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

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

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


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?


Carl Schmitt?


This and add Junger.


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


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


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


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.


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.


You could learn by their lack of shame.
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.


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


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.


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.


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

>but it's pretty much impossible


>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


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

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.
>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


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.


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

>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. 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
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


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


Not everything revolves around china friend


It pretty much does at this point


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.


>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


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.


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.


>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?


"Against Democracy and Equality" by Tomislav Sunic




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?


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.


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?


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.
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.


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

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


>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?


they're one and the same


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


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

>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


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?


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

>The Lord of the Rings


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


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!


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.


Hopefully this can help someone who may be struggling with a specific author.


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).


Hey, you're back. Didn't the mods ban you?


What's your twitter?


You are opposed to all philosophy though, correct?


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


Ban doesn't apply to /edu






just bingewatch TIK


Is that the "Socialism is when the government does stuff, therefore the Nazis were socialist" and "Spartacists caused Weimar inflation" guy? Kek
He'd be a good watch if he didn't make his videos 10 hours long, you'd be wasting your time trying to learn anything from him.



>seven fucking threads on just this one dude
Holy shit lol, I didn't even know he went THIS far off the deep end


I'm not a huge fan of Spengler but he fits here too.


File: 1648744188211.jpg (58.11 KB, 640x533, thejoero.jpg)

anybody have and book recomendations to softly introduce leftist political ideas that don't directly reference marx or use "leftist" buzzwords? i have a good friend who is a bit of a conservative psued (reads things like jordan peterson but not jung) he actually seems interested in these things but has an 8th grade reading level, so he is kind of stuck reading pop garbage


the only right thinkers that are worth anything have to be

A) materialist

B) objective in their analysis of history, and

C) anti-hegemonic.

So you have thinkers like Dugin who are basically self-contradictory and idealist as hell, but then you've got someone like John Mearsheimer whose analysis of the current conflict in Ukraine runs contrary to the West's narrative while being materialist, and yet still he's a conservative.



What ideas of worth do they have?


The diggers were based English Christian proto-commies, do recommend


trade did for most of history, and trade has once again begun to revolve around china. 1492-1970 was a deviation from the general pattern because the discovery of the new world and European colonialism through the trade networks out of balance.


Capitalist Realism is my go-to book to recommend to libs
I am not a fan of Mark Fisher in the slightest but the book is super short and does a good job breaking down the nightmare reality we live in to make libs more susceptible to leftist ideas afterwards, though the book might contain some buzzwords that might scare him
Otherwise the books anon recommended here >>10260 are perfect, Debt and War is a Racket especially


Molnár Tamás The Liberal Hegemony


they’re all worthless


File: 1649871812677.png (628.96 KB, 960x943, 1462402872891.png)

Are there any explicitly fascist thinkers who developed a theory of fascism, how fascism should work and how it is distinct from other rightoid ideologies?


giovanni gentile


>I also enjoyed people like Cioran and Eliade as well as Heidegger,
>Heidegger is arguably (controversially contested as) a right-wing thinker.
There's a good explanation of Heidegger s "broken hammer" metaphor in this Philosophy Tube video. She's really good on the liberatory potential of the idea. The video is on transhumanism (really transhumanism, not wordfiltered tr*nsg*nd*r), but it has a speculative realist flavour, there's a good bit on Bruno Latour as well. An unwavering "Catholic and anti-modernist" according to Graham Harman


latour is a meme philosopher



i have found it interesting, thank you


>Part 2 recommends you follow up that with shit like Tolkien, Ted Kaczynski and fuckin Ayn Rand LMAO
That's what I was thinking too. Who in their right mind would think it would be a great idea to read any of that garbage in Part 2 after reading Das Kapital, Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche? It would like trying to tell yourself some lie that you well know it's bullshit.

Seems like the person who even made those two images just found book recommendations for a college philosophy class for part 1 and put them there. For part 2, seems like he just got them based off of some shitty /pol/ thread. I doubt he even read the books himself.



>Philosophy tube
Harder to follow than Hegel, says nothing of substance


>>9352 >>9365

Books worth reading on that list are, in no particular order: Imperium, The Fourth Political Theory, Political Theology,
Being and Time, The World as Will and Representation (trash theory but it should be grappled with), all of Kant/Hegel/Hume, Doctrine of Fascism, Reflections on Violence, Nicomachean Ethics.

The rest: Meh, overrated, stupid, or not really right-wing to begin with.

One thing missing from that list, however, is Theory of Mind as Pure Act, one of the most underrated books ever written in philosophy imo. Also, interestingly, not really a 'right-wing' book despite belonging to the father of fascism.


>Theory of Mind as Pure Act
Sounds interesting, I've only read Gentile's Origins and Doctrine, can you explain what this one's about?
And better question, after I finally catch up on the last 3000 years of philosophy can I finally read Lord of the Rings like the reading list tells me to?


So, I'll try to describe this as profanely as possible but bear in mind it's a really complicated book, the sum of countless philosophical developments preceding it (including marxism, realism, german idealism, the classics, etc.) and even the wiki article which tries to concisely explain the subject struggles from a lack of clarity. It doesn't help that the sequel to the book, which is extremely unknown in the west and outside of Italy, has never been translated internationally.

Nonetheless, assuming you have some background with the aforementioned types of subject matter, here we go:

Theory of mind as pure act is a book which contains an extremely radical ontology, that which became the basis of fascism, which, in a bittersweet irony, runs in contraposition to the worldview of most fascists. It is an anti-essentialist, relativistic ideology which posits that all thought, insofar as it relates to the most basic able bodied minimum having been met within its carrier (i.e. if a person doesn't literally have a deformity which prevents them from fully maturing, downs syndrome etc.), is intrinsically 'free' and infinite in its capabilities regardless of most 'normal' inequalities. From this. Gentile posits that the capability of each person is to strive in a constant process of struggle and rebirth, thereby generating both history itself and internal ability; a hero in every man. The form of the 'ideal', as it relates to philosophical antiquity, is engendered and modeled solely through 'thoughts' as its interlocutor, having been otherwise undefined, and coming into definability through thinking as an activity which in turn generates form. Thinking, as an act, is the sole universal.

Think of this proposition like a more radical version of transcendental materialism as developed by Zizek, only, further, it disavows Zizek's material basis (Zizek's logic is more or less that there is some kind of ontic, topological 'cut' or 'incompleteness' inherently lacking in material reality, which he sees as the means from which dialectical motion can occur and animate the universe) and instead supplants any kind of would-be-mechanistic or deterministic account with one of an immanent self-defining and self-articulating plane of existence. Gentile has, likewise, criticized Marx as positing a form of mysticism through the insistence upon a material reduction which can never satisfy the objects of its content and so must instead relate to the dialectic in order to do so. For Gentile, the dialectic is instead always already caught up within its own constitution by means of our agential subjectivity, it cannot be 'abstracted' as Marx takes it to be, and so, it is only through a process of concrete unity between thought and the physical world that the dialectic, as Gentile argues Hegel saw it, can find its absolute spirit, or its immutably everpresent 'basis'. This is, for Gentile, the essence of the Hegelian Geist, without necessary recourse to a literal image of God (as Hegel imposed), but which nonetheless fulfills the function of God, akin to a secular Christian eschatology. At one point in the book, he literally declares 'humanity is God'.

The ideal is, finally, the space of excess irreducibility which is so necessarily emblematic of consciousness, or 'thought', as its animating force, since, according to this ontology, the brain and the physics of this domain cannot independently account for their own animation, even at the quantum level, hence there must be some internal generative irreducibility to thoughts, as ideality.

Now of course, one can understand why a.) this might be ironic given that most neofascists are biological determinists (Gentile rejected the biological understanding of nation and race, incidentally), and b.) with the relativism this necessarily implies, violence is taken to be the index of will and of the conflict of thought 'resolving its definitions' (which can never be assumed to be fixed!) and so from this, the fetishism of eternal war emerges with respect to both Mussolini and Gentile. Mussolini has also stated that: “If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”

Sorry if this makes no sense, or if it does make sense and you find it disagreeable. Of course I don't expect most people will agree with Gentile here as he is, on the surface, opposed to Marxism (although he started out as a Marxist), but his ambition was to essentially go even further with the ramifications of Hegel's philosophy than he believed anyone had done as of yet. At any rate, I simply wished to summarize the premise of the claims found in his work. If you are curious about the veracity of my characterizing Gentile as an anti-essentialist and don't want to read Theory of Mind as Pure Act, you can also confirm my ascriptions herein by consulting his seminal essay 'On Education'.

LASTLY, as for the lord of the rings bullshit, like I said, most books on that list aren't worth reading. Imperium is another interesting one that they included, however, in that it is also idealistic or 'spiritual' and in direct opposition to the biological worldview of most /pol/ users, but is has no direct relation to Theory of Mind as Pure Act.


Oh, also, from this I should mention that of course for Gentile humans must absolutely be in possession of will. He is like a left-wing version of Schopenhauer (bear in mind this isn't to say Gentile was quite 'left-wing', only that, relative to Schopenhauer, he was), in that through accounting for the will of all existence under a neohegelian model, he believes Hegel's logic rescues Schopenhauer from his pessimistic opposition to Hegel, and demystifies the Schopenhauerian conception of the will by instead returning it directly to human activity (since, for Schopenhauer, the will is alien to humanity but torments them as a symptom, i.e. as something which humans 'encounter, interface with, experience, but do not command'.).


All of this makes sense but I try to write down my reaction to it and I end up confused about what I'm trying to say because I'm double checking myself to see if I really read and understand it.
The only thing I'm sure of that I don't think that it's ironic that most fascists today are biological determinists coming from this thesis, it seems that what Gentile wanted is for fascists to pick up a target so violence could be made to have sense and for "the will to be willed" and so this takes me to something I always wanted to do: appropriating fascist aesthetics and rhetoric for leftism, i thought that just replacing 'race' or 'nation' will 'class' will do but now I feel Gentile was inviting us to do that.


That all sounds super interesting, thanks. Always thought Gentile was one of the more interesting rightoids since he at least seemed to have solid philosophical basis and a pretty unique worldview and interpretation of Hegel. Saved the .pdf of this for later, let's see if I ever get to it.
As for Imperium, can you explain what you like about it? I read a bit of it and it just seemed like pretty standard boring rightoid dreck
>and so this takes me to something I always wanted to do: appropriating fascist aesthetics and rhetoric for leftism, i thought that just replacing 'race' or 'nation' will 'class' will do but now I feel Gentile was inviting us to do that.
No offense, but that sounds pretty retarded lol. In the first place, most fascist aesthetics and rhetoric were mostly borrowed from leftists to begin with, and the ones that weren't run completely against communism (i.e. fascist propaganda portrayed the masses as servile drones meant to serve the nation and the leader, while communist propaganda emphasized the masses humanity and worth). Tbh the closest thing to what you're describing seems to me to be Maoist China, that seemed to portray class struggle as more a battle of will.


File: 1654278753588.jpg (65.71 KB, 850x400, 1653842254962.jpg)

This Schmitt quote was posted in another thread and now I want to learn more.
He sounds so edgy.


u should read some schmitt then, he's considered very important theorist of the 20th century


steal the fascist ontological position and fill it with leftist/class-based content, don't steal it's aesthetics. Get people into your commie-fascist org and then turn them into commies or deal with them. There you go, controlled opposition.

Im joking kinda, but are there any really good reasons to know your enemy in depth? Other than for diagnosing theoretical deviations and combating them? It seems like it'd be helpful to preempt them and use that advantage somehow, like take their arguments and just use them in order to gain the ear of people who would be sympathetic, so the genuine fascists don't have hold on them. Is that a thing that's happened ever except by governments doing it to their citiziens?


No, what entices me about fascism is the promise of obscene enjoyment, leftist movement feel like one has to renounce something instead of being given something. Now that i word it like this maybe appropriating fascism is not the answer.
> but are there any really good reasons to know your enemy in depth?
Knowledge itself is a good reason but this thread was started with the idea of finding stuff to appropriate because of recent rightist cadres appropriating leftist ideas.


ah the zizek critique
i mean punk can still offer obscene enjoyment, plus any kind of non-elitist extremism as well

but obscene enjoyment is shitty so fuck it, plus there's normal enjoyment that is good enough
>Knowledge itself is a good reason but this thread was started with the idea of finding stuff to appropriate because of recent rightist cadres appropriating leftist ideas.
ah, in that case i guess they were strengthening their side with some reason lol. I do think that patsoc stuff is an important link in the chain which bridges between "leftist" in the general sense and which comprises much academic views and rests on a sort of post-modern pluralism, and dialectical materialism. Maybe studying Lasalle would be useful. I think the important thing is to know them to critique them though, since they're not particularly strong or drawing people besides the usual "you're special white man, show the world your power, be an alpha male".

I'd be critical too because any time you accept even a tactic of an enemy, its colored with their specific position. Knowing that the right is about obscene enjoyment (plus knowing their justifications for it too: it's tied in to a belief in competition and willpower/victory/struggle giving sanction to enjoy others suffering and transgress all boundaries) will only help us to explicitly formulate ourselves as for moral, socially conscious enjoyment, collective building, etc. It's important to think about the kind of enjoyment we are offering, but we can't just mirror the right. So thats why i was suggesting the best we could do by mirroring is using it to funnel people who are looking for fascism or whatever into leftism. But ultimately too it's about class and status, and it seems silly to want to attract class enemies to convert them rather than attract allies to team up with, so it was a dumb idea ig.


you know what, also it's interesting not only that the right on the surface is against obscene enjoyment, while really its based on it, this could just be projection, but the method of obscene enjoyment is a transgression of boundaries and a freedom to do what you will if it pleases you, and this is a point of unity between left and right (i say left here not including communism). Pointing out the nature and history of the idea of the sanctity of will and the transgression of boundaries is necessary to prove that nazism is not free of liberalism, it's based on a radical fulfillment of liberal ideals in the same way that e.g. anarcho-communism is. There's both a unity with their direct ideological enemies, and a unity with the ideological past (modernity, liberalism, democracy, relativism, etc.) that they hope to break with.

This is really important at least for showing the correctness of communism and dialectical materialism against these deviations in order to break free of liberalism on the ideological level (to say nothing of the economic level - cause right wing economics as far as ive ever seen only even shows itself as a patch to the capitalist system, if not just letting capitalism run wild).

One thing I always come back to, even though it's silly cause i'm not a christian, but i'm reminded of St. Augustine's quote "first love god, then do as you please" and Crowley's "do what thou wilt will be the whole of the law". It's a sinister inversion because it's not upending the idea, its removing the obligation to act with love, that's all. Purely formally, it's liberating.

But anyways I guess it's not that simple as exposing the obscene enjoyment, since on the face of it these people are supposed to be ascetic hardasses who love pain and struggle and character-building hardship, and fantasies of torture and rape only come through the cracks but can't be "proven" based on theory. Which is why I guess it's also important to empower fucking common sense against people trying to fearmonger against psychoanalysis or reading things subtextually or doing an analysis of culture compared to doctrine, where the whole is the sum of its parts, or to put that better, cannot be abstracted away from its concrete realization.

Also I'm such a lazy ass lol it's one thing to say "we need to know this in order to show x is like y" but at the end of the day im just a nerd who reads theory and doesnt do any of that. Does anyone know how to put together infogaphics and things like that? On the practical side i'm super underskilled.


I guess you're right, we need to address leftism's unappealing message but promising obscene enjoyment doesn't need to be the answer.
No rightism and obscene enjoyment steams what I'd like to say is the rightist syntagma: the belief that some people are worth more than others and that those that are worth more have rights over those who are worth less, men over women, white over black, rich over poor etc. So rightists are not hypocrites because for example the christian right uphold marriage yet elects Trump even if he's an adulterer, they actually love that a rich white man doing X and then telling the people bellow him to not do it is the very core of rightism,.
So it's not really a promise of obscene enjoyment as much as it is a promise of fulfilling one's right over other as long one submits to their superior's right. Tho the desire for violence still exists within everyone's id seems other factors are what make people lean left or right but also explain why fascism seems so enticing.


File: 1657041350227.jpeg (822.99 KB, 1690x1488, 1656809089236.jpeg)

So I heard that Guenon is the new meme rightist all the /pol/yps are into right now.
I found this post >>>/leftypol/1017391
>Basically Guenon (Who was a pen-pal of Evola) fell into the very literal 'reactionary' [Not in the sense its commonly thrown around] sphere of ideology where they basically think that everything since the English Civil War, The reformation and the French Revolution was / has been / will be a definitive downward slide for humanity on account of the process of society becoming more 'demotic', The replacement of Kings who [At least in their minds, this is up for debate] ruled for life and had a vested interest in the upkeeping of the state with bougies who just buy elections via advertising, and the collapse or corruption, either real or perceived of religious institutions (I.E hyper-universalist protty Christianity, and Vatican 2.0 / Reform Catholicism etc),

>The belief is that in Feudal Occidental society (church) formed one of the 'three estates' along with the (Peasantry / Free-city Proto-Proles) and (Nobles + Merchants), It's deformation and the replacing of Catholic spirituality with church as a social club or a political pulpit has basically thrown off and damaged European civilisation in their eyes,

>To correct this in Rene and Evola's minds they needed to basically 're-discover' european spirituality and they believed they could do this by delving into the numerous Occult and esoteric splinters from mainstream religion that had formed through the late 18th. 19th and early 20th century (Evola believed in 'Magic' and borrowed plenty of the), Along with studying schools like Sufi Islam and Vajrayana Buddhism that they perceived as having kept the basic 'spiritual truth' of religion Christianity had lost

>A lot of later writers in this field of thought also link back to the concept of the societal Socius, And how the change from the Socius most basic for the upkeep of the system, which under feudalism was the Monarch or arguably Terra itself, has now been replaced by capital as a concept described by Marx.

But what else can you guys tell me about him?

Unique IPs: 49

[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 / zine ]