/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16406087]

Who's the Evola of the left?

[Anonymous No.16406099]

Idk some transvestite with HIV or something?

[Anonymous No.16406136]

>>16406087
Judith butler

[Anonymous No.16406168]

>>16406087
Peter Lamborn Wilson

[Anonymous No.16406197]

Probably some fat black trans lesbian wiccan, assuming this hypothetical person ever decides to put the fork down and pick up a pen instead once in a while.

[Anonymous No.16406204]

Unironically Posadas, except nothing makes sense because materialism.

[Anonymous No.16406221]

>>16406087
>a guy who made up a bunch of stuff with little basis and is frequently referred to as important by people that have never read him
Marx

[Anonymous No.16406233]

>>16406221
I've read both Marx and Evola and I can conclude that they're both fucking based desu

[Anonymous No.16406299]

Evola was the ultimate hierarchichyfag, so it'd have to be someone that's as un-hierarchical as possible.

[Anonymous No.16406309]

>>16406299
Stirner? Evola liked him but thought that his "spook" theory eliminates far too much of the inner life to permit anything transcend room for manifestation.

[Anonymous No.16406323]

>>16406087

[Anonymous No.16406421]

>>16406221
The most cited intellectual of all time has little basis

[Anonymous No.16406437]

>>16406087
Nietzsche duh

[Anonymous No.16406441]

>>16406221
Why is it always actual morons that refuse to read Marx? Even from a purely academic standpoint, surely it’d be a good idea to actually read and understand your ‘worst enemy’?

[Anonymous No.16406453]

>>16406087
>>16406299
Isn’t it quite obviously Deleuze? He even has the Nietzsche baked in

[Anonymous No.16406456]

>>16406421
the most cited intellectual of all time is Michel Foucault

[Anonymous No.16406486]

>>16406441
Who said Marx is out worst enemy? I love Marx. He's rolling his grave right now looking at the modern left.

Marxism has already been thoroughly subverted and repackaged by capitalism, lol. It's not a threat.

[Anonymous No.16406501]

>>16406486
The criticism of Marx as making baseless claims sounds pretty polemic lol

[Anonymous No.16407819]

Brace Belden.

[Anonymous No.16407826]

>>16406456
doesnt surprise me that a bunch of fudge packing academics cite him for whatever kind of subversive bullshit they shill

[Anonymous No.16407833]

>>16406168
This, but you have to call him Robert Anton Wilson for the uninitiated.

[Anonymous No.16407911]

>>16406221
>t. someone who’s read neither

[Anonymous No.16407933]

>>16406087
Saul of Tarsus

[Anonymous No.16407943]

>>16406501
Yeah, the irony is that Marx wanted the smartest men in the lead, not the dumbest (which is the state of gommunism from Lenin onward...)

[Anonymous No.16408044]

>>16406087
Kropotkin

[Anonymous No.16408062]

>>16406087
Like it or not.

[Anonymous No.16408085]

>ugly midwit
The answer is Dworkin.

[Anonymous No.16408237]

>>16406221
This.
>>16406441
Because like Evola you can axiomatically disagree with his points very easily at which point its pointless to read his works unless you want to painstakingly understand your "enemy"'s argument in their totality rather then just move forward that you axiomatically disagree on their fundamental belief that man and history is only materialistic.

[Anonymous No.16408653]

>>16408237
You can disagree with pretty much everything axiomatically you retard, it doesn’t make their thought valueless.

[Anonymous No.16408699]

>>16408653
>their thought valueless
Depends on your epistemology.
If something either agrees with my metaphysical worldview (which Marx does not) or has a moderate to high amount of predictive power (which Marx also lacks) I consider its thought valuable. If it lacks these two qualities I think its a waste of time, which is why after reading through Marx's basic metaphysics (him being a materialist) I found it useless. Though the same goes with Evola who I also view as useless for having a differing ontology and his metaphysical systems being rather inept at predicting in any useful way how things will progress.

[Anonymous No.16408783]

>>16406087
Bataille

[Anonymous No.16409004]

>>16407933
The correct answer.
>>16408699
>Evola who I also view as useless for having a differing ontology and his metaphysical systems being rather inept at predicting in any useful way how things will progress
Except that his predictions are becoming more validated every day. What part do you think is incorrect?

[Anonymous No.16409026]

>>16407933
this

[Anonymous No.16409090]

>>16409004
>What part do you think is incorrect
I didn't say incorrect for a reason I said inept at predicting due to his model (or models) being not very useful at making concrete predictions. His models come off as a rationalization of something that already is here rather then making bold predictions of things in which will come to be. Explanatory power, although useful is insufficient for any model. If it lacks the ability to predict I do not find the model useful. Thus it not incorrect, what Evola points out much too often is a factual thing his model explains, its just not useful to me given my epistemological views, which is why after going through revolt I more or less dropped him.

[Anonymous No.16410142]

>>16409090
If you're looking for a "concrete predictive model" you're going to have to do a lot of looking. Most of what we see is a rehash of things that have already happened but the details themselves are entirely up to chance.

[Anonymous No.16410148]

also bump

[Anonymous No.16410153]

A ambling schizo who no one takes seriously except as a meme? Probably Posadas and his post apocalyptic aliens.

[Anonymous No.16410186]

>>16409004
The only predictions that Marx made that have any value to them are the ones that were either being said by literally everyone going back as far as the beginning Western civilization ("Merchants are only capable of seeing things through an economic lens so eventually everything will be a commodity") or were so broad that literally everyone at the time was saying them ("the industrial revolution is dehumanizing and turns people into parts and products").

One absolutely glaring flaw with Marx is that he is totally incapable of explaining, or even grasping, automation and mechanization. Marx predicts that there are infinite gains from labor, and that gains from capital will eventually level off. To put it another way, you can keep adding workers to a process and make more money and more goods, but you can only add so many machines before they start costing more than they gain; you can make a laborer infinitely more skilled at his task via training, with the ratio of gains/cost to this always being above 1, but eventually you can only make a machine so efficient and so good at a task before further efficiency makes that ratio go below 1.

Except what we see is actually the complete and total opposite. There is a very real leveling off of the gains from labor, and human can only get so good at a task. You cannot keep adding people to processes to make them scale infinitely. You can, however, make a machine infinitely more efficient at a task (or rather, we haven't reached a leveling off yet), and you can keep adding machines infinitely to make the process scale infinitely. This is because a human has a large cluster of needs, wants, and factors that NEED to be met (the human form cannot be modified; a human needs to breathe air), whereas machines are infinitely malleable.

[Anonymous No.16410189]

>>16410153
>both of these people were taken so seriously that their names are well-known decades after they've passed
OH NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.16411565]

>>16406087
unironically chomsky

[Anonymous No.16411622]

Any gay retard getting their ass plowed for "magick"
literally just type magick on youtube and go to first fuckwits channel

[Anonymous No.16412202]

Evola was a leftist

[Anonymous No.16412208]

People tend to forget that Spengler was a socialist so probably him.

[Anonymous No.16412212]

>>16412202
>monarchist
>leftist
The term makes little sense as it is. Stop twisting it

[Anonymous No.16412220]

>>16412212
>anti-monarchist
>right wing
I guess people like Morrissey are left wing then. Monarchy has nothing to do with the political spectrum now a days

[Anonymous No.16412222]

>>16406087
Deleuze

[Anonymous No.16412229]

>>16412212
Monarchosocialism is a system that some people desire.

[Anonymous No.16412426]

>>16412220
>left wing*

[Anonymous No.16413229]

>>16412202
this

[Anonymous No.16413415]

>>16412229
Stalinism isn’t really socialism

[Anonymous No.16413594]

>>16411565

Chomsky does not talk about political philosophy from an Aesthetic-Spiritual paradigm like Evola did.

[Anonymous No.16413737]

>>16407819
Unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.16414055]

>>16406453
This one makes the most sense to me