[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 138 KB, 900x790, composition_1small[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774154 No.3774154 [Reply] [Original]

Holy shit how I hate right wingers and their bullshit artistry. It's not that left wing is good, it's just that right wing is synonymous with self-deluding, intellectualy lazy and manipulative. If I wanted cheap thrills I would just masturbate. Name me ONE book from the right wing perspective that produced some insight and isn't a self-serving load of wankery.

>> No.3774167

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations has influenced the thoughts and policies of philosophes, leaders, and governments for decades. It's about as right wing as you can get.

>itt an edgy demofag discards all ideas from those who he disagrees with before taking the time to understand them.

Get off government help my dude.

>> No.3774170

2083: A European Declaration of Independence

>> No.3774173

>>3774167
>It's about as right wing as you can get.
Sorry dude but this is a common misconception, a historical revisionism by 'Austrians' and their likes.

>> No.3774175

>>3774167
Not really trying to get into a debate or anything but in his own day Smith was very left wing, the right wing position would have been mercantilism and monarchism

>> No.3774178

What you've identified is just a by-product of extremism.

You notice it less on 'the left' because you probably identify more with those values.

>> No.3774183

Liberals are not communist

Everyone who may be possibly right of the center is a goose stepping fascist.

>> No.3774186

as a leftist I can assure you that this sort of attitude is garbage. and that reading right-wing literature can be infinitely more rewarding than any leftist text.

case in point: Engels loved Balzac's novels and hated socialist realism. There is something informative and tragically beautiful about such reactionary texts when they are earnest and artful. Of course garbage is garbage. So far you've said nothing.

>> No.3774194

>>3774186
It may just be that reading Realist work is like trying to eat a spoonful of sawdust.

>> No.3774196

>>3774186
>more rewarding
If by rewarding you mean masturbatory cheap thrills you can take it. There is never any insight produced by right wing thought. There is only fan-service to status quo conservative class of the day.

>>3774183
Look up classical liberalis, liberals can be both right- and left-wing.

>> No.3774200

>>3774154
Holy shit, nigga. Talk about reactionary. You are not my ally. I'm going to accuse you for being a Neo-Lib Dem now. Cunt.

Nationalistic art is always fun to wonder about. Right wing extremist literature is always fun to read. We know it's not real, we know it's reactionary. Books are books.

>> No.3774201

>>3774200
>muh fun
Why don't you just masturbate instead?

>> No.3774206

>>3774194
can be. and i think the time for realism has passed. I just think in general that I would rather read the most propagandistic right-wing literature than sit through some shmaltzy self-serving repetition of my values. I would rather read someone else's masturbation than read someone masturbating for me

>> No.3774208

>>3774154
>he thinks this is exclusive to the right wing
>he hasn't heard of socialist realism

lol

>> No.3774211

>>3774196
Orwell or Huxley or socialist realism or any other bullshit leftist "social commentary" is cheap masturbatory thrill.

>> No.3774212

>>3774208
>fascist repressive culture
>left wing
pick one

Nazis were "socialists" too.

>> No.3774220

>>3774211
The Jungle: Case in point

>> No.3774224

>>3774201
Hey faggot, why don't you stop shitting on our choices, you statist scum. We don't care about opinion or your negativity. If you plan to come here with that shit, you're asking for a licking.

>> No.3774232

>>3774154
>I hate right wing and their bullshit

Ok. Acknowledged. Happy now?

>> No.3774236

>>3774220
precisely.

what is really valuable "leftist" literature is ("experimental") literature which can bring people to think outside of prevailing modes of thinking. and just yelling about how awful things are is not that - it has value but not in art

>> No.3774237
File: 3 KB, 96x95, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774237

>>3774224
Don't be hypocritical, I have my freedom to criticize your choices, you have the freedom to act like a babby and get mad.

>2013
>having fun
it's like pre-puberty all over again

>>3774211
Maybe per se, but compared to right-wing dumbfuckry those are gold nuggets.

>> No.3774247
File: 38 KB, 531x800, Jünger,_Ernst_-Auf_den_Marmorklippen,1939.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774247

>>3774154
If you're not trolling and actually looking to find good right wing literature, look no further than Ernst Jünger.

>> No.3774264

>>3774154
It's like you're the left version of /pol/.

>> No.3774272

>>3774212
>b-but they weren't REAL left-wingers!

No true Scotsman, faggot?

>> No.3774282

>>3774272
>Crony Capitalist aren't real capitalist!

Hue, typical libertarian.

>> No.3774284

>>3774272
Nazis were left-wingers? 'k

>> No.3774302
File: 100 KB, 574x395, Streetkids_RussianCivilWartomwaits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774302

>>3774154

Darkness at Noon

>> No.3774306

>>3774272
>Conflating National Socialist with socialist when Nazis claim to be 3rd part edginess that doesn't want to be associated with socialist

Oh boy, you right wingers are just fucking fun today.

>> No.3774310

>>3774282
No, they're acknowledged as capitalists, but as bad capitalists. Whereas leftists deal with bad leftists by claiming they "weren't really leftists at all guys!"

>> No.3774317

>>3774284
>>3774306
Are you two retarded? Do you know where socialist realism is from? Hint: it wasn't Nazi Germany. He was saying that the USSR is a fascist repressive culture that isn't left wing.

>> No.3774318

>>3774310
>No faggot. They aren't real COMMUNIST. Not "not real leftist". Unless you count China now. They aren't leftist.

>> No.3774331

This conversation isn't boding well.

>> No.3774332

>>3774272
If nazis used a carebear heart instead of swastika as their symbol would that make them compasionate bears? Or if their anthem was about hugging? Holy shit if only they knew.

All it took Stalin and his successors to fool a gullible hoi polloi like you was some imitatory imagery.

Typical right-wing lazy mentality of taking mask for the face.

>> No.3774343

>>3774332
Cool, so can I then argue that Pinochet's Chile wasn't actually right-wing?

>> No.3774344

OP's faggotry aside, there were many good works of literature from the authoritarian right. In fact it was the norm if you look back far enough. However, I have trouble thinking of any good novel from the libertarian right. I'd be much grateful if someone could point me in the right direction. I'm trying to reassure myself that I hate Ayn Rand because she can't write, not because of political differences.

>> No.3774346

>>3774310
>they're acknowledged as capitalists, but as bad capitalists
Who does the aknowleding? Who gives you the authority to decide when capitalism stops being capitalism. I don't think those cronies would agree with your opinion.

>> No.3774352

>>3774343
Every system ever is a mixture, it's your job to discern all of the deciding factors and determine which side dominates. Live it to your conscience, I've already decided.

>> No.3774357

its just another version of christfaggotry, just move on

>> No.3774364
File: 94 KB, 261x262, 1364259184068.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774364

>mfw people care to argue political semantics in an age of unrequited wealth and can't just sit back and enjoy it

>> No.3774374
File: 65 KB, 530x350, starving-children-africa[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774374

>>3774364
>ey kids, in our beautiful capitalist order you only have to go to work and you won't starve anymore
>b-but collecting semiconductor waste will give me cancer, it's not a job, it's death by torture
>pffffffffffffffffft semantics, enjoy your wealth, faggots

>> No.3774391

>>3774364
>Poverty, Unemployment, War, Hunger, Repression, Illiteracy, Privacy is in the gutter...
>Just sit back and enjoy it

You really don't understand how this works don't you?

>> No.3774394

>>3774364
>apolitical
>proud of it

as soon as there is a new crisis people like you gather around ron paul and other teabaggers

>> No.3774400

Kaputt by Malaparte and Runaway Horses by Mishima?

I don't feel I have to speak up for 'right-wingers', but your view of it is askew...I think you're mistaking it for imperialism.

>> No.3774401

>>3774391
Either a Poe or a typical right-wing self-serving delusional demographic. Very relevant to the thread.

>> No.3774421

>>3774391

This is the greatest time on earth to be alive, ever. The amenities and services available to a person who makes $0 a year in any first world country makes him far wealthier than the king of England just 150 years ago.

Is there still suffering? Of course there is. In terms of historical materialism, however, it is trending away. This is, of course, assuming we can keep people like you 2edgy4life morons from dashing the world to pieces because you can't understand Marx.

>> No.3774422

>>3774400
>Kaputt by Malaparte
gonna check this shit out

>> No.3774448

>>3774422
There has been disgustingly little mention of Malaparte on /lit/...also check The Skin, it is probably my favorite book.

>> No.3774449

>>3774421

>The amenities and services available to a person who makes $0 a year in any first world country makes him far wealthier than the king of England just 150 years ago.

That's an absurd claim. Sure, the *Queen* of England 150 years ago, you illiterate git, would be unable to buy the living standards of such a man, but neither would such a man be able to afford the living standards of the Queen of England. They are incomparable cost wise.

On the other hand, if you are speaking of subjective value, good luck finding a person making $0 who would not trade it all for castles, servants and good food.

>> No.3774450

>>3774422
there is nothing right-wing about it.
malaparte wrote it towards the end of ww2 as some kind of evidence, that he had been a neutral observer and that he had witnessed disgusting things.
i dont know why the other anon would suggest it in this context.

>> No.3774453

>>3774421
>This is the greatest time on earth to be alive, ever.
This is a continuation of your delusional and self-serving narrative.

What's so great about living in a global system captured by a myopic elite where total annihilation is always a real threat?

> The amenities and services available to a person who makes $0 a year in any first world country makes him far wealthier than the king of England just 150 years ago.
No thanks to self-aggrandizing interests.

And the best part is, the externalities and hidden costs are so huge and such a strain on ecosystem that your free-riding on foreign aid nigga from random african community and generations of his descendands actually pay dearly for the shitty service he's getting. There are no free lunches.

>> No.3774475

>>3774450
Surely you mean that it was written during the war, finished in '44 and published in '46.

Malaparte's perspective was that of a right-winger, albeit a horribly cynical one (as in, he was not a fascist at that point)...his neutral stance came later.

>> No.3774487

Kill yourself.

>> No.3774489

>>3774475
He became a Maoist in the end of his life and repudiated the Right-Wing.

>> No.3774508

>>3774489
well, flirted with maoism, but who knows what his motives were...it is said that he died a humanist, but a bitter one.

>> No.3774513

>>3774508
>it is said that he died a humanist
So he's learnt nothing.

>> No.3774525

>>3774364
Get a load of this Neo-Lib "I value stabillity" faggot.

>> No.3774537

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

>> No.3774545

>>3774513
It's impossible for us to understand his position...he was partly attached to the black shirts, was well acquainted with Mussolini, definitely know by the national socialists highest circles and he flat out called Hitler a woman in 1931 in "Coup d'état: the technique of revolution" and predicted the exact actions which lead to them to power which landed him in jail and still they wanted to have him around for their parties during the war.

I think his humanism came from a very unsentimental background.

>> No.3774606
File: 186 KB, 717x1071, evola_ride_tiger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774606

Here it is.

>> No.3774612

Curzio Malaparte - Kaputt.epub
http://www17.zippyshare.com/v/83294837/file.html

Enjoy!!

>> No.3774627

>>3774612
thanks anon!

COUP D’ÉTAT: THE TECHNIQUE OF REVOLUTION by Curzio Malaparte:
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/malaparte/

>> No.3774702

>>3774175
>terms can't change definitions over the years!
By that, then democrats must endorse slavery because they were like that 200 years ago.

>> No.3774708

>>3774364
this u fucking commies and nazis can't stop the transnational capitalist free trade globalist paradise

lol

>> No.3774711

>>3774302
I don't believe Koestler was a rightist. I could be wrong though. You can be anti-communist and be on the left.

>> No.3774713

>>3774711

He was a Communist up until 1938. Don't know about the rest of his life.

>> No.3774721

>>3774702
>terms can't change definitions over the years!
But he's arguing that they do, you mongoloid. The left of 200 years ago was different from the left of today. We can say he was a leftist because he was a "progressive" in relation to his ideologically opposite counterparts.

>> No.3774725

>>3774154
The Fountainhead.
/thread/

>> No.3774727

>>3774211
How are rightist novels any different? Aren't those authors doing the same thing?

>> No.3774728
File: 32 KB, 500x413, 1367006983402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774728

>>3774708

It's not that the world is in any way a paradise. It's that you faggots sit on laptops eating snack cakes and act like the world is falling apart. I understand it, it's human nature, it's what the media shouts from the rooftops everyday. That the world is full of doom and gloom and it's all about to blow up.

Maybe, but who cares? I've got my laptop and my snack cakes, and I'm going to enjoy them while I can, not pointlessly wring my hands over the transgressions of others.

>> No.3774729

>>3774721
That's a moot point then and it was meaningless to bring it up. We're arguing under today's definitions and under our definition of right-wing, he was right-wing.

>>3774725
wrong

>> No.3774735

>>3774729
So you believe that every progressive in past history should be deemed a right-winger? That doesn't make any sense.

>> No.3774744

>>3774735
No, you make the argument facile without having set definitions to argue on.

>> No.3774751

>>3774453
I'm not that guy, and I agree the world is still fucked up. However, the average human(global average) is better of in this decade than any other in the history of our species.
That being said, apolitical people are fucking deluded.
>durr my vote doesn't matter, it's just one among millions
>not realising those are millions of individual votes
I have several close friends like this, and it's infuriating. They don't even bother to find out what different parties represent.

>> No.3774757

>>3774728
>egotism
Whatev's, dawg, it's all good.
Please die? Oh, wait, it doesn't matter!

>> No.3774762

>>3774154
The Theory of Money and Credit- Ludwig von Mises.
Does that work?

>> No.3774768

>>3774751
>Implying /lit/ vote
Top lel.

>> No.3774773

>>3774728
>you faggots

you fucking bastard lrn2read&write CUNT

>> No.3774775

>>3774768
I do. Everytime. For everything i am entitled to vote. Voting is a right conquered by many years of struggle, and is a way to have my views represented.

>> No.3774778
File: 38 KB, 302x500, 1360174419049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774778

Starship Troopers

/thread

>> No.3774781

>>3774751
20k donation for campaign advertising > 100 votes or so

a vote is merely symbolic

>> No.3774787

>> right wing is synonymous with self-deluding, intellectualy lazy and manipulative

Which are charges that could surely never be aimed at left-wing writing, eh?

>> No.3774796

>>3774728
yeah, and a few decades ago people like you would praise the new metro that was built by the soviet proletarians, or the new airport that has been built by german aryans. cultural progress has nothing to do with laptops and snacks, nigger. when you see some new item in the the technology tree as proof of a good political situation, its time to overthink your existence.

>> No.3774797

>>3774729

By today's standards he would've been pretty centrist. He was in support of progressive taxation, for instance.

>> No.3774799

>>3774778

>B-but that's a satire

>> No.3774805

>>3774751

>not realising those are millions of individual votes

None of which will be influenced by your decision to vote or not vote.

If you want to make a difference, you need to influence others' votes. Knock on doors, hand out pamphlets, whatever. Your own vote is useless.

>> No.3774809

>>3774799

It's not a satire at all. You're thinking of the movie.

>> No.3774810

>>3774797
Most conservatives are fairly centrist, contrary to /lit/'s belief. /lit/ has this uncalled for bias against any non-leftwing viewpoint or idea, and that, all conservatives are extremist fundamentalist republicans (not true by the way). If you want an example of this being the case, look at this thread, look at the op.

>> No.3774815

>>3774796
Maybe next time you could take the time to read his post and the ones he was responding to before replying.

>> No.3774819
File: 853 KB, 1224x792, clinton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774819

>>3774796

No, it's not. Can you not look to history to see the carnage left behind by people who overthink their existences? Stop, let the world evolve as the world will. If anything, stop others from overthinking. It is from that overthinking that all strife and suffering emanate.

>> No.3774821

>>3774810

The claim was that by our definition of right-wing, he's right wing. He's not, he's centrist.

>> No.3774825

>>3774819

> If anything, stop others from overthinking

I, also, hate science. Let's shut down the universities and lynch all intellectuals.

>> No.3774829

>>3774819
that belongs to the dumbest things i ever read.

are you trying to reinvent the "noble savage"-theory?

>> No.3774833

>>3774821
It takes more than minor deviations to completely alter someone's ideology. Though he believed in charity, worker's unions and the like (as do I), it's simply that he revolves more around the free-market capitalism than he does with socialism. Therefor making him right-wing.

>> No.3774835

>>3774751

Anyone who says their vote doesn't count because it's "just one vote" is stupid.

Anyone who says their vote doesn't count because their are a lot of powerful interests doing their damnedest to make sure nothing really changes except in ways they like no matter who has power is right on.

>> No.3774837

I don't think you understand the right wing. I don't believe there's anything wrong with supporting traditional values - they've gotten us this far. Also, economically it's beyond stupid to be on the left - muhh benefits, muhh handouts, muhh entitlement. That is bullshit, whatever happened to a man working a hard day to provide for himself and his family.

The left appears to me actually quite stupid, but I just seem to differ greatly in opinion OP.

>> No.3774838

>>3774837

Seconded.

>> No.3774841

>>3774837
>muh traditions
>muh patriarchal familee

>> No.3774843

/pol/ plz go, this was about books.

>> No.3774845

>>3774843
ok

>> No.3774847

>>3774843
>you're not allowed to defend your position when people insult you, only one opinion is allowed here
ugh

>> No.3774851

>>3774837
>Also, economically it's beyond stupid to be on the left - muhh benefits, muhh handouts, muhh entitlement.

This, leftism is the path to debt slavery. Leftists are simply stealing from their children so that they can live large.

>> No.3774852
File: 15 KB, 278x400, Ezra_Pound_1945_May_26_mug_shot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774852

>>3774154
A fair chunk of the Modernist movement.

>> No.3774859

>>3774851
so much idiocy... so much idiocy...
Do i smell American?

>> No.3774860

>>3774841
Yes I do believe in a traditional family, I fail to see the issue you're having with that. Marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered for life. It's been proven over thousands of years, why change everything now?

>muh traditions
Yes that was my point, and those two words do not equate to a rebuttal.

>> No.3774861

>>3774851

>Public schooling
>Stealing from their children

Cool.

>> No.3774863

>>3774837

>I don't believe there's anything wrong with supporting traditional values - they've gotten us this far.

But at what cost? Who had to die? Who had to be oppressed? Who had to lose their freedom?

If you want to be blindly pragmatic, then yes the right is where you belong. But the left is also about loftier ideals, not merely what works from a pragmatic point of view.

>Also, economically it's beyond stupid to be on the left - muhh benefits, muhh handouts, muhh entitlement. That is bullshit, whatever happened to a man working a hard day to provide for himself and his family.

See, it's this kind of heartlessness that results from a worldview that has divorced itself from emotion, as the conservative right has. They see figures, not people. They have no empathy. If a man falls on hard times, it's because he didn't work hard enough, or he wasn't smart enough. If someone is poor it's because they deserve it. There's no injustice in the system, only people who are not as great as themselves.

>> No.3774870

>>3774837

I can see you in a room with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin on the wall muttering about long haired hoodlums ruining American manhood.

>> No.3774871

>>3774859
Oh look, another socialist who thinks he can borrow money from the banks forever. The bankers are your friends!

The only credible alternatives offered by the left are communism and anarchism, everything milder is simply the creep of serfdom.

>> No.3774873

>>3774863
Economics doesn't deal with people, it deals with money. Politics should keep with the people and should change according to the people. Economics should change according to money.

>> No.3774874

>>3774861
>implying you have to be on the left to support public schooling

Turn off the propaganda.

>> No.3774879

>>3774873

How on earth can you divorce economy from politics?

>> No.3774880

>>3774871
Sorry to disappoint you, i am a member of a Communist Party.

>> No.3774883

>>3774863
No I believe everyone should have the opportunity in life to be what they want. It's what they do with that opportunity which is up to them. The right work through it and try hard whilst the left sit back because they know they'll just get benefits to help them out.

>> No.3774885

>>3774860
for example that automatically puts gays into the "arent interested in the long term"-group... as stated by niall ferguson recently.
so they arent one of us.
so they are asocial.
so they have to be gassed, amirite?
>muh gas chambers

>> No.3774888

>>3774883

>There's no injustice in the system, only people who are not as great as themselves.

>> No.3774889

>>3774863
>But the left is also about loftier ideals, not merely what works from a pragmatic point of view.

That is ridiculous, do people actually believe this? The right is just as much about lofty ideals as the left, they're just not your ideals.

>> No.3774894

>>3774880
*hint* ...it's not really a communist party.

>> No.3774896

>>3774874
Reality shows that. In almost every country you see the left against tuitions and the Right (usually in power) raising them. It really doesn't surprise me that one of the most famous figures of the Right was called The Milk Snatcher.

>> No.3774897

>>3774889

I'm referring to the conservative right, which is most certainly not about ideals. It's about pragmatism and "doing what works" and keeping tradition because "it's worked well so far".

The fascist and otherwise revolutionary right are indeed about high ideals, you are correct.

>> No.3774899

>>3774885
>not allowed to marry
>therefore gas them
That is a retarded jump and you know it. People can't be that stupid to buy into that shit.

All I'm saying is marriage is meant to suit the definition as above and I understand it often strays in the last 2 parts. However that does not make it redundant.
Good luck having children if you're 2 dudes. You have to steal a baby from another to become a parent.

>> No.3774902

>>3774879
Though they intersect, they should be kept as exclusive as much as possible without causing any possible harm to either. I understand there are many problems in this world that deal with poverty and the like, and I'll do my best to solve it. When what I'm doing becomes economically detrimental, I'll stop doing what I'm doing. Trade-offs.

>> No.3774903

>>3774899

>You have to steal a baby from another to become a parent.

You're a troll.

>> No.3774905

>>3774902

So slavery should have never been abolished? It was an economic matter, after all.

>> No.3774907

>>3774903
Nope. Just sensible.

>> No.3774909

>>3774894
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Communist_Party

One of the few parties in Europe who didn't follow Euro-Communism and remains a commited Marxist-Leninist Party.

>> No.3774913

>>3774897
>I'm referring to the conservative right,

The conservative right is also about ideals. The entire basis of everything Friedman has written is that freedom and the individual must be pre-eminent.

Traditionalism is also, again, about an ideal, the ideal of the noble past and of stability.

Hint: all political movements are based on "lofty ideals," that's why they have followers.

>> No.3774916

>>3774905
You're thinking in narrow terms and looking at special case examples. Obviously, slavery was more a social-political issue than an economic one and should have definitely been abolished. I believe slavery should have been abolished at a slower rate without the need of a war.

>> No.3774914

>>3774907
Nope. Just incredibly dumb.

>> No.3774918

>>3774899
>People can't be that stupid to buy into that shit.
yes they do, its called scapegoating. happens everytime when shit hits the fan. it just werks.

>> No.3774920

>>3774913

Friedman was not a conservative.

>Traditionalism is also, again, about an ideal, the ideal of the noble past and of stability.

That's a different sort of "ideal". I'm sorry if that isn't obvious. You're basically just playing semantics, though. I think my meaning was pretty clear.

>> No.3774922

>>3774916

How do you tell when something is "more a social-political issue than an economic one"?

>> No.3774930

>>3774909
PCP, LOL...having your party known internationally as the angel dust party.

lemme ask, Trotskyist or Stalinist?...because that's what communist parties eventually have to boil down to if they get any power.

>> No.3774932

>>3774922
You're playing language-games now.
>How do you tell when purple is "more a red colour than a blue one"?
Very carefully.

>> No.3774943

>>3774932
when its frequency is closer to blue or red side of the spectrum

do you even physics?

>> No.3774944

>>3774932

Why was slavery "more a social-political issue than an economic one"?

>> No.3774946

>>3774920
>Friedman was not a conservative.

Uh, hello? He was a traditional liberal, which falls under the umbrella of conservatism.

>>Traditionalism is also, again, about an ideal, the ideal of the noble past and of stability.

>That's a different sort of "ideal". I'm sorry if that isn't obvious. You're basically just playing semantics, though. I think my meaning was pretty clear.

No, it's also an ideal and just as worthy of inclusion under the umbrella of "lofty ideals," which, may I remind you, does not include only ideals that you like. I'm not playing semantics, I'm using the exact definitions of the words you used to frame my response.

>I think my meaning was pretty clear

I think it's pretty clear that your meaning was that ideas you like translate to "lofty ideals," while ideas you don't like translate to animal pragmatism.

>> No.3774950

>>3774930
Neither. During Stalinist reign the Party had severed relationships with CCCP. And Trotskysts were never important in the country. it was the Party of Nobel Laureate José Saramago.

>> No.3774967

>>3774943
It's a metaphor.

>>3774944
I'm not going to explain to you what happened prior to the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, sectionalism, Henry Clay and the like in a paragraph, do your own research. That's an issue that's looked at from both sides in a formal debate, with economic, political, ideological, social points, on end. Unfortunately, this is not the parliament, this is an image forum, and I don't want to write an essay comparing and contrasting both view points in order to construct why it was more a social-political issue (hint: sectionalism, human rights and western expansion), than an economic one. I will also tell you that, a) The War was not best way to abolish slavery and that it should progressively been abolished, and b) The War was more detrimental to the Southern economy than the 13th amendment was.

>> No.3774992

>>3774211
Trying way too hard

>> No.3774995
File: 402 KB, 594x444, oh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3774995

>>3774374
>yfw this is what capitalists actually believe

>> No.3775005

>>3774995
>this is what leftists actually believe
Stop being blinded by propagandist shills.

>> No.3775011

>>3774995
>>3774374
The dirty areas of Africa are at best a capitalist-feudalistic areas and at worst feudalistic war grounds. If you think that the colonialism was the sole reason (though it did play a huge part mind you) for the depreciation of Africa, you are blind.

>> No.3775013
File: 86 KB, 264x240, 1361331348342.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3775013

>>3774837
>That is bullshit, whatever happened to a man working a hard day to provide for himself and his family.

muh division of labor

>> No.3775016

>>3774967

So you will simply state something as fact and then go on to state that it is far too complex to argue.

I agree. That doesn't mean you are correct, but you seem to just take for granted ideas I do not agree with and ideas that are too complex to explain in this forum. So we have to stop talking, I'm afraid.

>> No.3775020

>>3775005
>implying capitalism isn't upheld by propaganda and ignorance that encourage selfishness

>> No.3775023

>>3775005
>this is what you actually believe
Stop regurgitating empty comebacks.

>> No.3775024

>>3775016
God, you're unbearable with your passive-aggressiveness. I listed at least three (in the parenthesis) reasons why.

>> No.3775029

>>3775024

I'm not going to attempt to argue with your vague parentheticals.

>> No.3775032

>>3775029

And frankly it's very disrespectful for you to assume I would.

>> No.3775036

>>3775023
Your argument was just as shallow. I'm not going to give a meaningful argument for a shallow one.

>>3775020
The only time this is the case is in school, in that it encourages hard work, university, etc. Even then it's rare. I've never seen propaganda encouraging selfishness. I only ever see something about charity, sharing, etc, which should be utmost encouraged. You are wrong.

>> No.3775052

>>3775032
>>3775029
A vague argument?
You were the one who proposed the 'vague argument', I could not elaborate on my points on such because of how general and vague your question was. I find it insulting, not even disrespectful, insulting, that you think I should assume you should argue. When you were the one assuming that I should be arguing, you hypocrite.

>> No.3775063

>>3775052

I asked you to justify why you think something is. I quoted you specifically. If you were not prepared to justify the statement, which you weren't, which you still are not now, then you should not have said it.

But this bickering is pointless. No more.

>> No.3775069

There isn't that much right-wing fiction, is there? Well, intentional fiction (sorry, couldn't resist). I know Ayn Rand, but that's all I'm coming up with. Given that she outsells nearly everyone but God, you'd think there would be more of it.

>> No.3775080

>>3775063
Fine.

>> No.3775084

>>3775069
I doubt Ayn Rand can be considered anything concerning Art.

>> No.3775093

How subtle /pol/. Instead of supporting your opinions, you pretend to be the left and make us seem fucking stupid.

Ok. Game on. Faggots. Don't feel angry when the SRS raid happens tomorrow.

>> No.3775100

>>3775093
>not true Scotsman

>> No.3775158

>>3775069
Mishima was mentioned before.

>> No.3775164

>Name me ONE book from the right wing perspective that produced some insight and isn't a self-serving load of wankery
Hyperbole aside, given that capitalism is all about a self-serving attitude, why should you expect right-wing book to be different? And why should it be? This is like being surprised that Das Kapital is not a guide to becoming wealthy.

>> No.3775174

>>3775036
>implying society is not indoctrinated with consumerism by corporate media. implying charity isn't akin to giving a starving man just enough food not to die.

>> No.3775241

This thread is gay, leave /pol,

>> No.3775264

>>3775158
Ah, thanks. Now that I've thought about it, though, I'm not sure if most literature of any quality can be easily classified along classic political ontologies given only the text. Certainly we can say that such-and-such invokes sympathy for the poor or what-have-you and thus is left-wing or liberal, but that implies right-wingers necessarily hate the poor, which cardboard stereotypes aside, isn't really the case. Straightforward polemics tend to make for crap fiction, I think.

I'm reminded of a time when I was arguing with a hardcore Tea Party type, and brought up Steinbeck, who he happened to love, so we kinda came to a degree of mutual understanding over that. Of course, that didn't last long, but the point remains. In any case, I don't really do politics anymore, as it's pretty draining and my own views are pretty dependent on the specifics of proposals, which makes it difficult to talk in the abstract about them.

>> No.3776188

>>3774728
The thing is: world is falling apart. Even when you conveniently ignore nuclear weapon stockpiles and their proliferation, the ever increasing ease of manufacturing killer-bugs, the deteriorating condition of the ecosystem, the running out resources. Because there is no game theoretical escape from capitalism run amok. Everyone is playing the irrationally exuberant game of musical chairs. Cannibalism and elaborate suicide of the system is the only result of capitalism, there is no happy ending. I am not saying I fancy collectivist tree-hugging communism, but at least it gives us a shot at survival.

Yeah, so praise your trinkets and snacks and know you are paying for them tenfold over in your own flesh. What a great deal.

>> No.3776204

>>3774728
"Don't you wish you were free, Lenina?"

"I don't know what you mean. I am free. Free to have the most wonderful time. Everybody's happy nowadays."

He laughed, "Yes, 'Everybody's happy nowadays.' We begin giving the children that at five. But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else's way."

>> No.3776212
File: 10 KB, 259x194, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3776212

>>3774819
>Stop, let the world evolve as the world will

>> No.3776227

>>3774154

Brave New World?

>> No.3776230

>>3774837
>they've gotten us this far
Yes, in the last few decades of the Cold War we've been (as far as we know) three times on the brink of total annihilation, where a decision of one, FUCKING ONE person that had "the button" at his arm's reach averted the end of civilization.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 for an example
Your unlikely savior, Stanislav Petrov, is now living in a commie block on a few dollars a day.

Some fucking traditional values we've got us.

>economically it's beyond stupid to be on the left
I don't think you know much about left-wing economics apart from what Fox & Friends tells you.

>The left appears to me actually quite stupid, but I just seem to differ greatly in opinion OP.
Survival is stupid, noted.

>> No.3776236

>>3774837
>whatever happened to a man working a hard day to provide for himself and his family

What you have is nostalgia for a time you were never there for, friend. If you had been born in the 19th Century:
>whatever happened to a subject working a hard day to provide for his lord
>muhh democracy, muhh accountability, muhh entitlement

>> No.3776254

>>3774902
>When what I'm doing becomes economically detrimental
There is no "the Economy" to be worshipped and wooed. There are humans with their rights and well-being legally assured by national and international legal framework (at least on paper). Decision making regarding "The Economy" and politics surrounding it are to serve humans, not the other way around.

>> No.3776365

>>3774837
>I don't think you understand the right wing. I don't believe there's anything wrong with supporting traditional values - they've gotten us this far.

When it comes to values and how you understand your world, you literally have nothing in common with someone born even 100 years ago. Tradition is made up on the spot. It's a work concocted by political con men looking to appeal to sentiment.

>> No.3777429

>>3776254
Humans have no rights you mongoloid. The economy does not exist physically, the economy does not serve anyone unless there are people to work it. The same way your car doesn't drive properly down a straight line without a driver to direct it.

>> No.3777457

ITT:
>Reading politics
>Getting angry
>Not realizing the problem is you

>> No.3777466

>>3777429
>Humans have no rights
thats just like... your opinion mang

and how is the second part supposed to contradict him?

>> No.3777479

>>3777466
It's not really an opinion, it's a fact. Rights are human made concepts, they don't actually exist.

It contradicts him in that he thinks the economy should serve humans. Which is wrong, politics should serve humans, but the economy is something completely different working on two totally different levels.

>> No.3777482

>>3777479
Rights are passed down by god.

>> No.3777488
File: 16 KB, 500x500, kant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3777488

Is right-wing inherently anti-intellectual?

>> No.3777495

>>3777482
God is a spook.

>>3777488
Following a right-left dichotomy and making uncalled for bias is.

>> No.3777499

>>3777479
so why dont you just choose the same reasonable level of abstraction like the rest of us instead of reinventing language?

>> No.3777508

>>3777499
Define your 'reasonable level of abstraction'?

>> No.3777509

>>3777488
yes. just like romanticism was an anti-intellectual reaction to enlightenment.
fascism is the extreme political form of romanticism

>> No.3777517

>>3777509
>thinking right-wing is synonymous with right-wing
clueless

>> No.3777521

>>3777517
>linguistic obfuscation
tss tss

>> No.3777526

>>3777521
fascism is synonymous*

excuse on my part

>> No.3777583

>>3777429
>Humans have no rights you mongoloid
You have the right to spew such bullshit. You also have the right to be ignorant of the fact that human rights are internationally enforced and as real as your virginity.

>> No.3777587

>>3777583
Cool it champ, mind backing that up with some sources. (hint: internationally enforcement doesn't prove the existence of anything)

>> No.3777595

>>3777587
>babbys first try at understanding law is
your're a embarassment

>> No.3777603
File: 12 KB, 500x500, 1360527329610.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3777603

>>3777595
Do you not know what an 'appeal to authority' is?

>> No.3777619
File: 359 KB, 720x540, fedora[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3777619

>>3777603
>lel you're gun pointing at my temple is such an logical fallacy
2deep4me, your're line of thinkink is too sophisticate 4me, you intellectual titan

Your fedora is showing, take a walk, kid.

>> No.3777627

>>3777619
You literally haven't proven anything. You sound like you just came from /v/ by ironic shitposting, blatant insults and not knowing how to construct a proper argument. I just came back from a walk, but I might go for another one just get away from your stupidity. Bless your soul, I hope your trolling by this point.

>> No.3777629

>>3777627
you're*
ugh, you're infecting me

>> No.3777637

>>3777627
prove u exist so that i don't waste time proving shit to noone

i'll wait

>> No.3777676

>>3774154
Not really a book, but: "Harrison Bergeron."

Pretty much anything written by Dostoevsky.

People consider Michel deMontagne to be on the right, for some reason.

>> No.3777715

ITT: I got bullied out of /pol/ for not being right-wing, and now I'm going to smudge my shit all over /lit/

>> No.3777735

>>3776365
that's bullshit. Some ideas prevail. Yes, they will be transformed and will take slightly different form with time but what you do is just a word play. You still call a river with the same name even when all the water in it has changed.

>> No.3777744

>>3777676
>"Harrison Bergeron"
>right wing

You missed the point entirely.

>> No.3778669

>>3777509
>fascism is the extreme political form of romanticism

I can dig ti.