Does anyone have those leftist reading recommendations things?
One is a really nice infographic, and another one I've seen was a "How to Read Freud" full of good stuff.
t. right winger bored in university library and want to see the other side
>>7686373
Freud isn't left wing.
dude, if you read that sh*t you're get cheated on
>>7686661
I meant Marx but I was in a rush
Fuck
>>7686373
No need for that rubbish. Read these.
>>7686801
freudian slip
Why the fuck would you be a right winger in the first place?are you evil?
>>7687092
>being a girl
>>7687047
No need for that petty-bourgeois rubbish. Read these.
>>7687250
petit-bourgeois, it's called
>>7687250
>bourgeois
Every author in that chart is bourgeois....
Reminder that being a leftist means you're mentally ill and being a conservative makes you a bigot
>>7687092
>Why the fuck would you be a right winger in the first place?are you evil?
It's fascinating that this is the perspective of the every day person. The left is objectively good, the right is objectively bad.
>>7687092
You know the most evil persons in history were mostly left wing
>>7688508
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df7jOd6HcIY
>>7686373
How right are you?
I actually started out as a Right-Reactionary and came to a leftist (Anarcho-Syndicalist) conclusion via anarchism and Nietzsche.
I'm a military officer and I try to live the via activa, and in general I guess I am not just your average hipster leftist. I am interested in having a chat with you.
Are you reactionary, libertarian, or neoliberal-capitalist?
>>7687047
the fiction and poetry seems fine to this anarchist
>>7688540
you sound exceedingly spooked tbqh
>>7688561
It was Stirner that led me through the garden of ideology, m'comrade
>>7688516
Of course. Im not saying seriously left good vs right bad, but ideologically(theoretically) right is about social darwinism,capitalism is good so lets not let the state intervent,ecological catastrophe(yes capitalism promotes consumption) and all this stupid shit. So if youre right wing, i tend to think youre stupid. I know there are some inteligent right wingers but I just cant understand it.
>>7688540
I'm not OP but I'm somewhat reactionary myself if that's what you'd like to speak to. I am what could be termed in modern definitions a pessimist reactionary. I agree with many reactionary schools of thought, specifically to do with the rightful eminence, and actual undeniability no matter its state, of religion, and the belief in the tragedy of its loss. But I do not agree with any modern reactionaries, I don't even agree with the Catholics who hated the first Protestants. It is all a part of an inevitable process, that has different characteristics at different times, and has to be that way. The reactionary part of me is that I see progress as not simply an evolution in the reality of the material life of peasants, but also a degradation of the reality of the spiritual wellbeing of the people.
>>7688574
neoliberalism has nothing to do with the right, ideologically speaking. the right has always historically been really more about nationalism and conserving institutions.
>>7688574
amazed I share a website with these people
>>7688580
For me, the old order has passed away -- nobility and so on. Even paternalist capitalism has been killed by neoliberalism after the 80s.
For me, I see the only way forward to be a 'retreat to the future', to embrace leftist revolutionism (including dialectical materialism) in an attempt to build new communities of excellence, and develop a new Volksgemeinschaft beyond mere racial or sectarian boundaries.
To put that another way, I like Zizek's interpretation of the Holy Spirit. The (literal/mythic) death of God on the cross has led us to a situation where the real Sacred subsists in the egalitarian community of solidarity on Earth.
>>7688593
You're right, but practically what has happened is that the Tory types have allied with the Money types who rule under neoliberalism. It's not ideological commonality so much as collaboration, and for this I claim the Tories lose their Traditionalist legitimacy (and the money-men never had any).
>>7688599
>the real Sacred subsists in the egalitarian community of solidarity on Earth.
Sounds like absolute bullshit, how does he explain/argue for this?
>>7688608
You ever had a really good barbecue where you're with your mates and having a few beers and talking shit and you come to understand more about the nature of things than in any ten Sundays at Church?
You ever had a friend help you out of a shitty situation and felt gratitude and helped them out of one a year or two later and felt your bond solidify?
Like that. It's not theoretical, it relies a lot upon lived experience. (This is not my ultimate answer, I am just trying to set up a shared context)
>>7688616
That sounds like a mixture of inexplicable experiences of meaning that have a lasting impact on you and infiltrate all your thoughts, and a particular theory of a structure of society that might produce them.
My question is why does he believe the particular society will create those meaningful experiences, were they not just particular to him, and he projected his understanding of his surroundings onto them?
Okay let me rephrase that. I get that you have your conservative values and you can be a honest man or whatever. But why the fuck would you vote right wing when its just shitting on the country it governs?
>>7688621
I do know that collectivist ("teamwork-based", if you don't like the idea of the Soviet Ant's-Nest society) organisations promote a fair few greater opportunities for this identification. Also imagine working at a stable job at a factory or office and knowing you've gotta work with the guy next to you for the next five years, rather than as a temp on a six month contract.
You talk every day, maybe go out and have some drinks with him -- the material circumstances produce a case where you work with the guy, you learn to know eachother, EVEN if you don't like eachother a kind of bond builds up that I have found to be quite transcendant.
>>7688625
because the left is fundamentally wrong and always has disastrous implications and I don't like equality
>>7688628
I understand exactly what you're talking about, I simply find it repugnant. We may as well be mold slimes. They served the same purpose.
>>7688629
Yeah but c'mon
George Bush, man.
Tony Abbott, man.
This isn't a [CURRENT YEAR] kind of joke, but these leaders while maybe not as bad as their leftist counterparts (I would disagree) are a) hardly Right-wingers and b) fucking terrible anyway.
>>7688632
How do you mean? I mean, is there anyone other than the Unabomber who is a totally individualised human?
>>7688635
George Bush was incompetent and Tony Abbott was ineffectual
but you even admit they were'n't particularly right wing
>>7688635
The unabomber was a failed genius mathematician turned irascible social engineer, made insane by CIA experiments. Why compare him to any norm of society.
It isn't about individuality, you lack nuance. I can find you distasteful, while having perfectly meaningful relationships with others, and you can do the same, or at least I would hope. There is not absolute understanding in man, there are situations that force us to know each other, and for a large portion of us those situations are horrific. The only reason you want to save everybody is either because you're in the bottom tier or you don't realize how utterly fucking horrible it becomes. Anybody who has a grasp on the world would rather be stranded at sea than amid an unknown swarm of human bodies.
>>7688641
I meant the Unabomber's living style (and his rejection of mass-cult; I mentioned him specifically as a man who chose to be stranded in the wilderness rather than "amid an unknown swarm of human bodies").
>>7688639
Then there are no "right-wing" parties today, which is kind of my argument here. Natural Inequality manifested through birth, blood, Divine Right, merit, or what-have-you is vastly different from capitalist inequality through market mechanisms and business savvy, ESPECIALLY given (Marxist-style) primitive accumulation and state coercion to monopolistic practised.
In my leftist thinking, it should be noted, I am not one of those people who favours hand-woven hempseed organic bakeries on every corner; my reading of both Marx AND the anarchist classics leads me to think that Costco is actually the ideal, as long as it is a Costco under workers' control, as it were. Economies of scale, internationalist interaction and so on.
>>7688629
Hey I dont believe we are all equal but dont we all deserve a minmimum? Is it the top 0.001% richness justified? How much better than us are they?
Or if you believe in that i guess you are fucking evil
>>7688649
>Then there are no "right-wing" parties today
correct nor should there be
we should be seeking exit
>>7688649
>who chose to be stranded in the wilderness
>>7688649
Do you seriously believe this? He did nothing of the sort.
Also you seem functionally incapable of appraising something for what it means, I thought it might have been chance the first few times, but you directly ignore the bulk of the text.
>>7688657
I'm trying to be sincere here, so don't take this intellectual-seventeen-year-old tone here. I'm not trying to fuck with you.
Elaborate some questions for me to answer (and by no means do I have the answers, I'm just trying to think with you here.) Maybe it would also help if you exposed some of your background and personal values and arguments.
>>7688658
It would be helpful if you adressed anything I said
>There is not absolute understanding in man, there are situations that force us to know each other, and for a large portion of us those situations are horrific. The only reason you want to save everybody is either because you're in the bottom tier or you don't realize how utterly fucking horrible it becomes. Anybody who has a grasp on the world would rather be stranded at sea than amid an unknown swarm of human bodies
That was the most recent one which you quoted for some reason a section of a clause and interjected it into something irrelevant
>why does he believe the particular society will create those meaningful experiences, were they not just particular to him, and he projected his understanding of his surroundings onto them?
I asked this, to which you answered that people had steady jobs(imagine working at a stable job at a factory or office and knowing you've gotta work with the guy next to you for the next five years) and (You talk every day, maybe go out and have some drinks with him -- the material circumstances produce a case where you work with the guy, you learn to know eachother, EVEN if you don't like eachother a kind of bond builds up that I have found to be quite transcendan) which condenses the entire possibility of human meaning to the notion of making some emotional contact with somebody you're forced to be with or you lose everything you have in society.
And most of all, what do you have to say about
> the rightful eminence, and actual undeniability no matter its state, of religion, and the belief in the tragedy of its loss. But I do not agree with any modern reactionaries, I don't even agree with the Catholics who hated the first Protestants. It is all a part of an inevitable process, that has different characteristics at different times, and has to be that way
None of that was even slightly made sense of, you have not even the ability to apprehend let alone understand or continue upon
>>7687047
lol 'we wuz knights n shit' meme
>>7688669
>There is not absolute understanding in man, there are situations that force us to know each other, and for a large portion of us those situations are horrific. The only reason you want to save everybody is either because you're in the bottom tier or you don't realize how utterly fucking horrible it becomes.Anybody who has a grasp on the world would rather be stranded at sea than amid an unknown swarm of human bodies
Thanks for those hot opinions man.
>The only reason you want to save everybody is either because you're in the bottom tier or you don't realize how utterly fucking horrible it becomes.
That is, "The only reason you want to save everybody is either you've hit rock bottom or you haven't", which is not a fantastic statement is it? Encompassing, as it does, literally everybody. (Assuming you need to be in the bottom tier to realise how horrible it becomes, but of course, that is how tiers work and I assume you'd not have structured things in a hierarchy like that unless you wanted this interpretation).
>why does he believe the particular society will create those meaningful experiences, were they not just particular to him, and he projected his understanding of his surroundings onto them?
Which particular society? I gave an example in which, in my concrete experience, I had seen a particular society give rise to particular social relations. I can't do much better than that. If you're going to disregard theoretical projection and lived-experience testimony then there's not much more anyone can give you for evidence.
"He believes the particular society will create meaningful experiences because of the conditions of that society giving rise to those experiences" is about as far as we can go here.
>the rightful eminence, and actual undeniability no matter its state, of religion, and the belief in the tragedy of its loss.
Any religion "no matter its state [i.e. condition]"? Buddhists? Scientologists? Do they have also have, by virtue of being religion, this rightful eminence?
>But I do not agree with any modern reactionaries, I don't even agree with the Catholics who hated the first Protestants. It is all a part of an inevitable process, that has different characteristics at different times, and has to be that way.
Agreed entirely, Marx would have agreed with this -- all historical occurrences were and are historical necessities (Hegel also would have agreed, "everything actual is rational", proceeds according to laws of necessity).
>>7688684
you're like a baby in a field, crying because there are winds on him, realize there are two things that will happen in your life
1st. You will not become what you want to be, and those people you hate so much will continue to live over you as though you didnt matter, you have no effect on the earth
2nd. You can't actually appreciate anything that does matter, whether you live in the highest reaches of the most beautiful spheres, or the lowest retches of places I won't bend myself to.
What exactly do you expect if those are you two conditions?
there is no forward progress of earth. Hegel, marx, luther, and spengler have nothing to do with each other.
you may as well be a dishwasher who realizes things cycle and move forward, and therefore my soap and engine are right
>>7688706
Thanks for those hot opinions.
I guess I'll go and cry in my field. Shit I had no idea that I was so shit.
Thanks, True Patrician, for showing me the error of my ways.
