/lit/ - Literature

>>14274632
Nabokov and Borges weren't right-wingers. Borges was certainly racist, though. But if you're going to make a post like this you should at least get the facts straight. Nabokov, for example, was a liberal like his old man.

>>14274637
Borges supported Pinochet

>>14274637
Borges was literally a racist, fascist sympathizer that loved Pinochet. Trying to argue he wasn't right wing is just silly.

>>14274643
>>14274639
Pinochet was right wing but he wasn't a fascist

>>14274639
>>14274643
Pinochet was a filthy liberal.

>>14274632
jokes on you, i don't read anyone with a foreign-sounding name.

>>14274647
Right. The entire point is that leftists into literature can't admit that a certain genius writer was right wing, be that mildly conservative or fullblown fascist nazi. They were always "products of their time" or "not really right wing" because they portrayed the poor in a sympathetic light, or something. It's never "xyz writer was an unrepentant nazi with fucked up beliefs, but he was still a genius", it's always "noooo they were really left wing haha".

>>14274660
When we learn great writers had idiotic beliefs, such as Borges' sympathy for Pinochet, it's difficult not to let that diminish their work in our minds. So when we say things like "he's a product of his time" we're trying to save his work.

>>14274668
But then you're cheapening them as human beings by trying to whitewash their politics and imply that if they were around today they would agree with you and be on your side. It's a bad precedent and directly implies imply that Nazis, fascists, and other people with extremely unconventional and socially unacceptable beliefs can't be geniuses and that given their intelligence they would "see the light" if they were around today so to speak.

Celine hated Hitler for not gassing Jews fast enough, for example. He wanted them all dead as quickly as possible. Even by the time's standards he was a lunatic. But he was still a genius. You shouldn't have to offer it with a disclaimer.

>>14274668
Pinochet and friedman were responsible for Chile's economic miracle

>>14274679
It's not the human being at stake, but the work.

>>14274668
>Liking Pinochet
>Idiotic belief
You are either a communist or a faggot.

>>14274680
>>14274735
Regardless of Pinochet's economic success, its still possible he was a bit of a bad egg what with the murders and stuff. Or is economic performance the sole criteria of whether a leader was good or bad?

stop making this board pol2.0

>>14274822
He was good economically and killed a bunch of parasites. What not to like?

>>14274655
Based

>>14274632
>Heidegger
>Nazi

Read “Only a God Can Save Us”

>pound, eliot, celine, borges, nabokov

All middlebrow to a varying extent

>trying to shoehorn any author's political beliefs into any political setting other than the one that they are from
Literal retarded shit. "Left" and "Right" have specific meanings peculiar to our unique circumstances. They are literally meaningless to dead people from hundreds of years ago. If you want to try analyze the political beliefs of any given historical figure, you have to at very least start with how their ideology fitted into their society at the time.

>>14274880
I, too, slurp Stalin's cock.

>>14274929
This desu. Everything the OP memes on is actually 100% correct, except it should apply to literally every single author regardless of views and background. Even Marx can't be put in modern left or right terms.

>>14274880
I think its possible to have economic progress without killing and torturing a bunch of people, even if they are your political rivals. One doesn't excuse the other. Or are we just being edgy now?

>>14274822
>its still possible he was a bit of a bad egg what with the murders and stuff.
He killed the right people.

>>14274637
>first post is by the guy described in OP
I'm not sure anybody expected him to be proven right that fast.

>>14274668
>sympathy for Pinochet
>idiotic belief
This just shows you're completely ignorant of the situation in South America at the time. Pinochet's kind of heavy hand was necessary, he was dealing with the Sendero Luminoso and shit, not just castrated bugmen with Chinese-made keffiyehs and self-contradictory, ineffectual beliefs. Just look at how shit up countries like Venezuela still are: that's the alternative Chile, not some theoretical limp-wristed Bay Area coffee house.

>>14274632
how was nabokov right wing

>>14274632
Eliot was never radically right-wing like Pound, and Pound never truly endorsed fascism (instead seeing it as a means-to-an-end, an extension of socialism and a necessary step to marrying politics and poetry). Heidegger left the Nazi Party and described his involvement with it as the most stupid actions of his life. In either sense, the modern idpol hullaboo that the current Right is immersed in is pathetic and would be looked down upon by those you have mentioned, mainly for lacking scope. Heidegger disliked even the Nazi Party for their lack of vision and intellect, imagine what he would think of the diluted and filtered reflections of it alive today.

>>14274632
>pound
fraud
>eliot
second rate
>celine
he's good
>borges
he's ok
>nabokov
he's good but not right wing
>schopenhauer
he's ok but at this point your political labels don't mean anything for a man of his time. he was also anti animal consumption, against slavery in America and thought nationalism was retarded.
>heidegger
shit. the petit bougeois of german philosophy.

>>14274643
At least he wasn't a peronist.

>>14275204
In what world is Pound a fraud? You fucking joke.

Nabokov's wife was Jewish.

Idiot.

>>14274632
>pound, eliot, celine, heidegger, etc etc all raving right-wingers/fascists/racists/anti-semites/nazis/monarchists

Yes.

>borges, nabokov

No, both of them were liberals, including by their explicit avowals.

>schopenhauer

I'm only superficially familiar with him, but my impression has been that he is pretty fucked up.

I'm a hardcore anarcho-communist but ftr I've found intellectually engaging with my enemies to be useful. People can be brilliant and profoundly wrong because they start from bad first principles or values, and their brilliance can actually help you to understand the wrongness.

That said, not in public, anything that even looks a little like organizing or propagandizing should be deplatformed immediately. And before you get mad and shouting about free speech or whatever, I expect you to try the same, there's just more people into left wing values and our values and attitudes are actually capable of sustaining a movement that isn't going to eat itself up. (Capable of doesn't mean we don't find ways all too often though, lol sob.) So we'll win.

>>14274632
>Pound
Nazis literally put him in a cage for public viewing lol
>Celine
Deeply regretted taking that political stance for the rest of his life
>Eliot
Conservative, sure, but only in the latter half of his career; his most famous/arguably his best work was produced in his early stage

Perhaps you should read the authors before you declare that they would agree with any particular ideology

>>14276367
It doesn't count when people "deeply regret" certain political stances after they lose a war and are aware that they will forever be societal outcasts if they continue to hold those views

>>14274827
>stop
You can't undo things.

>>14277797
ok, so C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity is bullshit and the Right will forever remember him as atheist when he was young and "correct."
Hardly.
just because a war happened in between doesn't mean people's maturity doesn't count.

>>14274639
Pinochet was leftist he just hated commies because he thought they would attempt a coup

>>14275646
>implying all right wingers are literal nazis

>>14274632
>Schopenhauer
Don't associate him with your petty tribe wars. He was decidedly Apolitical, and for good reasons too. Nothing good will ever come from your idiocies.

>>14274637
>>14274654
>>14274668
>>14274822
>>14274827
>>14274919
>>14274943
>>14275181
>>14275202
>>14275204
>>14275646
>>14276262
>>14276367
>>14278195
>>14278206
>>14278235

>>14274679
Celine is fucking based.

>>14274637
Nabokov was a pedofile tho

>>14278212
Read the first pargraph of the OP.

Idiot.

>>14278206
>pinochet was a leftist
He was about as capitalist as you can get, I don't think a leftist would have milton Friedman advise him

>>14274632
only brainlets buy into the one dimensional left/right dichotomy

>>14274632
>-besides, they weren't really the geniuses people say they were
Pound was an obvious poseur and midwit.

>>14275231
Pound juiced all over the place breh
Gear from hell to breakfast

>>14274643
He just went to receive an award to Chile, which happened to be given by Pinochet. Show me the evidence that Borges "loved" him. Borges just hated niggers in the Americas like any sane person lol he liked the Chinese, the Japanese, the natives, etc.

>>14274632
Read Nabokov's afterword to Lolita and then tell me with a straight face that he's right wing. He was talking about interracial marriages being okay.... in the fucking 50s!

>>14279487
>He was talking about interracial marriages being okay
yes he said that because he married a Jew. The slavs are more liberal in that regard, because Pole marrying a Russian etc. has been considered okay, so they don't see a difference between a black.

>>14274632
Borges was an anarchist of sorts. At one point he said people didn't deserve governments (because of how terrible gvts were). He was socially conservative but he didn't support Pinochet. He was given an award in Chile and like many big awards, it was given by the leader of the nation, who shook hands with Borges. I just think he just didn't give a fuck about anything but literature. Putting him among Céline and Pound is ridiculous. These guys were quite politically active.