/lit/ - Literature

>>6646457
No. In the left you have to think for your fucking self.

Go read Anti-Dühring.

>Revolution - Russell Brand
>Why Black Brothers are Better than White Trash - Professorizzle Cornell West
>Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class as it Occurs in my Head - Owen Jones
>How to Get Offended by Meaningless Shit and Make Money Doing It - Anita Sarkeesian
>Trannies are Normal, Goy - Judith Butler
>"Cultural Marxism" is an Anti-Semitic Right-Wing Conspiracy - Herbert Marcuse, Professor of the Application of Marxist Theory to Disgusting Gentile Western Culture at Frankfurt
>Give Me Your Money Because You Agreed To It In An Arbitrary Thought Experiment I Made Up - John Rawls

>>6646463
>>6646492

lol ur both equally retarded

>>6646457
no

>left wing
>reading
>implying you can be left wing and subject yourself into print media, one of the channels of institutional oppression

>>6646457
You don't need it. Basically every great piece of literature that isn't in that pic is left wing literature. Intelligent, educated people invariably lean to the left.

>>6646906
Almost everything that wasn't written in the last twenty years, with the exception of the works of a handful of cultural Marxist authors, is deeply problematic actually.

>>6646492
>"Cultural Marxism" is an Anti-Semitic Right-Wing Conspiracy - Herbert Marcuse, Professor of the Application of Marxist Theory to Disgusting Gentile Western Culture at Frankfurt
Congratulations, you made a Frankfurt fanboy kek

>>6646457

are you saying that modernist poetry like eliot is conservative because it's based in reference to past great works? that seems silly.

>>6646492
>>6646896
Who are you quoting?

No and I swear I will fucking crush with my own hands whoever attempt to revive the project of making a left-wing version of it.

It's *always* an awful list with a silly red/black background with no post-war thinker except Chomsky. You people actually need to read more leftists other than those allowed in universities and MSNBC before you engage in that enterprise.

Basically any good book not on there

>>6646896
Are you a retard or a just an anarchist?

What's the difference anyways?

Just fuck my praxis up fam

>>6646929
I don't know anything about Eliot's politics and I don't view his works as particularly political (inb4 non-political artists are by definition conservative), so forgive me if I'm missing something, but I believe it's because of his elitist, aristocratic style (dense, highly-referential, from a position of privilege/snobbery). And I'd also disagree with the distinction based on that because many leftist writers are quite elitist too.

I hope soon will arrive new wind. Someone will invent mind from the machine. 70% of works of humanity will become ineffective. Humans will be replace with machines. This is big stress for the current economic model around all world. But new economic model will be born or humanity die on streets as beggars.

I remember starting this one fucking ages ago. I compiled a list of 84 titles, separated them through category (hist, economics, sociology, praxis, etc) and planned to use the thing on the bottom left to hint at what tradition they belong to by putting a dot of the corresponding color next to the titles.

I actually stopped because I felt too green on leftist theory to actually create it. I then started making another list, even bigger, of books I had to read myself in order to become more well-read and be able to make a "responsible" list of left-wing books. When it went past 300 titles I lost the heart to do it.

I'm a Marxist. For someone not familiar with Marxism at all, I recommend reading the following to get a decent, if not complete understanding of Marxism:

The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism by Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm

Theses on Feuerbach by Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

Principles of Communism by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

The Communist Manifesto by Marx & Engels
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy by Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/


The first two are rough introductory texts by Lenin. The Principles of Communism was an earlier draft of the Manifesto. I recommend reading it before the Manifesto. The MIA pdf (the one I linked), has the various prefaces of the various translations. The Communist Manifesto is overrated, and in one of the prefaces, Engels outright admits that's it's very much a period piece. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific are taken from chapters in the anti-Duhring, and Ludwig Feuerbach is inspired by the German Ideology, which was never published in either Marx's or Engel's lifetimes. If you want to get into Marxism further, both should be eventually read. I myself still have much to learn.

>>6647002
forgot to add

read in order from top to bottom

>>6647007
>read Lenin first

Why don't you douche my wife's cunt with marmot shit?

>aligning yourself with the 'left' or 'right'

rio jej

get tha fuck out of here

>>6647017
I've found that the people who adamantly reject reading Lenin tend to be dogmatic dumbasses.

The first two links I gave where rough introductions to Marxism that no honest-to-God Marxist would fundamentally disagree with, not indepth 'Leninist' theoretical treatises.

>>6647041
I've found people who recommend Lenin as an introduction are sectarian arseholes and substitutionalist cunts. I've had a look at "Three Sources," the second paragraph is dreck and if I'd wanted to read Empiriocriticism, I would have.

>>6647068
... I didn't list Empiriocriticism. I listed an encylclopedia article that Lenin wrote. The list was written for absolute beginners, not for obtaining the nuance of theory. And why is the second paragraph 'dreck'?

The problem with Lenin, and consequentially Leninist interpreters, is that Lenin himself was primarily a polemicist. Therefore any interpretation of Lenin should be situated within the context of the debates among revolutionary Social-Democracy at the time when Lenin wrote what he wrote. Many so-called Leninists do not do this, leading to interpretations without context that can be misconstrued in very opportunist manners. A better argument you could be presenting would be that misinterpretation without context leads to a 'theoretical repetition' of the opportunist 'line' of Plekhanov and Kautsky.

>>6646929
Elliot was a funatic-tier reactionary.

>>6646492
>Russell Brand
dropped

>>6647088
>The problem with Lenin, and consequentially Leninist interpreters, is that Lenin himself was primarily a polemicist. Therefore any interpretation of Lenin should be situated within the context of the debates among revolutionary Social-Democracy at the time when Lenin wrote what he wrote. Many so-called Leninists do not do this, leading to interpretations without context that can be misconstrued in very opportunist manners. A better argument you could be presenting would be that misinterpretation without context leads to a 'theoretical repetition' of the opportunist 'line' of Plekhanov and Kautsky.

Which is why I wouldn't recommend a polemical piece as an introduction that duplicates the findings of Empiriocriticism in a decontextualised situation. Lenin is teleological, and his metaphysics as present in that article are reductivist as an analysis and believe that "theory" is separable from class practice. That polemic is directed (1913) against the non-Maximalists in the 2nd international.

>>6647154
I haven't read it, and I didn't even recommend it.

http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?3109-Materialism-and-Empirio-Criticism&p=24236#post24236

>>Lenin (1913)
>But this is not all. The history of philosophy and the history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing resembling “sectarianism” in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine,

By 1913 Lenin is deeply involved in polemics with Marxist sectarians with petrified doctrines.

>a doctrine which arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation.

And here's that teleology we don't need.

>On the contrary, the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind.

Let's avoid praising Marx's genius before introducing it?

And Marx's genuine was techniques and methods, not furnishing answers.

And I thought we weren't idealists? The foremost minds of mankind didn't produce the worth in Marx. Analysis of documentation of relations amongst people did.

>His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism.

Yeah, this assumes that the heights of bourgeois culture are the heights of Marx's analysis. Marx read widely but he wasn't at the bleeding edge of science, and he paid a more deliberate attention to the discoveries by common people.

In that sense, dreck.

>>6647195
>And here's that teleology we don't need.
How is Lenin's statement teleological?

>By 1913 Lenin is deeply involved in polemics with Marxist sectarians with petrified doctrines.
>"The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties...They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement." - Marx ch II, the Communist Manifesto
Lenin is probably just presenting the Marxism he believes to be the proper Marxism.

>And I thought we weren't idealists? The foremost minds of mankind didn't produce the worth in Marx. Analysis of documentation of relations amongst people did.
Yes yes, but let's not be mechanical vulgar materialists, now should we? Marx was influenced by a set of writings that was written before Marx read them. The point is that the conceptual framework that Marx used in interpreting these writings and in relating them to his own experiences within the society that he lived in was conditions by that very society, which itself is molded by material process. Marx himself was part of an intellectual tradition. Lenin is just doing what he usually does when it comes to Marx, praising him to no end.

>Yeah, this assumes that the heights of bourgeois culture are the heights of Marx's analysis. Marx read widely but he wasn't at the bleeding edge of science, and he paid a more deliberate attention to the discoveries by common people
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Is Lenin is praising by comparing Marx to his intellectual predecessors or even the giants of philosophy and the social sciences somehow degrading to Marx? Marx at the time he wrote, was at the 'bleeding edge of science' within the realm of the social sciences. Also, I doubt Hegel, Feuerbach, or any other of Marx's intellectual predecessors were all working-class joes. Reread Socialism: Scientific and Utopian if you think I'm wrong.

>Let's avoid praising Marx's genius before introducing it?
I don't see what you're trying to do here. Your nitpicking a couple of sentences within a paragraph that's just Lenin praising someone he looks up too, Marx and Engels, like he always does, then imposing upon him a set of beliefs that's more influenced by your own prejudice than Lenin (or even so-called Leninists) believed. I doubt you'd do the same to say, Pannekoek.
And added fact is that this is not uncommon. Many treatesus I've read, regardless of who would wrote them, regardless perspectives, usually begin by praising the person of whom their going to extrapolate on their ideas.

What do YOU recommend, oh brilliant ultra-leftist who knows more than the most influential Marxist besides Engels in the history of Marxism, as an introduction to Marxism to someone who knows absolutely nothing about it.

I remember in primary school, we only ever read one Kurt Vonnegut story. And of course it was Harrison Bergeron, pretty much one of the only stories of his that could be interpreted as right-wing.

It's sort of disturbing to me that state-run education is able to misrepresent authors to such an extreme, I mean this is the same guy that wrote God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, one of the most obnoxiously left-wing books I've ever read.

Don't get me wrong, though. Cat's Cradle is one of my favorite books.

>>6646492
I recoiled

>>6646906
More like feminine men

>>6646457
This ?

Um, would there happen to be an updated version of the OP list of conservative literature?

Does anyone have any solid recs of works that should be included in that list but are not? Help me out a little, liberal friends.

>>6647610
Thanks

>>6646457
I gotchu meng.

>>6647624
Oakeshott - Rationalism in Politics and other essays
Oakeshott - On Human Conduct
Schmitt - The Concept of the Political
Schmitt - The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
Hayek - Law, Legislation and Liberty
Devlin - The Enforcement of Morals
Finnis - Natural Law and Natural Rights

>>6647597
I'm not disputing that. Nearly every great piece of literature was created by an effete, ineffectual, at least slightly effeminate intellectual. These sorts of people tend to lean to the left.

>>6646457
whoever made that list is a fucking moron, master and margarita, stormship troopers, storm of steel, are criticisms of the right

>>6647832
>Junger wasn't a right-winger

Good Lord, are there any lies and falsifications that you fucking leftist vermin won't attempt to promote?

>>6647867
>storm of steel isn't a criticism of nationalistic motivation
whatever you say anon

>>6647832
Kurt Vonnegut was also a leftist and fascism is a leftist political doctrine.

>inb4 muh hierarchy

>>6647832
>master and margarita is a criticism of the right
>muh state-capitalism
Mate, 'right' doesn't just mean 'everything I don't like'.

>>6647273
good idea but could have been made a bit better.

>>6647897
vonnegut was a humanist and a socialist, literally what the fuck are you talking about?

>>6646457
Revolution and Counter-Revolution should be added to the list

>>6646457
>Confessions of a Mask
>fascist

What? Is it because Mishima himself was extremely right wing, or is it because of his nationalistic bits in it?

Diary of a Man in Despair is incredible

>>6647967
It's probably because he was a fascist and far-right like his writings.

>>6647876
reading the 1920's version of storms of steel, pleb. it's ultranationalist for your information.
He literally wrote a dedication to Hitler in it and sent it to him
He also wrote a bunch of anti-semitic stuff and on his hatred of democracy, aswell as interrupting Thomas Mann's anti-nazi speech with a bunch of SA men in tow.
He quickly turned from the nazis, but he was definitly a right winger, at times a national revolutionary or maybe even a fascist, definitly national conservative and reactionary.
There's even hints at national socialism in the literary 1930's version of storms of steel, but you're too pleb to pick up on them.

>>6650073
*read the

>>6646492
top kek

>>6646945
Whats your problem with anarchism?

>>6647033
>rio jej
eui heh

>>6650238
>Whats your problem with liberals
fify

>>6651896
T is for Tankies with blood in their Tracks.

They never wanted communism, they were always Nomenklatura Hacks.