/lit/ - Literature

>>5713235
>Name one relevant or good Right Wing contemporary philosopher

Chomsky

>>5713235
>philosophy
>relevant to the right

pigwan

>>5713248

:^)

marxism is so flawed and outdated i seriously wonder how anyone can take it seriously. it's nothing more than a historical curiosity, the freud of economy. though class issues are important, marxism is pointless.

How do you define marxism? Or the state of being a marxist?

Is it equivalent to being a communist?

I think if you define marxist as "agreeing with Marx's diagnosis of the problems in society" then you'd have to be pretty retarded to not be a marxist. I'm not sure if I agree with his prescription though

>marxists on /lit/
>mfw

>>5713251
So you're admitting that the principles of morality and truth and the good aren't relevant to the right?

I agree

>>5713259
Are you new or something?

>>5713260

m8...wtf are you talking about

>>5713271

/lit/ has been under Furher control for a while

>>5713260
They care only about economics and the Bible, yes.

>>5713277
I don't think there are very many on here who are Nazis. Except people like you who come from /pol/ to stir up shit.

This place is borderline communist

>>5713290
>This place is borderline communist
Soon, comrade... soon, we take it all!

>>5713290
I think the /pol/ are largely idiots but I would rather our country attempted national socialism than fucking communism, the former at least helped the country in question at some point

I'm ambivalent towards /pol/.... a lot of what they say is true, but they also shitpost non-stop.

>>5713294
Ok.

I disagree fundamentally with conservatives, but I still think we shouldn't unnecessarily shit on the right. If you'd allow it as 'right wing', I'd argue that Heidegger's skepticism of the technological way of being is simultaneously conservative and compatible with leftist thought, and as such, constitutes a relevant right wing philosopher.

>>5713294

Just throwing this out there as devils advocate; Stalin did industrialize AND fight back the Nazis, AND turn a piece of shit agrarian Slavic nation into a world power for fifty years or so. I mean, I'd argue being under Big Stalin was better than being in a Nazi death camp. In any other comparison though, yeah, being under the soviets was no bueno

>>5713251
>>5713235
They like theology more. So Pope Francis or George Will. Not sure what their racist branch has these days. /b/ used to pick on this one radio host, but I never hear his name anywhere else

The correct evolution of political awareness.
<<=====

>>5713310
The Frankfurt School made much of the same criticism. They are the root of all evil on /pol/

>>5713235
Don't you mean
>Name one relevant or good contemporary philosopher

just read the communist manifesto everything sounds nice
short run? yes
long run? no

>>5713235

The whole of 20th century continental Philosophy is just a footnote to either Heidegger , Nietzsche, or Carl Schmitt, Marx , Hegel or Freud.

Heideggar, Schmitt and Nietzsche are right wing ( Nietzsche believes in inequality as a fact of life and also a positive thing, he counts despite his idiosyncrasies). Hegel can go either way and then you have Freud who was an apolitical hack, and then Marx who is left wing.

There aren't any good contemporary left wing philosophers who are good either. We barely have any contemporary philosophers who are any good as it is.

>>5713321
>a piece of shit agrarian Slavic nation i
The Russian Empire was not this, it had been hugely powerful for centuries. As for the gulags and the camps, they were both fucking awful and I don't see that it's meaningful to prefer one. You have to realize the Germans loved Hitler, just like some Russians loved and still do love Stalin. If Germany had won the war there would be loads of Hitler apologists.

>>5713334
The manifesto is a pamphlet


read Capital

>>5713337
Nietzsche transcends the right-left dischotomy.
He hated both socialism and anti-semitism. So he wouldn't fit in here or on /pol/

>>5713337
Heidegger wasn't really a political philosopher.

I mean yeah he was a nazi but most of his work was in phenomenology

>you will never be conceived at a meeting of The Souls
>your parents will never throw the best parties because nobody is allowed talk politics
>they won't raise you to be a member of the intellectual and aristocratic elite so you can throw even more fabulous parties
>you will never be able to sponsor Burne Jones
>you will never be painted by John Singer Sargent
>you will never rent out the cafe royal
>you will never open a nightclub called the cave of the golden calf where you can throw even better parties with your friends
>you will never be part of the Coterie
;_;

>>5713337
>Nietzsche believes in inequality as a fact of life

The right usually values truth so it admits this fact.

"Society is based on the inequality of men. This is a fact of nature." - Spengler.

>>5713343
One can be right-wing without being anti semitic.

Like say Ariel Sharon

>>5713341

The difference between fascism and communism is that facism can at least avoid kill the people who comply with them. Communists are too incompetent not to create mass starvations and kill off so many of those who do comply with them.

>>5713343
>nietzsche hated anti-semitism

"There is nothing more repugnant in the whole world than a young Jew working in the stock exchange" - Nietzsche, Human all too Human

>>5713355
Yes, but to call Nietzsche a conservative is quite a fucking stretch. He was both a reactionary and a radical.

>>5713376
Anti-semitism is still an expression of resentment and slave morality. Read Genealogy of Morals.
He is quite explicit and unequivocal in denouncing anti-semitism.

>>5713356
The main problem with Fascism is it's almost universal obsession with purity. It's probably inevitable because of the general tenets of the philosophy, but that's always what ruins their attempts, the desire to weed out anything that doesn't conform to the vision of strength and beauty and harmony, which they're usually decent at starting to create. This kind of thinking will inevitably make a scapegoat of various 'others' with horrific consequences. This isn't peculiar to Fascism of course, but it's pretty striking in it.

>>5713379
>to call Nietzsche a conservative is quite a fucking stretch.

He had the core value of a conservative: advocating a return to aristocratic values and social hierarchies as expressions of natural human inequality.

I think the problem is that right wing is ill-defined.

I think it's about accepting hierarchy. It's the idea that no two people are equal, much less everyone. And that anyone who says otherwise is trying to gain power over you

>>5713399
>It's the idea that no two people are equal, much less everyone

Even a communist would agree with this

Kierkegaard. Probably any philosopher who sits down to write a well thought out book has a conservative lifestyle.

>>5713343

Right wing= supports inequality
Left wing= supports equality

Nietzsche was very much for aristocracy- the overflowing will of power of great men who mold the world their way at the expense of others, genuine differences in rank and responsibility, that great men are entitled to sacrifice lesser men for their own sake ect

National Socialism has little to do with Nietzsche, but he is still of the right. Georges Brandes wrote a good book on Nietzche and his "political theory" which he called Aristocratic Radicalism, Nietzsche claimed that Brandes' assessment of him was correct.

>>5713350

He was quite certain that the NS movement could be a vehicle for him to realize his vision at first. So their ought to be some link between his philosophy and right wing politics, though I would suggest that NS isn't a purely right wing ideology- so maybe it was left wing elements that actually drew him in.

>>5713235
>being Right Wing

I'm honestly stumped how anyone that reads could be anything further Right than center.

>>5713396
See I find this just as childish as the opposite Leftist motive of erasing hierarchy. It's like he admits that hierarchy is inevitable because of power differences, and then says let's somehow mould society to this completely unstable structure of dominance, the structure he *just* witnessed in upheaval...because of the balance of power. Isn't it fucking obvious that the masses will eventually rebel, new people will take over, new hierarchies form, power consolidates, the masses get angry again, rebel, repeat forever. Why does he think, after establishing that it is power that creates these conditions, that an ideology could possibly have some kind of lasting effect in any direction? All it can do is influence the motives of a certain portion of the people for a time, maybe upset the power, but the same thing is always going to happen.

>>5713321
>Stalin
>communist
Mein Kek

>>5713341
>>5713356
>muh 20 billion billion million trillion jillion quillion cazatillion dead

Keep dreaming.

>>5713376
"Here a word in repudiation of attempts that have lately been made to seek the origin of justice in quite a different sphere-- namely in that of ressentiment. To the psychologists first of all, presuming they would like to study ressentiment close up for once, I would say: this plant blooms best today among anarchists and anit-Semites" - Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, Essay 2 sec. 11

>>5713407
>Even a communist would agree with this

nope. communism is anti-hierarchy; based on the idea that all men are equal they try to undermine all the "power structures" to reach an egalitarian globalization. People are poor and weak because of "muh appropriate of surpluse" and "greedy capitalists" to the communist, he ignores the fundamental inequality separating all people and all groups.

to the the Right this is absurd because it fundamentally contradicts reality/nature/facts.

>>5713415

he isn't trying to change society.
let the masses rebel, there will always be hierarchies no matter what. The smart/clever rebels will overpower the dumb rebels. The smart citizens will be more successful than the dumb ones. The strong citizens will survive better than the unhealthy and weak ones.

Stratification will occur no matter what you do.

>>5713422
based churka stalin did indeed kill over 60 russians

>>5713436
There'd still be inequality among people in communism. Just not one mediated or constituted by the structure of capitalism.

>>5713414
Practically every educated person until the 18th century was what you would probably consider a far-rightist, for fuck's sake both Plato and Aristotle were famously anti-democratic and produced /pol/-tier whining about the degeneracy of Greek society, I really question how anyone who is even basically literate can believe as you do.

>>5713447
Yeah but it will sometimes be markedly populist. The people will literally rise up and and murder the established dominants because of the force of numbers. Its a simple matter of how well they can communicate with each other, and consolidate their dispersed power

>>5713235
>literally following some insane ramblings of a jew who never had a job

>>5713414
This is called being brainwashed/indoctrinated. You are actually incapable of understanding how an intelligent person can be rightwing because you've been brainwashed to associate it with stupidity, ignorance and immorality. The idea for example that some people are better than others(not saying i agree with it) is not any less defensible than that of equality. Logically there is not more going for one than the other, it is entirely an effect of you disliking the former that makes you associate it with stupidity.