/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11872877]

Who is the single most leftwing writer in history? I don't want any mild milquetoast center-left Stalinists or dorky anarcho-liberals. I only want to be recommend the hardest, farthest, single most left writer to ever exist. I will accept nothing less.

[Anonymous No.11872882]

>>11872877
Fucking Marx you idiot

[Anonymous No.11872885]

>>11872882
Marx was a capitalist, so no.

[Anonymous No.11872894]

>>11872877
Easily:
https://foolishnessforcommunism.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-thousandth-manifesto-of.html

[Anonymous No.11872993]

Sally Jane Black

[Anonymous No.11873005]

If left wing means capital in the hands of the public than any communist

[Anonymous No.11873008]

What would make someone further left than Marx?

[Anonymous No.11873011]

>>11872877
Nechayev

[Anonymous No.11873033]

>>11873008
This depends on your understanding of left and right, but those leftists who are extremely critical of the organised left are often among the farthest-left groups. Things like "Armed Joy" and "The Right to be Greedy".
But then there is "Against Domestication", and "The Poverty of Feminism" which come close to the right in some areas.
The anti-German marxist-leninist accelerationists were probably the most extreme. And definitely not something I advocate, it is only to understand history and the destructive side of revolutionary groups.

[Anonymous No.11873040]

>>11873033
And probably someone like Pol Pot is even worse than that. Didn't he advocate slaughter of anyone who wasn't the peasantry?

[Anonymous No.11873334]

>>11872877
Eulogized by the Marquis de Sade, and an actual writer, perhaps pic related.

[Anonymous No.11874171]

>>11872877
Jean Malaquais

[Anonymous No.11874938]

hitler - mein kampf

[Anonymous No.11874975]

>>11872993
lol. I'm left to the left of the left, and I hate this bitch. I completely agree that transgender narratives are important, and hugely important to people, but sometimes its just too much. Her writing on experimental films really gets me. I don't need a feminist-marxist-leninist reading of Stan Brakhage desu

[Anonymous No.11875189]

Kamo no Chomei and other Buddhist monks were probably more left-wing in terms of their rejection of private property than most "leftists".

[Anonymous No.11875244]

Hunter s Thompson

[Anonymous No.11875266]

>>11872877
Simone Weil

[Anonymous No.11875273]

>>11872877
Lev Tolstoy

[Anonymous No.11875288]

>most left wing

tf could that possibly even mean.

[Anonymous No.11875293]

>>11874975
>I completely agree that transgender narratives are important
This is a liberal policy point that has nothing to do with leftism.

[Anonymous No.11875308]

>>11872877
>Who is the most [insert arbitrary political delineation] based on on [my own arbitrary axioms that judge that political delineation]?

Even the most anti-capitalist, violently egalitarian radical would harbour at least a couple of opinions that wouldn't be considered "left", such as wanting to ban transgender women from using women's bathrooms. Your obsession with "political purity" is doing a fuckton of damage to your psychological framework.

[Anonymous No.11875340]

>>11872885
>marx was a capitalist

[Anonymous No.11875361]

>>11872877
Just for balance, who is the single most leftwing writer in history?

[Anonymous No.11875362]

bordiga or gilles dauve

[Anonymous No.11875365]

>>11875361
I suppose you meant right wing. I think most people on here would vote Evola, but I say Maistre.

[Anonymous No.11875393]

>>11872885
Imagine being this much of a pseud

[Anonymous No.11875403]

>>11875393
Imagine not reading Marx and inheriting your opinions of him from JBP

[Anonymous No.11875406]

>>11875393
>>11875340
brainlets

[Anonymous No.11875432]

Andrea Dworkin

[Anonymous No.11875436]

>>11875361
>>11875365
Damn it, I did mean right-wing

[Anonymous No.11875482]

It depends on what you mean by left

[Anonymous No.11875499]

me

[Anonymous No.11875755]

>>11872885
fucking kek

Just because Marx maybe appreciated one or two aspects of the bourgeoisie doesn't make him a capitalist. He is merely an observer of the whole system. Plus he co-wrote the Communist Manifesto, so it's pretty safe to say he's on the left.

Stop spewing stupid shit to make yourself seem edgier.

[Anonymous No.11875777]

>>11872885
good kantbot arc

[Anonymous No.11875794]

>>11875755
>Plus he co-wrote the Communist Manifesto, so it's pretty safe to say he's on the left.

Marx saw communism as the completion of capitalism, capitalism's apotheosis and entirely contingent on it.

>Just because Marx maybe appreciated one or two aspects of the bourgeoisie doesn't make him a capitalist.

The bourgeoisie are the revolutionary class that brings about communism through their engagement in, and underlying support for free trade. Marx was one of histories biggest advocates of free trade because it allowed for capitalism to mature by eroding the borders and cultures of nation states which he saw as vestiges of feudalism. Marx was a capitalist.

[Anonymous No.11875828]

>>11875794
Marx saw communism as the consummation of enlightenment liberal values, private ownership of the MoP by capitalists was the part he regarded as getting in the way.

Marx said all kinds of things about revolutionary strategy, idk where you're getting this emphasis on free trade from.

[Anonymous No.11875833]

>>11875777
fun fact: the Amazing Atheist made this point almost a decade before Kantbot did, its also been made by numerous esoteric economic theorists and econometrics savvy marxists regarding the Soviet labor market, on this board even.

[Anonymous No.11875840]

>>11875828
He could not have realistically been expected to have foreseen the correlation between xenoestrogens and forming online identities around pretending to have read him.

[Anonymous No.11875842]

>>11873040
Everyone who isn't producing food is a bourgeois parasite

[Anonymous No.11875844]

>>11875833
That is a fun fact. I wish I was smarter so that I could understand the argument better

[Anonymous No.11875854]

>>11875828
>private ownership of the MoP by capitalists was the part he regarded as getting in the way.

No. This was the only means to lay the groundwork for communism. Capitalism creates the means by which the means of production can be seized by anybody at anytime. Anything else is reactionary and collapses back in to 19th century type nation-states, fascism and explains the total failure of all communist projects in the 20th century (they were not capitalist enough).

To quote the Communist Manifesto:
"By the exploitation of the world market, the bourgeoisie has given a cosmopolitan
character to production and consumption in every land. To
the despair of the reactionaries, it has deprived industry of its national
foundation. Of the old-established national industries, some have already
been destroyed and others are day by day undergoing destruction. They
are dislodged by now industries, whose introduction is becoming a matter
of life and death for all civilised nations: by industries which no longer depend
upon the homeland for their raw materials, but draw these from the
remotest spots; and by industries whose products are consumed, not only
in the country of manufacture, but the wide world over. Instead of the
old wants, satisfied by the products of native industry, new wants appear,
wants which can only be satisfied by the products of distant lands and
unfamiliar climes. The old local and national self-sufficiency and isolation
are replaced by a system of universal intercourse, of all-round interdependence
of the nations"

[Anonymous No.11875869]

>>11873040
>>11875842
Glass War Now!

[Anonymous No.11875891]

>>11875869
>To destroy you is no loss, to preserve you is no gain
When you can tell someone is just out of fucks to give

[Anonymous No.11875980]

>>11875891
Cambodia was too fucked by 1975. Not even a Year Zero could work and Pol Pot probably knew it was a losing battle before he even took over.

[Anonymous No.11875982]

karl marx
nuff said

[Anonymous No.11876234]

>>11872877
Maybe Robespierre?

[Anonymous No.11876248]

>>11873040
The "extremeness" of Pol Pot was more right wing tendencies though. He had this obsession of recreating former glories of his people (i.e. the Angkor period). The "kill everyone who isn't a peasant" stuff was about removing degenerate artists and colonial collaborators who welcomed the French in. He used the word "Communism" and "Marx" a lot but that was just dressing to appear "cool" since Pol Pot was an idiot who became revolutionary because smarter folks around him in Paris were. The Khmer leaders would often talk about Marxlenin as if it was one person because nobody actually knew a damn thing about communism as a Westerner would have read. Instead, to them "communism" was a blanket term to encompass ruthless revolution in order to settle various nationalistic scores regarding the Vietnamese. If the Khmer had adopted the term "fascism" and praised AdolfMussolini all the time their reign would have looked identical.

[Anonymous No.11876254]

John Zerzan

[Anonymous No.11876288]

>>11872877
Primitivism might be what you are after.

Rousseau argues that civilisation is the foundation of all inequality. Ted is completely anti civ for similar reasons and actually acted upon it.

States are just another form of capital, where a ruling class hold a monopoly over the workers. Therefore, statist socialism is really just controlled opposition to ensure any rebellious types hand power straight back to the elites.

[Anonymous No.11876292]

>>11876234
>>11876254
>>11876288
These

[Anonymous No.11877134]

>Lefties

[Anonymous No.11877432]

>>11875361
my diary desu

[Anonymous No.11877559]

>>11874975
>I'm like reaaaaally left
>transgender narratives are important
nigga u ain't left

[Anonymous No.11877581]

>>11875828
alot of people with strong feelings about marx (americans) have never read anything written by marx

[Anonymous No.11877594]

the extremities of left-wing politics start to look an awful lot like the extremities right-wing politics.


its almost like the "left-right" continuim is totally inadequate or that the terms "left" and "right" have highly flexible meanings to the point that they become absurd

[Anonymous No.11877639]

>>11873040
based. He knew urbanites were the scum of society.

[Anonymous No.11877699]

>>11875854
So basically all you're saying is the only difference between Marx and a capitalist is that Marx is anti-globalist?

[Anonymous No.11877868]

>>11872877
Christ

[Anonymous No.11877884]

>>11872885
why the fuck do I waste me time in this shit hole?

[Anonymous No.11877911]

>>11872885
>Marx was a capitalist
Then who was the communist???? Was Friedrich Engels the Communist and he didn’t know Marx was actually a capitalist??? What the fuck!!??

[Anonymous No.11878357]

>>11872877

GG Allin.

>Just...
>Just ate a burger at the sleazy joint
>Now I gotta take a shit, get to the point
>Sittin' on the toilet, my ass is a blast
>Runnin' smelly diarrhea outta my ass

The precocious "just...", the fragility of the proletariat.

The realization of his own imprisonment in the hedonistic machine.

The swift action in purging its confusion from within him, and his impatience with the counterrevolution's inquisition.

The sheer brilliance of closing the gap between means and need by placing the former onto the latter, so that gravity itself, the chief Material force, can animate this airtight holy communion.

The saintly self-effacement of avoiding glistening Apollonian suburbia as the portrait of Utopia. No, comrades, the toil itself is murky and must be celebrated - together.

[Anonymous No.11879351]

>>11878357
Junkies are inherently and inescapably apolitical.

[Anonymous No.11879376]

>>11872877
Maybe Renzo Novatore

[Anonymous No.11879384]

>>11872877
It's Stirner, anything grounded in scientism or economism doesn't represent a radical break from modernity and romanticism and primitivism are inherently right wing

[Anonymous No.11879393]

this is the most staunchly leftwing fiction book in history

[Anonymous No.11880320]

>>11872877

George Cicarriello-Maher