Leftist text suggestions for a hardcore right-winger? (No Marx)

[Anonymous No.8267872]

As a pretty hardcore right-winger, I want to open myself up to left-wing texts because I don't like living in an echo-chamber.

I have picked up Madness and Civilisation by Michel Foucault, and I am enjoying it so far even though I'm not very far into it, and it's a bit complex and hard to follow since I'm very new to Philosophy.

So, is it worth it to continue on buying Foucault's books and exposing myself to Leftist theories that way or what? Does he provide solid arguments?

[Anonymous No.8267883]

Foucault is as left wing as nietzsche is

[Anonymous No.8267891]

>>8267883
Foucault was basically an Anarcho-Communist, which is about as hard Left as you can get.

[Anonymous No.8267907]

if you're Christian right-wing you might try Belloc

[Anonymous No.8267927]

>>8267907
Well, I'm not a Christian, but I'll check him out.

[Anonymous No.8267941]

>>8267872
I think you'll like him, Foucault's politics in many ways exist outside of the left/right spectrum and form more of a surveillance (lol) of the system and its construction. regardless of your political views I imagine they'll be bolstered and informed by his tracts, but also offer you a more nuanced ideology, persevere imo

[Anonymous No.8267942]

Kropotkin, Deleuze, Baidou, Rawls, Paine, Rousseau, Debord, Bakunin, Dewey, Habermas...

[Anonymous No.8267947]

Edward Said

[Anonymous No.8267950]

Oh yeah I forgot Fanon

[Anonymous No.8267954]

>>8267872
If you want something more contemporary, try Paul Krugman. Foucault's theories are obviously hugely important and influential, but have limited relevance to modern leftist politics.

[Anonymous No.8267959]

>>8267927
oh, then you'll hate him.

[Anonymous No.8267960]

>>8267941
Thanks, anon.

I sometimes feel like I have to bust open a dictionary whenever I read Madness and Civilisation, but I will certainly persevere.

I've never understood why he couldn't have just used simpler language to get his point across. I'm certainly not dumb by any stretch of the word, but Foucault pushes me mentally a bit, which I like.

[Anonymous No.8267969]

>>8267954
I thought Krugman was purely an economist? I mean, I'm pretty set in my ways economically. Capitalism is empirically the best system.
It's politics and social theories I want a different perspective on.

But if Krugman is more than just an economist, sure, I might try him out.

[Anonymous No.8267995]

>>8267941
>Foucault's politics in many ways exist outside of the left/right spectrum
I don't understand why people say this, It's quite obvious to anybody with normative political views where he stands.

[Anonymous No.8268005]

>>8267995
i think in his personal life sure but in his works (and he himself would prefer that we focus our attention on them) but he's not coming at issues from a stance other than post-structural incisions -- which means rejecting positions of left (marxism, freudian marxism) and other Leftist strategies and apparatuses in favour of an entirely freshly-fabricated system of thought

[Anonymous No.8268010]

Read Deleuze and Guattari so you can properly understand the greatest right-wing thinker alive.

[Anonymous No.8268045]

Strongly recommend you try the Frankfurt School, suggest you start with Fromm's Escape from Freedom then Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment.

If you want more up to date leftist opinion try The New Left Review, The Monthly Review or Jacobin.

Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex is the foundational text of modern feminism. It's a block of a thing, minimally I'd recommend you read excepts to get a grasp on how the movement sees itself, at least in 1949.

Victor Serge was a revolutionary Marxist who wrote about his experiences as an insurrectionist in Spain and Russia. As well as his memoirs he's known for his fiction, which carries a libertarian tendency, critical of State Socialism. Necessary reading to see the relation between theory and practice from a critical perspective. I'd recommend The Case of Comrade Tulayev.

For economics you might be interested in David Schweickart's theories of market socialism or Geoffrey M. Hodgson's book Economics and Institutions which directly challenges the assumptions of Milton Friedman

[Anonymous No.8268050]

>>8268045
God bless Agent J.

He's /pol/'s lad till the very end.

[Anonymous No.8268491]

>>8267969
>Capitalism is empirically the best system
i guess we'll also need some books to clean up your mind of cold war propaganda

[Anonymous No.8268542]

>>8267969
>Capitalism is empirically the best system
Well Krugman is a capitalist. By leftist do you mean socially leftist (liberal) or economically leftist? Because liberals are capitalists (although some of them don't realize it).

[Anonymous No.8268571]

>>8267891
Foucault's writings were more or less anti-political. You can call him an anarcho-communist or Nietzsche a radical aristocratic reactionary but those terms just don't fucking mean anything at a certain point. Both are about power much more than some moraline notion of what is right or wrong. Right and wrong are incredibly flexible things across time and space which is core to both of their philosophies.

I mean in his personal life it's obvious he was a socialist just as it was obvious that Nietzsche was virulently anti-socialist but their bodies of work doesn't necessarily suggest a political stance in and of itself but rather focus on deconstructing and subverting extant stances and ideologies. It's not really right to call his work left wing any more than it is to call Nietzsche's right.

[Anonymous No.8268634]

>>8267969

>Capitalism is empirically the best system.

what's it like to go all in on american ideology bozo?

[Anonymous No.8268669]

>>8268634
>only America practices capitalism

[Anonymous No.8268684]

>>8267872
>right winger
>new to philosophy

sounds about right

[Anonymous No.8268694]

>>8268669
We adapted it and now we export it

[Anonymous No.8268697]

>>8268684
>left-wingers
>not strongly anti-philosophy because of the prevalence and popularity of white male philosophers

[Anonymous No.8268705]

>>8268697
no you're thinking of mental retardation

[Anonymous No.8268727]

>>8268684
Fuck off man. The guy is just trying to expand his world view.
>>8268697
>liberal=leftist
Falling for the memes

[Anonymous No.8268734]

>>8268727
and I'm just trying to ruin everything. live and let die amirite?

[Anonymous No.8268752]

[Anonymous No.8268753]

>>8267883

>Nietzsche
>left wing

[Anonymous No.8268759]

>>8268045

>this entire post

[Anonymous No.8268769]

>Foucault (who was French and therefore despicable) belongs to many of the bad traditions in philosophy. Madness and Civilization, by far his best and most accessible book, is of far greater historical value than philosophical. But his critiques of modernity are confined to the narrowness of a primarily historical perspective, and this limits the extent of his ability to explicate, for instance, the phenomena of mental illness, homosexuality, and madness. The physiological and gestative aspects of these are beyond his purview. Schopenhauer's definition of madness as a corruption of memory and the faculty of recollection is much more valuable both in theory and in practice. Many of Schopenhauer's observations and conclusions about the human mind have straightforward application in modern neurology and neuropsychiatry, such as his double aspect theory. Foucault’s attempt to explain various mental aberrations as the product of internal or external power struggles, or the historical prevalence of these, has few such worthwhile applications.

[Anonymous No.8268771]

>>8268753
if English is your native language you should be ashamed right now rt

[Anonymous No.8268776]

>>8268771

the fuck are you on about lad

[Anonymous No.8268824]

>>8268776
do you know what sarcasm is? you can be forgiven for not recognizing it if English isn't your first language. but if it is and you don't know that the dude you responded to was saying that Foucault and Fred were both right wingers.......well shit idk meng.

[Anonymous No.8268834]

>>8268684
most philosophy is right wing though

[Anonymous No.8268841]

>>8268834
>most philosophy is right wing
Uhhhhh

[Anonymous No.8268854]

>>8268841
equality is a modern disease

[Anonymous No.8268859]

>>8268854
gey

[Anonymous No.8268876]

>>8268045
I swear if Corbym walked on water today, dailymail will be calling it an affront to gravity and demand he apologize to physicists

[Anonymous No.8269133]

Read Adorno

[Anonymous No.8269141]

>>8268759
Name two things wrong with it
(you can't)

[Anonymous No.8269145]

Literally "Please poz my neg boipucci - The Philosopher"

[Anonymous No.8269147]

>>8268759
What would you recommend?

[Anonymous No.8269153]

What kind of books should right-wingers read?

I've only read For My Legionaires and Redwall.

[Anonymous No.8269181]

>>8268854
E D G Y

[Anonymous No.8269184]

>>8267872
Foucault's philosophy is apolitical. Murray Bookchin is apparently good but I never read him.

[Anonymous No.8269191]

>>8267969
Well, Krugman is a capitalist, and there is tonnes of variation within capitalism. Give him a read.

To be honest most leftists these days are capitalists, there are very few real socialists any more.

[Anonymous No.8269195]

>>8267891
Didn't he go full neoliberal in the end?

[Anonymous No.8269202]

>>8268634
He is right though. He didn't say capitalism is the best system. He said capitalism is empirically the best system. As long as no other system has been implemented in real life his point stands.

[Anonymous No.8269207]

>>8268634
>implying I'm American

I'm Irish

[Anonymous No.8269221]

[Anonymous No.8269224]

[Anonymous No.8269242]

[Anonymous No.8269254]

>>8269191
I don't know about that. A lot of the youth nowadays are self-identified Socialists or Communists, even; especially middle class college students, ironically.

[Anonymous No.8269257]

[Anonymous No.8269259]

>>8268010

[Anonymous No.8269261]

>>8267872
Read a bit about young hegelians
It's where some or many modern left ideas might have started, so Hegel and what happens after him, go get into the beginnings
Maybe some Orwell or Brecht for dramas
And you might want to check this out
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

[Anonymous No.8269262]

[Anonymous No.8269268]

>>8268542
Economically Leftist.

[Anonymous No.8269274]

>>8267872
Lenin. We could learn a lot from his views of how to organize a revolution and a party.

[Anonymous No.8269280]

>>8267891
Kek. You have no idea what you are talking about.

OP, try Frankfurt School. Horkheimer + Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Maybe also Situationist marxism a la Guy Debord.

[Anonymous No.8269284]

>>8269274
Jesus, no way. I'm willing to try others, but all Lenin was was a Communist whose policies led to mass famine and civil unrest.

[Anonymous No.8269285]

>>8269268
Economics and social theories are not so distinct. Ha-Joon Chang identifies nine economic theories, the majority would fall under the capitalist umbrella.

Wouldn't bother with Krugman, try Paul Mason's PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future

[Anonymous No.8269288]

>>8268753
in the end Nietzsche is a revolutionary lefty.
just because he acknowledges differences doesn't mean he is right wing.
he's is fucking anarchist. last time i checked that was pretty left wing

[Anonymous No.8269292]

>>8269284
Still worth reading. You don't have to like him.

[Anonymous No.8269294]

>>8269288
Camel through the eye of a needle m80.

[Anonymous No.8269298]

>>8269284
State and Revolution - analysis of the origins of the state and how it's apparatus must be used by worker's to defend the revolution. He also challenges the theories of Anarchists and Social Democrats.

Also - https://redscans.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil.pdf

[Anonymous No.8269299]

>>8269288
Nietzsche would despise the average leftist views. It is basically the perfect political embodiment of ressentiment. Thus slave morality.

If it is to be argued that Nietzsche was an 'anarchist' he would be a very different kind of anarchist than the standard revo-lefty one.

[Anonymous No.8269301]

>>8267872
Michel Foucault was accused of being a right-winger more than once.

[Anonymous No.8269303]

>>8269288
OP here.

While many would consider Anarchism purely Left-wing, it is in fact a spectrum, ranging from Anarcho-Communism on the far Libertarian Left to Anarcho-Capitalism on the far Libertarian Right.

[Anonymous No.8269306]

>>8269294
he is not conservative or reactionary at all.
he fights establishment and religion
just because he doesn't indulge in identity politics, self-pity and ressentiment like parts of the modern left he doenst automatically become right winged

[Anonymous No.8269309]

>>8269306
>left - right

spooked desu

[Anonymous No.8269312]

>>8269303
Many Anarchists would contest the ideology is more then just being anti-state authority.

[Anonymous No.8269313]

>>8269303
yeah i know.
it all depends an whether you think people would cooperate or compete if one would leave them to themselves. in the end its ofc both

[Anonymous No.8269314]

>>8269309
>false dichotomy
tell me about it

[Anonymous No.8269315]

>>8269306
no, he does not automatically become conservative right wing. I would never claim Nietzsche to be conservative and I never did.

But he is not a lefty. Actually reading Nietzsche would make that quite apparent to you.

[Anonymous No.8269328]

>>8269312
I'm a Neo-Reactionary, so this isn't coming from an Anarchist when I say this, but Anarchism really isn't more than being extremely anti-state. That's really all it is in the end, just the advocacy of the abolition of the state.

[Anonymous No.8269333]

>>8269328
>just the advocacy of the abolition of the state

If you conveniently ignore It's historic roots and a vast majority of self-described Anarchists.

[Anonymous No.8269353]

>>8269328
There's more to it. Most of the theoretical writings, from Proudhon onwards, are concerned with what to do after the state has been abolished. In Anarchist territories such as Catalonia, The Free Territory or Makhnovia or the Shinmin autonomous region in Manchuria have operated worker controlled syndicates rather then individual corporations. If it was just a matter of being anti-state regions where the state has failed or fragile states would be to some degree anarchist.

[Anonymous No.8269356]

>>8269315
have read beyond good and evil and On the Genealogy of Morality in German
butt thx

[Anonymous No.8269357]

>>8267872
>(No Marx)

also
>right winger
>new to philosophy
checks out

[Anonymous No.8269361]

>>8268854
T I P S F E D O R A

[Anonymous No.8269366]

>>8269357
>>8269361
(you)

[Anonymous No.8269370]

>>8269357
Most philosophers had a wing on their right shoulder. They're dead now but they used to be alive and they sang, had sex, ate dinner, etc. What's my point? Just like art and life and science, there is no point.

[Anonymous No.8269372]

>>8269357
Yeah, no Marx because his theories have ended in failure and are empirically wrong.

[Anonymous No.8269375]

>>8269370
>Most philosophers had a wing on their right shoulder

To be fair, a vast majority of people who have ever lived were right-ring.

[Anonymous No.8269377]

>>8269372
proof pls

[Anonymous No.8269380]

>>8267872
please read his lectures on governmentality. In no way an argument I think will turn you, I just sincerely think it will have the most stuff you might be interested. They're the only lectures of his I've heard of refferred too, so I they might not be hard to find, I'm p sure they won't. Can you upload pdfs to this site?

Maybe unorthodox, but I also reccomend Susan Stryker's My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamioux (sp?). If you can get past the performance art aspect (only on the first page in a half) and the poem (short, in the middle, and good imo) there's some really engaging thought. All about considerations of the unnatural and the monstrous, especially the idea that creatures entails 'created being', which people tend to position themselves in opposition or above, and of the historical connotation of 'monsters' as heralds of the extraordinary, supernatural, etc.

Anyway, staunch leftist here. Any good recs for right wing lit? I'm about playin Pokemon Go (and reading Beyond Good & Evil while my phone charges) but I'd look stuff up when I get home

[Anonymous No.8269382]

>>8269377
>proof pls

The U.S.S.R.
Cambodia
Venezuela
North Korea
North Vietnam
China
Cuba

>inb4 "b-but that wasn't true Communism!"

[Anonymous No.8269384]

[Anonymous No.8269387]

>>8269380
me again

Homi K. Bhabha's "Culture's In-Between" I'd consider essential too, but I like to bring a lot of linguistic theory, especially translation theory, and literary theory into my critical theory/cultural theory/political considerations

But his concept of 'doubleness by which I do not mean duality or binarism' has been a guiding light in my life and I have not known peace since

[Anonymous No.8269394]

>>8269382
Negating the material and historical stance of those states I'd say they were an application of his theories in part. But you'd have to read his work to see where they differed.

[Anonymous No.8269395]

>>8269380
I know this is going to sound like a meme recommendation, but if you want Radical Right literature, Mein Kampf is okay (just skip the Jew parts and you'll get an all right read).

For more moderate Right-wing lit, I really can't help you. But I'm sure another anon can.

[Anonymous No.8269396]

>>8269382
wasn't actual communism, stop being gay dude.

No but the state wouldn't exist, under communism there would be no state to commit atrocities, or to excercise power at all, since there'd be no power to form a regime around. Everyone communist whose ever been a head of state is a cunt. I want that t-shirt that says 'full communism now' but I'd shoot Stalin as readily as I'd shoot Hitler

[Anonymous No.8269398]

>>8269395
If that's moderate for ya,

I'll try it. Anyone got a pdf?

[Anonymous No.8269399]

>>8269398
Well, I mean, Mein Kampf is hardly moderate. It's pretty extremist.

[Anonymous No.8269401]

>>8269396
They haven't said what they found distasteful about this list of states. Nothing wrong with most of them.

[Anonymous No.8269404]

>>8269380
>Any good recs for right wing lit?
You usually begin with Evola or Guenon.

[Anonymous No.8269407]

>>8269401
>nothing wrong with most of them

Except they've all had starvation, atrocious standards of living, cults of personalities built around a leader and an unhappy population.

[Anonymous No.8269409]

>>8269380
Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed:

[Anonymous No.8269414]

>>8269356
oh u so patric. learn critical thinking then and stop colouring what you read with your ideological biases????

You know he refers to 'anarcho-socialist dogs' in Beyond Good and Evil? And you know he praises the idea of the caste system in the Manusmrti in Der Antikrist?

Btw, Nietzsche does not attack religion as such, he attacks christianity specifically. In his genealogy of judeo-christian thought, the jews were a proud people with a powerful God. In Nietzsche's eyes, a God that embodies the values of a strong people and is life affirming is a positive thing. It is only with the Roman suppression of the jewish people that christian morality is born, with its praise of nihilistic values like pity and hatred for the characteristics of the strong individual.

Btw, I am about as far left as they come. But Nietzsche was never part of this mode of thinking - he has mostly been talked about in his commonality with Max Stirner and thus more individualist anarchism, and has been inspiration for the newer post-left anarchists with the idea of the ontological 'state of becoming' as basis for panarchy.

Calling him a revolutionary-leftist is ideologically biased revisionism.

[Anonymous No.8269420]

>>8269407
> before Communism nearly all of them were premodern, feudal societies coming out of a long period of war.
> Implying this isn't a description of much of the West

[Anonymous No.8269421]

>>8269401
>>8269401
>state
>good

Pick one

[Anonymous No.8269427]

>>8269421
I want a third option.

[Anonymous No.8269442]

leftism summarized by Nietzche on the page I just got to

>[...] the spell of certain grammical functions is also the spell of physiological valuations and racial conditions.- So much by way of rejecting Locke's superficiality with regard to the origin of ideas.

Reminds me, please read Charles Mills' "The Racial Contract", maybe more important than anything I've thus far recced

also, some Kafka I particularly like, from "Investigations of a Dog"
>People often cry up the universal progress [...] made througout the ages, and probably mean by that more particularly the progress in knowledge. Certainly knowledge is progressing, its advance is irresistable, it actually progresses at an accelerating speed, always faster, but what is there to praise in that? It as if one were to praise someone because with the years he grows older, and in consequence comes nearer to death with increasing speed. That is a natural and moreover an ugly process, in which I find nothing to praise.

[Anonymous No.8269446]

>>8269427
>>8269427
>communism

Welcome.

[Anonymous No.8269448]

>>8269446
tnkx

[Anonymous No.8269455]

>>8269380
Ooh, me again

The intro to Avery F. Gordon's (written by him as well), and the first chapter if that doesnt turn you off, but the intro itself goes nicely with any thinking about Foucault

[Anonymous No.8269456]

[Anonymous No.8269459]

>>8269456

[Anonymous No.8269462]

>>8269459

[Anonymous No.8269466]

Name one successful communist regime.

No, you cunt?

I can name a successful monarchy. The Chaldean Empire.

[Anonymous No.8269473]

>>8269466
you probably mean socialist since communism has never been achieved

[Anonymous No.8269484]

>>8269473
all the socialism that worked was street movements that never gained real and prolong power? hmmm

[Anonymous No.8269490]

>>8269484
Thomas Sankara transformed Burkina Faso from a poor country, dependent on foreign aid, to an economically independent and socially progressive nation.

The Balklan's transition to liberal democracies have never achieved anything close to the power of Yugoslavia with self-managed socalism

[Anonymous No.8269503]

>>8269484
why don't you actually read about them and educate yourself instead of being proud of your ignorance

[Anonymous No.8269513]

>>8269490
Burkina Faso is one of the least educated countries in the world, one of the lowest life expectancy, and still has a thriving slave trade and child labour force.

[Anonymous No.8269516]

>>8269503
>educate yourself on Marxism, you ignorant cishet white male

God, when did 4chan become full of SJWs?

[Anonymous No.8269518]

>>8269516
When we started reaching the frontpage of Reddit on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.8269521]

Has Foucault been ruined by gender theorists and gender professors?

I mean, I don't think Foucault would have agreed with the modern Left and its victim complex and the advocacy of more and more government, yet he's used by gender professors quite a bit on their courses.

[Anonymous No.8269522]

>>8267891
Yes. Nietzsche also.

[Anonymous No.8269529]

>>8269513
It's no longer a socialist state, Shankara was assassinated during a coop-d'etat. His successor Blaise Compaoré is supported directly by the West.

Shankara initiated programs which increased the national rate from 13% in 1983 to 73% in 1987, vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles in a matter of weeks, build a network of roads, outlawed the tribal custom of female genital mutilation, reduced the salaries of all public officials and encouraged a reliance on national industry. He was also a skilled Jazz musician and rode a motorcycle.

[Anonymous No.8269551]

>>8267891
How can one man misread so much

[Anonymous No.8269553]

>>8267872
foucault is a culturalist and as such the far right as far as academics go.

[Anonymous No.8269554]

>>8269516
lmao /ljt/ was pretty marxist before it became a /pol/ infested shithole

also
>liberals
>marxist

[Anonymous No.8269562]

>>8269554
>lmao /ljt/ was pretty marxist before
Howdy newfriend

[Anonymous No.8269570]

>>8269521
when does the left advocate more government? I've read countless texts from queer theorists and their ilk decrying hate crime laws because even they are top dangerous expansion of the state. Every sensible trans persob I've met, including myself, abhors the fact that the trans folk can now serve. The driving urge of the left is to dismantle all governments, because every state is cruel and immoral.

More and more government runs directly, explicitly, overwhelming against the engame goal of seizing the means of production, and you have no idea what you're talking about, you stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.8269577]

>>8269570
t. r/Scotland

[Anonymous No.8269578]

>>8269562
Good one m8. You denying /lit/ was left wing some years ago shows you're the new one here though.

[Anonymous No.8269581]

some essential leftist tenets

>maintain an orientation towards difference

>when possible, murder a nationalist with your body

>always remember movies where cops get shot to reccommend later (eg John Cena's The Marine, Potecorvo's The Battle of Algiers)

>love everyone and every body (fully compatible w rule one)

[Anonymous No.8269583]

>>8269570
>when does the left advocate more government?
at almost every opportunity

[Anonymous No.8269584]

>>8269578
>I've been here all of 2016, believe me when I say I'm a oldfag

[Anonymous No.8269585]

>>8269577
Oreo

pretty much as accurate an answer as you gave

[Anonymous No.8269589]

>>8269583
Those are liberals. Common mistake. As a leftist, I can assure you, liberals are strange, often disgusting, pitiable creatures. About as useful to leftism as fascists

[Anonymous No.8269591]

the left doesn't exist anymore
pic related is your average leftist """""""""""""anti"""""""""""" capitalist

[Anonymous No.8269595]

>>8269404
lmao

[Anonymous No.8269597]

>>8269591
>the left doesn't exist anymore because liberals also exist

[Anonymous No.8269602]

[Anonymous No.8269606]

some more SJW Nietzche for you all, found appended a blogpost of his lamenting that the fifteen writers of Orange is the New Black are all white

>The power of moral prejudice has penetrated deeply into the most intellectual world, the world apparently most indifferent and unprejudiced, and has obviously operated in an injurious, obstructive, blinding, and distorting manner.

[Anonymous No.8269608]

>>8269299
>It is basically the perfect political embodiment of ressentiment.
To be honest so is the average right-wing view.

Nietzsche probably would have hated both.

[Anonymous No.8269612]

>>8269589
>>8269597
ah yes, the revolutionary trans front will surely seize the means of production any day now
you're liberals who roleplay revolutionaries on facebook

[Anonymous No.8269618]

>>8269254
>A lot of the youth nowadays are self-identified Socialists or Communists
Self-identified socialists usually aren't actually socialists. They think it means more taxes and more spending as opposed to social ownership of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.8269619]

This whole thread is such a mess ffs.
>Person asks for entry level leftist books other than Marx
>"Read Deleuze"
Fuck off seriously, well-read keen leftists would still struggle to get anything out of his work while trying, telling a right wing noob to do it is just showing that you know a name.


I've personally found that 'Understanding Marxism' by Geoff Boucher is the best balance of being both accessible and wide reaching over all the different strands of Marxist thought.
If you want something even more distant 'Introducing Critical Theory' by Staurt Sim is like a comic book type book that does a good job of at least giving the fundemental thesis behind every important leftist you could think of including the Frankfurt school, feminisms, post-colonial study's etc.

If you've never read much leftist stuff there is no point trying to go after the big leagues original works, they are straight-up unreadable to anybody who doesn't know what they are getting into. But if you really are into Foucault, I'd say Archaeology of Knowlege is probably the most relevant/useful work. He's absolutely an important thinker and still highly relevant, my school even held a full graduate course on just him this year. Everybody is still trying to suggest Marx because at the time of Foucault you couldn't be a French thinker without Marx, most wrote with him, some against but none without him.

Reading the big popular books is a nice entry;
The Price of Inequality - Joesph Stiglitz
The Shock Doctorine - Naomi Klein
Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky
Why Marx was Right - Terry Eagleton
On Ideology - Terry Eagleton
A People's History of the United States - Howard Zinn
A Companion to Capital - David Harvey

On Feminism:
A Room of One's Own - Virginia Woolf
Feminine Mystique - Betty Friedman
The Second Sex - Simone de Beauvoir
Gender Trouble - Judith Butler (Difficult but essential for understanding a the outlook of modern feminism, gender as separate from sex)
Ain't I a Woman? - Bell Hooks (Introduces the idea of intersectionality)


Colonial/Anti-Racism Works;
Souls of Black Folk - WEB DuBois
The New Jim Crow - Michelle Alexander
Autobiography of Malcolm X
Black Skin, White Masks - Franz Fanon
Orientalism - Edward Saïd
Killing Rage - Bell Hooks
Wretched of the Earth - Franz Fanon
Women, Race, Class - Angela Y Davis

Key Marxist texts after Marx;
State and Revolution - Lenin
What is to be done? - Lenin
Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism - Lenin
History and Class Consciences - Lukas (prob skippable)
Selections from the Prison Notebooks - Gramsci
Reform or Revolution - Luxemburg
On Ideology - Althusser (he was an adviser to Foucault so that's the linage to follow)
Probably something by Trotsky also idk.

Other;
Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism - Fredric Jameson
Dialectic of Enlightenment - Adorno et al
One-Dimensional Man - Marcuse
Negative Dialectic - Adorno

[Anonymous No.8269621]

>>8269612
Kek what are you even talking about.

[Anonymous No.8269622]

>>8269597
thank you

>>8269591
A fine analysis, but only the very beginning of it, and as such its about as practical to leftism as a comment on Oreo's facebook page calling for a boycott because they uploaded a picture of a rainbow oreo, although still better than oreo posting a pic of a rainbow oreo.

Tell me rightists, why does this stand out as more deserving of disdain than you're not even that racist aunt lamenting Black Lives Matter protestors for rioting? or anything Trump tweets? surely you can't support Trump, he's a worse fascist even than Hillary, especially during election season. Hillary is at peak fascism right now, if he were smart Trump would wish he could fascate as well as her

[Anonymous No.8269625]

>>8269299
> le Nietzsche hated slave morality meme
You need to read with a keener eye m8. Inasmuch as you could say he hated slave morality he also hated master morality (tho hate is the wrong word there to be frank).

[Anonymous No.8269626]

>>8269621
liberals are the left

[Anonymous No.8269628]

>>8269612
the only thing I've posted on fb in nearly a year is a post about those new inside out umbrellas

And I'm not much more active on Tumblr

[Anonymous No.8269631]

>>8269622
I'm right wing and I support Hillary

[Anonymous No.8269632]

>>8269626
Yes and nonracist NRA members are left compared to white supremacist NRAs. Doesn't mean I'd want one in my house

[Anonymous No.8269637]

>>8269583
at least youre a sensible one (as far as that goes)

I would only support her if she had trouble on the way up to the gallows. Although I can't deny that in the same situation I'd do my darnedest to break Trump's knees, but that's entirely personal

[Anonymous No.8269650]

>>8269466
>communist regime.
oxymoron

[Anonymous No.8269654]

>>8269619

Just listen to this guy. I found Peter Barry's Beginning Theory to be more accessible then Sim, tough both are good starting points. Maybe look into getting a glossary of critical terms to keep on hand.

[Anonymous No.8269656]

>>8269625
Point to where I am incorrect?


>"What is good? - Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in
man.
What is evil? - Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness?- The feeling that power increases - that resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency
(virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help
them to it.
What is more harmful than any vice?— Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak— Christianity..."

[Anonymous No.8269658]

>>8269619
I wouldn't include so many anti-racist/feminism texts. The most important thing is to understand historical materialism and to see the connections between racism/sexism and class struggle, which liberals fail to do. Engels' Origin of the Family should be included though.

Pop left stuff like Manufacturing Consent and The Shock Doctrine is also skippable.

[Anonymous No.8269664]

>>8269516
>Literally proud of being stupid
When did /lit/ get so full of plebs?

[Anonymous No.8269674]

>>8269658
Obviously don't stop at Chomsky but he's is a good enough introduction to the left, he's clear in pointing at structural inequality and introducing a concept of ideology.

[Anonymous No.8269699]

>>8269658
I just figured it's an acceptable entry level read for somebody with little philosophy background and isn't already left leaning.

[Anonymous No.8269704]

>>8269656
That's a criticism of Christian morals as imagined by fellas like St Paul. That's p much the whole deal with The Antichrist.

You're also sticking a whole lot of what you want to see in there. Like how do you reconcile your "Nietzsche said weakness is bad" with morality in the pejorative sense? (Considering the passage you quoted is very much related to that not having an answer should show you are lacking in some understanding there)

[Anonymous No.8269735]

>>8269570
>being this butt-blasted

What is Socialism if not more government intervention in the economy?

[Anonymous No.8269739]

>>8269735
All political theory is concerns with the division of wealth, those who divide effectively govern.

Socialism calls for a form of government organised in a different capacity to what we currently have, not more of the same

[Anonymous No.8269740]

>>8269195
Nah, this is a misunderstanding by socialists looking for an easy avenue of attack. The Birth of Biopolitics is the best description of neoliberalism that exists, but people get mad because it doesn't describe in polemical terms. But if you're not retarded and are paying attention, you will see he's describing a system of control and attacking the prevailing notions of progress. Like when he connects Ordo-liberalism definitions of civil society to ordo-liberal speculations about literally controlling the weather, there's no conclusion left to make than these people are fucking maniacs. But that doesn't mean there isn't a left-wing critique to be made.

Foucault was heavily influenced by Bataille and Nietzsche. Their main political points involved skepticism of modernity. Progress is a myth. From this comes a romanticisation of the pre-modern. Therefore, unless you're some sort of anarcho-nihilist who aims for the complete destruction of civilization like Nick Land, the made right-wing reading of Foucault is feudalist. Same goes for Bataille and Nietzsche. So, typical of the best petty bourgeois philosophy, you have a brilliant analysis of society with a rejection of political action in favor of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.8269745]

>>8269740
main right-wing reading*

[Anonymous No.8269754]

>>8269740
>>8269745
Also saying no Marx or no Marxism is retarded. People like Foucault are middle of the road. If you want to understand what the left actually is, as in not just first world SJW virtue signalling but the world-wide left fighting imperialism, you have to study Marx, Lenin, and their successors. There is literally no other option.

[Anonymous No.8269755]

>>8269704
You are right in this instance, and it was a shit quote to use in this context.

My original point was that Nietzsche could not simply be classified as a leftist. And I think he would be very critical of the 'victimhood' of the proletariat. I stand by that claim - and I have elaborated on that claim earlier in the thread.

I think it is fairly apparant that Nietzsche resented slave morality, btw. But that is not to say he was an authoritarian.

[Anonymous No.8269761]

>>8269735
you're confusing socialization with nationalization
most capital today is already socialized to an extent and isn't privately owned but collectively owned by corporations which are run in the interest of share-holders to maximize their rate of return
socialism will just just grow out of the historical development of share-capital by destroying private property

[Anonymous No.8269763]

>>8269658
I would add

Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale by Maria Mies

IMO, I would these are the most important feminist texts that have been written recently, and they're read by radical feminists world-wide. As in, are not limited to the western SJW circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.8269779]

>>8269763
>Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federici
except the central thesis, like most activist feminist re-interpretations of history, is bullshit

read this critic:
http://www.troploin.fr/node/85

[Anonymous No.8269782]

When will leftism stop being so fucking moralfaggy and grow some balls? There's a leftist cooperative bookstore in my city that I stop into on occasion and it's full of self-righteous college students. A good chunk of their selection is on veganism, feminism, and other dumb anti-materialist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8269783]

>>8269602
I am going to actually suggest not reading Zizek. Most actual leftists hate him and his main purpose is to jack off liberals who think reading the most confused eurocommunist vomit makes them radical. Also recommending shit everyone already knows about is just reproducing the prevailing ideology. Zizek is a meme and memes are pure ideology *sniff*

[Anonymous No.8269784]

Check out some youtube channels/videos. This is more accessible than reading Marx, though you should read him.

Kapitalism101: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
Richard Wolff's introduction to marxism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4
Stephanie McMillan - Capitalism Must Die: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQTlGwMBrw
D@W (Wolff): https://www.youtube.com/user/democracyatwrk/videos
Reading Capital w David Harvey: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303
Empire Files: https://www.youtube.com/c/empirefiles/videos
RSA Animate (Zizek): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
RSA Animate (David Harvey): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0
History of anarchism in 8 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YitdjMORoU
YPJ vs ISIS (RT): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqI0a4VgEs8
Michael Parenti - Reflection on the Overthrow of Communism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVes44hcJg
Jodi Dean - The Communist Horizon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhUvNkJve-w


Documentaries:
Manufacturing Consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y
Thomas Sankara: The Upright Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgD-jhBIdiQ
Century of the Self (and Adam Curtis' documentaries in general): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
The Black Power Mixtape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVZc-qfP2mg
The Society of the Spectacle (not very accessible): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoUIHBSiVAY

[Anonymous No.8269786]

>>8269619
OP here.
Thank you

As someone who is a hardcore Rightist, the texts about 'anti-racism' and inequality seem a bit daunting, but I'll check them out..

[Anonymous No.8269787]

>>8269782
>moralfaggy
morals are reactionary

[Anonymous No.8269792]

>>8269622
>fascist
OP here.

Why do you radical Leftists always say everyone who's right-wing is Fascist.

Leaving aside the fact that Fascism is actually a Centrist ideology, why do you equate a Conservative like Trump to a Fascist like Mussolini or Hitler.

[Anonymous No.8269798]

>>8269779
Critique you linked is much more nuanced than "it's bullshit." Even if it were true, Federici would still be worth reading.

[Anonymous No.8269805]

>>8269792
Not that'd I'd agree with trump being a fascist and there's more to the concept, but the term is broadly understood as an intensified and exclusionary nationalism which props up a hierarchical state.

[Anonymous No.8269814]

>>8269784
Now if you want to read

>Why Marx Was Right - Eagleton
I think this is a good introduction. You can read another introduction though.

>Capital
You can't read this in an afternoon. Shorter, easier texts are
>Wage Labour and Capital
>Value, Price and Profit

>The Communist Manifesto
Outdated and actually not that essential at all, but I'd still recommend to read it, it's only 50 pages.
>The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon
>Critique of the Gotha Program
>The State and Revolution
>Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
>Reform or Revolution
>The Permanent Revolution
>The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

Anarchism:
>What is Property?
>Mutual Aid
>The Conquest of Bread
>The Ego and Its Own
>Post-Scarcity Anarchism

Not necessarily essential but worth to check out:
>Lukacs
>Gramsci
>Horkheimer
>Marcuse
>Badiou
>Althusser
>Debord
>Zizek

[Anonymous No.8269822]

>>8269280
>>8267942
There's a very interesting interview with Habermas in today's ZEIT on Brexit and Europe, English translation: http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-07/juergen-habermas-brexit-eu-crises-english

[Anonymous No.8269837]

>>8269805
But Trump isn't being exclusionary. He has a veyr racially diverse voting group.

He only advocates the kicking out of illegals.

[Anonymous No.8269839]

>>8267872
>So, is it worth it to continue on buying Foucault's books and exposing myself to Leftist theories that way or what?
No, because they will turn you into leftist.

[Anonymous No.8269849]

rhizzone.net

[Anonymous No.8269862]

>>8269837

To me his voting base seems to be mostly disaffected white's from rural states. At best he is vague on what his stance on Muslim migration would be.
Personally I think he's a disingenuous opportunist who doesn't really know what he's doing. http://www.epi.org/blog/the-trump-trade-scam/

[Anonymous No.8269873]

>>8269792
I don't fully buy into the meme that "drumpf is le hitler" but there are some similarities. Both are extreme populists using nationalism and blaming an elusive 'Other' for the nation's problems. They both seek radical change in a time of crisis, rallying against a weak liberal government (Obama's America compared to the Weimar Republic) as well as a left-wing faction also opposed to the status quo (Bernie Sanders compared to the German communists). But most importantly, both have a strong cult of personality surrounding them and are authoritarian conservatives.

[Anonymous No.8269874]

>wants to be a free thinker
>no Marx though, /pol/ told me he was ebul

wewey

[Anonymous No.8269890]

>>8269839
Kek.

Well, I don't think I'll ever become a Leftist. I wish to read these books to expand my perspective, and they may end up pushing me more towards the centre than I would be normally.

[Anonymous No.8269892]

>>8269839
>Reading will turn you into a leftist
true

[Anonymous No.8269894]

>>8269873
You know what?

Maybe that's needed. Maybe a new leader like that is needed to push the Overton Window the the Right.

[Anonymous No.8269902]

>>8269873
Obama's government hasn't been weak at all.

[Anonymous No.8269919]

>>8269873
>(Bernie Sanders compared to the German communists)

Sanders is a social democrat, to the right of social democrats in Weimar Germany. German social democrats made paramilitaries that killed communists, which later became the paramilitaries that were the basis of fascism. Just like Sanders is for Obama's wars, social democrats were for WW1. To compare Sanders to German communists is to spit on people's graves.

[Anonymous No.8269925]

>>8269873
Why did Bernie kill Rosa

[Anonymous No.8269941]

>>8269919
>>8269925
It's a loose analogy not a precise historical analysis you bitter Luxembergists

[Anonymous No.8269977]

>>8269822
I find it interesting how he mentions the banking sector because I feel like Cameron's "negotiations" for this referendum, everyone else was just rubbing their hands together in hope for a leave vote. Whereas the politicos seem to have been under the impression that it was some kind of threat.

I also enjoyed seeing Farage realise how weak the position turned out to be when he started going on about Britain buying German cars.

[Anonymous No.8269981]

>>8269977
>the politicos
As in the English Tory politicos.

[Anonymous No.8270330]

>>8269288
In Beyond Good and Evil (6.2:126) he refers to "anarchist dogs"

Read the book before coming out as an ignorant retarded shit.

[Anonymous No.8270401]

Don't force yourself to read anything, it's counterproductive. Read what you can't put down.

Your whole "I'm gonna see what the other side has to say" thing isn't as noble as you think either, it's cuckish. I don't care if you read Foucault (he has some valuable insights from what I've seen), but I get the feeling you want to do it to be a "well rounded, fair person who sees things from both sides".

The best way to advance your knowledge is unapologetically advocating for the things you care about and learning how to defend your positions. Blaze forward and debate and mock and show hubris rather than attempt a half assed even-handed assessment of both sides. Haidt discusses how much more difficult it is to process information incompatible with our worldview, and how easy it is to forget it. Knowledge we enjoy, agree with, and feel is morally righteous, however, sticks with us for a long time.

I'm not just being a zealot, I feel you're trying to scrape away the film of ignorance with a toothbrush rather than a power washer and unless you're trying to become a leftist it's counterproductive to read their literature.

[Anonymous No.8270433]

>>8269141

>advocating anything from the Frankfurt school
>Simone de bovine
>economist who [[[challenges]]] Milton Friedman

Why not throw in some hegel just to make sure the guy turns out completely retarded?

[Anonymous No.8270445]

>>8269288

>nietzsche
>anarchist

[Anonymous No.8270495]

>>8270401
Oh, I've already done that, trust me. I can defend my own arguments quite well.

It's not that I want to become some Centrist cuckold, it's that I want to read these texts and see if I can form my own counter-arguments against them. If I cannot form a reasonable argument against it, then I will accept it.

That's what I mean when I say I want to be challenged.

[Anonymous No.8270499]

>>8270445
>Nietzsche
>not an anarchist

[Anonymous No.8270523]

If you are interested in Carl Schmitt (and you should be regardless of orientation) then you should really look into Post-Marxist works on him from Mouffe, Laclau and Zizek. Also Agamben is an excellent addition

[Anonymous No.8270555]

>>8269892
fuck I hate leftists

[Anonymous No.8270618]

>>8270499
I thought about posting something like this earlier, but I think the main issue is he doesn't care about there being a state (in many ways he takes it as a given by virtue of how he describes societies and accepts not everyone (in fact very few) will take to his philosophy), and while he believes in a kind of lawlessness the aspect of coercion from outside is also taken as a given (tho this is something to be overcome). It's like a radical, personal precursor or brother to anarchism.

[Anonymous No.8270628]

>>8270555
thats kind of a weird thing to hate lmfaooo.. arent they supposed to be more artistic? like i read da vinci was one but that might have been false

[Anonymous No.8270690]

>>8270499

>he fell for the Stirner-Nietzsche conflation meme

[Anonymous No.8270781]

>>8269473
>if it works, it's socialism
>if it doesn't, it's not socialism
>when socialism fails, it's always someone else's fault
Every time

[Anonymous No.8270790]

>>8270433
Dude who posted the lists here.

-Hegel isn't necessary for understanding Marx at a working level. Maybe if you want to be a Marx scholar you need to read Hegel to really get at the inner workings of Marx's thought but really it's just such an unnecessary distraction.
-The Frankfurt School represents one of the most major strands of Marxist thought in the western world, this guy wants to explore new ideas, well the Frankfurt school sure as shit is something new to read. I don't necessarily endorse the view anything in particular on my list but it *does* represent important work. Not to mention that the Frankfurt school is always under attack as "Cultural Marxists" and accused of all sorts of different plots and conspiracies. Asides from politics Adorno's work in aesthetics is among the most important and influential in the century.
-If one is to understand feminism, do you recommend skipping The Second Sex? Has anything really, actually, new been said in feminism since that book?

They are important works for understanding both the history and modern presents of leftism

[Anonymous No.8270845]

>>8269755
From my fairly decent now understanding of Nietzsche, the concept of left and right I think he would find suspicious or ridiculous. You certainly can't describe his philosophy as belonging to either (although it does have a particular cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist bent, and this is often something we see with certain old school lefties of Chomsky and Zizek's generation).

As for victim hood of the proletariat, I think the best thing to look at is the start of the Genealogy of Morals. So to some degree the victim hood is an act of revenge against the oppressors and they can take a measure of solace in this without having to force a change of a value system in the society (p Frankfurt School in a lot of ways). However, I think there's been one particular change since then, most people now are very much involved in ownership of their homes and so on. They have bought into their own oppression so that they become masters (that is while Nietzsche says the predominant view is that of a slave in his time.

There's also the garden house argument from Heidegger's interpretation of the Will to Power, and that essentially runs along the lines of the masters may command but in reality they are sterile and lacking in power since they don't affect change themselves. And I'm p sure it's Genealogy of Morals again where Nietzsche describes successive generations of masters as being pretty much powerless by having to follow in the steps and rules of their fathers.

[Anonymous No.8270933]

>>8270845
Nietzsche was opposed to the ethnic nationalism of Herder and Fichte, he effectively was a European pan-nationalist

[Anonymous No.8271082]

>>8269786
List person here.

I think a good reason for reading Marx, if anything, is to get the message straight from the horses mouth. You don't have to rely on the massive mess of crap you've heard from so many different people on Marx himself, you can decided it for yourself. Marx's range topic-wise was vast. For him and his contemporaries economics is not an isolated discipline, rather, sociology, economics, political science, philosophy were all tightly interlocking subjects, all necessary for understanding each other, all frimly locked into the context of history. As such he sought a theoretical framework that could encompass all of this, and not just as a thing to sit in marvel at, but such that it could actually be used for the betterment of society. Because of this, his work is important in understanding all those discipline after him.
Marx with Durkheim and Weber were the founding fathers of sociology. His contribution to the development of economic thought are side-by-side with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. And you don't need to accept the whole programme to understand his contributions to individual disciplines. Regardless, the historical impact alone is worth trying to get to the bottom of why so many people, in so many places, across languages, in the streets and in academia have gravitated to it for the last 150 years.

The key for me, when getting into feminist/anti-racist works is that the author isn't specifically angry with you, and while they probably are writing angrily, it's important to keep in mind all the events in their lives that they have witnessed and have experienced that brought them up to the moment that they are writing what they are. While they may blame or cast shade on 'men' or 'white people', understand that you yourself are not morally responsible for any particular or general 'crimes' when you are unaware of the wrongness of whatever is being discussed. You yourself are also ultimately the product of your environment so it's hard to fault a person for acting in the way they've been socialized to act. Also polemic writing more seeks to have an impact and get a response rather than make a measured picture of the situation.

One of the fundemental problems on the left and with North American ""SJWs"" currently is the lack of intersectionality and class consciousness, respectively. Unfortunately leftists too often don't take seriously the experiences of PoC and women, and don't appreciate the mutually enforcing role feminism and anti-racism play in the cause, while the most visible of 'sjws' totally neglect the issue of workers rights and miss out on the understanding that sexism and racism and every other nasty -ism are made worse by capitalism and that class is a huge -ism itself. Class Conscienceness is lost and many activists fail to recognize 'privilege' of one kind or another is different depending on where in society you are, or the fact you CAN be too poor for white privilege.

[Anonymous No.8271138]

>>8268571
>>hello i am hardcore rightwinger but don't understand philosophy lol
>this post comes along and should /thread it
>continues for 100 posts
fuck op

[Anonymous No.8271169]

>all these people using meaningless terms, like left and right

[Anonymous No.8271407]

>>8270433
2/10 attempt at critique.
OP is interested in Left Philosophy and is already tackling more difficult work, why not should they not start with the Frankfurt school?

Feminism is central to the left. Maybe Sheila Rowbotham or Betty Friedan would of been better but The Second Sex is a fine place to start.
I wanted to recommend an economist who isn't directly Marxist and challenged right-wing assumptions on how the markets operate.

[Anonymous No.8271435]

>>8270433
>>8270790

That economist guy is a good recommendation, isn't directly Marxist yet challenges right-wing methodology and assumptions on how markets function.

[Anonymous No.8271437]

>>8268854
Ironically, the left wingers were the ones to start wrecking humanism's ball, while humanism itself is still the basis for a lot of shit in right wing discourse.

[Anonymous No.8271456]

>>8269407
My country has never been communist, and yet we have a government like that every 25 years or so

[Anonymous No.8271491]

>>8269839
holy shit my man, if you're so weak willed that reading a book can turn your views around, I hope for the good of your family you never tackle papa Pynch

[Anonymous No.8271505]

>>8271491
Well, some books can change certain views you have, but going from Far-left to Far-right over a book would be retarded.

[Anonymous No.8271510]

>>8270445
desu Nietzsche is the antichrist in ways Napoleon wished that he could be