/lit/ - Literature

Brecht
Zola
Chirbes

>>8661060

>>8661060
>>8661105
>>8661121
You people are fucking revoting cucks.

Wake up and realize what's happening to the white race because of leftism

>>8661121
>late capitalism
Always makes me kek. Leftists have been using this phrase for over a hundred years and keep moving what qualifies as "late capitalism" forward.

>>8661208
>unironically thinking 'late' refers to it being about to end

Spotted the retard

>>8661169
I'm white, and I literally don't give a shit. Why should I?

>>8661169
>>>/pol/

>>8661228
That's what that phrase refers to tho.

Let me know who or what told you otherwise, I'm curious to know the source of misinformation.

Agrarian Justice

or any Thomas Paine really, if you're American especially

>>8661121
This one is shit, too much Zizek and Marcuse. Does anyone have the other chart with Marxism on the left side side in res, and then social anarchism (including Chomsky, Fromm, Oscar Wilde, David Graeber, etc) on the right side in black?

>>8662022
>*on the left side in red

Grapes of wrath has lots of anarchistic and socialist messaging going through it. It is also a wonderfully comfy novel. As a non American reading I feel like I get to look at the American soul

Mein Kampf

>>8661237
this argument kills the /pol/ack

>>8662035
Huh. As an American I found Grapes to be Steinbeck's dullest and weakest book.

>>8661169
>the sky is falling, guys
>for real this time

Does anybody have recs for actual liberal and center-left literature? Not communism?

>>8662048
Only Steinbeck I've read. I haven't read too many books like it. Pretty gripping and atmospheric, and of course political.

There is a groove you got to come in to. I think there is an entire chapter in the beginning that is about a tortoise crossing around in bum fuck nowhere Oklahoma.


Anyhow what other Steinbeck do you recommend or think is the good?
>>8662078
>liberal and center-left literature

These terms are so vague and mean so little that it's hard to give an answer. What do you mean exactly?

As far as I can see few writers would have any reason to write consciously in a moderate way. No writer sits down and thinks "today I'll write a novel that is slightly center left".

>>8662078
Probably The Conscience of a Liberal, by Paul Krugman. Maybe books based on Keynesian economics too. Most literature on "liberalism" is probably going to be of the more traditional variety, i.e. its European definition.

Can people post more in this thread? My dick is getting hard by it

>>8662086
By center-left I mean "progressives in a democratic framework that support keynesian economics". Yes, this includes social justice and any seminal works in said movement that don't stray too far into Marxist economics.

>>8662097
Honestly, with how popular reactionaries are becoming, even generic euro classical liberalism would be appreciated, although I lean more towards modern progressivism. Most environmentalist tracts are also appreciated, barring Linkola et al.

>>8661060
>leftist
>literature

Pick one, my man.

>>8662203
>progressives in a democratic framework that support keynesian economics

Michael Hudson; Super Imperialism and Killing the Host also his blog

>>8662022
>too much Zizek

>>>/out/

>>8661060
By that do you mean the social or traditional left? One has more to do with money and the other, morals. Or do you mean the left in general?

>left right dichotomy

Kill yourselves

>>8662035
>the American soul
What did you see anon?

Jack London

You should read Aleksander Bogdanov. Early 1900's communism disguised as science fiction.

>>8662203
One of the cornerstones of modern liberalism, in terms of political theory at least, is John Rawls. A Theory of Justice is his most famous book, so I'd recommend that. In the area of law and justice, you could read Ronald Dworkin and Cass Sunstein, both of whom have written many books. Sunstein is kind of a utilitarian; he's the rare liberal who supports the death penalty. However, he's a law professor, so he tends to write in the confines of the legal tradition.

Maybe look into Isaiah Berlin too.

>>8662248
ebin xd

>>8662454
>>8662572
Thanks guys, I appreciate it.

Liberalism has a lot of varieties. Even Marxism has numerous varieties. A case could made that members of the Frankfurt School (Marcuse, Benjamin, Adorno) exhibited liberal tendencies, despite coming from a Marxist tradition.

Then there thinkers like Rousseau and Sorel who are neither liberal nor communist, but definitely left wing. The Left has also included someone like George Fitzhugh who argued that Southern slavery was "the beau ideal of socialism" and that capitalism was a form of "cannibalism."

Even today, there is a big difference between, say, Ta-Nehisi Coates and Adolph Reed.

>>8662626
Adolph Reed on Ta-Nehsi "The Maid's Son" Coates was pretty good

>>8662597
This >>8662572 was me. I wanted to add John Kenneth Galbraith and Karl Popper, both highly influential post-WWII liberal intellectuals. Galbraith was primarily an economist, Popper a philosopher; the latter was a vociferous critic of Marxism and the communist world as he understood them, probably best known for The Open Society and Its Enemies. If you're looking for more modern writers, Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz both have written a lot about global inequality.

About my recommendation of Dworkin and Sunstein, I would only look into them if you are particularly interested in modern liberalism as it relates to legal theory and jurisprudence, particularly in regards to Sunstein, who really concentrates on concrete legal issues.

>>8662626
Rosseau was bizzarely totalitarian in his advocacy of democracy. I guess that the necessity of checks and balances didn't seem so obvious in an age mostly dominated by monarchy. Even Hobbes is similar in this respect with his recommendation that the sovereign has absolute power.

>>8662891
I'm familiar with both Popper's epistemology and criminal law, so this will help. Not too knowledgeable on Popper's political work but I hear he's almost an intersection between progressives and conservatives. Despite Burke's conservative fanbase, I feel he was also more of an eclectic liberal in this manner than he's given credit for, giving quite generous concessions to social mobility for his era.

>>8662043
What argument?

>>8661237
>muh r selection

die rat

>>8661169

>>8661169

People like you are the reason why no-one respects conservatives. You might think you're helping but you're not

Michael Parenti

>>8661169
>white race
Gee, anon, how spooked can you get?

>>8661169
You've been saying the same thing for thousands of years

>>8663678

Why did he hate Jazz, /lit/?

>>8661169
Likely bait but in the off chance it isn't: you know reading something doesnt make you believe it, right? And not reading something literally makes you ignorant? Honestly if you wanted to form a better critique if leftism or whatever, leftist books woukd be the best thing to read? Unless you just want to regurgitate whatever opinions some one has laid out for you in a clever and provocative image macro you as posted on an online image board like some kind of coward idiot.

>>8662942

Eh, it's unfair to associate Rousseau with totalitarianism. For one, Rousseau was highly critical of the large, administrative states developing in France and England and took small city-states like Geneva and Ancient Sparta as his models. It's not that Rousseau believed that checks and balances were unnecessary. His admiration of the Spartan constitution says otherwise. Rather, he was critical of the idea that a republic required nothing more than a system of checks and balances. His concern with civic virtue was one shared by many thinkers during the eighteenth century, including many of the American Revolutionaries.

>>8663901
'cause twas pop moosic and not schoenberg

>>8663969
Schoenberg was incredibly closed ended tho, and weirdly his ideas are now most prominent in pop moosic.

>>8663678
this desu senpai baka

>>8661121
Why no anarchist lit?

>>8661121
>Oscar Wilde
>Leftist
I don't think the person who made that chart has read anything of Wilde.

>>8662561
This; there's also Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossessed" which deals with Anarchist themes, and China Mieville's "Iron Council" which is basically the Russian Revolution in steampunk fantasy form.

>>8661169
>white race
2spooked

>>8661309
No, retard. The phrase 'late capitalism' was popularised by Fredric Jameson in his book "Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism", which was published in 1991. The 'late' refers to "as of late", not "late" as in "recently deceased". This is to distinguish it from 19th century capitalism, the pre-war period of capitalism and the post-war capitalism of the Keynesian consensus. Do a Google search for fuck's sake.

All literature of the past 100 years is leftist literature.

If the jews so much as get an inkling that you have conservative views, they don't publish your book.

If you disagree with this, you are bluepilled as fuck.

>>8664544
Why do people not just say Neoliberalism, is it because it offends liberals?

>>8664486
There's something pathetically undignified about China Mieville

>>8661169
>white race

The human race in general will be wiped out this century.

>>8664546

Would much much rather that over incessant obnoxious muh redpill nonsense. You people are cartoon characters.

>>8664610
>incessant obnoxious muh redpill nonsense
You realise that this is a direct result of leftist ideological hegemony, right?

>>8661169

I agree that leftists are mentally ill but the white race will be fine. The nobility and ruling caste in any society have always been a minority

>>8664592
I don't understand the psychology of Nick Land at all.

Why does he want us to give up and accelerate our demise? Why go gently into the night?

>>8662504
I meant more on the social side of things. I tend to sympathise with anarchist ideals.

>>8664813
Embracing the inevitable is called Amor Fati, it's the highest state man can achieve.

>>8664576

Most leftists say neoliberalism, or just liberalism. They're pretty much the same. I don't think there's that much difference between Keynesianism and neoliberalism. Both are pro-growth philosophies oriented around stimulating consumption. Both are in opposition to producerism and planned economies. The New Deal wasn't really Keynesian either, though the American economy essentially became Keynesian during WWII.