/lit/ - Literature

>>23287026
A belief that nature’s unequal is a pretty universal belief shared by Right and Left, and Authoritarian and Libertarian alike. It isn’t an inherent contradiction. Though I don’t hear about the Left spouting Nietzsche much in terms of discussion.

>>23287026
Who is placing neet-schee on the left exactly?

>>23287035
It doesn't seem like progressives believe in natural inequality anymore, only economic / political

>>23287038
Kaufmann and consequently some academics do

>>23287026
I don't think inequality is a thing of right or left. You say that right beliefs in unequality and left in equality, but I could argue that if the right is christian, then christianism is about equality of every single human being. And if we talkf about the left, they are always asking for new rights to certain parts of the population (For example, abortion). If a part of the population has a right that others don't, isn't that inequality? Again, neither right or left are about equality or inequality, I just put those examples to make you lool at the other side of the coin.

>>23287026
Left, right, left, right...who cares?

>>23287047
>It doesn't seem like progressives believe in natural inequality anymore
The entire premise of Hobbes' Leviathan is that a strong state is necessary to upturn the "natural order" where the strong dominate and exploit the weak for profit and pleasure. This is the "barbarism" Rosa Luxemburg is talking about here.

>>23287106
Sure, but what about progressives from the last ~50 years?

>>23287035
>A belief that nature’s unequal is a pretty universal belief shared by Right and Left, and Authoritarian and Libertarian alike.
Agreed. The debate is not on that, but on how much we should let it go that way or try to change it and towards what direction.

>>23287047
The left and right today are total deformities, just simply disregard them, don't take them for measure. 99% have not read Marx or any other political theorists. It's been weird for decades, but in the past decade this shit has exploded, the right and left are dead, obliterated, empty terms nowadays. If a self presenting left or right idol-politician says green is better than blue, people will throw shit at each other for it as if it mattered the world, then the next day a regular bystander is called a commie or fascist because they like green or blue or whatever. Pissed off at that pressure, he may go "you know what? I DO like green, you lefties[or righties] will not get away with this!" And now you have one more soldier for the other team. That's the pathetic state of the left and right today and realize that they produce each other, they are teasing each other out into existence, putting out fire with gasoline. Old geezers may still have some of the original right/left flavor to them, but no one can understand them anymore, after a thoughtful lecture some kid in the audience may ask "but like, you are on our side, uh, and then you are wearing a green shirt, how come?!".

Now, they think they are sides in constant battle, a right-wing will just seethe at the word "government", a left-wing will refuse to understand how the market works, they fight over religion, gender, aesthetics, but not once think of actual practical-political-economical stuff, like how do we get the plumbing of a city to work, how much of its capital should be private, public, national, international, what's the work arrangement, what are the interests rates, taxes, and so on. Pretty boring stuff, so they prefer to mock each other instead. This turns into proving themselves, to their own peers, about the purity of their rightfulness and leftfulness, so they don't sit to talk anymore in fear of cancellation and they call each other "extreme" or "radical" when in fact they are just sitting on the status quo, rambling on empty words, refusing to look at things as they, refusing to recognize any mistake in themselves in fear of empowering the other in the process. The result are two gigantic blobs of ideological mess that somehow are called left and right in a symbiotic relationship, sucking every other difference that passes their way.

>>23287026
The Left completely misreads Rousseau for their own purposes.

people involved in politics are retards and say retarded things simple as

>>23287026
>Marx
>Believed in natural inequality
Idk if that's right, do you have a source? I know he didn't base his critique on equality and forming a more equal society wasn't his stated goal, but idk about him believing in natural inequality. Didn't he believe that human nature was mostly culturally constructed? Also, I agree with the sentiment that leftism has virtually nothing to do with Marx's thought (and neither does marxism-leninism)

>>23287026
Because they are all against the established order. Rousseau and Marx want to destroy the state because it is unjust and in its place they want to institute communism whereas Nietzsche wants to destroy the state because it is weak and decrepit and he wants to replace it with a rejuvenated fascist state, which is why Nietzsche really should be considered on the right, though his opposition to the established order could fit him on the left.

>>23287156
The rare effortpost. Nice.

>>23287026
left, left, right

>>23287345
Being against the established order can't be a sufficient reason because one is always against the old order because it stands in the way of the creation of a new one. You can't be against order in the abstract, you can only want to replace it.

>>23287266
there have been some clever people in british politics in the past like peter shore. today we have maurice glasman at least

>>23287026
No one here actually reads much, and if they do, they don't read very critically.

>>23287376
Right wingers are conservative about the old order and don’t want a new one. Only in the absence of order do right wingers want to establish one hence they become reactionaries rather than conservatives.
You absolutely can be against order in the abstract because that is what leftism is, philosophically. Leftists want to displace and destroy order, and the establishment of any order is seen as oppressive and unjust. This is how Marx and Rousseau understood the state and why they are fathers of anarchism. This is why Stalin is thought of as functionally right wing by some leftists.

>>23287156
Irony, both the average leftist and rightist today are virtually identical. Absolute transcendental moralists with no substantive ethics to ground their worldview. Entertainment and politics have synthesized into a gigantic fucking mess. Now people get their political views from late night hosts and presidential candidates are TV celebrities and comedians. Entertainment and cable news have turned politics into entertainment and now its more about feels than anything else. The left and right are more like punks and emos. Aesthetic subcultures built around content consumption. Today, lefties like Zizek are pro-police and call for Russians to be nuked while right wingers spam up imageboards with porn. Role reversal from the 60s. Its a performance.

>>23287038
There are a lot of left Nietzscheans even today and leftist figures who've been more or less influenced by Nietzsche (e.g. Foucault) although none of these people explicitly say Nietzsche was a leftist.

>>23287187
Rousseau has long been seen as an Enlightenment figure but he was really anti-Enlightenment and against the Philosophes. Its a fairly common misinterpretation. For some reason, liberal historians have always potrayed him as Philosophe and leftists have claimed him probably because of his alleged influence on the Jacobins and the French Revolution.

>>23287413
You don't sound like someone who read a lot of Tocqueville.

>a left
>without Rousseau and Marx
kinda like baseball without Babe Ruth

>>23287026
>Marx
What else would he be? lol
>Nietzsche and Rousseau
They were individualists who said mean things about a lot of the order of their day so you get this elective affinities sort of situation where almost everyone can pick and choose critiques they like from them. Like if you are a lefty you can latch on to the pole's critique of christianity or quote the things he said about the antisemites of his day if you want to dunk on the chuds, but chuds can also latch on to his philosophy about life-affirmation and life-denial and ironically enough also his critique of christianity.

>>23287026
I mean you're right that it makes no sense for the left to champion these philosophers but I don't see what it has to do with believing in natural inequality. The left believe in natural inequality too. So does pretty much everybody otherwise you're really disconnected from reality. Equality on the absolute most basic level does not exist. You can't even find 2 rocks on the ground that are equal.
But anyway the left has a real habit of just cherrypicking ideology and interpreting everything to fit their oddly specific narrative even if the surrounding context makes no sense whatsoever.

>>23287439
Meant to say, "who said a lot of mean things about the order of their day"

>>23287026
>Marx
>Believed in natural inequality.

>>23287026
.

>>23287026
I don't see the contradiction between "people have different natural abilities" and "we should not have a social order that needlessly hurts people".

>>23287038
French "Nietzscheans": Bataille, Deleuze, Foucault

>>23287076
>I could argue that if the right is christian, then christianism is about equality of every single human being.
only in the sense that we are rational animals with souls capable of salvation. the parable of the talents makes clear that beyond this there is inherent inequality

>>23287026
The team mentality in modern day politics is embarrassing. Read whoever you want and use their writings however you want.

>>23287928
Those are all rightwing

>>23287026
why would believing in "natural inequality" prevent someone from being a leftist?

>>23287151
most modern-day progressives argue for things like wheelchair ramps and other disability accommodations on the grounds that a person's natural ability shouldn't prevent them from accessing all the fruits of modern society

>>23287026
>Why is Marx placed on the left spectrum of politics
This is a real thread

>>23288034
We are all created in the image of God.

>>23287047
Based

>>23287366
only right answer

Left right dichotomy arose out of France. Obviously those that want liberty, equality, fraternity would be considered “left” because that’s what the word came from. The three in OP’s post are famous philosophers that, for one reason or another, represent liberty, equality, fraternity. Mostly because the three questioned power structures that were opposed to liberty, equality, fraternity.


This thread is fucking stupid. I hate nu/lit/ so much, you wouldn’t believe.

>>23287076
>but I could argue that if the right is christian
why would you argue this though

>>23290986
In what way does Nietzsche represent liberty, equality, and fraternity? The man relentlessly criticized egalitarian political movements and called socialism a disease. He praised the Russian monarchy during one of its most reactionary phases of the nineteenth century. He believed in a natural aristocracy.

Kaufmann's "rehabilitation" of Nietzsche is pure cope, and a ridiculous overcorrection from Russel's ad hom that Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi. While Nietzsche is definitely not a conservative, he was pretty explicit in his condemnation of virtually every political project of the modern left (excepting, of course, their moral antirealism).

>>23291221
Nietzsche just took Enlightenment individualism to its logical conclusion. He was very much a product of people like Voltaire even if he rebelled against them using their own tools.

>>23287026
Step aside rats, for I have arrived.