Hello /pol/fag here who needs a little of help with being open-minded.
I've always hated leftists because they ruined my country (Thanks Allende), but the thing is I don't really understand them. And I fear reading books of leftists will damage my coherency. But at the same time I feel I'm missing some knowledge? What would you do? Could you please recommend me some leftist book so I can understand their way of thinking? Normally I just read books like pic related because I think they make sense.
I'd say Zizek, you might actually with a few things he's been saying lately. But as soon as you mention him here you'll get meme'd to death. So maybe Alain Badiou? Similar but less shitty jokes that will ruin your thread.
"Leftist" could mean many things.
I assume Merkel would not represent what you would think of as a "rightist".
>>8256599
I normally associate leftists to anarchism or egalitarianism. Right-wing for me is an authoritarian conservative.
>>8256606
The right wing doesn't have to be either authoritarian, many right-wing movements are anti-government, nor conservative (cuck tbqh).
*cue 250 reply thread with every sperg offering his pet left-right definition or nitpicking with the troll rec chart in OP*
>>8256549
>I've always hated leftists because they ruined my country (Thanks Allende),
??
Why are all rightists stupid? I know Allende and his communist allies were far from perfect but Pinochet was obviously the worst leader of Chile and did irreparable damage to the fabric of society.
Anyway, I don't want to discuss this with someone clearly retarded, go read the gospel, Hobbes/Rousseau and other enlightenment thinkers and get some values first
Are we talking communists? Try CLR James "Black Jacobins" as well as pic related, both Marxist histories of the Carribean.
Its easier to understand where marxists are coming from when you understand what exactly they are reacting against. Vague reactions against capitalism that arise out of sour grapes is quite different than what was and is felt by revolutionaries against genuinely oppressive social and political regimes.
I really only find Marxism to be understandable before said revolutionaries get into power however, after that point they just look like those they replaced.
Start with the >>>/wsr/
>>8257419
But full-blown communism has never (inb4 the Paris Commune or something small like that) resulted in an actual Egalitarian state,so it probably wouldn't be an empathetic choice.
Paul Krugman and (I think) Joseph Stiglitz if you're into economics and policy. Krugman is a very good writer, and both are liberals.
If you're into some REAL NIGGA economics then Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty is my other suggestion. A LOT of dry numbers and explanations of his work but he is very liberal and his policy proposals for inequality would cause the average /pol/ user to chimp out.
/pol/ is my go-to board by the way. I'm not a liberal either - just open-minded.
>>8257394
>I would say Egalitarian isn't a leftist or even partisan concept, just basic human empathy really
don't fall for this leftist trick
>>8256549
Are you retarded? Pinochet clearly wrecked Chile, to blame Allende for your country's problems when he was overthrown by a fascist is mind boggling.
you should start first by reading some books on chile history
>leftists
>they
>ruined
>country
>>8258510
the beast lashes out in pain
>left/right
God.
>>8256549
I was actually going to buy the t s elliot complete poems before I saw this chart to be honest. Conservatives are fucking scum.
>>8256753
I tend towards non-authoritarian communism myself. Unfortunately most anarchists I know are tyrants. I think lib-dem crime punishment is more forgiving than the kind of social shunning they invoke to reign in people's savagery. The beast lives in us all.
I guess I'm disillusioned. I wouldn't mind finding some comrades to abscond to the woods for some communitarian Thoreauism.
>>8258510
Kissinger certainly helped Pinochet a lot by flooding the global market with copper, driving the price down and creating an artificial economic crisis in Chile, whose most important export is copper, followed by fish.
Pinochet was an ameri-cuck.
>>8258715
This desu.
I can't believe so many users in this board, who claim to be enlightened, fall for the left-right meme.
>>8256713
Nigga, what?
I will have you know that Chile is the leading economy south of the continent, and most of thay can be attributed to the work of the Chicago boys under Pinochet. Yes, he disappeared thousands, but economically, Chile is thriving.
>>8258882
>disappeared thousands
>BUT
sweet fuck
>>8258890
they were communists
>>8256549
>Leviatan has no "religious" tag
>a third of the book is about explaining why a "christian monarchy" is the best government ever
In fact most of these have religious connotations. Which is why they are mostly not very good.
>>8258890
Read about the history of latin america, and you will notice that violation of human rights and disappearances are a common theme among goverments of all sides of the spectrum.
I have some leftist charts
>>8259065
The Manifesto, such a short and condensed work, should be mandatory reading for all /pol/ posters that mock the "has never been tried" notion.
>no private property
>no marriage
>no inheritance
>no trade
>no currency
When the fuck has this been tried?
Not that it would work, mind you, but it sure as fuck hasn't been tried.
>>8259114
this is why I like The Revolution Betrayed so much. Trotsky basically BTFOing all the Stalinists
"open-minded"
You mean suspend logic?
Jesus Christ that picture is so fucking trash. If you read Nostromo and think Conrad is advocating imperialism or reactiony ideology you're fucking retarded
>>8256549
>And I fear reading books of leftists will damage my coherency
it's important to engage with things that you disagree with so that you more fully understand your own opinions and can cut out the ones that no longer make sense.
>>8259131
I don't think of it as betrayal, rather as very bad circumstances.
Russia was demolished by war, then civil war, then revolution, and this is where Communism has to be first implemented?
They tried. They really did honestly try at first.
They tried to reduce the military, and Poland invaded and took land from them, so they had to reintroduce big drafts to continue existing.
They tried to reduce police, but crime skyrocketed, so it had to be increased even more than before.
They tried to remove marriage and give free abortions, but instead of a sexual revolution they got a sharp decline in births, so it had to be reintroduced and the model reworked.
They tried removing inheritance and private property slowly, but everyone was mad about it and working around it, so that effort stopped, and only big business was nationalized.
They tried executing all the intelligentsia, but as soon as they imprisoned them they realized they NEED engineers, and architects, and doctors, and so on, so these were all released.
I feel the "betrayal" was trying Communism, seeing how bad it is (at least at first, nobody waited to see if it would improve, not that they'd be allowed the time to improve by Poland and Japan), and then saying "well we can't do it now, the country is destroyed by war, we are weak and unorganized, lets sit on despotism for a decade and maybe do it then".
And after that it was WWII, so they couldn't do it then. And after that it was Cold War and fighting for the third world against NATO, so they couldn't do it then.
And basically circumstances never permitted a proper revolution, and the command decided they can't suffer one in such bad circumstances after their initial experiment, so it never came.
