/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15116341]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BdZ8MMBDKM

What's the best book on right wing socialism? I watched this vid and became interested.

[Anonymous No.15116358]

>>15116341
Keith is pretty good
Idk about the subject you're asking
I have "A new social philosophy" from Werner Sombart on my list, I think it might be close to what you're looking for

[Anonymous No.15116401]

ive always been pretty left leaning and liberal but after watching through a lot of his videos I'm not so sure about my positions anymore.
is nationalism really the answer im looking for when my main political interests are at socialism and ecology. nationalism seems to tie them together in a way that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15116523]

Based Keith, needs to fly off the handle more in his videos its funny.

[Anonymous No.15117013]

>>15116341
I like him

[Anonymous No.15117027]

>>15116341
I watched the episode where he reviewed BAP but he completely misinterpreted Nietzsche, never watching again

[Anonymous No.15117032]

>>15116341
We /keithposting/ now? Ah hell yeah.
comfiest video coming through https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zT6pMKum1VY

[Anonymous No.15117051]

>>15117027
I watched that too and no, he does not completely misinterpret Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.15117549]

>>15116341
Right-wing socialism is a meme. You can't be a socialist and a statist at the same time, it would be too schizophrenic. It's completely missing the point of Marx's "stateless" society. The nation itself becomes an individual in the sea of other nations and then what? Just abandon the collectivist agenda for the sake of an antiquated "muh blood and soil" abstraction?

[Anonymous No.15117561]

nazbol ideology is incoherent.
>dismantle hierarchies!!
>uhhh except for white people are better than fucking browns

[Anonymous No.15117632]

>>15117561
The Nazis were retards but at least they were consistent

[Anonymous No.15117650]

>>15117027
Read "after virtue", his critique came mainly from there.

[Anonymous No.15117675]

>>15116341
>40 minute video by some dumb twink faggot eceleb.
Fuck off you dumb nigger. Sage and report this trash.

[Anonymous No.15117761]

This guy is a pseud retard who just namedrops philosophers he has read secondary sources of to sound smart (i.e. just rehashes other peoples' takes)

[Anonymous No.15117783]

Start with the articles collected here, for basic orientation:
https://www.counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>If only statesmen had been compelled to study the laws of Compound Interest, the fate of the whole human race might have been very different. ... [T]wo serious conditions began to develop. The first was the decline not merely of the aristocracy but, little by little, of all values that could not be correlated with pounds, shillings, and pence. The age of mechanized man was approaching. The new plutocracy and those of the old Whigs who were naturally perverse began their final and terrible offensive against the old country gentlemen. ... They were subjected to numerous mercantile blood transfusions until they had to undergo the final humiliation of accepting Jewish sons-in-law to save the ground to which they pathetically clung.
William Joyce
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/economic-development/

Check out Werner Sombart and Othmar Spann
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/othmar-spann-a-catholic-radical-traditionalist/

Ezra Pound
https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/08/ezra-pound-3/

Gottfried Feder
>By Mammonism is to be understood: on the one hand, the overwhelming international money-powers, the supragovernmental financial power enthroned above any right of self-determination of peoples, international big capital, the purely Gold International; on the other hand, a mindset that has taken hold of the broadest circle of peoples; the insatiable lust for gain, the purely worldly-oriented conception of life that has already led to a frightening decline of all moral concepts and can only lead to more.

>This [mammonist] mindset is embodied and reaches its acme in international plutocracy. The chief source of power for Mammonism is the effortless and endless income that is produced through interest.

>The idea of interest on loans is the diabolical invention of big loan-capital; it alone makes possible the lazy drone's life of a minority of tycoons at the expense of the productive peoples and their work-potential.

>The only cure, the radical means to heal suffering humanity is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money. The abolition of enslavement to interest on money signifies the only possible and conclusive liberation of productive labor from the hidden coercive money-powers.

>Our anti-Mammonistic battle, which is ranged above the other two battle-fronts, is directed against the world-encompassing financial power, that is, against the permanent financial and economic bleeding and exploitation of our people through large loan capital. This battle however is, on the other hand, also a powerful intellectual struggle against the soul-destroying materialistic spirit of egoism and avarice with all its concomitant corrupting manifestations in all fields of our public, economic and cultural life.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/two-volumes-by-gottfried-feder/

[Anonymous No.15117799]

>>15117549
>Right-wing socialism is a meme. You can't be a socialist and a statist at the same time, it would be too schizophrenic. It's completely missing the point of Marx's "stateless" society.

Who said socialism had to be stateless, or that it had to completely agree with Marx on everything for that matter? It's not even clear what Marx himself thought about a great many things.

Werner Sombart, one of the greatest non-internationalist, volkisch socialists and a member of the Nazi party, was called Marx's most able interpreter by Engels himself in a letter. Sombart was considered to have the same intellectual stature as the titan Max Weber (praised as a genius both right and left), and was well-respected by Weber himself. For Sombart, the natural conclusion of socialism was volkisch socialism.

[Anonymous No.15117893]

>>15117561
Nazbols only want to dismantle unjustified hierarchies

[Anonymous No.15117902]

>>15117799
>Who said socialism had to be stateless, or that it had to completely agree with Marx on everything for that matter?
Why even bother calling it socialism then? It's clear you just want some certain form of ecofascism with the existence of classes under nation-states.

>the natural conclusion of socialism was volkisch socialism
Socialism isn't the end in itself. It's a step in the process of history, whose end is communism. This is what Marx was saying when he spoke about the dialectical nature of his historical materialism. You can't really "halt" it at a certain point forever without enabling a class divide and thus conflict between those classes; and with the existence of class conflict the previously "socialist" society regresses backwards into just a weakened form of bourgeoisie society. Drop the socialist guise and just call it what it is: fascism.

[Anonymous No.15117996]

>>15117902
Why split hairs? I don't find that "clear" at all. I consider myself a socialist, as did Sombart, as did Lassalle and many others. You are setting arbitrary definitions of things and then getting annoyed at others for not following those definitions, but nobody but you agreed to them in the first place.

Notice how I said very specifically that Werner Sombart thinks volkisch socialism is the natural conclusion of socialism, and you replied about what socialism "is." Unless you mean according to Marx, in which case, what Marx conceived as the end product of his dialectical progression is one of the murkier aspects of Marxism (whatever your preferred orthodoxy might say about how it's "obvious" that he meant so-and-so; it's obviously not obvious to the other orthodoxies, and it's not obvious to many non-Marxists).

Sombart and many others think that Marx was wrong, and that his conceptions of history and socialism are badly dated by his reliance on turn of the 19th century French and English thinkers and by the limited emergence of industrial and especially finance capital during his lifetime. It's perfectly possible to reject much of what Marx thinks and says without rejecting much else of it, or without rejecting (what some think of as) the core of it, and still to terminate in volkisch socialism.

You can disagree and think classless post-histoire is preferable as the terminus of the dialectic, but that doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't buy into that conception of history.

>Drop the socialist guise and just call it what it is: fascism.
I am fascist, which is to say I'm a national socialist or volkisch socialist.

[Anonymous No.15118007]

>>15116401
No. Nationalism is a globalist psyop. You want localism

[Anonymous No.15118039]

>>15118007
>localism
>nationalism
Only a difference in magnitude.

[Anonymous No.15118201]

>>15117996
>You are setting arbitrary definitions of things and then getting annoyed at others for not following those definitions, but nobody but you agreed to them in the first place.
That's because your revisionist takes and scholars are not in good faith towards Marx's conceptions, which is what the video in the OP is trying to imply with the "reclaiming" of socialism from the left as if they are the ones interpreting him wrong and Marx was a crypot-statist. I'm not even espousing anything different or original at all, these are all just common interpretations of Marx and his interpretation of history. There was even a thread up yesterday about a video that spoke about this specific topic of Marx's views on statism in question posted by Cuck Philosophy that doesn't contradict anything I've said in this thread at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXvQuE9xO4

>what Marx conceived as the end product of his dialectical progression is one of the murkier aspects of Marxism
It literally isn't thought. Historical materialism is probably one of the first marxist concepts you were introduced to because of how easily understandable it is: a rinse-and-repeat process of class conflict that leads to revolutions and concludes with the dissolution of the conflicting classes in question. You keep implying I'm alone with this interpretation when this is just the pretty intuitive and standard one.

>I am fascist, which is to say I'm a national socialist or volkisch socialist.
Right so then case closed? Why bother even engaging with clickbait discussion topics like "reclaiming socialism from the left" if it's going to end up as some overly pedantic crypto-fascism anyways? Just be honest with yourself. It's on the same level of questionable motives as neoreactionaries pretending they aren't just typical liberal ancaps.

[Anonymous No.15118207]

>>15116341
Bump. I'm interested in this subject as well; need reading material.

[Anonymous No.15118266]

>>15116341
>Taking socialism from the left
that´s just being left sweetie

[Anonymous No.15118273]

>>15118201
>That's because your revisionist takes and scholars are not in good faith
There's only revision, anon. You're just too much of a dogmatist to see it. Not even the left itself has generated a consensus on the interpretation of Marx.

[Anonymous No.15118286]

>>15118201
>Liberal ancaps
Except under an absolute or near-absolute monarchy.