/lit/ - Literature

http://bactra.org/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html

start with the futurists

>>17363550
Bros leftist futurism would have been so kino, a shame it didn't become more prominent.

>>17363541
this and mussolinis intellectuals

ignore the doctrinal crap and just read Culture of Critique (you won't)

Its constantly labeled as facist, despite it not being that at all, but Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.

>>17363541
and maybe some of oswald mosleys books, the best one would be this.

>>17363541
Fascism isn't based on literature or rational thought, and most fascists have been quite clear on this point.

Maybe you would be interested in reading The Pike: Gabriele D'Annunzio, Poet, Seducer and Preacher of War. Its a sympathetic look at the man who invented fascism.

>>17363550
>>17363565
Seconding these.

>>17363541
>, you have a chance of making a few leftists into whatever you are
Leftists are retarded so they won't understand what they're reading and they'll just post memes about it. Everyone in your Discord channel should get nuked and the world will be better.

As a fellow leftie I'd say read:
>Beyond Human Rights: Defending Freedoms
>Considerations on France
>Natural Right and History
>The City and Man
Maybe read The Servile State if it interests you.
>>17363579
He shouldn't waste his time.

The Camp of Saints for (anti) immigration.

>>17363579
This

The Economic Foundations Of Fascism
by Paul Einzig or Economic Fascism: Primary Sources on Mussolini's Crony Capitalism Hardcover by Carlo Celli

>>17363541
What's the point even? Leftism subscribes to the marxist belief that race or nationality doesn't matter and class war is all that matters. It makes 0 difference if you read something like CofC or Hitler, since you fundamentally disagree that ethnonationalism is in it's essence a good thing.

>>17363735
>since you fundamentally disagree that ethnonationalism is in it's essence a good thing.
Not that it's not a good thing, marxists believe it has no basis and in-group preference is just a social construct that exists because of the class conflict. They deny the biology of it altogether. Marxism has always been anti-intellectual.

>>17363541
Parts of "The Machiavellians" about Michels, Sorel and Pareto. While Burnham is classical liberal, Sorel was extremely influential in politics overall, Michels moved to Italy after fascists took over as he believed it was the future of civilisation(and obviously Mussolini often referenced his "iron rule of oligarchy") and Pareto while himself opposed to Mussolini(somewhat) was also influential there(if you look at fascism from Pareto's perspective, it's basically using the "derivating" and "conservative" residue while other movements tended to use only one, unlikely coincidence).
Of course you could just read the works of these 3 but nobody has time for that.

Mosley is easily available and digestible but remember he's a moderate in fascist world that became persona non-grata via association.
Gentile should be the key to understanding Italian fascism in general.

The problem with fascism is that it's more of an applied political science than philosophical ideology, so while there are some doctrines etc. so there's not really "the book" to get it.

>>17363564
why leftism? you mean socialism? fascism was socialist

>>17363806
I'm not really for arguing about why socializing certain industries isn't socialism, but if it makes you feel any better i meant Marxists.

>>17363806
Socialism is an economically left-wing policy.

here is a memechart aswell, other anons will have to extrapolate on them since i have not read them.

>>17363541
What do you call this artstyle?

>>17363541
Futurism, An Anthology

http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=0A04C837AFE7914FCE8B3FEDF28AC9E7

>>17363579
This. If they don't become an anti-semite by page 40, then they are NPCs who can't be saved.

>>17363846
>Codreanu
This is honestly one of the best books of the 20th century, not just related to fascism.

>>17363846
>nazism is fascist

>>17363865
Soulless corporate neoliberalism propaganda aesthetics

>>17363884
its an offshoot of it.

If you are one of those people who call everything fascist, I would advice you to read some very right-wing authors who are not fascist, sometimes even against fascism.
Joseph de Maistre
Louis de Bonald
Juan Donoso Cortes
Nicolas Gomez Davila
Marcel De Corte
Ernst Junger
Carl Schimtt
Ernst von Salomon
Julien Freund
Robert Filmer
Charles Maurras
Thomas Aquinas (overall books on politics by Catholic monks or priests before 1960)
Julio Meinvielle
Thomas Carlyle
Jacques Bainville
Léon Daudet
etc

>>17363881
>legionarism

>>17363930
>Schimtt
Fascist

>>17363541
Read A. James Gregor's books

>>17363930
seconding Ernst von Salomon, he is very interesting in that he was a elitarian right-winger and nationalist who had sympathies for communists (his brother was in the KPD). You'll also learn a lot about Weimar history when reading him because his novels are autobiographical.

Read these four articles for some basic ideas:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

The most interesting right wing alternative to Marxian critique is this sort of thing, whether it calls itself social credit or fascism. A lot of them in fact were Marxists, either formerly or they even remained Marxian in their thinking while nevertheless being right wing. For example Werner Sombart was called by Engels the greatest interpreter of Marx after Marx's death, and he is considered to be the peer and equal of Max Weber in historical sociology (and the two men were friends), and Sombart joined the Nazis because he saw in them the potential for organic socialism capable of destroying the capitalist technocratic worldview.

There were also many in the Cercle Proudhon, like Sorel, who were quite good praxis-oriented leftists (syndicalists especially), whose strategy was to metapolitically subvert the capitalist states and force an essential change in them. They were willing to use politics only insofar as it served their metapolitics. This is the essential right wing perspective, it is the essence of right wing thought: accepting that the domain of metapolitics is fundamentally not perfectly rational but involves worldviews and even religious commitments, but NOT seeing this as a bad thing. Instead, use this to smash the alternative worldview - capitalism - which masquerades as simultaneously anti-worldview/omni-worldview (via liberalism, democracy, and other individualist pluralisms) while realy degrading individuals into consumers who can never rebel.

The best Marxists moved in similar directions after the failures of true "rational" Marxism - i.e. the classical Marxist thesis that consciousness only "raises" in one direction, namely "upward," toward working class self-consciousness, which thus inexorably opposes itself to the bourgeois, which is not just DIFFERENT from but LOWER than working class consciousness (from a world historical perspective). The Frankfurt School and Gramsci both had to cope with the death of this sort of Marxism.

The basic question is: Why didn't it happen, then? And the basic question we must ask ourselves today is: If it already didn't happen in 1945, or 1968, or 1914 (why didn't they call a fucking general strike? they would have ruptured the entire bourgeois-national political structure of the world!), do you really think it's going to happen now? Do you really think we're going to work back to the level of working class consciousness of 1968, which was shit, then work back to 1914, when it didn't happen, then work back to 1900 when 80% of workers voted, and voted for socialist parties? Is that going to happen while Bezos is actively raping your fucking sister and enslaving your children? While every country in the world is so thoroughly colonised by these pure evil capitalists that they can turn every apparatus of every state against you, with tools and weapons undreamt of in 1914?

>>17363541
>Recommend the best possible book that advocates for fascism (no conspiracy bullshit, but something that is actually based on rational thinking)
This is a contradiction because fascism is fundamentally irrational.

>>17364046
What modern leftists don't realise is that they are in a real active war with captialism. It is not some theoretical issue of "oh after 2 generations we can get a good working class party going again." There won't BE two more fucking generations, you have been pushed back to your final battle line. It is a fundamentally liberal, capitalist presumption that the state or the nation or the current norms of public discourse (like academia and the media) will always exist in their current form, so we can always fight some back-and-forth tug of war with capitalism. They have already taken all your best positions from you and they are currently bombing your supply lines and almost at your HQ. You are fucked if you don't move NOW.

So do you understand why it's so dangerous that every leftist movement is filled with unserious trannies and rich morons who go to expensive liberal arts colleges? Don't you think it's odd that part of being an upper middle class piece of shit is to LARP as a communist for a few years in your 20s? You need to kick these dilettantes out NOW. Better one real soldier, than a thousand rabble acting like it's Woodstock or Occupy Wall Street. That is why Platypus is a healthy movement, because it is reintroducing a modicum of elitism and repelling these losers. But Platypus is still full of overly cerebral neurotic types whose minds, again, are fundamentally structured by capitalist "liberal" ideology - they fundamentally KNOW that capitalism can't be stopped and there's nothing left to do but LARP, even if they don't say this to themselves. But it's a background premise of their thinking, which is why they just want to write antiquarian papers about obscure bullshit and get street cred for being a theorybro.

Now if you have all this in mind, return to right wing economics, and to the initially puzzling fact that so many of them were Marxists or at least had a good appreciation of Marxism. What is the key difference between a right wing economic (third positionist) and Marxist solution to the above problems? The right winger is willing to concretise the struggle. Bezos and the worldview he represents, the worldview he further poisons a million workers with every day, is an enemy. Everything else is secondary. Any strategy that weakens Bezos is, provisionally, a good thing. Does that mean you have to buy into race fetishising vulgar Nazi bullshit? No. But do you see how a national socialist state massively disrupting Bezos-style neoliberalism/globalism would be a good thing? If ONLY because it disrupts him. When the enemy is disrupted, he cannot be actively fucking you.

>>17363846
that's a really crappy chart, fuck off

>>17364054
Hence the diversity of right wing anti-capitalism. Plenty of disagreement over final aims - but fundamental agreement that the war needs to be fought AS a war, and not accepted lying down, like the millions of college students writing their epic Foucault/Deleuze/Hoxha neo-post-Marxism fusion papers are doing with their $60,000 tuition to Berkeley and their polyamorous relationship that fundamentally allows them to "live wrong life rightly," to narcotically numb themselves to capitalism (which they are distant enough from anyway since they're probably rich and don't have to watch their mother work until she's 75 or be degraded by some piece of shit who inherited/received his position from his father).

Find people who aren't numb to capitalism, who actively hate it, enough to resist it in ways that aren't comfy or convenient, ways that don't have pre-established institutional pathways where they can get grants to write papers about it and twitter backpats from rich LARPing losers. Again, you see the problem with the establishment supporting identity politics shit? That is simple union busting, they know what they are doing.

Right wing anti-capitalism is diverse, it is full of assholes like anything else, and it is full of people who are just angry and looking for an outlet. Just like leftism is full of narcissistic trannies who are looking for a license to extort sympathy from people forever. But right wing anti-capitalism has better metapolitics than the left because at least it doesn't have muddled fucking ideas of praxis. Praxis is praxis, praxis is WHATEVER obliterates the enemy. This is why most smart right wingers are neo-Gramscians, Gramscian understood the struggle to topple a historic bloc as an irrational one, fundamentally similar in structure to Sorel's mythic struggle. The other alternative, which the left has taken (to the establishment's delight), is accommodation with the establishment. Read Adorno's letters to Marcuse and ask yourself, was Marcuse right? Did the future really lie in the pathetic loser French college students jacking themselves off over "theory?" Did we win?? Or are we generations later, with nothing to show for it, reading fucking rent-seeking GARBAGE like Shoshanna Zuboff or that grifter prick Zizek (who hangs out with wealthy New York establishment socialites).

>>17363930
Juan is that you?

>>17364056
i said it was a memechart.

>>17364067
Right wing anti-capitalist theory is fundamentally predicated on leveraging what you have against the enemy. You primarily know, you know FIRST, that the enemy - capitalism and the globalist technocracy it is creating - needs to be destroyed. That is the first fact. The first fact is not some meta-theoretical apparatus of who is going to be comrade commissar of hipster moustache waxing after the revolution. It is that you are being raped, your way of life (or merely potential way of life - future communism) is being raped and destroyed in a zero-sum battle, you are losing. That's the first fact. Right wing anti-capitalism begins with that and then tries to leverage everything and anything it can against the enemy. At least provisionally - no one is saying "anything goes," just that anything goes at the moment when the beast is at your throat. Beggars can't be choosers. If you're Marxist, be a good Hegelian: start with what you have, not fantasies of some future dialectical moment, 30 moments down the line. Once you've beaten back the beast, however it is necessary to do so, then you can start thinking about finer points of detail.

On that note, most rightist anti-capitalism is aimed at cultivating what is already there, without necessarily trying to understand it or subject it to rationalisation (which, remember, is the liberal-capitalist technique you are trying to subvert in the first place). Again, be a good Hegelian: let Spirit be what it is until it's ready to do otherwise. Stop disdaining flyover bumpkins, but also stop disdaining religious people or patriotic people. You are shooting your own allies. By the very fact that those people have an "irrational" commitment to something, they are currently resisting capitalism's rationalisation of the world (and slowly losing the battle, just like you).

Samuel Francis' Leviathan and its Enemies is an interesting book on this note. It is a diagnosis of the technocratic elites (based on James Burnham's Marxian theory of the "managerial class") and the globalist finance imperialism they inevitably create. But the same ideas are present in everything. Why was Heidegger a Nazi? Because he saw something growing, a seed of something other than the rational-universal flattening of world-techno-capitalism, and BY THE VERY FACT THAT IT WAS GROWING he knew it was something "other" than capitalism and could resist it. Do you need to agree with him on everything to agree with him on that?

>>17364051
nice meme bro

>>17364078
Also consider that not a single Marxist prior to 1960 could even conceive of the post-national neoliberal nightmare world we live in. You really think they'd look at the current state of things and say "ok well, my leftism is ultimately internationalist, so I guess it's okay that the capitalists that control every single fucking government are allowing free movement of scab labour.. We won't fight them on that one, we'll just EDUCATE the workers they bring in! You know, the ones they bring in ENTIRELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE THINKTANKS AND INTERNAL MEMOS DEDICATED TO HOW IMMIGRANT SCAB LABOUR CANNOT BE 'EDUCATED' FAST ENOUGH TO KEEP WORKING CLASS MOVEMENTS ALIVE!" Every classical Marxist and socialist would say: let's provisionally use the nation state to smash these fuckers and scatter them to the four winds, then dissolve the nation state later when we enact our communist utopia or whatever. They wouldn't say "Let's put pressure on the fake government via Instagram Influencer Celebrity Alexanda Ocasio-Cortez while the same government brings in 10,000,000 people to further disorient and dilute the already fucked lumpenproletariat!" All the classic figures of leftism would be fascists by comparison with even today's "traditional" Marxists.

That's all right wing economics is: metapolitics. Your metapolitics is you think the spirit of Engels will appear and dissolve the nuclear family and we'll all braid eachother's genderless neoprene hair in the utopia? Okay, that's pretty weird, and I'm a Catholic or a Muslim or something so my metapolitics is different, but hey, at least we agree Jeff Bezos needs to fuck off! Can we focus on that first? In a way that doesn't allow him to continue enacting all his immediately effective plans, because technically they accord with your distant theoretical goals in some superficial way??? The problem is, left wingers start with the far off dialectical future, while (good) right wingers start with the immediate problem that Bezos is presently fucking them in the ass. It's a matter of starting point.

>>17364085
That brings out the final point, which leftists have also forgotten: any war with capitalism will necessarily be global and cataclysmic. It cannot be otherwise. If you succeed, you will naturally succeed in one nation or region first. What happens to that region? All the other semi-autonomous organs of capitalism will sense that one of its organs has gone rogue, and will isolate, gang up on, and destroy that region. This is the cardinal fact of fascism: detachment from the capitalist financial world-system will eventually and inevitably mean total, apocalyptic war with that system. It is a zero-sum game. The only way to win is to get that initial freedom from the global finance system, and then in the short interval before it crushes you with a thousand techniques it has been honing for 200 years, start a chain reaction of other nations to do the same.

Now there are two ways to do this. You can try again for the fucking workers' international revolution. Good luck deprogramming 8 billion mentally ill slaves who watch youtube all day and getting them back to where they were in 1914, when it failed anyway. Or, you can leverage what already exists to fight the beast off from your throat, and work on getting us back up to a level of civilisational maturity and health that we can start thinking about things like socialist internationalism again. That will take a while and it will necessarily have to incubate within the forms of civilisation that already exist, like nations, and people's natural ethnic, religious, and regional identities. Happily, those identities (or what's left of them) constitute the beginning leverage points for anti-capitalist metapolitics: they don't have to be smart, they don't have to read your sick paper on whether Lenin loved feminine penis or not or what kind of jetbikes we will have in future communist utopia. They just have to be resistant to capitalism's attempts to fuck them in the ass, too. At least at the start. What do I care what the Polish Catholic integralist nationalist thinks if I know he fundamentally thinks that he will not allow anyone to turn him into an alienated consumer? I can work on convincing him that nationalism and monogamy are bad in some hypertheoretical Engelsian matrix theory later. In the meantime, I need to metapolitically get Bezos' dick out of his wife and make it so Bezos can't regroup to some other country either.

>>17363541

If you don't already feel a healthy impulse to punch the cartoonist who made that stupid image, there's nothing you can read that will help you, OP.

>>17363541
Stop it with the liberal capitalist ideologies. I'm tired of you faggots---your natsoc, communism, and democracy are all one and the same. Read Spengler

>>17364079
It's true. Both marxism and fascism are irrational by design. It's not a value judgement.

>>17363541
>actually based on rational thinking
lol, well watever

manufacturing consent
necessary illusions
mein kampf

>>17363541
The Antology of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
Can be found on libgen for free

>>17364095
Good posts

>>17363541
If one reads French: Socialisme fasciste and Gilles by Drieu la Rochelle

>>17364095
The only way to defeat capitalism at this point is to get rid of all regulations on business. All of them. Across all industries. World wide. Let them drill everywhere, let them dump wherever, and let them run skeevy banking scams. Capitalism is cancerous by design and if you do away with everything that keeps it in check it will quickly grow out of control and blow up. If the Earth survives and there are still humans any notion of globalism will be gone and all that will be left is regional communities.

>>17363598
It is definitely quasi-fascist. I thought the fascist accusations were typical leftwing bullshit but once I read the book it was clear as day. Only element missing is racial supremacy.

>>17363846
Spengler, Evola and Kaczynski were/are not fascists. They reject liberalism, the political left, and even modernity. That is not fascism unless you are an NPC.

>>17363541
>you have a chance of making a few leftists into whatever you are.
we don't want you.

>>17365509
yes we do

>>17363541
>>17364958

>>17365509
Mussolini was literally an ex-socialist.

>>17365533
no we don't.
>>17365564
not an ex, since fascism is a kind of socialism.

>>17363541
Yockey - Imperium
Spengler - Decline of the West

>>17365594
why not, retard? are you stupid or something?

For My Legionaries is incredible, and it just might shake them out of their faggotry.

>>17363541
I feel the need to clarify this anon's post.
>>17363846
I don't consider myself fascist, technically. That's not me trying to throw off a bad word. You can consider my position to be morally untenable if you wish, but it's technically not fascist, no matter how much you bandy the word about.
It is true that Evola tried to opportunistically influence Mussolini's regime, but to equate Evola with fascism is, above all, entirely anachronistic. He had different fundamental values to the fascists, and became disillusioned with their failure. His post-war works reflect this. There may be some value in reading his post-war works, as they express a distaste for typical reactionary thought which seeks to return to the order of things of a (what is, technically arbitrary) point in time in the past and hold that order in stasis, when in the course of history, that point in time necessarily led to the current way of things.

Similarly, there are stark differences between the position Spengler had argued for from 1919, and the course the Nazis took. Spengler was illiberal and had hoped for a conservative-socialist coalition against the liberals of the Weimar republic. Hitler and the Nazis saw themselves as revolutionary, and were disillusioned with Germany's conservatives. Having read Spengler, too - he may talk about the position of the Germans contra other peoples, but only does so because he's German. He was 1/8th Jewish and the antisemitism of Nazis was in essence, absent from his work. The "rootlessness" of Karl Marx was principally at fault, in Spengler's eyes, for allowing Marx to absorb English ideals and incorporate them into his work. Spengler hated perfidious albion. I'd rec The Hour of Decision because in it, you'll get the perspective of a conservative who foresaw the development of your own (critical race theory based) political thought.

>>17365652
because we don't want fucking traitors.

>>17363541
>>17365703
continued
Assuming that by "fascism", you more broadly want to learn about the ideas being pushed by the Alt-Right (a movement principally focused in America), and the European New Right,
Tomislav Sunić - 'Against Democracy and Equality' is an easy read and a good primer on some of the thinking.

In my opinion, the European New Right is a better source on this for two reasons:
1) Richard Spencer has gone on a fucking bender and I have no idea what he actually believes in now.
2) The US is economically further to the right than Europe. And the Alt-Right has at least partially adopted this view, which leads them to be more aligned with mainstream politics. The European New Right has far more of a cultural focus, and doesn't align itself with capitalist neoliberals for reasons outlined in the aforementioned book.
Having said all that, I did read the odd good article published by Radix (look up "Greens, reds and blues, and the extinction of distinction" for a take on environmentalism from the right).

The most important thing when reading into the right is
1) What you consider "the right" is not a monolith.
2) Stop taking us in bad faith and stop thinking we solely communicate through dog whistles and not saying what we actually mean.

>>17365703
Damn, someone actually reads here. Pack it in, boys.

>>17363541
>the fascists of /lit/, you have a chance of making a few leftists into whatever you are
Cope

>>17365739
get help

>>17363541
>>17365773
Also OP, now that I've taken the time out to answer you, can you please help me build a list of left-wing publishers and printing houses?
Don't rec specific books or anything, I'm looking for a list of publishers, specifically.
A year ago I had a browser window with tabs open on I think over half a dozen (about 8) left-wing book publishers, but I didn't bookmark them and now I've completely forgotten which ones they were and could probably only find 2 or 3 of them.

>>17363846
Is The Turner Diaries well-written?

>>17365840
it's nothing special, to me at least
it's readable

>>17363769
>Mosley is easily available and digestible but remember he's a moderate in fascist world that became persona non-grata via association.
One day I'd love to do side-by-side quotes of Mosley vs Churchill to demonstrate just what a fucking pig the latter was, and how much sincere concern for other peoples the former had.

>>17363541
Pierre Drieu La Rochelle

>>17364067
>This is why most smart right wingers are neo-Gramscians
Is there anything by Gramsci that's worth reading?

>>17363846
Terrible. Completely uneducated about fascism. Mystic nonsense. White nationalist nonsense. And non-fascists like Spengler.

>>17365903
Multiple people (including myself) have already clarified that much of that isn't actually fascist.

But reading between the lines, I don't think OP knows or cares about what fascism strictly means, and is more broadly interested in the (diverse) thought behind recent upwellings of right-wing populism.

Zeev Sternhell is a French liberal but an excellent secondary source on fascist thought

OP, are you engaging with your own thread? Are you going to answer questions and give feedback to any of the recs so far?

>>17363930
Carl Schmidt positive signal

>>17365921
>>17365919
>>17365921
>>17365927
Sternhell and Gregor are both good sources. I also recommend Roger Griffin who has refined his thesis on fascism over time. His book Modernism and Fascism is quite good. If you are right wing yourself it's a good way to acquaint yourself with many and diverse fascist thinkers.

George Mosse's The Crisis of German Ideology is also nice.

But yeah these are all critical works written by liberals.

>>17365954
It'd be hard to give feedback for the guy given that many of these recs are tomes of sorts.

>>17366031
Anons have tried to explain broadly what it is they're recommending and figure out what you (if you're OP) actually meant by "fascist".

>>17366045
I'm not OP.
My understanding of fascism in theory is the idea of spinning patriotism/nationalism into a unifier. Social policy is the most important thing to focus on.
Capitalism is viewed as a tool of the whole wielded through the state. And democracy is seem as a sham that just leads the demagogues taking office and acting as puppets for those with power. Or them being traitors that sell out the nation.
Unity is important above all else. And seeking cultural traditions and creating new ones is needed to keep everyone together. Those that try and change things in non-traditional ways or otherwise go against the whole are weakening the aggregate and must be repressed.

Is that accurate to /lit/'s view?

>>17363541
this is an alt-rightist false flag thread

>>17366080
It wasn't before you showed up.

Funny, that.

>>17366080
Not OP, but I think getting an idea of how 'the other half lives' is important to understanding your own views.
While its probably ill advised, I browse /pol/ or the neoliberal subreddit to figure out how those that I disagree with as a socialist think.
Its valuable to figuring out where the boundaries on my views lie and to expose me to the arguments of those I disagree with and figure out responses to them.

>>17366067
I think your description undersells the revolutionary aspect or rhetoric of fascism. Because I think the point is to change things in ‘non-traditional’ ways. It’s not a matter of simple patriotism but of recreating and renewing the nation as an organic entity. And the whole genealogy of national syndicalism and so on...

>>17366098
>Not OP, but I think getting an idea of how 'the other half lives' is important to understanding your own views.
nonsense. most rightists are petit-bourgeois scum and belong in camps.

>>17365305
but... it's not supporting those things. You actually read the book, right anon?

>>17366090
It definitely is. You can tell by the cringe picture that is used. Also a leftist book club posting on /lit/ looking for fascist book recs? "a chance of making a few leftists into whatever you are"? cmon.

>>17366111
And they are intelligent people that bring up sometimes strong responses to marxist thought.
One thing that has given me new perspective is reading stuff from The Economist and other similar publications. Where they often talk like Marxists, but from the view of the top down.
Very interesting to me. The active process of social conflict theory being laid out in front of anyone willing to trudge through the boredom of The Economist.

There is also the poorer right wing. That generally just view something like laissez faire capitalism as the most moral economic structure in that it gives true freedom to people.
Understanding that view and coming up with replies is useful for myself at least.

>>17366111
the petit-bourgeois are the modern left whose views are cultivated by ideologues with tenure in colleges and universities.
the same people who then sneer at how working class people with right-wing views are uneducated and ignorant.

>>17366149
>And they are intelligent people that bring up sometimes strong responses to marxist thought.
hahaha

>>17366154
Laughing at people that have successfully subverted leftism in the West, if not just actively killed its supporters, for the past century is a fairly poor choice.

>>17366101
Fair enough.
I can't say it comes together for me in a convincing way, but I can grok the overall appeal.

>>17366140
For me it was “leftist” book club. What the fuck does that mean? Mfs are either tepid socdems that don’t read or they’re a Marxist that knows what sect they’re in

>>17366166
>Laughing at people that have successfully subverted leftism in the West

>>17366196
>Mfs are either tepid socdems that don’t read or they’re a Marxist that knows what sect they’re in
the latter, obviously, for the reasons you explained, obviously.
OP wouldn't be more specific than leftist because doing so would incite sectarianism. also, Marx is somewhat contentious.

>>17366206
They did.
Broke the unions 100 years ago with Taft-Hartley.
Killed Hampton when his Rainbow Coalition was getting steam.
Killed MLK when he started talking socialist.
Moved the DNC far to the right with Clinton.
Started pushing Identity Politics heavily when Occupy was getting some traction (combined with lies that the US made money off the bailouts). Leading to the present hysteria.
Sanders was the closest thing in the US to leftism, and he became more of a meme than anything taken seriously by the end.
Through the media they've turned any political belief that isn't basic neoliberalism/neoconservatism into juvenile delusion.

As far as that goes, right wingers have won repeatedly so far.
If you want to change something understanding that you have a losing hand from the start and not carrying a smug superiority is the best way to go.

>>17366244
not that anon but ohh, you're calling the people who did that kind of shit "right wing", ok.
if that's the case then I'm left wing because that chicanery is bullshit.
I don't think it makes sense to characterise it as "right wing" though, it's more the deep state elite playing plebs like us, and the right-left dichotomy is one of their tools for doing so, sewing division among the plebs and keeping us under control.

>>17366271
I have to disclaim that I am using the term 'right wing' to refer to their economic beliefs. In that they are all capitalists.
Not necessarily their social views or anything like that.

>>17363657
>>Considerations on France
based

How would normies react if you were to force them to read Celines pamphlets?

>>17363541

>>17365305
there's no racial supremacy in italian fascism's doctrine

>>17363806
Fascism was anti socialist though lmao, fascism was about traditionalism and rose tinting the past to reinforce existing hierarchies

>>17367214
Nazism was and it is the paste eater of Fascist ideological offshoots. Italian Fascism, and Falangism/Mosely if they actualy got anywhere, was practicaly hand in hand with futurism

>>17363541
For my legionaries. Also, if you guys are trying to read literature that isnt left leaning, I would recommend checking out some books on right wing libertarianism and anarcho capitalism.

>>17367214
Nah it was anti-communist, and not really traditionalist, it was modernistic.

>>17364085
>Also consider that not a single Marxist prior to 1960 could even conceive of the post-national neoliberal nightmare world we live in.
I disagree with this. Not to change the subject, but one of the reasons that so many Jews have been such ardent and important communist thinkers is that Jews are safest as a people in a deracinated, tranquilized and otherwise homogenized society and they are keenly aware of this fact. They aren't just speaking from theory, either; the loci of Judaism in Christendom have been places like Amsterdam and London and New York, places where even in centuries by you could find all corners of the world to a greater extent than anywhere else. One could argue that the "genuine" Jewish endorsers of Marx still have an ulterior purpose in mind but I do not believe so; as far as I'm concerned they simply dovetail.

>>17367214
>and rose tinting the past to reinforce existing hierarchies
Ah yes; how could I have forgoten how the Italians and Germans restored their monarchies under the church.

>>17363541
Give em decline of the west. Its "fascist" in that some people call it right wing propaganda, which is what fascist is synonymous with in their eyes. Them coming to see civilizations as organic alone would be a major push into more reasonable territory.

>>17363565
This.

>>17367214
>fascism was about traditionalism
You might as well call the Enlightenment or the French Revolution 'traditionalist' for self-consciously drawing on motifs from antiquity to reject the status quo.

>>17367899
We need a new enlightenment, and a new revolution.

>>17367214
lmao retard

>>17365824
learn pattern fucking recognition retard

>>17363541
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/

All the 14 chapters, it's in a free ebook format. It's not fascist, but it is far right.

>>17367989
you're talking to a shitlib retard

>>17367989
you're actually stupid aren't you?
"traitor" is not a absolute state that can't be changed and stays the same forever
by your fucking measures there would be like max 10000 people in our movement because everyone else in the fucking world did something that was deemed traitor activity by your retarded brain

>>17365888
>Churchill
The most Jewish cryptojew the world has ever known.

>>17367214
>rose tinting
I'm 100% positive modern people of the West do this while looking around at their current hellscape while thinking about what might have been.

>>17368014
>"traitor" is not a absolute state that can't be changed and stays the same forever
yes it is lol
what do you think God imposing his mark on Cain in genesis referred to lol.

>>17363541
>All the fascists of /lit/, you have a chance of making a few leftists into whatever you are.
Leftoids are godless and therefore constitutionally incapable of understanding real politics

>>17368135
homicide?

>>17368150
>Leftoids are godless
but so are fascists

>>17368152
I'm not talking about what Cain did I'm talking of how God regarded his act and how He responded

>>17368176
So people who convert to Christianity from other religions are to be similarly punished for being tratoirs?

Fascism is anti-democratic, anti-positivist philosophy with an emphasis on ethnic nationalism. Fascists do not have a coherent programme, and are often just opportunists who are willing to do anything to defend ethnic or national interests. Economically speaking, they claim to be anti-capitalist, yet, they ban independent trade unions, shoot strikers, and maintain wage labor. Fascist economies is little different than Marxist-Leninist economics.

>>17368185
>so this thing that has nothing to do with what you were talking about DESTROYS you with FACTS and LOGIC??!??
Cope Harder.

>>17368214
>they claim to be anti-capitalist, yet, they ban independent trade unions, shoot strikers, and maintain wage labor.
a bit like communist states

>>17368229
How is that not a coherent objection to your proposition that needs answering? You are saying that if someone changes from one belief to another, they are a traitor.

i am not a fascist, i am a post-trumpist with marxist leninist elements

>>17368231
Yeah, Mussolini praised Stalin for making his own form of Russian Fascism and the term "Red Fascism" is thing - it was coined by anti-Soviet communists

>>17363541
Not a fascist but interested in the ideology, and I totally recommend this >>17363565, avoid contemporary accounts of it (looking at you, Eco) unless it has A. James Gregor's name on the cover.
And seriously, very good on your book club for trying to understand and discuss opposing ideologies, know the enemy and all that.
>>17367214
It was anti-communist (particularly anti-Marxist, since it rejected materialism) but economically variable: capitalism, syndicalism, "yellow socialism", corporatism, etc.
Culturally it wasn't traditionalist at all (you're overthinking of Evola's influence on it, but he was explicitly not a fascist) and is a modernist ideology (like Marxism) with heavy futurist influence. It may have dressed itself up in Classical culture but that's really it.
>>17367385
>right wing libertarianism and anarcho capitalism
What? Like Rand? I'm not a right-libertarian either so I'm really not sure, but at the risk of sounding trite, Randy's stuff really is a slogfest (except Anthem, which I liked).
>>17365305
I'd call it a stratocracy.

Communists that defend the Boleshiviks are really retarded though. The Communist Party was never popular to begin with; they overthrew the democratically elected government after losing the first free elections in Russia. They caused the civil war in the first place because of that, and they had rule by terror because their policies were never popular with the majority of the people who lived there. Even after the Soviet Union dissolved, the communists lost second first elections in 1996

>>17368261
rand kinda sucks. read starship troopers or something

>>17368263
That's Vanguardism, they claimed to rule for the good of the people, even if the people didn't realise it yet.

>>17368236
no I'm saying that Betrayal is a blot on the soul, not that simplify changing your mind is betrayal you autist

>>17363541
fascism is glorification of the state, ie public servants, ie socialism, ie humanism

>>17368166
Yeah, never got why people say otherwise.
Typically they supported religion as a matter of identity and culture but otherwise wanted religious institutions to be weak and subservient (excluding clerical fascists of course).
Hitler and Mussolini were both atheists cynically using religion to rally the masses.
>>17368392
>mfw

>>17367214
t. retard

>>17366098
Stop making sense, faggot

>>17368699
no, we should censor all dissent and force people into echo chambers where their views cant be challenged, hate against the other is reinforced, and others cant gain understanding of why they think a certain way

>>17366111
lol

>>17368712
exactly, zukenberg, exactly.

>>17363846
>Hitler le great theoretician [the book's not even by him]
>insane Indian granny
>Ted who's for some reason a fascist
>the meme baron

Really works as a trollchart, good job anon.

>>17368712
No matter how enlightened you think you are the majority of people don't interrogate their beliefs or try to expose themselves to other types of thought because they simply don't give a shit. These people are happy to, and in fact need to be told what to think and believe by the managerial class. The group that understands this and perpetuates it by censoring and banning the opposition and creating these "echo chambers" will always prevail over the naive liberals who still assume that education will free people in spite of all contrary evidence. This is why progressives are winning and will continue to win if losers like you continue in your refusal to adapt.

Why not just learn from most evil fascist the world has ever seen? The blermfler himself

>>17367214
Are leftists capable of thinking outside of late night show tropes? Genuine question

>>17368797
we make no deals

>>17365836
Here are a few:
International Publishers, Verso, Dialectics, Red Star Publishers, Haymarket Books, AK Press.

Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche - Götzendämmerung

Carl Schmitt - Der Begriff des Politischen

Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Nick Land - The Dark Enlightenment

>>17368999
thanks, I think I recognise a couple of those names too.

>>17365840
No, but it's very funny.
Works better as an audiobook.

>>17363846
I would probably give WLP and Alexander Slavros a miss.
But the rest (though most weren't fascists) are worth a read.
The meme Baron and 'You have to go all the way' Girl I rather enjoy.

>>17369102
>Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
The only good book in your list.

>>17368999
Ok so I decided after your recs to google (well ddg) to find more, and realised actually a lot show up.
I now have a list of 32 publishers to check out lol

>>17369221
>>Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
>The only good book in your list.
imagine im soijaking you

>>17363541
Nemesis by C.A Bond

>>17369590
Have you read it?
Is it good? What's it about?

>>17364152
I can smell the scent of snide PragerU and Ben Shapiro talking points on you from here.

>>17365739
>why would I want to be in a movement with more than 5 people

>>17365405
>>17365903
>>17368785
i didnt make it, just wanted to share if anybody knew anything of these works. I also said it was a memechart.

I like fighting
Keep fighting bros
>>17364095
>>17365773
Good posts from these anons

In the end for any real major change globally the US must be out of the picture, always remember this

Idk if this chart is good or not but I see it posted a lot

Best way to convert lefties is to tell them about Strasserism

>>17363541
I picked up Origins and Doctrine of fascism out of curiosity and Holy fuck is it full of garbage. Instantly threw it in the garbage, and picked up Das Kapital

>>17371051
nietzsche isnt a fascist

>>17371051

>>17371059

H.L. Mencken - Notes on Democracy

>>17371059
lmao, why is there that hannibal guy

You could argue that the arguments from Leviathan apply enough to be worth reading. Not a fascist though so maybe one of them can confirm or deny.

>>17371073
Better version

>>17371147
based and tedpilled

>>17371147

>>17371198

>>17371205

>>17367214
>centralist and against intermediary powers (especially in Italy-Germany where it would have been the conservative position)
>glorification of youth
>anti-aristocracy
>anti-clerical
>corporatism
>mostly futuristic esthetic, a few neoclassical trinkets here and there
100% trad, I swear.

>>17363657
>Considerations on France
>fascism

kek

Take the Nazbol pill

>>17363764
Per the attached image, this is why I think that Sloterdijk was so prescient in his 'Human Zoo' essay, the near future is going to be decided by whoever is able to wrest the most power out of genetic control and manipulation.

>>17370572

>>17371302

>>17371342

Gentile is the real answer if you're going to read one philosopher on the subject.
If you want to dig deep, or insist on having a German writer, read Werner Sombart. The obvious book to pick is Der Modern Kapitalismus but I don't even know whether it's translated.
I'll add Pirandello and Pound for a playwright and a poet that put some of those themes in their works, if you want fiction.

>>17363541
Does it have to be fascist or can it be far right and not fascist?

>>17363565
this
>>17363541
Read the Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest by Gottfried Feder

>>17369221
>imagine thinking schmitt isn't good
faggot

Not a book but this https://ncase.me/trust/

Might seem like nothing and I'm not sure the author even intended to but if you understand this it makes a strong case for restricting liberty of movement.

>>17371245
I mean yeah he isn't a fascist but neither is de Benoist or Strauss, I was just listing off right wing thinkers I believe to be worthwhile.

>>17371147
The fact that this list doesn't mention Aldo Leopold is criminal, especially as it seems to be aimed at Americans. I personally recommend the collection "The River of the Mother of God" because it documents the evolution of his thought from DUDE LUMBER LMAO as a young man to borderline Eco-Fascism at the end of his life. He laid the groundwork for modern conservationism in the US and it's him we have to thank more than anyone else for the fact that "conservation" in the United States is not synonymous with "the national parks".

>>17371248
Hello?! We are getting dangerous levels of BASED here!?

threadly reminder that giving these people book recommendations is what leads to small publishers getting shut down

>>17371244
princes of the yen was reprinted recently, don't fall for the 200$ sellers. and it's definately worth reading if you care about economics and want another opinion beyond gold standard nostalgia and modern monetary theory retardation.

>>17371244
Anyone able to verify whether this is a good chart?

Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political

>>17363598
wait, i'm a dummy, I thought the film was satire -- is it satirizing the ideas of the book, or was the book satire of something else?
Dunno about that dude's book club but I'll take a gander at this thing this week
Thanks anon

>>17372991
>wait, i'm a dummy, I thought the film was satire -- is it satirizing the ideas of the book, or was the book satire of something else?
The society in the book is basically a limited democracy - full citizenship is a privilege conferred upon completion of a term in some sort of civil service (generally military but not necessarily) but apart from the right to participate in government non-citizens enjoy the same rights and there's an active private sector. It gets tarred as "fascist" by people who attach that label to any system of government that isn't a liberal democracy with universal enfranchisement and the movie really hammed up the jingoism, militarism, etc.

>>17371147
>Desert Solitaire
>This is America's Walden
???
?
?????

>>17372991
The movie is a satire, like basically all of Verhoeven's movies. Whether you think of it as satirizing the book specifically or American jingoism more generally is really a matter of personal interpretation, I think.

>>17363541
It's not fascist at all, but Ted Kaczynski's manifesto.

>>17363541
>fascism
>rational
Pick one

>>17363541
No we don't, they're probably a bunch of dygenic freaks and its in their best interest to remain my enemy.