski and fuckin Ayn Rand LMAO
The ones you posted are pretty cool, spotted some stuff I've never seen before. Based on this thread I think the dudes I might check out soon are Junger and Schmitt, had a brief look over their work and they seem at least promising. If its the same RETVRN TO TRADISHUN shit again I'm completely giving up on reading any more rightoid shit lmao

 No.9366

>>9365
I know you mentioned you were primarily interested in the political side of things, but what about rightoid philosophy?
For example, would you consider someone like Heidegger to belong to the right?

 No.9367

File: 1641671883221.png (1.89 MB, 969x1213, ClipboardImage.png)

>>9365
>The Lord of the Rings
WHAT THE FUCK

 No.9368

>>9366
NTA, but Heidegger is at best apolitical and at worst a reactionary.

 No.9371

>>9366
I mean there's no question the man himself belonged to the right, he was a literal Nazoid LOL. But I think his philosophical work can be divorced from his actual politics, though I could see how they may have influenced his writings in some places. Anyhow, I don't consider him a "right-wing philosopher' in the same way that conservatives like Burke or radical traditionalists like Evola are. Heidegger was a huge influence to a lot of leftist thinkers like Marcuse and the rest of the Critical Theorists, even Zizek said he was a Heidegerrian at one point.
As for other philosophers on the right, I mean, for the ones who ended up being very influential and important you could likewise separate their work from their political views, with some exceptions. I like Cioran quite a bit, though he eventually renounced most of his reactionary beliefs and support for the Iron Guard, so it's questionable if he even counts as a right-winger. Can Dostoyevsky be considered a philosopher? Because I like his books a lot too despite him being a reactionary. Even Stalin loved him!

 No.9392

>>9366
He was literally a Nazi, and even when he rejected Nazism it was basically because he realized they weren't going to do what their propaganda said they were going to do, and not because he changed his political beliefs at all.
I wouldn't say his philosophy is right wing though. He is a very dialectical thinker. I think were somebody to read something like Being and Time without knowing anything about Heidegger the person they would be much more likely to think that he was a Marxist than a Nazi. He is pretty difficult to read though, and I think very open to being misinterpreted. It would be very easy to misread him as a reactionary or "return to tradition" type of guy, but he very much is not.

 No.9393

https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html
Hopefully this can help someone who may be struggling with a specific author.

 No.9395

Rightoid philosophy (aka "philosophy") is dogshit, but if they can for a moment speak of reality they have some useful insights that should not be ignored. Thinking of Schmitt who was already mentioned, and the liberals (who though they aren't "rightoids" have the same issue, pretty solid in dealing with political reality but terrible on philosophy). I don't think Marxists got out of the early 20th century intact - the intellectual leadership basically declared in the 50s that communism was not an intellectual project worth defending, and the people as always were left holding the bag.

Rightoid economics is hot garbage. There is less than zero value from the Austrian School, as in that shit is so fucktarded it is a wonder it was ever allowed to be published. The actually competent capitalists should be understood though, and Marxists suffer from a lot of autism (deliberately engineered, they want Marxists to be ignorant of economic/political realities and keep them with a 19th century model of political economy). That's why internet Marxists act surprised when you tell them about the Federal Reserve and what it meant. It's actually funny that fascists talk a bunch of shit about saying they're the true anti-bankers, when their whole system is premised on a finance cartel like the Federal Reserve that allows for very different monetary policy - literally the big banks strip everything from the world and decide what everyone is going to have. But all the major states on the 20th century were premised on that, whether they were fascist, communist, or liberal (which was quickly resembling fascism but had not yet shed entirely the political settlement, whereas fascism necessitated a wholesale abandonment of rule of law and domination of the major institutions by a political ideology).

I would see how my own writings are interpreted as a "rightist" take, since I'm not a communist and I'm not a revolutionary at all, and I take a very dim view of the prospects of any revolutionary project. But really, I find "right" and "left" increasingly useless. For the past 50 years, there hasn't been a left worthy of the name, just this sickly creation that is there to suck in the desperate and lead them into a ditch. There has only been right-wing establishment politics, and those who curry favor with them. Even today's "communists" are right-wing by historical standards, if you see left and right as broad political factions in republican governments where a simple majority vote is necessary to carry decisions in congress. Ideas that were once upon a time not seen as radical at all have become unmentionable (thank Overton and his stupid window for that).

 No.9397

>>9393
This
>>9395
Hey, you're back. Didn't the mods ban you?

 No.9398

>>9395
What's your twitter?

 No.9399

>>9395
You are opposed to all philosophy though, correct?

 No.9400

>>9395
Didn't you say that you leave an e-mail attached at your next issues, so we can message you for questions and discussion?

 No.9402

>>9397
Ban doesn't apply to /edu


Unique IPs: 24

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]