/lit/ - Literature

>ask for a 20th century philosopher
>posts an image of a 17th century philosopher
what?
but to answer your question:
Joseph Schumpeter

>>15768079
Because he's the father of based political philosophers

>>15767998
Well if you liked Hobbes, you'll like Schmitt who very thoroughly refuted Liberalism. Schmitt also wrote an entire book commenting on Leviathan.

>>15768079
>Joseph Schumpeter
Sounds like a bugman

>>15768104
> the value and significance of Schmitt’s work is subject to controversy, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with National Socialism.
Sounds promising

>>15768202
However, Schmitt was not really a Nazi, he only got involved after 1933, clearly an act of opportunism. He also got kicked out in 1936 by the SS for having attacked the Nazi's racial views. He's relevant in both China and Russia today, along with some Marxist thinkers.

>>15768104
>What are some lesser known 20th century political theorists with non-mainstream non-lefty ideas
Schmitt is top 3 politial theorists in the past century btw, also, he's a celebrity among leftsts who have embraced his critique of liberalism (ie. Agamben, Benjamin, Negri and even Derrida).

Leo Strauss

>>15768310
I don't disagree, but he's not really well known outside academic circles. Memes like Evola get 10 times the attention on this site.

More Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt discussion. Less “Le Moldbug xD.”

Konstantin Pobodobostev. I butchered his surname, don't care. He wrote "Reflections of a Russian Statesman". He was the "authoritarian mastermind behind Russia's ironclad authoritarianism", to quote a British newspaper's description of the man. He was the Grey Eminence behind three Russian Czars.

His book was totally ignored in Britain, despite being written as a justification of his views to the British.

>>15768384
That requires people to actually read books on this board lmao. If you want to see something funny, go search Schmitt and Evola on the /pol/ archive and see how many results you get.

I don't know how right wing I'd call Hobbes. The dude dude founded Liberalism after all.

>>15768220
Yeah this. Schmitt wasn't really a Nazi. Definitely right wing though. He also remains incredibly popular among left wing theorists. I highly recommend him even as a marxist.

>>15768079
>Schumpeter
>lesser known
I wouldn't say so.

>>15768430
Hobbes didn't really found Liberalism, that was more of Locke building on Hobbes's work. Keep in mind that Leviathan was arguing for monarchy.

>>15767998
Jacques Ellul, maybe.

>>15768430
Schmitt was a Conservative Revolutionary, lots of interesting figures amongst them. Most of them disagreed or resisted the Nazis in one way or another.

>>15768352

Awareness of Schmitt has gone up significantly on this board in the past year.

>>15768104

"refuted" carries a certain truth-value which doesn't apply here. A construction such as "attempted to refute" would be better.

>>15768220

>relevant among the evil countries and the evil thinkers
Of course.

>>15768310

He's fashionable among the left, Agamben etc, as you say. For them, he represents a sort of program for taking power that they themselves would like to wield, but will happily criticize in the same breath when the good opposition uses same (applied state of exception: Patriot Act, French penal law distinguishing terrorist from citizen, etc).

>>15768430
>I don't know how right wing I'd call Hobbes. The dude dude founded Liberalism after all.
man, that's like saying Hegel founded marxism
and i do think Schmitt was a nazi, his opportunism wasn't just that.

>>15768458
>Hobbes didn't really found Liberalism
It's a big academic debate I know and we don't have to derail the thread, but the basic framework of Liberalism, namely the emphasis on property ownership (even in Hobbes' comparatively limited sense), is fundamental.
>Keep in mind that Leviathan was arguing for monarchy.
Partially, but Hobbes reiterates again and again that the Leviathan can be an oligarchy or democracy as well, he just thinks monarchy is the least messy.

>>15768489
i'm yet to hear of one anti-evil country

>>15768501
I think it changes depends on how we view Liberalism, for Lock it's most important value was civil tolerance and from Schmitt point of view, was a refusal to acknowledge of ontological opossitions.

>>15768505

Least-worst, then, which amounts to the same thing, and it's clearly focused on the USA/NATO, more-or-less.

>>15768501
>Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt
He was definitely not for democracy with reelections and constitutional monarchies or other liberal memes

>>15768501
Lol regardless of what big academic debate you think it's happening, Hobbes was for authority and hierarchy which is at the heart of right wing thought

>>15768079
Based Schumposter

>>15767998
https://archive.org/details/BUFandOswaldMosley

>>15768489
>"refuted" carries a certain truth-value which doesn't apply here.
Except he absolutely did, every anti-liberal thinker since included him in one way or another. I have not seen a real liberal response to him either.

>>15768489
>evil countries and the evil thinkers
>evil
Sounds like someone is a retard. Good and evil are extremely subjective categories that largely depend on one's perspective.

>>15768494
If Schmitt was a true Nazi, we would've seen his antisemitism well before 1933. In his book Dictatorship he basically argues for the suppression of the Nazis and Communists.