/lit/ - Literature

if you read the book you should know

Why is it so hard to get people to stop approaching this author through an explicitly political lens and through false dichotomy?

>>17627132
As if those are the only options
But this really >>17627138
He's a radical Traditionalist.

>>17627132
a traditionalist

>>17627132
a superfascist

>>17627138
>>17627139
is the whole point to get people to stop viewing a spiritual problem with a secular solution?

To turn away from materialistic lifestyles and towards a common creator is the only solution

>>17627132
would Evola agree with the Lamaist theocracy of the traditional Tibet?

>>17627132
You are either a capitalist or a communist today. He was just a capitalist whether he liked it or not. "Trads" are useful idiots.

>The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity," and "consumption." And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production

Socialists talk about economic classes, profit, salaries etc. because we can to abolish these things. We want a world centered around humanity, an economy centered around human needs, and our lives being our own to spend in anyway we want, reading/art/partying, (ie. actually enjoying life) rather than as a wage slave for someone's benefit.
I recommend this
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work

>and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential...”

The important thing is to not be blind to these things. We need goods to live and to live a happy life at that. We are too often blind to the fact that a small minority live in constant revelry on the work of the masses, and how many lack basic necessities when the economy produces an abundance. But as an Anarchist, I agree that the economy is not the most important thing. Freedom, happiness, and human flourishment is as well but this can only be achieved under Socialism. I recommend Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man under Socialism.

>>17627296
This. Evola is comparing Capitalism to Socialism when he himself, and Fascism as a whole, is a type of Capitalism. You either support property and the enslavement and exploitation of man or you support communism, freedom, and cooperation. And he, at least unknowingly, supports the former

>>17627420
holy reddit

>>17627420
Retard-sama...I kneel...

>>17627296
>>17627420
for the love of god, go outside and have sex incel

>>17627296
>>17627420

>>17627132
According to Evola in 'the Metaphysics of War', any system which humans attempt to implement moral policies is inherently flawed, due mainly to the age we live in. Consider how modern capitalist institutions continuously push Neoliberal morality, which includes globo-homo, abortions, women rights, etc. The vast majority in our modern age would agree with this morality.

Your confusion on the topic is because you are on 4chan, one of the last places online where Traditionalist ideology exists. Especially in this modern era of slavery (according to Evola, the Kali Yuga), humans will call our slavish impulses moralistic.

Capitalism and Marxism are both ideologies which attempt to push their own morality at the cost of all other moralities, but they have no structures of self-examination, to determine whether their morality is virtuous. Radical Traditionalism is so based because it concerns itself only with what is virtuous.

A quietist

>>17627445
>>17627476
I never touch that place. I barely come on here.

>>17627489
I have a gf

>>17627535
uh huh how was any of that b8?

>>17627296

>>17627219
The not the whole point but it’s one of the many implications, yes. His code is apoliteia.

>>17627630
>You are either a capitalist or a communist today. He was just a capitalist whether he liked it or not. "Trads" are useful idiots.
>uh huh how was any of that b8?

evola is a good critic of other writers but terrible at proposing what he actually wants. his mysticism makes no sense

>>17627420
I’m not going to shit on you. I’m just going to suggest that you read Ernst Jünger because I think you’ll find him and his ideas interesting.

>>17627696
He was prone to fits of blind rhetoric, where he engages in the sort of resentful deconstruction he criticizes others for. His hubris and disdain for what he saw as plebeian was always his Achilles heel.

>>17627696
struggling with abstract thought big guy not a good sign to your general intelligence

>>17627692

>You are either a capitalist or a communist today. He was just a capitalist whether he liked it or not. "Trads" are useful idiots.
Someone else wrote that but all Fascist states have been capitalist. I know he was a traditionalist who criticized fascism but i don't think he ever criticized its Capitalist nature. I don't think he even knew what Capitalism is

>>17627699
>I’m not going to shit on you
I mean go ahead

>I’m just going to suggest that you read Ernst Jünger because I think you’ll find him and his ideas interesting
I've read bits of Eumeswil but I never read Storm of Steel. I do plan on it however

>>17627819
>all Fascist states have been capitalist.
Not anymore than every communist state has been capitalist.
>I don't think he even knew what Capitalism is
I don't think you do either

>>17627833
So what do you think about the concept of the anarch in opposition to your anarchism?

>>17627868
>Not anymore than every communist state has been capitalist.
A form of State Capitalism, I can agree with this. I'm an Anarchist, mind you

>>17627884
I've only read a bit of Eumeswil and it was a while ago so I don't feel entirely conformable talking about it but is it the idea of an apolitical man living within society but spiritually free from it? The idea of placing internal freedom ahead of external liberation more or less? Forgive me if I misunderstand it

>>17627868
>I don't think you do either
Forgot to reply to this but Capitalism is an economic mode of production which involves private property, commodity production, capital accumulation but is uniquely characterized by wage labor (ie. workers selling their labor to Capitalists.)

>>17628073
Alright, didn't Evola criticise that by extension in his condemning of materialism and consumerism? No need to specify it when in essence it doesn't differ from communsim.

>>17627219
>>17627547

We have secularized everything so horribly that we basically have nowhere to turn to for stability or transcendence in terms of a society or civilization. It's not about this or that system it's about a tangible and vital accountability in leadership and general personhood that has been so badly eroded that not even the worst secular delusions can seem to escape the premise that we utterly doomed at this point.

The man standing among the ruins is one who recognizes this and is unmoved by this or that dilapidated social current or ideology, or religious skeleton which tries to escape the grave it digs for itself by ignoring internal quality of a person as first and foremost.

Nazis + Neo-Nazi /pol/-tards egalitarian niggers for assuming all wypipo are a "Race of Masters" and anything they do is godsend when most whites are just as prone to being NPC subhuman trash as any other race. Nationalism and Racial politics is a bunch of children running around in this or that land without a Parent (hieros/proper religiosity) present. It's modern simulacrum is modern woman running around abused by the workforce because she will not let a Man rule over and impregnate her thereby giving actualizing in her a fuller potential.

Race is of the Feminine Aegis, Statecraft and Religion are of the Male Aegis. You want more race, fuck more women, you want a better state, employ a better manhood.

Read pic rel from orientations.

>>17627420
Bait

>>17627696
>>17627704
Dumbass

>>17628092
>Alright, didn't Evola criticise that by extension in his condemning of materialism and consumerism?
How did he? He didn't criticize the social relations of Capitalism, where workers have to rent themselves out to owners. He did the opposite, he criticized people who pointed that out.

>No need to specify it when in essence it doesn't differ from communism.
A classless, money-less economy where society owns the capital as a whole is no different from Capitalism in essence?

>>17628170
>How did he?
By criticizing materialism and consumerism
>He didn't criticize the social relations of Capitalism, where workers have to rent themselves out to owners.
That's inherent to a critique of materialism since it assumes material benefit is the highest good. He criticized the social relations of all modern systems, both capitalism and communism, which are founded upon the same premise.
>He did the opposite, he criticized people who pointed that out.
So? He wasn't loyal to any one side.
>A classless, money-less economy where society owns the capital as a whole is no different from Capitalism in essence?
No, because it's still materialistic and consumerist. Both are obsessed with material wealth, and where capitalism knows no bounds, communism goes the other way and is pathologically altruistic.

>>17628200
>since it assumes material benefit is the highest good.
Capitalism as an economic system doesn't posit anything, it merely is. You could say he criticized the apologists of Capitalism but he never criticized it as an economic mode of production.,
>So? He wasn't loyal to any one side.
I'm saying that his refusal to care about the material conditions of Capitalism and oppose those who point it out is a defense of the system.
>Both are obsessed with material wealth
Socialists and Communists, especially Anarchists, are extremely concerned with freedom and autonomy not only wealth.
>communism goes the other way and is pathologically altruistic.

"The coexistence of the egoistic and the altruistic sentiment and the impossibility in existing society of satisfying both ensures that today no one is satisfied, not even those who are in privileged positions. On the other hand communism is the social form in which egoism and altruism mingle — and every person will accept it because it benefits everybody. " (At the cafe, Malatesta)

“[Anarchist] Communism is the best basis for individual development and freedom; not that individualism which drives men to the war of each against all ... but that which represents the full expansion of man’s [and woman’s] faculties, the superior development of what is original in him [or her], the greatest fruitfulness of intelligence, feeling and will.” (Kropotkin)

>>17628170
>he didn't critique the social relations of capitalism

Can you stop fucking baiting

He does this like two dozen times in every book.

>>17628282
Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?
>Capitalism as an economic system doesn't posit anything, it merely is. You could say he criticized the apologists of Capitalism but he never criticized it as an economic mode of production.,
That's, for the xth time, because he criticized what is the foundation of both capitalism and communism. The criticism of the economic mode of production is inherent. The mode of economic production is arbitrary when it's sole goal is material wealth.
>I'm saying that his refusal to care about the material conditions of Capitalism and oppose those who point it out is a defense of the system.
That's because material conditions aren't the highest good. That last point is just "if you're not with us, you're against us". You can do better than this.
>Socialists and Communists, especially Anarchists, are extremely concerned with freedom and autonomy not only wealth.
But, just like capitalism, they're not concerned with man's spiritual needs. Material freedom is nothing without spiritual freedom, which those systems do not grant.
>On the other hand communism is the social form in which egoism and altruism mingle — and every person will accept it because it benefits everybody.
That's genuinely retarded. It once again assumes material wealth as the highest good, just like capitalism.

>>17627132
Reminder that the pro-Capitalist Wignats in this thread have a bookshelf that looks like this.

>>17628290
He literally does not. In chapter 9 of Fascism viewed from the Right, he defends Capitalist social relations and argues for unity between the Worker and the Entrepreneur (like advocating for unity between the peasant and the feudal lord, or the slave and the plantation owner) and he argues that Fascism did a good job in banning labor unions as that's a tool of class conflict which creates division in society. He fully supported Capitalist social relations

"National Socialism disbanded the unions and — as we shall say in our Notes on the Third Reich—aimed at overcoming the class struggle with a corresponding dualism right inside the business, within every single substantial business, along with giving it an organic and hierarchical formation to encourage a strict cooperation, and so reproducing in the business the same plan that the regime had proposed for the state. Once the enterprise was thought of in terms of a ‘community’ (that could be considered as corresponding to that of the ancient corporation), it became possible to recognize in the head of the business, by means of an analogy, the function of a Führer, with the title of Betriebsführer (‘Führer of the business’), while the workers came to be called his Gefolgschaft, a term that means literally his ‘retinue’, that is, a whole composed of associated elements that were supposed to be united by a sentiment of solidarity, hierarchical subordination and loyalty. This‘reciprocity of rights and duties’, which according to the Fascist Charter of Labour (paragraph 7)[162]was supposed to derive from the ‘cooperation of productive forces’, came to be transferred to something living that alone could give it a solid foundation. It could be said that, against the Marxist and materialist mentality, the same type of ‘military’ attitude in the general sense, of which we have spoken earlier, could be made equally effective on the level of work and production."

He defends the Capitalist social relations and argues that it should be more similar to military hierarchy

>>17628408
>if you're not a communist, you're pro-capitalist
retard, go back
>>17628521
Endorsing parts of a system doesn't make you its defender. Why are you so autistic about this?

>>17628545
What are you a Duginist

>>17627296
>You are either a capitalist or a communist today.
What's Islam then?

>>17628545
>Endorsing parts of a system doesn't make you its defender. Why are you so autistic about this?
Wage-slavery is the defining characteristic of Capitalism. He defends Capitalism, that makes him pro-capitalist lmao. Not only does he defend capitalist hierarchy, he wants to protect it from class conflict. That was what Fascism did historically, it was a reaction to the rise of Socialism which protected Capitalism (although placing the corporate/capitalist class under the rule of the party). That's why conservatives in Germany supported Nazism after initially opposing it, it was a better alternative for them than Socialism.

>>17628170
”Society” doesnt own capital. A ”Commune” doesnt own capital

>>17628633
Well "capital" (property) ceases to exist under socialism, it becomes simply usufruct or possession. Land becomes the possession of the tenant rather than the property/capital of the landlord; the means of production becomes the possession of the workers rather than the capital of the owner. Proudhon talks about this in What is Property? Communism goes one step further than mutalism/market-socialism and states that everything is the property of the commons, meaning that it can't be sold nor bought and the products of capital belongs to society as a whole. The means of production are still managed by the workers but they can't sell it or its products

>>17627420
>Socialists talk about economic classes, profit, salaries etc. because we can to abolish these things. We want a world centered around humanity, an economy centered around human needs, and our lives being our own to spend in anyway we want, reading/art/partying, (ie. actually enjoying life) rather than as a wage slave for someone's benefit.

Sadly the only way we’re going to get that is to have nuclear fusion or zero-point energy and some sort of nano-replicators. Until that happens we’ll have to be wage slaves because there’s literally no way to live like you want because all infrastructure will collapse. And “back to nature” solutions also don’t work because then you have to constantly chop wood and hunt for food.

>>17629024
>there’s literally no way to live like you want because all infrastructure will collapse
?

>>17627132
he was a Roman Traditionalist
simple as

>>17627132
Someone who isn't a kike like OP

>>17627296>>17627420
>>17629024

>>You are either a capitalist or a communist today.
both are atheist and nihilist

>>17627296
Based.

>>17627132
>capitalism/communism false dichotomy

>>17627420
>We want a world centered around humanity, an economy centered around human needs
>We need goods to live and to live a happy life at that
You just conceded Evola's point here... This post is genuinely embarrassing, I thought the leftists were meant to be the intellectuals.

>>17628132
Finally someone who gets it.