books to understand fascist and lefties core beliefs

[Anonymous No.20379721]

ok, not trying to make a pol thread, but I just want to see if there's a few books, I mean I don't want to read an entire bibliography on both political systems, but simply like 2 books at best that summarize both what the political extremes in America core beliefs are?

I guess I could look up some introductory book to fascism and another to communism, but I would love to see if /lit/ can recommend me some basic non encyclopedic more like layman books that explains both what pol and the lefty version of pol has at their core beliefs.

[Anonymous No.20379732]

fascism: race war
communism: class war

there, thats it

[Anonymous No.20379740]

>>20379732
This, plus freedom allergy and lots of cuck fetishism

[Anonymous No.20379743]

>The Doctrine of Fascism - Giovanni Gentile
>Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered - Oswald Mosely
>A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism - Evola
>Mein Kampf - Hitler
>The Communist Manifesto - Marx

[Anonymous No.20379747]

>>20379721
It's just an echo of the eternal Hobbes vs Rousseau debate. Are humans naturally violent and hierarchical or are they naturally cooperative? If the former, please collect your black sun t-shirt, if the latter, please pick up your copy of the Little Red Book. That's literally all it is. Is hierarchy good or is it bad?

[Anonymous No.20379777]

>>20379721
>summarize both what the political extremes in America core beliefs are?
Both ideologies are irrelevant, especially in America. The difference between left and right in the United States is merely sociological.

[Anonymous No.20379793]

>>20379732
>>20379740
>>20379747
>>20379777
None of those are book reccomendations

[Anonymous No.20379801]

>>20379743
None of those books are relevant today.

[Anonymous No.20379802]

>not trying to make a pol thread
No, you are. You are on the wrong board.
Everyone above me didn't even read your post.
>simply like 2 books at best that summarize both what the political extremes in America core beliefs are
Progressives and Rightwing America core beliefs?
It's a bit hard for me to be honest.
Maybe "The Case for Trump" by Hanson and I'm not sure about progressive maybe Obama or Hillary biographies, or An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.
You are asking for too much to be simplified desu

[Anonymous No.20379820]

>>20379793
>None of those are book reccomendations
The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman
The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater

[Anonymous No.20379833]

>>20379801
They're relevant to OPs question

[Anonymous No.20379834]

[Anonymous No.20379835]

>>20379833
No, they are relevant to his bait title he asked IN his post:
>for 2 layman books that summarize what the American core beliefs and explains both what /pol/ and /leftypol/ are arguing about

[Anonymous No.20379842]

>>20379801
>Give me the real stuff of 2 + 2 but none of that 4 shit, that's not relevant today

[Anonymous No.20379845]

>>20379833
They are relevant to understanding fascism/communism but the current extremes of US politics are not advocating Italian fascism or orthodox Marxism.

[Anonymous No.20379849]

>>20379842
See >>20379835
OP baited a ton of people who answered his TITLE accurately but not his actual question.

[Anonymous No.20379900]

>>20379721
Liberalism at the start of the 20th century was the rightwing racist party of free market capitalism. The socialist movement (ON THE LEFT) was so popular the moderate liberals in the GOP had to invent the “progressive”, a reformist group. Old Theodore Roosevelt was supposed to be a progressive Republican (though he was an imperialist Anglophile). The darker side of the progressives movement was the eugenicists. The racist liberals, and the progressivist eugenicists where cousin movements to European fascists/Futurists. Perversions of the socialist movement.
FDR used this reform platform to save capitalism and save the tanked economy, but before his corpse was cold the elites started to chisel away at those meager reforms.
The DNC and RNC have always worked for each other’s wellbeing rather than the public’s. They don’t really mind what names they go by. The Dixiecrat south didn’t rebrand as that party of Lincoln till the 60s.

>two books
Haha. Pick them out.

[Anonymous No.20379919]

>>20379747
This dude is right. I think Schmitt called that in characteristically sociologistic language “anthropological optimism versus anthropological pessimism”. I’d say that you could first kinda see the specific question of hierarchy clearly in the History of the Peloponnesian War though

[Anonymous No.20379938]

>>20379747
It’s never so black and white.
Hierarchy with merit and reason is evident. Hierarchy by force and tricks are mostly bad

>>20379793
That one was Hobbes and Rousseau

[Anonymous No.20379948]

>>20379900
This post is so aggravatingly bad.
10/10 bait.

[Anonymous No.20379953]

>>20379747
And this is what passes for profound philosophical debate.

[Anonymous No.20379957]

>>20379948
Too brief? It’s accurate though.

[Anonymous No.20379959]

>>20379957
>It’s accurate though.
You don't actually answer OPs question as a reference nor offer two LAYMAN books for him to use.
You just came here to dump your low level /pol/ post.

[Anonymous No.20379967]

>>20379959
I’m not from pol. I just launched into it and realized I’d take pages up before getting to a point and recommendations. The chart was supposed to help. Seriously pick any and learn

[Anonymous No.20379980]

>>20379900
Keep seething redbrown tankchud. Liberalism is way more emancipatory than socialism ever was. Also lol @ “the elites” fucking nazi dogwhistle if I ever saw one

[Anonymous No.20379998]

>>20379967
I am not OP, I am just informing you you did not answer his question or offer 2 layman level books.

[Anonymous No.20380020]

>>20379980
Wow, stupid posting.

>>20379998
I already admitted that I offered too many in the chart. Can you pick for him?

[Anonymous No.20380024]

>>20380020
No, you did not provide a single layman level book in the chart that explains modern america's divide or extremes nor the issues they discuss.

[Anonymous No.20380094]

Faces of Janus seems to be what you're looking for on fascism. I have no idea if there's any equivalent analysis of communism but I'd appreciate if someone could recommend one.

[Anonymous No.20380401]

>>20379747
>Are humans naturally violent and hierarchical or are they naturally cooperative? If the former, please collect your black sun t-shirt, if the latter, please pick up your copy of the Little Red Book.
One of the differences between Marxism and left-wing anarchism (or anarcho-communism) is on this subject of "human nature." So the anarchists tend to say that humans are naturally cooperative but the Marxists are pretty hostile to "human nature" as a concept, or at least see whatever that is as not being fixed or static but something that's constantly changing.

Marx also often doesn't speak of worker vs. capitalist but of individual (that is, human) versus *capital* which takes on "inhuman power." This borders on the supernatural but derives from Marx's critique of religion, like man creates God but then projects his creative powers onto God and becomes submissive to his creation. In capitalism, capital becomes like God, which is in contrast to Bernie-style rhetoric that chalks up to the problem being "corporate greed," which is like more of an outcome or a product rather than the origin of the problem.