/lit/ - Literature

>>14185682
"Theory" is a buzzword/euphemism for philosophy invented by Marxists. Onviously you're not going to find many righties using it.

READ THEORY

>>14185682
Leftism is a specific grouping of ideologies, rightism is basically just anything anti-leftism. Austrian economics, Christian traditionalism, perennielism, objectivism, and fascism can all be defined as various forms of right-wing thought, but they all contradict one another. They’re not a cogent whole, they’re just a grouping of “not-left”
Not to mention, leftism has a big academic presence and has for a while?
While the right does not

because right wing is more concerned with the practical world than theories

>>14185682
Neoliberalism is right-wing. Fucking burgoids lmao

Most non-leftist literature can be construed as right wing in some way. There’s just not a cogent whole because things that could be construed as right wing are not as politicized as left wing. Additionally, the current ISA is left wing. And that stops the majority of right wing academic politicization from occurring

>>14185682
It's not. Why do leftists consistently do this? You always claim that left wing theory is so rich and no such thing as right wing theory exists. It does. It just doesn't exist within the very specific lens of "theory" that you want it to. It's the atheist vs the Christian argument. The atheist always demands that the Christian validate his belief in God using empirical science when he knows full well the Christian's belief in God isn't based on empirical science.

>>14185682
The “right” is the section of the population that is afraid of change. When the revolutionary age started to change things too fast for them, they cling to the church and state, then the French clung to an emperor, then the constitutional monarchy,p. Always herded in by the power elites, going ever so slowly left. Their anti-monarchy nationalism came out and and helped the leftists shatter colonialism only to resurface in WWII as faux-socialists aka fascists. They are always afraid, always looking backwards, but always pushed to the left. Even now some of these nationalists are joining with poc nationalism. They’re just big dangerous babies.

this thread is going to devolve into retards not understanding that terms like left and right are heuristic and say more about the person using them than it does anybody on the "left" or "right"

you've been warned

>>14185682
Explain to me how the geneology of morals is in any way a political text.

>>14185682
A LOT of bait out here today.

>>14185915
>The “right” is the section of the population that is afraid of change.
So is the left, they're afraid of an anti-progressive narrative, whatever that constitutes.

> When the revolutionary age started to change things too fast for them, they cling to the church and state, then the French clung to an emperor, then the constitutional monarchy.
Dull and trite analysis. The left clings to the establishment relying on Big Brother for everything.

> Always herded in by the power elites, going ever so slowly left. Their anti-monarchy nationalism came out and and helped the leftists shatter colonialism only to resurface in WWII as faux-socialists aka fascists They are always afraid, always looking backwards, but always pushed to the left. Even now some of these nationalists are joining with poc nationalism. They’re just big dangerous babies.

What?

>>14185915
Butt Hurt Fly
lol

>>14185682
>muh economics

>>14186098
>they're afraid of an anti-progressive narrative
Eh? They’re not interested in going backwards. The future is Pandora’ Box. You can’t put it back. “Leftists” are realists.
>trite
Clearly very broad strokes, but the truth.
>big brother
You don’t know what the left is if you think it’s statism
>what
...some nationalists aren’t as racist as others. They’re changing again. They always do. Just slowly, stupidly slow.

>>14186101
Planet hurt fly

>>14185915
Change is not necessarily good.

>>14185682
"Theory" is just what leftists call "nonfiction books written by leftists". It's the equivalent of putting on glasses to look smart. "Oh wow, so scientific. You have a theory". There are also nonfiction books written by rightists. You just don't read them.

>>14186170
>rightists
Never use this term again

>>14186176
I am a rightist. What seems to be el problemo?

>>14185915
Change is not intrinsically good. Indeed, just look at the human suffering caused by the Frankfort School... But change IS inevitable, the left is losing the kulturkampf after years of domination: history never ends, the penduluum is swinging as far to the right as it has to the left, or even farther. The Clock is being turned back, and not all of the left's censorship can stop it!
:-)

>>14186168
I know it. The liberals have made a mess of things so badly, that I reassessed my old conservative side. It’s understandable that they wanted kings back at one point. The mill towns were killing them. They wanted to be serfs on a nice farm but couldn’t. Capitalism was always a lie. Early socialism was a reaction to that. Stendhal, an imperialist soldier, saw it.

>>14186216
>Capitalism was always a lie.
Yikes, just because you are a failure doesn't mean everyone is.

Change and rebellion today are of the Right.

>>14186234
Failure? It’s designed to do this to the majority. It will never bring the promises it made. Talk about blue pilled.

>>14186234
Nah I think the bug is right about this one. Studies have shown that if you were born rich and dumb you'll be more sucessful than if you were born poor and smart.

Half of those aren't left-leaning anyway

Also because right-wing theory is intentionally more simplistic and doesn't conjecture about possible future world-states but rather only insists on a return to previous ones

>>14186289
Ok loomer

>>14186289
>Half of those aren't left-leaning
Hah. Which half? List them. And don’t say Nietzsche. We’re not talking about left liberals

>>14185682
>all those books written
>absolutely nothing to show for it

>>14186338

Nietszche, Habermas, Nozick, Foucault, Arendt are not leftists you retarded tranny whore

>>14185711
lol

>>14186549
Kek you are a fucking full blown retard
Do you even read

>>14186142
>You don’t know what the left is if you think it’s statism
The American 'Left'?

>>14185877
/thread

Lefties are like Swing in Pratchett's Night Watch
>Swing, though, started in the wrong place. He didn't look around, and watch and learn, and then say, 'This is how people are, how do we deal with it?' No, he sat and thought: This is how the people ought to be, how do we change them?'

>>14185682
Because we are modest and our only wish is to live in absence of brown people and guys with make up trying to cut off their dicks.

>>14185877
the practical world, like where there are booming markets for infants and this is a good thing? or where the Second Gulf War definitely wasnt about oil but if it was it would be a good thing? or the real world where jews are responsible for all problems? or do you mean the real world where it makes sense to attribute communism a death toll including everyone who died for any reason other than old age, but don't hold the same standard for capitalism because it's assumed to be natural a priori? help me out, which consistently sober and transparent version of MUH FACTS AND LOGIC are you talking about

>>14188436
you're stupid

>>14188436
Dilate faggot.

>>14186142
Who are you to say what is "backwards" and what is "forwards"? To a leftist, something like diversification might be "forwards" as it aligns with their ideas about what a "fair world" looks like. To others, the same thing can be "backwards" - a loosening of social cohesion, a symptom of extreme decadence, etc. I could even imagine old-school Marxists to be against diversification, as it ultimately serves the bourgeoisie (influx of workers content with smaller salaries).
The world is not black and white.

>>14185682
Unironically because right wingers discourage critical thinking. Why do you think the business class is always so hostile towards intellectuals? It's because the intellectuals, whose lives are devoted to thinking, question the capitalists' authority. Critical thinking is perforce a leftist activity.

>>14188490
A bit outdated but still rather believable, 7/10.

>>14186549
Nope. Those are lefties. Glad you like some lefty thinkers. I encourage you to read them.

>>14188488
Ah, fair question. “Forward” to me is freedom from the bondage of patriarchal state, capital and churches.
“Diversification” is a bugaboo for nationalist and tribalists, but to me just seems an inevitable circumstance of a growing population. It is getting twisted by the stupid capitalist marketplace, but I don’t care about its effects the way scared-white-males get. These effects can be slowed and stymied if we just got rid of capitalism. Borders don’t keep people from immigrating. They speed up that process. Making the world free would put more people back in their homelands. Ah, but this has become a sales pitch.
The right resist change and cling to tradition, the left accept change and try to surf it towards better ways to live. The elites take advantage of us all.

>>14188490
The business class has its own intellectuals who are highly competent at achieving its ends. They just extend to not show up in cultural studies classes. Someone like Michael Porter would be an example.

Even back in the 60s, business used to consult with people like McLuhan.

>>14188567
And now that I think of it, someone like Frederick Taylor has probably had a more direct impact on your life than Whitehead ever did, yet I’d doubt you’d take him into consideration.

>>14185682
because a lie must have a well elaborated base otherwise no one is buyin it

>>14185682
Because leftism inherently rejects the existing hierarchies therefore there is no critical framework under which to evaluate a new idea except under “does it toe the line?” so any moron can start speculating about anything and as long as it concludes with something nice and resistance-y then it gets a pass.
It’s sort of like how there’s a million ways to break the rules but only one way to follow them.

>>14185682
Because academia is full of liberals LARPing as communists, so they intentionally bury anything considered right-wing. This has created a weird system divided between two groups. One group has plenty of leftist theory, but implements almost none of it. The other group, is generally center-right, and it has no theory beyond basic talking-point oriented "principles," and it implements them with slavish zeal. Since you are presumably a leftist, you probably consider things such as fascism as "far-right" rather than "third-position." The terminology is unimportant, but this is a rather interesting, albeit virtually nonexisting group; it has its own theory, and incorporates leftist theory (along with some historic right-wing theory), and does implement it when it has the ability to do so - which is virtually never.

It's funny how things work out.

>>14188567
>>14188679
They constitute a negligible minority. The general antipathy between intellectuals and the business class is well documented. For example, see part IV of Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

>>14188757
You don't actually believe any of this, do you?

>>14188801
I believe all of it.

>>14188436
>gets buttmad
>instinctively regurgitates every popular reddit leftoid talking point
>>14185915
>>14186142
You are incredibly stupid and don't understand the world anywhere near as much as you think you do.
I guess butterfly indicates turdpost, these days

>>14185711
fpbp, if some zoomer is talking about "theory" I know immediately he's a retard and I shouldn't talk to him/her/xir

>>14185682
>right wing "theory" is basically non existent?
Like I said, you're a retard. The vast majority of the western canon is "right wing." All the greatest works of literature are concerned with ethics, an appeal to deontology that is inherently conservative. Read something besides commie pamphlets before you embarrass yourself in public like this again.

>>14185915
>They’re just big dangerous babies.
well I'm convinced!

>>14185915

Imagine being on the side of the French Revolution

Because the "left wing" and "right wing" are defined by normative ideological judgments of today which linearize history and turn what were in fact highly dynamic events into mythologies and false dichotomies, not realizing that at any point leftism could be defined as something radically different with the only constant being the abstracting process that has continued as civilization grows increasingly complex. There are millions of works that have been repurposed into fitting narratives that really hold no accuracy or significance beyond present systems of control. "Leftism" basically boils down to meaning rebellion whereas the "right" is establishment. I think it's easy to see how this linguistic paradox basically assigns attentionality to leftism.

not nearly enough anarchism in this list

I find it funny how nobody has posted that 90 percent of that list is completely worthless.

>>14189064
it's didn't need to be said, except to brainlets like OP

but yea most of it is 100% garbage. reactionary nonsense struggling to destroy or discredit mankind's most beautiful creations.

>>14185682
The three biggest elements of this are

1, Leftist theory is a bloated mess. Leftists can't even argue with this. It's shat out at ludicrous speed because people need their tenureship, their PhDs, etc.

2, Non-leftist theory is verboten inside Academia. Leftist theory proliferates so fast partly because it never has to face an opposing ideology, or reality, even.

3, You're being intellectually dishonest. No matter how many works people will show leftists, they'll handwave them all away because they are not approved by Academia.

>>14185682
A lot those aren't even left-wing. The answer though is because historically, left wing academics and academic institutions have received more patronage from the power elite, who find their intellectual constructions politically expedient. See the CIAs involvement in the promotion of French postmodernism and anarchism during the 70-80s (and beyond? Most likely; just look at the institutional support queer theory and transgednerism and the like is currently receiving from the media) for a recent example.

>>14188796
I will check out the book since it’s actually sitting on my shelf. But I do think it would be a mistake to dismiss the intellectuals of the business class because the nature of their project is different from that of philosophers or cultural theorists. To think of someone like Taylor as negligible is absolutely foolish. Theory dweebs seem to think that they have a monopoly on intellectualism and in doing so, narrow its scope a little too much.

>>14185682
"Theory" is just a word for "books arguing why the left is right" and obviously books arguing for a right-wing position are usually far more simplistic as they do not actually have to rationalize how all the world's problems are to blame on capitalism and what needs to be done to solve every problem that humanity has ever faced, if somebody would just let them into power.

There are A LOT of words you need to justify this sophistry.

>>14185682
>Why is leftist theory so rich, while right wing "theory" is basically non existent?
Paper is cheap

>>14185682
*ahem*

>>14188801
It's true you know

the right are more concerned with concrete facts than the left. the right is right.

>>14189945
>concrete facts
Hi, leftie.

>"theory"
The unfalsifiable musings of professional babblers. Word games with no intellectual rigour to speak of.

Go read a maths textbook until you learn how to think.

>>14188801
I agree with him to an extent, every basic liberal arts lecturer wants to be the one who tells their class everything they know is a lie (woah dude!), of course they have two options: they can talk about pet radlib Twitter politics dressed up in vaguely Marxist language to make it seem ground breaking, or they can talk revolutionary, nationalist and authoritarian rhetoric. Both are anti-popular (in the "real world") but tell me, which one is more likely to get you fired?
It's the same reason I can walk into basically any book store on Earth and buy Das Kapital, but rarely, say, Mein Kampf or the Fascist Manifesto or anything by Evola or Pound or even relatively mild stuff like Spengler and Jünger.
Not taking either "side".

>>14185915
>The French clung to the Emperor
Napoleon was the change.

>>14185877
By practical world are you perchance referring to their parent's basements?

>>14185877
hope this is ironic. all of the right is just an indulging in ideology and spooks that is why they have not written anything of intellectual rigor or have anyone with discernible talent. all the underage brainlets that are squirming because of this thread cannot wrap their tiny brain around any of the texts mentioned in the OP.

>>14185682
>The Genealogy of Morals
>Nietzsche
>left-wing
>even making him political at all
real brainlet post right there

>>14188410
Actually read Marx fag.

Success breeds complacency and considering the current state of affairs what does the right have to gain from theatricals over than collecting copious amounts of student debt?

love it

Because our books are banned and yours are promoted.

>>14185682
Because leftwingers need immense amounts of COPE to justify what they know is wrong. We all know that right wing though is based in instinct.

>>14191724
I don't think people who don't even lift should be able to vote, yet I don't lift. What means?