/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20062728]

Most political literature threads on /lit/ are about batshit crazy Nazis/fascists/Maoists/Stalinists. How about a thread for more traditional political works, old and new? What are the best introductions to political theory? Who are the best living political writers? Are there any writers on either left or right that won't completely alienate someone from the other side from page 1?

[Anonymous No.20062730]

>>20062728
>Most political literature threads on /lit/ are about batshit crazy Nazis/fascists/Maoists/Stalinists. How about a thread for more traditional political works, old and new? What are the best introductions to political theory? Who are the best living political writers? Are there any writers on either left or right that won't completely alienate someone from the other side from page 1?

[Anonymous No.20062732]

lmao

[Anonymous No.20062737]

Why would you wish to read something so terribly boring?

[Anonymous No.20062738]

>>20062728
>Who are the best living political writers?
Hitler

[Anonymous No.20062744]

>>20062728
>Who are the best living political writers?
Me

[Anonymous No.20062751]

Strauss and Cropsey's introduction is still pretty good.

One of the best ways to get into political theory is to read about its origins in Renaissance revivals of classical learning and attempts to create systematic typologies of "archetypal" political positions from studying the classical sources. This initial Renaissance assumption that the classical sources ultimately contain the full gamut of political (and "theoretical" in general) wisdom then gives way to an age of political theory that is deeply and necessarily interwoven with practical exigencies. Particularly in the French Wars of Religion and the absolutist eras, with the conflicts between the rising monarchies' need to justify themselves to increasingly sophisticated courts and public opinion on the one hand, and the new classics-inspired "republican" theorizing and proto-"political science" on the other.

Reading about how Renaissance political theory (Machiavelli and his immediate humanist heirs in Tudor England and Reformation Germany and France) gets mediated to early modern (Bodin, Pufendorf, e.g.) and eventually Enlightenment political theory (Montesquieu, e.g.) will give you a better sense of how these are traditions and discourses, not random sages making up "theories" in a vacuum. One great book on this is Pocock's Machiavellian Moment, which traces Machiavelli and his own classical sources and their influence on English political thought in the time of the English revolutions, which then influences the American political thought that provided the cultural and intellectual background of the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

[Anonymous No.20063029]

>>20062751
>Strauss
Go fuck yourself faggot
Read Jouvenel, Schmitt, Mearsheimer, Hitler, Francis, Gottfried, Galton, Buchanan, Taylor, List, Adams, Hamilton, ect. Don't listen to the academic DC jews or BAPfags.

[Anonymous No.20063037]

>>20063029
This, Strauss is an agent of the enemy

[Anonymous No.20063043]

>>20063029
Gottfried is also jewish. you kind of fucked up there.

[Anonymous No.20063051]

>>20063043
>academic DC jews

[Anonymous No.20063055]

[Anonymous No.20063057]

>>20062728
if I had to give recommendations, I would say Nozick, Rawls, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burnham, Francis, Mearsheimer, Wendt, Aristotle, Locke, Paine, Wallerstein, and Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.20063409]

How is Andrew Yang's forward? I read rand Paul's manifesto and it was quite boring but very informative.

[Anonymous No.20063431]

>>20062728

[Anonymous No.20063457]

>>20062728
Everyone already knows the classics and /lit/ memes, so here are some miscellaneous more contemporary books that i think are worth reading but aren't mentioned here very often:
>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere - Habermas
>States and Social Revolutions - Skocpol
>The Collapse of Complex Societies - Tainter
>Who Governs? - Dahl
>Seeing like a State - Scott
>Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy - Schumpeter
>The Passions and the Interests - Hirschman
>Capital, Coercion, and European States - Tilly
>Politics Among Nations - Morgenthau
>The Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship - Moore
>The Calculus of Consent - Buchanan & Tullock
>The Logic of Collective Action (just parts I and II) - Olson
>The Sovereign State and its Competitors - Spruyt
>The Great Transformation - Polanyi
and some fun articles:
>'The Autonomous Power of the State' - Mann
>'Dictatorship, democracy, and development' - Olson
>'Revisiting the State' - Bordieu
>'political development and political decay' - Huntington
>'Civil Society and the collapse of the Wiemar Republic' - Berman
>'Measuring Ancient Inequality' - Milanovic, Lindert, & Williamson
>'A Theory of the Origins of the State' - Carneiro

[Anonymous No.20063472]

>>20063029
I said Strauss and Cropsey's introduction, which is good as an introduction. If you knew anything about Strauss or Straussianism you'd know that every word of my post would be anathema to them. Not only is the sort of reading I recommended completely opposed to the Straussian method in every day, they particularly hate Pocock, who refuted their understanding of Machiavelli.

Doesn't mean you can't still read and benefit from a decent book. Strauss' friend Kojeve is evil but he has good books too. The Cropsey introduction is just fine for someone who doesn't even know what political philosophy is yet.

Ironically your post is more similar to the Straussian method of reading things in a vacuum, just a list of "great names." There is absolutely no hope of understanding Schmitt with this method. That being said, your list is good. I hope I didn't react too harshly, I resented being lumped in with that twitter garbage.

[Anonymous No.20063492]

Just read rothbard and hoppe

[Anonymous No.20063672]

>>20062728
Don't bother it's a waste of time

[Anonymous No.20063851]

>>20062730
/qa/ lost

[Anonymous No.20064360]

>>20062728
I count only 7 book on there worth reading

[Anonymous No.20064458]

>>20064360
fuck off counter.
>AHHH OMY GOD BROS I'M GONNA COOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUNNNNNTTTTTT
that's you countfag

[Anonymous No.20064491]

I think A Conflict of Visions by Sowell is a nice book from the 80s that attempts to answer why people disagree all the way down the line about wildly disparate issues

[Anonymous No.20065222]

>>20062728
Being a nazi isn't bat shit crazy just because an anonymous user makes a post doesn't undermine national socialism fuck your elephant shit fuck boy

[Anonymous No.20065358]

>>20063409
The War on Normal People is better. Forward has some interesting insights into how the media fucked him and what it's like to run for president, though.

[Anonymous No.20065847]

/lit/ would rather play in the kiddie pool than five into the deep end

[Anonymous No.20065903]

>>20065222
The nazis lost retard.

[Anonymous No.20066619]

>>20062728
What an awful selection.

[Anonymous No.20066779]

>>20062728
>Woke Racism
>Zero books
>Cornel West
>Listen Lliberal
>Rawls
>Hate Inc
>All that other shit in the top 2 rows

[Anonymous No.20066786]

>>20063043
He's still pretty good. The only thing I dislike is that he basically started the "I'm le fascist but anti-nazi" meme.

[Anonymous No.20067023]

>let's have a thread for more traditional political works
>everyone ignores OP and just shills their own ideology
Never change /lit/

[Anonymous No.20067571]

test

[Anonymous No.20067954]

>>20062728
Stalinists, yes, but I don't think I've seen a single maoist on this board and thank god for that

[Anonymous No.20067967]

>>20065222
looks bat shit crazy to me bro

[Anonymous No.20068068]

>>20062728
forestanons dossier showed the feds thought he was a nazi for being anti Israel. which makes me kind of hate jews now

[Anonymous No.20068149]

>>20067954
Stalinists don't read, so, its easier to larp as one. Maoists read a lot so its much harder to be one.

[Anonymous No.20068153]

>>20067967
looks nordic as fuck
pure prussian german ethnicity

[Anonymous No.20068218]

>>20068149
>Maoists read a lot so its much harder to be one.
Back to your discord

[Anonymous No.20068309]

>>20062728
4 of those books are written by DNC shills

[Anonymous No.20068352]

>>20068068
Saw that. Imagine thinking forest anon is a nazi. Glowies are brainlets.

[Anonymous No.20068386]

>>20068149
sir do you know what a maoist is

[Anonymous No.20068961]

>>20068068
>>20068352
There is some precedence of forest hermit's who read reactionary literature doing dangerous acts.

[Anonymous No.20068970]

>>20067023
classic

[Anonymous No.20068993]

[Anonymous No.20069220]

>>20065222
>Being a nazi isn't bat shit crazy
Then why is every Nazi thinker a weird mystical LARPer who believes in magic?

[Anonymous No.20069271]

>>20069220
>weird mystical LARPer who believes in magic?
Because they aren't. National socialism was specifically trying to stay as scientific as possible since they wanted to be the natural world view. None of the whole magic and Hitler da god works were ever approved by the party.

[Anonymous No.20069317]

>>20062728
You literally say this while posting a graphic with pro slavery thinkers.

[Anonymous No.20069628]

>>20068961
True. I guess Forest anon never struck me as a dangerous type though

[Anonymous No.20069648]

>>20068993

[Anonymous No.20069770]

>>20069628
hes dangerous because he shows people they can live without paying taxes

[Anonymous No.20070232]

>>20069770
>smiling in his F.B.I. file

[Anonymous No.20070315]

>>20069770
Sauce for the pic?

[Anonymous No.20070487]

>>20063457
>le list
Thanks, but can you at least spare a sentence why it's worth reading?

[Anonymous No.20070770]

>>20062728
>I am a le centrist and have no strong convictions
Kill, your, self.

[Anonymous No.20071628]

>>20069770
>Violent Extremism
>Threat to Life
Jesus he really scared the shit out of them. Fuck America