/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18522267]

How come in real world book readers are overwhelmingly on the left but this place is almost entirely far right?

[Anonymous No.18522268]

anonymity breeds honesty

[Anonymous No.18522269]

Because people don't read here?

[Anonymous No.18522270]

>>18522269
This, but ironically. I'm always on the right track because of my faithful dead white male waifu.

[Anonymous No.18522271]

Because a small minority here does everything it can to shut down discourse on topics they do not like.

[Anonymous No.18522272]

>>18522267
>How come in real world book readers are overwhelmingly on the left
not even remotely true. that's just what the vocal leftists and the publishers want you to think.

[Anonymous No.18522279]

>>18522267
And this place is filled with leftists. What are you talking about? /lit/ is more about being a retard than being right or left.

[Anonymous No.18522280]

It's lousy with Marxists, actually.

[Anonymous No.18522285]

>>18522272
It's very true. Almost any book club/community will be liberal/leftist

[Anonymous No.18522292]

>>18522267
I'm a fascist/third positionist, but I don't consider myself on the right or the left. I think the right nowadays is a joke filled with greedy grifters, unhinged love for neoliberalism, spinelessness, and mostly just idiots. The left doesn't really need explanation at this point.

[Anonymous No.18522302]

>>18522267
Transcend the horseshoe.

[Anonymous No.18522304]

>>18522285
because book clubs and "communities" (what ever the fuck that is) attract leftists. you're focusing only on where leftists and books overlap. consider all of the millions and millions of people out there who read but don't go to book clubs, don't broadcast their opinions on social media, etc.

[Anonymous No.18522334]

>>18522304
And why is starting book clubs a leftist trait?

[Anonymous No.18522343]

>>18522304
this is so stupid. there was a bible study group in my college. and there are those virtually anywhere, considering that churches that there is a church.

[Anonymous No.18522353]

>>18522334
herd mentality

[Anonymous No.18522356]

>>18522269
spbp

[Anonymous No.18522361]

Publishing companies and literary agencies are almost exclusively run by jews.

[Anonymous No.18522364]

>>18522353
>the right doesn’t have herd mentality
TOP FUCKING KEK

[Anonymous No.18522378]

>>18522267
/lit/' thought process are just too complex for you.

[Anonymous No.18522554]

>>18522267
>this place contains readers

[Anonymous No.18522566]

>>18522334
the need to tell other people how much and what they're reading and why you should read it too.
Like 4chan but they get attention from people looking at them and knowing it's THEM specifically saying it.

Tl;dr what butterfly does but IRL

[Anonymous No.18522575]

I'm a non white trans socialist and I'm not sure your characterisation of /lit/ is right beyond a few posters who nobody takes seriously

[Anonymous No.18522579]

>>18522267
>da juice

[Anonymous No.18522586]

>>18522302
Are you familiar with 70s nazimaoists from Italy?

[Anonymous No.18522594]

>>18522267
Contrarianism
If 4chan existed in the 50s it would 100% be far left

[Anonymous No.18522597]

you answered your own question OP

[Anonymous No.18522599]

>>18522566
>literally two lines of text
>feels the need to put a TL:DR
Holy Satan...so this is the power of right-wing dudes...

[Anonymous No.18522618]

>>18522267
Most people in lit who do read are left though. If I had to choose, and I‘m bot political, I‘d go left and deal with identity politics instead of going right to deal with conspiracy stuff. Left has one severe retardation, the right another kind. You need to figure out with what you can deal with the most, and ideally, not deal with anything at all and remain apolitical until this thing has run its course.

People in this thread here are overwhelmingly right wing because right wing people are most vocal about their politics. Also a lot of people here seem to be religious so that almost naturally guarantees rightism nowadays.

I‘d say this place is pretty 50/50 all in all. Left people here are reasonable so they don’t feel the need to announce themselves. Pol tards find a way to make everything about politics so naturally you‘d hear them more often.

[Anonymous No.18522628]

>>18522267
they skipped the greeeks

[Anonymous No.18522646]

hmm lets see what these leftist "real world book readers" are up to
https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2021/books/

[Anonymous No.18522658]

>>18522267
Because for most people who 'read' the activity is the equivalent of getting a tattoo on your mind. They go around and chose something they have apriori selected as 'interesting' (State sponsored books), skim it and then shoehorn it into the next conversation they have to dazzle those on the receiving end. People who aren't treating it as inking your neurons are more elusive since they're smart enough to know that being on the right is basically signaling un-coolness to total normies.

[Anonymous No.18522691]

I've never observed this board being "far" in either direction, let alone being able to denote it as being "almost entirely far right".

[Anonymous No.18522700]

>>18522618
>People in this thread here are overwhelmingly right wing because right wing people are most vocal about their politics.
But it's the opposite in real life

[Anonymous No.18522701]

>>18522646
>leftism is amazon best sellers book
Is this some kind of joke I'm not american enough to understand?

Btw, I remember when amazon only sold books.

[Anonymous No.18522705]

>>18522658
>apriori
Good word

[Anonymous No.18522709]

>>18522364
>>18522599

go back

[Anonymous No.18522712]

>>18522701
if all "real world readers" are leftists then exploring the most popular books on the market should be at least a relatively accurate look into what leftists are reading

[Anonymous No.18522715]

>>18522709
To where

[Anonymous No.18522722]

>>18522267
Because you can speak honestly about Jewish influence here of course.

[Anonymous No.18522741]

/lit/ is somehow far right and yet every day there is a new thread seriously discussing Karl Marx with triple digit replies

[Anonymous No.18522742]

Studies show that people on the far right are less agreeable, more conscientious, and show more in-group preference. 4chan allows freedom of speech so contrary opinions can be expressed, has relatively lenient moderation and fairly enforced rules, and doesn't ban whites for expressing in-group preference. So, several stereotypically right wing character traits are catered to here.

[Anonymous No.18522756]

>>18522741
>seriously
Not really.

[Anonymous No.18522757]

>>18522741
I think OP meant in terms of political correctness

[Anonymous No.18522759]

>>18522742

>fairly enforced rules

bahahahahahahaha, capping this for my dumbest posts of the year folder.

[Anonymous No.18522763]

>>18522759
>bahahahahahahaha
are you a goat?

[Anonymous No.18522766]

>>18522269
This.

[Anonymous No.18522783]

>>18522766
> everyone I disagree with is STUPID
You must be 18+ to post here

[Anonymous No.18522786]

>>18522618
>Because right wing people are most vocal about their politics.
Absolutely not. Go onto Youtube and Reddit, you will see leftists injecting their opinions in everything even simple jokes and call people racist right wingers if they disagree. I have seen it in real life too, with many of the leftists I know vocally talking about racism and right wingers whenever anything remotely related shows up.

[Anonymous No.18522792]

>>18522786
YouTube comments are all right wing incels what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.18522794]

>>18522712
>if all "real world readers" are leftists
Not my claim

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18522794,1]

>>18522709
>go back

>tl;dr: go

[Anonymous No.18522805]

>>18522271
>here
it's fucking everywhere anon

[Anonymous No.18522809]

>>18522786
It's kinda sad how you have this closed idea of what "left" and "right" are. I'm heavily left wing, and I honestly don't care much about "racism", not in the sense americans understand it, even less about "racist jokes". There are literally right wing niggers in my 99.8% white country.

[Anonymous No.18522816]

>>18522792
>incel
lmao implying anyone fucks you tranny

[Anonymous No.18522828]

>>18522809
There's 2 dimensions to leftism.

[Anonymous No.18522856]

>>18522599
it was for the left wing retards itt

[Anonymous No.18522873]

>>18522792
What videos do you watch to get right wing incels in the comments?
>>18522809
Do you have any point to make? I talk about leftists and how they constantly spout their ideas and you tell me "Well, I don't care about racism."
So what?

[Anonymous No.18522888]

Review of a book from a rightie:
>Wow this book was shit, let me tell you why.
Review of a book from a leftie:
>Wow this book was racist

[Anonymous No.18522892]

>>18522888
checked and accurate

[Anonymous No.18522894]

>>18522856
Ahhh.. yes... sure... It was for someone else
>>18522828
*sigh*
If you say so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxC-zWIdeOY

[Anonymous No.18522916]

>>18522594
Wrong, 4chan is anti globalist. Same with the leftoids marching against vietnam back in the day.

[Anonymous No.18522918]

>>18522888
>Wow this book was shit, let me tell you why. This book has a black character as lead and a white woman as his partner. pOliTiCaL cOrReCtNeSs is ruining literature!
Atleast post the whole quote

[Anonymous No.18522928]

>>18522894
glad you understand now.

[Anonymous No.18522933]

this is the worst thread up right now. sage.

[Anonymous No.18522941]

>>18522918
>derivative agitprop is good literature if it makes me horny

[Anonymous No.18522944]

Because non-totalitarian national socialism in a high trust and high empathy (read: European) society is objectively correct, whether it calls itself Fascism, National Socialism, Nationalist Socialism, National Syndicalism, Falangism, or whatever else.

Only midwits and dimwits fail to see this, because they have such an impoverished sense of the world and its history that they have to cling desperately to the multicultural and cosmopolitan propaganda taught to them by the media and "public" schools. Normal intelligent people, like the grand users of 4chan, know that true cultural diversity, cosmopolitanism, and international fraternity are maintained on the basis of strong, proud nation states with healthy populations, NOT weak, porous "economic zones" with drug-addicted hedonist populations constantly in flux from migrant waves and refugee crises (caused at will by the people who own the media and run the schools, to generate "capital," the only thing that really matters to them).

[Anonymous No.18522946]

>>18522933
what was the point of this post lmao
bump just because you posted.
fuck you lmao

[Anonymous No.18522962]

>>18522944
>non-totalitarian national socialism
So, a complete ahistorical fantasy you've just made up?

[Anonymous No.18522973]

>>18522962
If you believe socialism is inevitably totalitarian then sure. If you believe that socialism only manages to be non-totalitarian when it's run by an international clique that suppresses regional cultures and religions, and is simply incompatible with a normal nation state, then you're insane and not worth talking to.

[Anonymous No.18522976]

>>18522944
>spanish people vote for the republic
>NOOOOOOOOOO THAT?S NOT YUEROPYNES

[Anonymous No.18522987]

>>18522973
Did you read Mao? Yes or No

[Anonymous No.18523013]

>>18522973
>nazism is just socialism with borders and the church

[Anonymous No.18523034]

>>18523013
>nazism is with church
*sigh*
Have you ever read a book?

[Anonymous No.18523037]

>>18522267
because "left" ideas come from enlightenment/freedom from ignorance; right values/concepts like racism and sexism are a result of lack of education

[Anonymous No.18523048]

>>18523013
Nazism is German National Socialism. National or nationalist socialism is the default state of human political organization when not brainwashed and financially parasitized.

National Socialism and Italian Fascism were extreme responses to a state of undeclared war by international financial powers and the threat of open war with the USSR. Both attempted to use wartime national solidarity and "organic" socialism to put themselves on firm footing to withstand the coming wars, with mixed results.

[Anonymous No.18523049]

>>18523034
>Positive Christianity wasn't a real church

[Anonymous No.18523050]

>>18522285
that's because people who have beliefs that aren't liberal/leftist are ostracized and not welcome to public communities so we have to do everything solo

[Anonymous No.18523063]

>>18522962
What are you talking about? Hes talking about a political ideology. Hate to burst your bubble, but every ideology was or is a fantasy.

[Anonymous No.18523066]

>>18523048
So you can somehow XOR out the nasty totalitarian bits if you just find some fascists to run it who don't have a siege mentality? Good luck with that

[Anonymous No.18523074]

>>18523063
Might want to brush up on your Zizek, there

[Anonymous No.18523084]

>>18522267
No one is actually right on 4chan. Its irony, trolling

[Anonymous No.18523087]

>>18522715
reddit.com

[Anonymous No.18523092]

>>18523074
Could you use your knowledge of Zizek to give any kind of argument?

[Anonymous No.18523101]

>>18523048
>i-i swear! Something made up by a single dude while he was in prison 100 years ago is the ultimate political system!
Books. Read them.

[Anonymous No.18523111]

>>18523049
>he thinks positive christianity was a real thing
Any other bs?

[Anonymous No.18523115]

>>18523066
Don't need luck. Italians already achieved it. Nazis were trying to prepare a Germany that had been internally diseased for a generation for impending total war and are harder to judge, although all the best organic nationalists were critical of the totalitarian aspects of the state, especially in the late 1930s and during the war.

I recommend reading Jefferson and/or Mussolini, by Ezra Pound.

>I. When enough exists, means should be found to distribute it to the people who need it.
>II. It is the business of the nation to see that its own citizens get their share before worrying about the rest of the world.
>(This is akin to the Confucian idea that you achieve the good of the world by FIRST achieving good government IN your own country.)
>III. When potential production (possible production) of anything is sufficient to meet everyone’s needs it is the business of the government to see that both production and distribution are achieved.
>Note that in America when there was plenty and more than plenty of land, our government handed it out despite Quincy Adams’s protests.

>This third idea becomes an “idea statale” when I say “it is the business of the government.” But note that Mussolini is NOT a fanatical statalist wanting the state to blow the citizen’s nose and monkey with the individual’s diet. IF, when and whenever the individual or the industry can and will attend to its own business, the fascist state WANTS the industry and the individual to DO it, and it is only in case of sheer idiocy, incapacity or simple greed and dog-in-the-mangerness that the state intervenes to protect the unorganized PEOPLE; public; you me and the other fellow.

>The rest is political “machinery,” bureaucracy, flummydiddle. Jefferson, Mussolini, Lenin, all hated or hate it. Lenin wanted to get rid of it: “All this is political machinery, want to get rid of it,” as Stef reported Lenin’s opinion in 1918.

>>18523101
Stay on twitter.

[Anonymous No.18523118]

Because rightoids hate humanity and don't go outside and meet their fellow men despite the degraded and alienated form they might exist in

[Anonymous No.18523120]

>>18523092
It's a fantasy but not in the sense of an illusion that conceals the way things really are, but an indispensable part of our perspective that also actively shapes social reality rather than just passively observes it.

[Anonymous No.18523126]

>>18523115
>Don't need luck. Italians already achieved it.
I'm curious about this. Italians already achieved what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.18523137]

>>18523115
>Italian fascism wasn't totalitarian
Maybe somewhat less so than the Nazis, but still.

[Anonymous No.18523161]

>>18523101
>old bad
>read more books
What books do you reccomend?

[Anonymous No.18523187]

Nobody here reads.

[Anonymous No.18523192]

>>18523126
A fairly modest fascist system that emphasized all the best aspects of socialism on a national and nationalist basis without trying to manage every aspect of personal life or any of that other cornball theocratic shit you see in Spielberg movies, where every single citizen had to be heiling Hitler 15 times per second.

Just look at the works of Gregor and Sternhell. Mussolini was a genuine socialist and smart guy, and more importantly he loved Italy. Before Mussolini, Italy was little better than a banana republic. He made the modern country, laying its foundations so securely that even the destruction of his regime couldn't crack them. That's the power of fascism. Similarly the Nazis had such a good welfare state and such good green policies that they laid the foundations of modern welfare states and green policies altogether.

That isn't because they were uniquely brilliant, it was simply because they harnessed the natural organic power of socialism on a national basis. That's the paradigm shift of the whole thing. Fascists aren't claiming to invent a new and more "clever" way of forcing people to be good. They are saying that people are naturally good, nations naturally prosper, people naturally get along and chip in, if the energies of the state (at the behest of an international finance clique) are not actively working against this by removing all rewards for doing so and poisoning the people.

Western nations have been in the same relation to the Anglo-American financial cabal since the turn of the last century as the Chinese were in to foreign powers during the opiate crisis. In both cases, foreign powers didn't want to control Chinese land, they wanted to break the Chinese spirit, so they could enslave them and seize anything they liked from them.

>>18523137
Modern liberalism (not true liberalism, which requires a strong foundation of trust and national health) is totalitarian, it's just the totalitarianism of invisible decay and decline. Its enervating aspects are "total" and inescapable, so what's the difference? The difference is that while modern liberalism is unnatural, encouraging and emphasizing all the merely individualistic drives that would normally be kept in check by healthy communal life, fascism doesn't seek to replace this unnaturalness by a different unnaturalness but to simply let the natural do its thing again, like it should be.

[Anonymous No.18523201]

>>18523120
You've pretty much just explained what I said. Every political ideology is a fantasy that can change our understanding of things and it actively shapes society.

[Anonymous No.18523214]

>>18523192
You've now shifted from claiming it's not totalitarian to claiming today's liberalism is just as totalitarian which is demonstrably false as no secret police is disappearing you for your ebin shitposting career against the regime. You've conceded the point so I have nothing to add.

[Anonymous No.18523219]

>>18522918
god i wish

[Anonymous No.18523225]

>>18523192
To add to this, if you are interested in these ideas, read about James Burnham's critique of the managerial class, and then read Samuel T. Francis' works as an extension of that critique. He is a paleoconservative, which normally has more in common with left libertarianism than right totalitarianism, but he later turned to national socialism (lowercase important) as a necessary remedy to the managerial class, the same class critiqued by Samuel Huntington ("Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite") and Christopher Lasch (Revolt of the Elites), Milovan Djilas (The New Class) and Paul Piccone (https://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/where-marx-and-conservatives-meet-the-writings-of-paul-piccone/).).

Like Mussolini, all the interesting leftist socialists who truly hate capitalism turned nationalist once they lost faith in the self-catalyzing of traditional Marxist revolution. Which literally never happened in any circumstances, not in Hungary when Lukacs himself was trying to force it to happen, not in any nation where socialists were given a choice between their nation and the workers' movement. People will always choose their people first, because it's natural.

We've been trained by the bourgeois technological view of human existence to thing that this is "irrational," but it is simply of a higher and different rationality from the calculative technique that underlies the bourgeois worldview, and unfortunately most socialists, who never divorce themselves from it. Fascism isn't about replacing one technique for another, it's about acknowledging that all technique should be in the hands of a people worth having faith in to begin with.

>>18523214
Is this how the zoomers argue in your favorite "twitch debates?"

[Anonymous No.18523237]

>>18523225
I won the argument. You went from X isn't Y to X is Y but so is Z.

[Anonymous No.18523246]

>>18522267
Centrism is the conclusion of wide and honest reading.

[Anonymous No.18523259]

Holy shit there are some huge ass paragraphs here. What are people seething about, any rundown?

[Anonymous No.18523265]

>>18523259
There's no time to explain. Just get in.

[Anonymous No.18523266]

>>18522304
This
leftists are primarily people addicted to social interaction and largely read books to talk to other people about them, which is why you're so aware of them, your awareness of them is what gives them their own self-worth.

4chan is traditionally a place for anti-social types who prefer anonymity to just shitting their ego all over everybody. This type of person tends to lean more towards the right, seeing people as individuals like they see themselves. They don't have this insatiable thirst to blend their ego with others.

Obviously this is only a generalization, but I find it's a useful one.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18523278]

>>18522271
This is it.

>>18522268
HAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAAA HAHAHA HAHAHAA

[Anonymous No.18523281]

>>18523266
If you need anonymity to feel comfortable about your opinion, your opinion is better kept at a place where the sun doesn't shine

[Anonymous No.18523284]

>>18522267
because they are edgy contrarians

[Anonymous No.18523285]

>>18523050
Well the right can form their own communities where they won't be ostracised

[Anonymous No.18523286]

>>18523225
You sound interesting and well-read. Let me pick your brains a little bit.

What do you think of nationalism before the "spring of nations" in the 19th century? One strong criticism of nationalism is that it was seemingly invented (by liberals!) and isn't fully organic.

[Anonymous No.18523294]

>>18523281
He says, anonymously, on a forum whose primary purpose is anonymity.

Post address and reddit username, faggot

[Anonymous No.18523295]

>>18522292
>I don't consider myself on the right or the left
it's what fascist have always said

[Anonymous No.18523305]

>>18522302
you guys need some actual physical punishment.

[Anonymous No.18523312]

>>18522304
>consider all of the millions and millions of people out there who read but don't go to book clubs, don't broadcast their opinions on social media, etc.
they are not on the right

[Anonymous No.18523318]

>>18523246
No, this is just wrong. The right conclusion out of books depends on your fucking context. Books aren't dead things dissociated from reality. Consider Hegel's historicism, and any concept of righteousness. Being aligned with the current regime doesn't mean you are right.

And this left, right, center and whatever division is too much of a simplification of political views. Things are way more complicated than that.

[Anonymous No.18523320]

>>18522353
the whole "right" thing is based on herd mentality good, indipendent thinking bad

[Anonymous No.18523325]

>>18523192
>Before Mussolini, Italy was little better than a banana republic
stopped reading there
Good night, I'm going to sleep.

[Anonymous No.18523331]

>>18522700
but it's true on here

[Anonymous No.18523341]

>>18523320
>indipendent thinking bad
Literally the opposite. Which group is getting cancelled by the minute for saying out of bound things? The right.

[Anonymous No.18523354]

>>18522944
>in a high trust and high empathy (read: European) society
you should study history, but for real.

[Anonymous No.18523358]

Because this is a containment platform for wignats who pretend to read

[Anonymous No.18523362]

>>18523318
What I mean is that we have to be too much of fucking retards to think that what we are doing is probably the 'right' way of doing. That what comes in the future is stagnation and that is basically it. Future generations are probably going to look down on us in some ways the same way we think that people from 200 years ago are old-fashioned.

[Anonymous No.18523363]

The right is categorically wrong about 95% of everything, that 5% is a doozy though.

[Anonymous No.18523367]

>>18523341
the right is gaining a lot of territory in the real world, the media or the internet are not really representative of reality.

[Anonymous No.18523368]

>>18522267
>real world book readers are overwhelmingly on the left
They aren't. They might just be very vocal.

[Anonymous No.18523378]

>>18523192
>Before Mussolini, Italy was little better than a banana republic
without Mussolini italy would be a super power by now, you dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.18523383]

>>18523278
Cope, your discourse doesn't work here simply because it relies on fallacies like ad hominem, cancelation culture or argumentum ad populum to work, simply put, when there's true debate you never win, that's why you fags don't have any sort of relevance on here.

[Anonymous No.18523385]

>>18523341
you should think this whole thing harder.

[Anonymous No.18523386]

>>18522271
Gut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.18523388]

>>18523358
indeed
at least reddit does read the shitty YA

[Anonymous No.18523394]

>>18523341
>Which group is getting cancelled by the minute for saying out of bound things? The right.
That's exactly why leftists are losing credibility every second, people outside the media circus are starting to realize how similar are they to the ones they accuse.
In my country, the term "feminazi" (to refer to an authoritarian, extremist, and completely lunatic feminist chick) is gaining popularity at the point where feminists are not very well seen, and this reputation was earned.

[Anonymous No.18523420]

>>18523394
Which country

[Anonymous No.18523431]

>>18523286
Well thanks for the compliment. I guess my thinking is similar to Marx's thinking on a lot of bourgeois virtues, namely that the bourgeoisie started what it can't finish. They are a transitional class. It was only natural that the nation's interests would be presented and represented by elites with the leisure and freedom to have pride in something other than the ancestral farm.

Aristocrats took part in this too, but again it was only natural that the rising middle classes looking for opportunities not already monopolized by the aristocracy would attach themselves to the rise of "the nation," an abstract entity only unevenly associated with the European anciens régimes. Aristocrats just as often atavistically chose loyalty to dynasty or faith because those traditional avenues were open to them.

It's also only natural that the middle class would be a mixed bag. There were genuine idealists, and there were those who had entirely cynical reasons for supporting the rationalization of the state and the breaking up of the old privileges. But people are complex, and it was likely something in the middle, again similar to Marx's complex assessments of the bourgeois betrayal of the proletariat, which is obviously made more insidious and problematic by the fact that it's in large part unconscious (say, out of paternalism) rather than consciously cynical.

If you actually study the Spring of Nations, it's impossible to separate admiration of true nationalists from recognition that they don't look much like fascists at first glance. A lot of were liberal enlighteners, and Freemasons are heavily overrepresented. The Italian Carbonari were modeled directly on the Masons and had initiation rites and everything. Similar societies in the Greek struggles for independence and probably elsewhere. People used the conceptual tools they had on hand. Sometimes that meant using the human capital you had too, as smaller nations lacking middle classes even managed to turn landed aristocrats into liberal enlightenment intellectuals. All of this has to be understood as dialectical movement toward the organic nation, not any one single political philosophy.

Again people are complex. Many of these thinkers thought that a paternalist soft democracy would win out, others thought that a radical democracy would just naturally be nationalistic. If most of them saw the results of mass democracy and the splintering of their nation just a few years after they helped raise it into self-conscious organic being, they would probably have reconsidered these provisional notions. Just look at Garibaldi. He was not a minarchist or a progressive, he was a man with instinctive faith in the power of the nation.

If I had to sum it up I would just say very similar to Marx, where the 19th century had its day, and the antinomies of the bourgeois conceptions of socialism naturally lead to the crises and thus solutions of the 20th.

>>18523354
Any recommendations?

[Anonymous No.18523442]

>>18523420
Southamerican, not saying the country.

[Anonymous No.18523496]

>>18523442
Hello there, fellow Brazilian.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18523666]

>>18523383
>Cope,
>cancelation culture or argumentum ad populum
>when there's true debate you never win