/lit/ - Literature

>>13244998
Because 90% of 20th century authors were gay.

>>13244998
>itt I make wild assumptions and beg the question
Voltaire was a monarchist and easily rivals Sade.

>>13244998
Right wingers: Heidegger (if you consider nazis being right leaning, of course), Ezra Pound, Borges.

>>13244998
Because most of the mediums through which you learn about “intellectuals” are just liberal propaganda machines. There are plenty of great luminaries from all over the political spectrum but most people receive a sanitized, politically correct, neolib friendly list of accepted thinkers
Also not trying to stir up anything just being honest

>>13244998
>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?
They aren't.
Was leftist thought more progressive/sane back then?
Back when? Leftism has only existed since the French Revolution
>Were there any rational right-wing intellectuals/authors?
Pretty much the entire history of literature and philosophy is dominated by christians, which I guess you would call right wingers these days. Again the right wing didnt exist before the French Revolution.

>>13245023
Aaaaand the best response award goes to you :3

>>13244998
lol

>>13245023
ah the classic /pol/ passive-aggressive "we're being marginalized" post

at least you are catching up to the blacks and homos by playing the victim card

>>13245023
what is wrong with neoliberalism?

>>13245013
Voltaire was a faggot and Sade was a degenerate.

>>13245038
>/pol/
Absolutley OBSESSED

>>13245041
He didnt say there was anything wrong with it
But it is leftist

>>13244998
The left wasn't invented in the time of Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, or Pico della Mirandola

>>13245038
>Anyone who criticizes the left is /pol/!

>>13245042
Doesn't mean they can't write.

>>13245055
who are you quoting?

OP here
I didn't make myself too clear.
I am talking 20th century. Sorry for not clarifying.

>>13245060
I wasn't quoting

>>13245060
>thinks greentext is just for quoting
how nu

>>13245038
>this level of projection
Can you pinpoint where I identify my feelings of victimization- because I don’t believe I am one
Using words like neolib and politically correct are not necessarily pejorative. Odd how you can’t even read them without hearing a supposed dog whistle- I mean I even said I didn’t want to stir anything up

In all seriousness, this is a pretty piss poor response and only makes me feel vindicated by how buttmad you are so congrats?

>>13245053
Thanks for actually having good reading comprehension anon

Because most good ideas are leftist. But not all. It just so happens that basal conservativism is pretty stupid; conservatism and reactionism are gut reactions that humans have. They require no thought or thinkers to be articulated in their basic sense, only in more complex forms.

>>13244998
>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?
This is not true except if you're a giant faggot that only reads things like Harry Potter and any other teen fantasy crap. And of course, this is the only thing you read.

>>13245062
Even in the 20th century there is lots of right wing lit. Its only really since the second world war that far left views have permeated the intellectual sphere. The main reason for that is, i think, a reaction to the authority and collectivism of the first half of the 20th century.
I think its much too early to call these people good authors. We shall see if they stand the test of time.

>>13245016
Borges wasn’t a lefty but he was a lib. Many other authors erroneously claimed by the right are the same (Nabokov for example)

>>13244998

What painting is this OP? I really like it if you know the artist?

Look into old vs new left.
Old left was the culmination of 19th century rationalism with some moralizing built in. New left discarded the rationalism entirely.

>>13245075
This is pretty infantile bud
Leftism is also a gut reaction
>MOOOOM!! IT'S MY TURN!! NOT FAIR!!

>>13244998
Typically, the priesthood is associated with intellectual/literary, and the left is the new priesthood.

>>13245096
The traditional left wing are the modern right wing. The modern left wing are completely unprecedented in the history of politics. Which should tell you something.

>>13245060
You have to go back faggot

>>13245088
Being a liberal in South America is not the same that in the US, you know? Borges has been hated for his association with the 70s dictatorial regime.

>>13245093
don't know :/

>>13245109
I know, there are still meaningful differences between being a liberal, as many classic 19th and 20th century writers were, and being on the right as people on site use the designation to mean. You can’t just call all non socialists right wing

>>13245062
The first half of the 20th century is full of right wing literature
You just might not count it because its associated with the far right movements of the period, but that would he dishonest

>>13245153
be*

Regarding left-wing authors; I recommend that you peruse Noam Chompsky, Friedrich Engels, Emile Zola, or Robert Tressel.

>>13245137
Agreed. Classic liberalism has a quite dark history here: being responsible for the illegal traffic of slaves after the prohibition (agreed with the British Empire and then overseen by the corrupt liberal governors), the partial anihillation of indigenous people (known as Las campañas del desierto), etc. Also, Borges had a run with the nationalistic faction of the yrygoyenismo.
If you want to argue that doesn't make it right wing, it's ok, but the question loses its point, imo.
Sorry for the bad English.

>>13245175
People here like to play fast and loose with their definitions of right wing, but usually what they are trying to do is rope in unrelated authors to justify some form of fascism or monarchy/aristocracy. Liberalism has done horrible things to South America, not denying that at all, just that Borges did not support literal fascism even if he did support dictatorships.
I agree w/ you that it’s not a meaningful question but that’s exactly why people here always want to ask it.

>>13245068
By saying that you're being honest, it's the equivalent of saying that something is a fact even thought there is no clear reason to mention it at all. I mean, why mention it, what's the usual state, that you lie? You mentioned it not because you don't want to stir something up but to get some sympathy. Look guys, I'm being honest here, it's the liberal propaganda that doesn't let you discover certain authors, not the fact that they are classified as certified shit.

Also, if you've actually read authors from every political spectrum, you would know that the left and liberal philosophers talk about the opposing side, which would require naming the author's of the opposing side, which leads to exposition of the authors to the liberal/left population.

On the other hand, by propaganda you probably meant mass media, which transforms your post to "the authors don't get mentioned on CNN or Facebook", which leads me to my initial conclusion of, yeah, it's /pol/.

>>13245212
>By saying that you're being honest, it's the equivalent of saying that something is a fact even thought there is no clear reason to mention it at all.
that is incorrect; there is no prerequisite knowledge to honesty, anyone can be honest
>I mean, why mention it, what's the usual state, that you lie?
are you implying that people don't shitpost on 4chan?
>projection/strawmanning
throw this part out
>Also, if you've actually read authors from every political spectrum, you would know that the left and liberal philosophers talk about the opposing side, which would require naming the author's of the opposing side, which leads to exposition of the authors to the liberal/left population.
1.) never did I claim to have read ANY authors located anywhere on ANY spectrum, merely that the process you seem to think gives people from another perceived side "exposition" actually is just narrative building: a 'left' author describing a 'right' author in their own work to their own audience and having that work promoted as an objective take promotes the phenomenon I mentioned in my original post
>just can;t stop himself from projecting
by propoaganda i mean propoganda. the people who put out these ideas (in this case supposed 'lists of luminaries') to actively change peoples opinions. 'left thinkers (just like we can imagine 'right thinkers would as well) want people to read their work and think in a 'left' way
all of this is intensely simple reasoning, stop projecting for two seconds and maybe you'd see that and not be so stirred up

>>13245045
>>13245055
>>13245068
>implying you guys aren't from /pol/

>>13244998

Define your definition of left leaning

>>13245291
seek help

Its not just authors. Scientists, social scientists, humanities, medical doctors. This board get some redpill idiocy by nature of being on 4chan, but in the real world, educated people tend to be leftists.

There's probably a breadth of reasons for that, not the least of which being that a significant portion of what draws regular people to conservatism is objectively moronic. (Don't get pissy with me I'm talking about tide goes in tide goes out redneck shit here not facts and logic)

The rest can probably be explained by cultural factors like universities not generally operating in the sticks.

>>13245274
what the hell are you talking about, most authors (and every author I've read and every author worth a shit) make a convincing case for the other side before they shit on them

you are basically constructing a point based on little to no knowledge, why don't you open a book for a change

>>13244998
Just off the top of my head 3 of the most influential Russian writers all cherished traditions. Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev. Stop looking at the degenerate West.

>>13245454
>every book I;ve read is basically every book
>I wasn't aware of X in the text so clearly it's not there
>also you suck and are stupider than me
jesus christ anon, grow the fuck up

>>13245473
OP is dumb but Tolstoy was literally an anarchist

>>13245371
and yet educated people 100 years ago, by your criteria, would hold the views of modern rednecks. Will you be so smarmy when you hold the views of uncultured rednecks 50 years from now?

>>13245473
>Tolstoy as the first example of a non left leaning author

Impressively dumb comment

>>13245481
>>13245495
He was for "muh no violence" and people describe him as an anarchist, but he's more like a libertarian with a retarded moralism. Which is right wing. And in personal life he was all about traditionalism and simplicity.

>>13245473
>leftists think tradition bad!
Infantile. Truly, truly infantile. Also, Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is literally the foundational text of Christian anarchism. You ought to be embarrassed.

This isn't even true.

>>13245478
>every book I;ve read is basically every book

I didn't say this.

Also, what writers are we talking about here? I gave you the credibility that we are discussing the higher ranking writers of the respective political ideology. If this isn't the case, then you are right. It's really simple reasoning. There are propaganda books being written. Wow. Nice point there.

>>13245062
After WW2 the western ideology basically becomes anti-nazism. It's a deal between the liberals (libertarians, capitalists for you amuricanos) and the left (commies, socialists, syndicalists, etc.).

>>13245517
Not a word about the left. But yeah, currently, both the left and the right hate traditions. Tolstoy wanted traditions + no violence, that makes him a traditionalist is a unique way, but still.

>>13245371
decent take, except for the part about unis; profs and adjuncts are by far leftists, but the administration's overwhelmingly conservative. universities are corporations.
>>13245489
don't make the mistake of thinking that an age's loudest voices, or surviving voices, spoke for everyone.

>>13245513
>libertarian with a retarded moralism, which is right wing
I... what? I don't even know where to start with this.
>traditionalism and simplicity
Sure? I fail to see how focusing on simple living with one's family makes you a right-winger, that seems pretty reductive to me

>>13245534
The man wanted an end to almost every single institution on the planet because he thought God made it all illegitimate, my guy. He wanted strong community structure. I don't think that's equivalent to tradition in the sense that you're thinking.

>>13245513
Isn't a libertarian a leftie liberal?

>>13245568
>Isn't a libertarian a leftie liberal?
No.

>>13244998
>using the already outdated term of left and right to classify 3000 years of writers and their political views.
Ok retard

>>13245572
I thought it was about more freedom for companies but they go into the direction of more democracy inside of companies. Might be a version of it. There's the boomer wet dream too though.

>>13245531
1.) google what implying is
2.) you can go as 'high up' in terms of literary/political merit as you want, it doesn't change that a description of X from Y's perspective is not as true as X respresenting itself, and it also doesn't change the fact that a political activist is a political activist is a political activist: the goal of a person who rights from any political position is to convince others of the veracity of their opinion, it doesn't matter how nice they are to their detractors.
if someone puts out a list of luminaries and they are ALL (either truthfully OR in portrayal and depiction) of the same political orientation it is not illogical to expect implanted bias on behalf of whoever arranged said list- same goe for the opinions of other as represented by their LITERAL OPPONENTS. why is this hard?

>>13245540
are you seriously implying there was an sjw silent majority in early 20th century America?

>>13245568
since I'm worried no one will give you a genuine answer; "libertarian" is an older catch-all term for leftists who rejected any form of hierarchical structure -- markets, governments, that sort of thing. you'll sometimes see anarchists (of any kind) called "libertarians" in older texts, or more commonly "left-libertarians." modern-day libertarians advocate for hands-off everything approach to government, which aside from being a really fucking stupid idea, ignores the single largest problem to self-liberation; money itself. like, great, libertarians got rid of all weed prohibition laws. there's also now no laws against price-fixing, so all the dispensaries in town jack up their rates and you can't afford weed. really crude example but you get the idea. liberals advocate for far more market controls than libertarians due -- minimum wage, taxes, etc, are (now) liberal policies. (speaking through an american voicebox here)

>>13245371
tend to be liberals*

This isn't even the case. Off the top of my head, Dostoevsky, Thomas Mann, Celine, Knut Hamsun, Yukio Mishima, Joseph Conrad, Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Baudelaire, Poe, Lovecraft, DH Lawrence, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer. The problem is that whenever this subject comes up /lit/ likes to play dumb and pretend that fascists, reactionary monarchists, and people who straight out say they oppose democracy, socialism, liberalism, women's rights, etc. are somehow politically categorization (basically if you aren't literally advocating the 2019 US Republican Party platform to the letter, even if you're further to the right, you aren't "right-wing"), but yet anyone remotely progressive from any era can neatly be defined as "left-wing", and certainly without quibbling over the odd idiosyncratic conservative stance.

>>13245626
no. what I'm saying is the "well everyone was retarded back then" is fucking stupid, because many people weren't retarded. you just don't hear about them because people in 1919 preaching gay rights didn't get any attention. unless they lived in berlin, which had a pretty thriving homosexual subculture in the early 20th century

This isn't even the case. Off the top of my head, Dostoevsky, Thomas Mann, Celine, Knut Hamsun, Yukio Mishima, Joseph Conrad, Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Baudelaire, Poe, Lovecraft, DH Lawrence, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer. The problem is that whenever this subject comes up /lit/ likes to play dumb and pretend that fascists, reactionary monarchists, and people who straight out say they oppose democracy, socialism, liberalism, women's rights, etc. are somehow beyond political categorization (basically if you aren't literally advocating the 2019 US Republican Party platform to the letter, even if you're further to the right, you aren't "right-wing"), but yet anyone remotely progressive from any era can neatly be defined as "left-wing", and certainly without quibbling over the odd idiosyncratic conservative stance.

>>13245616
>it doesn't change that a description of X from Y's perspective is not as true as X respresenting itself

stop it, please, and go read something, sometimes it's an even bigger representation because it exposes the weaknesses of the other party's arguments and it becomes a huge platform where ideas get discussed, you are portraying political discussion as this one big pile of egoistical shit that holds no value outside of Machiavellian scheming for power and additionally you are making a case that if X has faults then it's because he's being misrepresented or misunderstood

now you talk about activists, which is another context, I'm talking about literature, it's a literature board

>>13245659
>Mann

Huh? A literal faggot socialist?

>>13245659
Nietzsche spent far more time attacking institutional power than almost anything else. He's certainly not a leftist, he hates morality and communalism far too much for that, but he doesn't fit well with the right either.

Nabokov literally subscribed to the National Review and was an admirer of William F. Buckley. lol

>>13245673
He was literally one of the most prominent figures in the Conservative Revolutionary movement in Germany (look it up).

>>13245665
>people don't misrepresent/misunderstand others
>truth is X or Y not a synthesis
>politics is not machiavellian and intellectual warfare is totally not real
you're are so naive it is fucking painful
also we're on a literature board and for the past dozen posts have been talking about POLITICAL LITERATURE and suddenly NOW this is a problem?
seriously, anon, I have talked to some stupid fucks here, but jesus H, get your head checked

>>13245678
No surprise, his family fled the russian revolution. Nabokov never got over losing his money, and never stopped hating the poor for taking it from him

>>13245677
He opposed democracy, socialism, liberalism, women's rights, etc. He defined himself as an "aristocratic radical". There's no coherent way you can reconcile this with left-wing politics.

>>13245658
Has it never occured to you that what is fashionable at Harvard now might likewise miss the mark of some nutcase progessive phariah who will one day usurp even your own closely held views?

>>13245665
>is having a conversation about political writings
>pulls the “tsch- we’re on a literature board here”
Yikes

>>13245692
Yeah but he wasn’t a fascist like people here would like him to be. More a typical 20th century moderate conservative

>>13245013
>Voltaire was a monarchist and easily rivals Sade.
>Look at me, I can post the exception to the rule

>>13245697
I'm not, you retard, I'm pointing out why he was a "classical liberal"

>>13245489
This is the kind of shit my dad says at holiday dinners and that is not a compliment.

As though people historically holding wacky opinions absolves us all from ever having to justify any belief. There's no way to be 100% sure you're right and therefore every opinion is equally valid. Its fucking idiotic and only said be people too stupid to explain their own positions.

>>13245707
There were tons of conservatives and reactionaries that weren't pleased with the populist, almost democratic (one party states are still democracies, just nastier ones) slant of fascists and only supported them as an alternative to the Communists

>>13245701
...do you seriously think that unis are bastions of the left? like genuinely. do you think that humanities profs advancing tepid progressive talking points actually equals any form of real power?

>>13245721
not that anon but you sound like a spoiled/ungrateful little fuck

>>13245724
the majority of politicans went to school to study humanities, are you seriously this naive?

>>13245721
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Hell, you're basically only angry at me because I remind you of your Dad it seems.
My opinion is simply this: copying the beliefs of seemingly smart is a stupid way of looking at the world. It's easy to see the errors of the intelligent consensus in every society not our own. Simply exercise the small amount self awareness required to then presume you and your intellectual leaders likely have glaring blindsopts
>>13245724
I seriously do and you should too. Remind me where public policy comes from again?

>>13245732
in america's last SOTU address, literally everyone in the room (except for like four or five members of congress) stood and clapped when Trump said "American will NEVER be a socialist nation." don't tell me you're one of those smoothbrains who thinks that lukewarm acceptance of two men kissing means that there's a lefty plot to destroy civilization. like, anon, my god, you know that no leftist thinks the american government -- or shit, most major western governments -- are on their side, right?

>>13245688
What the hell.

If "that holds no value outside of Machiavellian scheming" for you means that I think Machiavellian scheming is not real, then you have no authority to call someone stupid.

It's the same for the other quotes. I mean. I believe you. You have never used anything in life besides simple reasoning.

>>13245762
Depending on whether or not you choose to classify UBI and measures like it as socialist (muh means or production ic.) we very much are on a steady schedule towards an ever more socialist America. Trump, much like McCarthy and Reagan and Thatcher and Nixon and every other right wing populist will fail to reverse this process, let alone retard it in any significant way

>>13245761
Very, very little public policy is written by senators/congressmen, anon. Most of it is written by staffers, who operate under significant pressure from paid lobbyists, or corporate interest groups, who crank out similar policies and send them to literally any state-level rep who will receive them. Then they're scanned, tweaked a bit, and debated. Universities (which, again, are corporations, not some neutral ideological battleground) advance a comparatively small slate of public policy for lawmakers. You're just pulling shit out of your ass.

>>13245762
1.) trump, and more precisely, the anti-socialism wave in america (without defending the intellect behind it) is a reaction to trends in this country; the reason they are saying it ill never be a socialist country is because people are winning vast amounts of support simply for hinting that they ARE socialist.
2.) do you not know who obama was? were you not listening to the rhetoric of hillarry clinton? use all the trite insults you want, the left IS the establishment and they ARE motivated to 'progress' their agenda to its logical ends (you might even call them progressive ;)), they're just better at lying about it

>>13245783
Why do you think America is on a steady slide to socialism?

>>13245778
great response anon!
wow, you're super!
everyone, let's hear it for anon, he's a really special guy!
keep posting anon, this is great stuff, really!

What is up with recent frequent leftist-related-topic postings in /lit/? Am I missing something happens in america?

>>13245809
Chapocels need to be reaffirmed theyre on the right side of history and just won't pick up a fucking book

>>13245809
No, just more Reddit crossover

>>13245797
Then point me at the parts where I've said anything you've put in meme arrows, where have I said/implied that people don't misunderstand others? I've said that you are making a case that if someone is being criticized by the other party, then he's misunderstood,

I've already agreed with you. There are propaganda books being written. So, nice conclusion. You've probably had a hard time coming up with it.

>>13245784
It must be a downer to live in america. At least muh 3rd world country no one has enough money to fund a political tv commercial. Or a thinktank.

>>13245809
lit is a left-leaning board it's just hard to tell because lit lefties hate idpol and fascists like going reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>13245631
the reason the dispensaries can fix the prices is because the government still regulates who can distribute the product. with all the licensing and regulations free market competition is practically non existent rather a competition of who can bribe officials fastest . libertarians are retarded for thinking full hands off is gonna work tho

>>13245790
No leftist I know thinks Obama was a leftist. Most of them hate Obama for various reasons. I'm starting to think you've never actually spoken with a leftist, and you're just basing all your views on /pol/ caricatures, Louder with Crowder, and LIBERAL OWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC youtube cringe comps. Clinton was an opportunist who might've instituted some progressive reforms, maybe. Her rhetoric was just rhetoric. Time and again she's been in the way of genuine progressives. Anon, the left hasn't held any power in this country in at least a century. I'm sorry. I'm speaking as a leftist. I would love to be part of the nefarious shadow world order you think I'm part of, but that's just not reality.

>>13245761
Now who's putting words in mouths. I never even took a side in my original post nor did I suggest copying the supposed smart people.

I just pointed out an observable phenomenon and gave my hot take on why it exists.

Also I don't hate my dad he's great.

>>13245862
Isn't someone like Bernie a leftist in the Democratic Party? And Biden is a liberal? There's a transformation inside the liberals that lean towards the left, but that left is left in the US but only slightly left in other areas of the world.

>>13245835
the fact that you think X interpretation and description of Y's beliefs is AS RELEVANT as having Y have their own level platform for the purposes of an honest political discussion is naive at best.

the reason you ought to want people to represent themselves is not because every other person is cruelly misrepresenting them (although this is bound to happen in some cases and is likely happening where the motives are opaque (namely political literature from the 'opposing side')) this interplay between people representing themselves functions as a kind of synthesis, whereas if this synthesis were confined to the limitations of one persons perspective it would be biased

political discussion as is pertains to printed/published material IS machiavellian scheming- that's the point (for the last god fucking damned time) people want their readers to absorb their opinions. YOU are the one associating it with some sort of immoral seedy activity and waving it away as absurd and paranoid. I'm not ascribing any moral atributes to anything (notice I'm not even saying left or right anymore) just acknowledging what I assumed was obvious to anyone older than five: politics is a competition, even in the realm of idea propogation

but please, how about you DON'T read or consider this, and we continue to ignore your incessant pedantry/backtracking/prokection/strawmanning/general stupid tactics to incriminate my intellect (is it okay now that we're talking about politics on a lit board? or does that still irk you?) ad you instead just respond with some other stupid shit, clearly I'm invested for some reason

>>13245877
Yeah, exactly. Bernie/AOC are the two most leftist congressmen in America today, and by world standards, they're mildly left-leaning. America thinks they're crazy leftist radicals one step removed from Lenin. Biden, a right-winger, is a moderate lib in America.

>>13245784
No you fool, public policy does not come from the staffers who write it down. You think they break new ground when they let the pen hit the paper? You think they make groundbreaking new works in the fields of law, ethics, sociology, psychology? All very modern disciplines withing the American University system, which are refined and developed within those same universities.
But democracy requires consent of the masses does it not? And who manufactures that consent? According to Chomsky it's evil capitalist CEOs, all too happy to push woke capital, but I think that badge goes more handily to the ever reactionary press. Oh wait...
But sure, tell me whatever the next big tobacco is is the one actually controlling our politicians and not "public opinion" and "scientific consensus". Every corporation that exercises actual control over our culture is progressive.

>>13245862
>No leftist I know thinks Obama was a leftist
as if that changed anything- you're going to have to do way better than "what your friends think" if you want to make obama out to be NOT of the left, jesus fuck

>mindless ad hominem shit
nice, really helps your point.

>clinton was also not a democrat
learn when you've been had anon. the left either CAN be a viable political movement, in which case all those democrats you disavow after the fact ARE what they claim to be, or leftism is eternally the anti-political, in which case its childish and pointless

>>13245726
Spoiled yes, ungrateful I don't think so.
My parents gave me everything and I love them. Sometimes I argue with my dad too much and I feel bad. Most of the crazy shit he says seems to stem from his frustrations in life. Maybe arguing back at him does make me ungrateful, even if I think he's wrong.

What were we talking about again?

>>13245870
Well, that original point I was trying to make wasn't originally directed towards you
That's good for your dad though he sounds nice, never liked talking politics with my family either though lol

>>13244998
>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?
They weren't. The only way you can get this impression is if your idea of literary and intellectual history comes from university. Of course they don't teach you the enemy.

To name just one example, Thomas Carlyle, one of the most popular and influential 19th-century European writers, was a full-blown reactionary.

>>13245088
Nabokov was a conservative at least. He was great friends with William F Buckley.

>>13245841
Don’t worry America (or China) owns you too.

>>13245881
You have read zero political literature and are talking out of your ass. Which I've actually made you prove right now, because even the main point of Machiavelli is not the different ways how to gain power or stay at power, he did something completely different to political philosophy as a whole, but you're completely ignorant of it, which is fine if you keep that ignorance to yourself.

>>13245899
It's pretty clear that this is your first time talking to a leftist who isn't a bluehaired tranny screeching about vaginas.
>obama
Okay. Here's an article from Jacobin, America's largest leftist magazine, trashing Obama's legacy. https://jacobinmag.com/2017/01/barack-obama-presidency-trump-inauguration You can find more with a simple Google search. You might be interested to read Naomi Klein, Richard Wolff, Michael Parenti, Slavoj Zizek, and yes, Noam Chomsky, prominent American socialists/marxists/communists/anarchists who've made sustained (and imo damning) critiques of Obama's policies.
>clinton
By the simple fact of *liking* capitalism, the Clintons are not leftists. It really is that simple, anon.
>some halfassed dichotomy
Russia had a communist revolution. I'd say that's a pretty strong case for the left being a viable political movement. As far as American politics go, FDR's new deal stuff -- while tame by the standards of the american communist party at the time, who didn't like the new deal because they thought it didn't go far enough -- was seen as crazy socialist in its day. Leftism is a political movement that goes against current power structures. This doesn't mean it's "anti-political."

>>13245899
Obama literally said he would have been considered a conservative in the 70s

>>13245841
Yeah, in the third world political assassination is easier, cheaper, and more effective.

>>13245013
Voltaire's only purpose is to have demaiste shit on him with perfect banter. Same goes for Bacon.

>>13245973
Among his milieu, I guess. He was a literal communist "activist" with connections to Bill Ayers at that time. Even if he cooled off a little bit since he's still a communist at heart.

>>13245965
>you're just dumb, you're sooo dumb I cant even
absolutely brilliant response anon

>>13245895
I don't know what you're saying. It seems like -- seems like -- you're arguing that universities propagate leftist ideas, which then filter into policy, which then make it into the government. Aside from being demonstrably false; we can just look at the current legislative record; ExxonMobil does not give one flying fuck about new breakthroughs in utilitarian ethics coming out of Princeton, anon. Microsoft does not fucking care about UNC's psych lab. And no, anon, Budweiser making a rainbow beer can doesn't make them a progressive company, it makes them a company that wants to sell beer to gay people. This doesn't equal any form of oppression. At all.

>>13245971
>projecting in between name-dropping
you say that calling leftism anti-political is crazy but then IMMEIDATELY define it as in opposition to current (whatever that means) poltical structures?
care to try again?

>>13246016
Willfully ignorant of companies promoting social marxism (unironically I know this term triggers you) for reasons other than capitalist marketing. Even if they aren't sincere, the motivations are not simply targeted advertising to a demographic.

>>13245993
It's the farthest I'm willing to go right now. You will thank me for it in a few months.

Also, do some research before you engage in a topic. This is literally entry level.

>>13246046
lol thank you for what? you've said absolutely nothing
like truly, what has your argyment been at any pint other than "no you're wrong, it isn't like that because of all these books I've read" and then proceeded to not discuss any of the ideas in said books
I guess this is the power of anonynimity

also, just for the record since you keep evading this point it's still hilariously pathetic that you tried to end this quick by saying 'this is a lit board and we can't talk about politics'

stay retarded anon, I'm always in need of a good chuckle

>>13246024
...there's more than one way to run a government, anon. Neoliberalism is not the only way to run a government. If I'm against the current order -- neoliberalism tinged with right-wing lunacy -- that doesn't make me against all politics, it makes me against the current order. What you're saying is about as stupid as saying a Republican's "against politics" when they vote against a Democrat. I think you think you're being coy and clever, but really you're just showing that you can't think with the barest hint of nuance. If you want I can link you to some intro to leftism level stuff made by actual leftists. At the very least, you ought to know your enemy.

>>13246066
right but I can only assume that if the political order were to change (even if it WERE ostensibly in your favor (which honestly is what neoliberalism already is, but whatever, have it your way)) you'd still be against it because it isn't perfect enough and so you can effectively say you're anti-political

also you keep throwing all this ad hominem shit at me like I watch glenn beck and lurk /pol/, which really doesn't help your case and it's not even true lol

my point is ultimately not even that poltical, I'm just saying you're pulling a hard no true scotsman by doubting the authentic leftism of establishment leftists

>>13246042
So -- cutting through the buzzwords, and applying this to a real-world scenario -- you think anheuser busch, owners of Budweiser, are involved in a nationwide (worldwide?) scheme to... increase acceptance of homosexuality (?) promote homosexual behavior (?) through rainbow beer cans and commercials with gay people? Also why would any corporation be marxist anything lmao, I get what you're driving at with "social marxism" (it's still retarded) but please be somewhat precise with your terminology

>>13245712
>Look at me I can't name the political affiliations of major French writers around Louis XIV to the Revolution
>Not even when crowds tried and failed to free one from the Bastille but had his address wrong
>or even when the other wrote a hagiography to the future Sun King
>>13245988
>shitting on Bacon
Why would I trust your taste when it cannot stem from honest inquiry? Voltaire also serves the purpose of annoying Jesuits btw. That cannot be discounted from his work.

>>13246086
Neoliberalism isn't in my favor. Spend ten seconds going to Google and typing in "leftist critique of neoliberalism" or "leftist neoliberal" or something similar. Hell, the wikipedia page on neoliberalism has an entire section subtitled "left-wing critiques." You do not know what you're talking about.
I fail to see how my constant, incessant, 24/7 participation in the political system makes me anti-political, unless you're basing that off of "you don't like the status quo," and I've already written above about how that's... kinda stupid.
Again, above, a few times, I've given reasons (and pointed to sources) that argue why the people you think are "establishment leftists" are not leftists at all. The only American congressmen I recognize as being remotely on "my side" are Bernie and AOC, and even then just barely. It's not "No True Scotsman," it's you don't really know what a scotsman is, I'm trying to tell you as someone who spends a good deal of his time talking to other scotsmen/reading scotsmen/listening to scotsmen, and you're convinced you know more about scotsmen.
You conflate liberals with leftists. That's the dead giveaway for someone who doesn't know what "leftist" means.
I don't really know what else to say.

>>13246016
There is a delay for which university consensus becomes public policy, but it inevitably does become public policy. Sure, there are always socialists who ache at the fact that the country is still quite capitalistic. However, the general formula of an ever growing, bureaucratic progressive state continues and is invariably led down it's slow march from whig history to whig future by that very academic system.
I'm not accusing any of these entities of oppression. I would say the universities and press are leftist corporations. Contrary to a state controlled press, I'd say we have a press controlled state. But the press either agrees with and marches lock step and line with, universities, or reliably one step behind if conservative.
Corporations that do not require manufactured consent tend to be a bit more neutral, only using ubiquitous progressive imagery as fashion, yet Pepsi isn't exactly anywhere close to pushing pro-life can designs are they?

>>13245322
sure, right after you go back to /pol/
your kind will die out motherfucker

>>13246174
>returning hours later to incriminate the words "seek help" as evidence of underlying subversive/racialist political motivations
wow, definitely seek help

>>13246143
it's not that you don't like the status quo, it's that you diasavow the movement that actually does represent your beliefs as best as they can be represented
the leftists critique of neolobirealism are literally exactly what I'm talking about: I don't doubt that you have problems with establishment leftists, but saying that they were not real leftists is 100% different than saying they should be better at their job
and then more ad hominem shit
you don't really need to say more anon, I get you, you just dont want to be gotten

>>13246167
The press and the university are not leftist-run. The press occasionally publishes pieces in support of leftist social issues, and university profs gush about gay life and black life, but to pretend that a few op-eds or sociology classes equal national hegemony is ridiculous, especially when the largest media conglomerates in this country spend literal millions to ensure that leftists never reach high political office. Hell, anti-Zionism is taboo on all networks. The last anti-Israel speaker I can remember brought it up at an MSNBC (MSNBC!) round table and lost his job. That's the real form of power; not what you talk about, but what you don't talk about. The dumb way to limit debate is to censor shit. The smart way to censor is to limit the spectrum of available opinion, but allow for very lively debate within that spectrum. This is what we see in the media.
Listen, I have to go to sleep. It's been real.

>>13246202
You have misunderstood everything I'm saying so badly that I can no longer argue against you. I've spent three or four decent-length posts explaining why your first two points are bullshit. You keep hawking them. You have yet to genuinely attack what I'm saying. I'm still waiting.

>>13246237
Lol no I am attacking it, you just can’t read: your definition of “left” is conditional and is more reapresentative of your feelings and not of an actual viable political strategy, making it childish and anti-political and in response you keep telling me you’re the true leftist and I just wouldn’t understand

>>13246143
Not him but I imagine you agree with Noam Chomsky on a large host of issues. You likely have an underdog complex and a fixation on helping the little guy. In other words, you are insatiably hungry for political power and the delicious sensation of using it to crush your enemies. But they're the bad guys, it's fine.
Truth is you're probably only 20 years ahead of popular consensus, not that you'll ever be satisfied. Politicians like AOC and Bernie will be all you have to choose from soon enough and it won't change a thing. The state will expand even further, UBI and free college and candy but the nasty corporations will still be there, richer than your favorite guys. Every critique you levy at capitalism dialectically strengthens it. Neither you nor the conservatives really like everything in the neoliberalism package but you are powerless to stop it.
>>13246220
You understand they control this overton window. I admit, the window has a left and right frame. But what you don't realized is that that very window is shifting left, incessantly, with the long march of Whig history. They control and cause this shift whether you want it or not. For you maybe they aren't leftist enough, it would be more accurate I think to say they are slightly left of the average voter. But to pull something you need to go in the direction you want to pull. Through this endless cycle at some point your views will be quite in fashion, and just as quickly be abandoned as reactionary revisionism. It all converges towards a leftist political singularity in the end. A virtue signalling black hole from which nothing escapes. We are already past the event horizon.

>>13246250
It's not "my definition of left." It's the definition of left. Anon, you're just wrong on grounds of definition alone. I've tried to make you understand or point you towards places where you could start to understand. You've denied both.

>>13246116
Bacon was the anti-christ and a lolcow. Read DeMaistres "An Examination of the Philosophy of Bacon"

>>13244998
>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?
because all the greatest men in history were right wing

>>13246263
lol but YOU DEFINED IT >>13245971
>"Leftism is a political movement that goes against current power structures"
so it's condition is that it is opposed to whatever current system is in place, thusly if an ostensibly leftist system became the current system, by yor definition, it would cease to be leftist

IF ON THE OTHER HAND, leftism is not this and it is its own ideology and it is thusly workable into the current sytem without self-negating, I insist that it HAS HAPPENED and my evidence is simply that people who identify as leftist hold/held office, and whether or not they are truly leftist is ultimately just 'your opinion man' and it would likely be theirs that all you purists can go suck eggs

please call me stupid again though, it really makes you lok smart and secure in your reasoning

>>13244998
>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?
lol they weren't
If you mean today, because there aren't any

>>13245489
but anon we've had "progress" (we can't produce a single Tolstoy or Dickens, but trust me, we're progressing)

>>13245712
Who are the great men who form the rule? I honestly can't think of any. A bunch of people who held certain economic views that would be considered as left-wing in today's retarded situation?

>>13245721
>and therefore every opinion is equally valid. Its fucking idiotic and only said be people too stupid to explain their own positions

>>13244998
Read Thomas Sowell's work.

>>13245540
>admin is overwhelmimgly conservative
Imagine being this delusional
Being capitalist doesnt make you a conservative or a right winger brainlet

>leftists unironically think they have contributed to the history of thought in a meaningful way outside of the last 200 years

>neoliberalism is capitalist!
>neoliberalism is leftist!
spoiler alert:
Its a contradictory alliance of progressivism and capitalism

>>13245721
>There's no way to be 100% sure you're right and therefore every opinion is equally valid. Its fucking idiotic and only said be people too stupid to explain their own positions.
this is your brain on American relativism. You do you man, just don't have a wrong opinion, also the index of Wrong Opinions evolves by the day, and no, it's not my job to educate you, bigot.

>>13245762
How does it matter what Trump says when he can't even control his own bureaucracy and his entire worldview (and the worldview of the American public as a whole really) is shaped by '60s CPUSA activists and fellow travelers?

>>13246388
Spoiler alert: Capitlaism is a product of leftist progressivism

>>13245108
>>13245063
>>13245064
it's a /jp/ meme, dumb newniggers

>>13245843
speak for yourself, validation-hungry politicel

>>13246667
>i was merely pretending to be retarded

>>13246679
it wasn't even me, I was just calling pout your retardation
also, whom doth thou quoth?

>>13244998
Leftists have no culture. Culture is something that grows--Leftism is only something that shrinks. This is what you would expect from people who made killing their own children into a religion.

Good riddance I'd say. Genetically inferior subhumans. No value, no culture, no virtue. Hopefully their culture-death disease spreads to the shitbloods they brought in to replace them, too.

>>13245038
SEETHING.
And, rightfully so. You deserve to spend the rest of your life mad as fuck.

>>13245843
>lit is a left leaning board
You wish retard I've been posting here for years and I'm no l*ftoid

>>13246684
You can stop now anon

>>13246265
Bacon is at best or worst the servant of a devil. Antichrist is overstating it and Nietzsche has a firmer grasp of that. Bacon has a brutally honest though rational approach to jurisprudence which deMaistre would obviously abhor as it already acknowledges the enormity of a return to natural justice. And a Savoyard supporter calling anyone a lolcow is fucktarded on the level of a Savoyard wearing a fedora.

>>13246290
the modern tolstoy and/or dickens are working in film and interactive media.

>>13246262
>I think to say they are slightly left of the average voter

that's why Bernie's fox news Town Hall ended with people supporting him loudly for medicare for all.. right?

>>13245023
I'm left of center and I agree with this completely. H. L. Mencken is one of the best essayists America has ever produced, and he's all over the political spectrum, impossible to pin down. But he's so "dismissive" of other people's "experiences" that of course he can't be taught in schools, at least not until college and even then, the professor would probably be brought up on Title IX charges for offending a student. In a different vein, G. K. Chesterton might be Britain's greatest ever essayist, and he was a literal Christian.

>>13245025
>Pretty much the entire history of literature and philosophy is dominated by christians
Are you defining as "Christian" anyone who would have professed Christianity in their own time? That's most people in Western history since the Romans, but largely because to do otherwise would have meant death or social exile. There used to be a lot more leeway in Christianity because even the quasi-atheists had to consider themselves Christians (and many probably really did admire the figure of Christ, divinity or no).

>>13245042
Do you really value / devalue authors based on their personal lives? If so, maybe you should be in Sunday school or at an SJW rally - not on a literature board.

>>13245068
Agreeing with this anon

>>13245075
Before the "political correctness" semi-Stalinism of the nineties (revived today), people on the left were more "liberal" in the non-political sense, i.e., more willing to acknowledge and even enjoy things that are immoral, strange, or antisocial. That capability, called "trait openness" by the likes of Jordan Peterson, is essential to artists of all kinds but especially writers - since literature takes place through human characters, and you can't write a good character that you prejudge as immoral. You're explaining the negative side of the argument - that conservatism is a gut reaction - but the positive side is there as well. Old-school members of the left (proper Marxists aside) are more open and therefore better at making art.

>>13245101
Professors tend to be bad writers, but it is true that today's American professoriate (the intellectual priestly class) is absurdly left-wing.

>>13245104
>The modern left wing are completely unprecedented in the history of politics. Which should tell you something
It may be more telling, and more scary, that they're semi-Stalinists.

>>13245137
>You can’t just call all non socialists right wing
Agree

>>13245153
I wonder if the terms right wing, left wing apply well when we're talking about things before WWII? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just wonder if speaking of political groups back then, it would be better if we broke it down into categories like "adherence to religion" or "belief in a natural elite."


I realize people are going to shit on me for writing this much already (maybe even posting that rxt meme of the black guy holding the "All This Shit" By You book) so I'll stop here for now....

You're welcome for the (You)s

>>13247165
>people only believed in christ because the alternative was death
Lmao seriously retard?

>>13247169
That's not what I said. Probably 95% of people were actual pious Christians who thought there was blood and meat in their mouths. But we're talking about great writers, and those are a special class. Many of them may have been doubters, or those who read classical literature may have privately been Epicureans, but if you're smart enough to write great literature you're probably smart enough to take a sacrement falsely too.

Of course the smartest thing is to misread a special case as a general statement and call the speaker a retard.

>>13247179
Golly the smart people must have agreed with you

>>13247181
I wasn't born yet.

>>13247103
Kek

>>13247179
Do have any evidence about what you are saying, or are you projecting your own godlessness and unholiness onto past authors?

>>13247179
Retard

>>13247187
Obviously there are some past authors who were not Christian, such as J. S. Mill (atheist) and Thomas Jefferson (deist). Jefferson was one of the ones I mentioned above, who greatly admired Jesus Christ - so did Nietzsche. Going farther back, you have Chaucer criticizing the Church constantly - does that make him a non-Christian? Impossible to say. People also debate endlessly Shakespeare's religious inclinations, about which we can't know.

There is just as much a danger of you projecting your 21st century understanding of what it means to be a "Christian" backward onto people who may have had a very different relationship with God (or godlessness). I, at least, am of the opinion that plenty of excellent authors were legitimate pious Christians, and I don't discount an author solely because he believed in God - or could be considered "right wing." The problem is that you can't know, and Christian theology is so strange ("I believe *because* it is absurd," as one of your earliest Fathers put it) that it shouldn't be surprising if some people who spend their time thinking were not in any modern sense "Christians."

My question is, does it ruin an author for you if that person turned out to be a non-Christian, or even an atheist? Does it ruin the King James Bible to know that King James kept a male lover?

>>13244998
Because anyone smart knows violence and oppression are stupid and destructive. DUh

>>13244998
Fuck off back to your Che books butterfly

Because modern conservatism is a nihilistic death cult based around fear. You can't build much good culture around something so soulless.

>>13245513
>this fucking answer

>>13245371
Being 'educated' is not an argument for any particular position regardless of how fashionable or influential, for better or worse, any particular educated person may.

People lean relative to their time.
Intelligent people today would be considered right leaning on many points.

>>13244998

because all of right winger intellectual works are just post-hoc justifications of their regressive views

>>13244998
why do left leaning people rely more on saying they're intelligent than winning arguments?

>>13244998
They are not. It is a meme.

>>13245023
This.

>>13248178
and the left doesn't?

>>13245038
Wow you hate being shot down so quickly don't you?

>ITT: Leftist circle jerk with no actual discussion
There is important literature on all sides of politics. But if you're implying the modern definition of left-wing is historically the most prevalent and important? Thats just stupid. The modern left didnt exist in any period of history prior to the modern period, ever. Things like feminism, critical theory, and what some call "cultural marxism" as much of a meme as that term is, these are all very new ideas. They did not exist in historical and ancient cultures.

>>13245062
In that case I think you're still wrong, as >>13245153 said there were many important right wing writers from the late 1800's to about 1950. What came with the rise of fascism and authoritarianism was also a wave of a right wing renaissance of sorts. There were a ton of right wing artists, poets, philosophers, ect. in Italy, Germany, and all over Europe prior to the second world war. A renewed interest in paganism, religion in general, ancient ideas about race and population migrations, language, metaphysics, and of course authority and violence.

If instead you said over the past 60 years or currently then yeah literature is dominated by leftists. But so is everything. All academia, big business, schools, governments, everything. Even the church.
Leftists have a complete monopoly on todays society because they only employ or promote other leftists and they are completely intolerable to the right wing.
I'm not saying that's good or bad but it's a fact.
This certainly isnt aided by the fact that 90% of the modern right wing (or at least the ones with the loudest voices) aren't even traditional right wingers, they are all neo-cons. True conservatives are against liberalism, capitalism, and all enlightenment principles. What people call "conservatives" today are just milquetoast liberals who want to preserve their naive delusions of individualism and freedom.
So the true right wing doesnt really have a voice at all today. Its no wonder literature and everything else is dominated by leftists.

>>13244998
Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?

They weren’t though? Lmao what do u consider good?

But there’s a larger number of intellectuals who are tempted by abstract, totalitarian ideas, because they have no traditional foundation but are a class of mass society and thus alienated from a concrete engagement in community.

>>13245008
Fpbp

>>13245631
LMAO did you ever hear of competition.

>>13245093
Helene Delmaire

>>13245023
This but unironically. Jews have controlled most finance and media in the modern era

>>13245473
>Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky
>not leftists

The stupidity of this board impresses me sometimes.

>>13249276
Put both of them on the political spectrum and explain.

>>13249309
Distinction and Tolstoy are Christian anarchists.

They worship God, but call for the abolition of hierarchies. Politically, their western equivalents are authors like Victor Hugo and some of the Transcendentalists..

Define leftist

>>13245025
I get that the distinctions are pretty modern, maybe just libertine is a better word? Wycherley was writing The Country [Cunty] Wife in the 17th c., and way back I’m the 14th c. Boccaccio was writing the Decameron which says in its very prologue that the author wishes no judgement upon the promiscuity of its characters. The first character even has a gay character that dies saving his friends.

*proves you wrong*

am i right in thinking TS eliot was slightly right wing.

>>13249373
You can be a "right-leaning" libertine, like D. H. Lawrence was, just as much as a puritan leftist, like Lenin. And that's keeping with rigorous distinction between "left" and "right", which you can't do with Renaissance Italy or Restoration England.

Frankly, this whole discussion is extremely idiotic.

I have trouble naming any truly great art produced by the left in the past thirty to forty years. I can think of many good ones, but I don’t think they’ve really accomplished any of real significance in some time.

That’s not to say the right is doing any better, but the left is so educated and so dominant within cultural spaces that you’d think they would be able to produce more.

>>13245025
>Leftism has only existed since the French Revolution
are you actually fucking retarded

>>13249706
Psst left and right are names derived from the seating arrangements in the French parliament for the three estates in the period preceding the Revolution. The leftists are all the non-noble and non-cardinal unlanded members, or the poor, as you may know them. Each estate had one vote each in the system and the left thought that was a bit rigged, whence the Revolution. Incidentally, that system is also where the idea of the press as the "fourth estate" comes from.

>>13249835
Yes, names you fucking mongoloid. Those ideas did exist before that

>>13250046
indeed they did. and just as the brief hellenistic period gave rise to the roman empire so too shall an authoritarian empire rise out of the globalism of today.

>>13244998
Look at people on the right today.
Do you really thing they've capable of writing anything worthwhile?

>>13244998
What intellectuals would those be?
The only genuine left wing intellect (as opposed to media darling who is usually as vapid as a talk show host) I can think of his Orwell and he spent his lifetime in partial denial that leftism is a failed ideology. He kind of understood why in Animal Farm and Road to Wigan Pier

>>13250091
No one on either end is capable of writing anything.

>>13250091
yeah i think the people who don't have to pretend to be smart between getting btfo are more capable of writing than the left.

>>13245371
>intellectual
>modern leftist

All they do is regurgitate the same neo-Marxist rot about oppression and systemic-this-or-that and anti-white racism. There is no depth or nuance, no subtlety to their arguments. They are mentally ill. Or they know where the money is (leftism is great at gutting out the middle class to benefit bottom feeders and a government-corporate elite) and play along.

>>13245023
Ah yes, the 20th century international cabal out to silence conservative thinkers (of which you are free to post some examples).

>>13244998
>appealing to authority to prove your intelligence

>>13250352
Ah yes, the typical snarky comeback restating his point in a ridiculously exaggerated way.

>>13250352
As the anon who posted that I sincerely recommend you read the convo I already had; you’re ascribing a pejorative sinister aspect that I never implied and I already struggled with another upset anon to get him to understand my point and I don’t intend to do it again
Have fun reading

>>13244998
What is back then?
Also, survivorship bias
The question should be:
>Why do i only get indoctrinated via left leaning authors in my university and library.
You guys unironically think in left right dialectics and consider yourself intellectuals.
>curchfathers
>writings of european nobility.
Not alot of "left wing" found in pre-enlightenment.

>>13249706
Right back at you champ
Surely you're not serious

>>13250352
>there is no international consensus on what constitutes subversive political opinions
Are you fucking high?
Pull your head out of your ass- you scoff when considering it could happen to conservatives but if it were happening to liberals I don’t imagine you’d be as sanguine and insulting

>>13247228
Lifehack: Getting criticized for your especially naive take on secularism? Just assume the other poster is a Christian, and start arguing about that instead!

>>13250046
>Those ideas did exist before that
Which ideas? Sitting on the left or a triumvirate being a bad idea?

>>13244998
>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning? I
Got any evidence for that claim?
>200 posts later
What is wrong with you people.

>>13244998
At the end of the day the only real answer here is that up until recently the societies of the intellectuals you describe were predominantly white. Liberalism applied then. That's changing.

>>13245023
>There are plenty of great luminaries from all over the political spectrum
like who? fucking evola?

>>13252221
Yea anon Evola is literally the only right wing writer ever

>>13245008
This

>>13244998
The USSR/Soviet experiment was a social experiment which attracted a lot of attention of both intellectuals and normal folk alike. Being left back then actually meant something, because nobody could foresee how things would turn out

>>13245038
incel post

>>13253723
statistically speaking 1/3 of all things said by men are said by incels

>>13244998
Because conservatism and reactionary thoughts are more of a disposition or an attitude than a coherent system of thought. It is very hard to make a publicly acceptable right-wing philosophical system without falling into dogmatism or resorting to double standards.

>>13245063
>>13245064
>>13245108
lol at the newfagas

The left can't meme and the right can't write. Balance.

>>13245133
This painting makes me feel gross

>>13244998
Because conservatives conserve and progressives progress.

>>13256681
WOAH

>>13244998
Overreaction to Nazism. In the US for example many right-leaning intellectuals who had viewpoints that would today be considered "alt-right", "paleoconservative", etc. were purged shortly after WW2

>>13244998
I don't know, it seems like all the best authors hated niggers and jews.

>>13245060
Back to fag-ville with u

>>13244998
It's because we live in a left-leaning academic culture today. The real question is why the left won academia?

The victors write the history, and the left are the academic victors, so of course the works they say are "essential" are inherently leftist.

>>13258936
>why the left won academia?
Censorship, the left can't hold up their beliefs outside of a controlled space

See: 4chan

>>13245540
Neoliberals are globalizing capitalists. Capitalism isnt right wing per se.

>>13253918
>merely pretending

>>13244998
Leftism is ultimately about power and status. More intelligent people are better at achieving success, which usually comes in the form of power and status.

Great threat /lit/

>>13244998

>Why were most intellectuals and good authors left-leaning?

Quality over quantity anon. We'll always have William "Burn Othello get asphyxiated by pillow" Shakespeare, Voltaire, the Classical authors, Goethe, and Schopenhauer.

>>13244998
A lot of major 20th-century writers were pretty apolitical (Joyce, Borges, etc.). As for conservative or right-wing writers, you've got Pound as a fascist, Eliot as a monarchist, P.G. Wodehouse as a probable fascist sympathizer, Nabokov, Zora Neale Hurston, and probably a number of other Americans as soft libertarians (if you count that as right-wing).

>>13244998
Unironically not knowing that left is best.

>>13245038
>consider the following
Kill yourself

>>13259333
Lmao... rightism is about maintaining stringent hierarchies and the status quo. Leftism is about equality.

>>13258943
4chan is overrun with /pol/ therefore leftists can't debate outside of a controlled setting. I don't think the premises lead to the conclusion you've brought us little buddy

>>13245589
Libertarianism has a left current of which Chomsky would be a example.

Nazis made right wing thought basically taboo and like the ultimate silver bullet, so academia became a bunch of soviet apologists for a bit then when that fell through then it was pomo and now progressive garbage.

>>13245023
>liberalism == left
Liberalism is centrism if not rightwing. Stop pushing this American meme.

>>13249326
>Dostoevsky
>Abolition of hierarchy

>>13245075
It's not though, the nuclear family is a pretty "conservative" idea these days, even when said families typically produce the best outcomes for children.