[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 274 KB, 1242x1240, 44297CF7-389C-4B72-8F2B-58A45FEF39FA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14479719 No.14479719 [Reply] [Original]

Whatever the white nationalist /pol/ retards are always screeching about, id like to find authors that oppose this train of thought. Please good suggestions.

>> No.14480329

>>14479719
Classics, anon
derrr

>> No.14480342

>>14479719
>I want to talk to retards
>Books will help!
A mirror would probably work better

>> No.14480618

>>14480342
I never once mentioned a discourse with anyone. I simply don’t agree with them and would like to align with a political agenda opposite to that. RETARD

>> No.14480625

>>14479719
Stirner

>> No.14480671

>>14479719
lol you can't refute them by yourself and you call them retards?
please leave this board and delete this thread, you're embarrassing yourself

>> No.14480686

>>14479719
If you just put on a blindfold and go into any library and randomly grab books off the shelves you are almost certain to come out with your arms full of books that oppose the trains of thought you find on /pol/.
That is kind of the point that /pol/ is making: that we live in a society where all the literature that is accessible to us without our having to make a very strenuous effort to find it tends to be an expression of a single monolithic ideology : "we are all equal", "oppression and domination are bad, mmmk?" etc.
This, of course, will be a dozen times MORE the case if you go blindfolded into a bookstore where - insofar as one finds books in a bookstore at all any more in amongst all the "lifestyle accessories" - there is not a snowball's chance in Hell of you finding ANYTHING that won't start ramming the "wimmin are stronk", "refugees are all luminous saints and angels from heaven and we have to open ALL the borders NOW" narrative down your throat from page 1 on.
So really - unless you really ARE the smirking, finger-giving Williamsburg hipster zombie in the picture you posted - I'd recommend that, if you want to get a taste of what "oppositional" writing and thinking really is, you go and check out some of the authors and books that "the white nationalist /pol/ retards are always screeching about, like Pound, Celine, Jean Raspail ("The Camp of the Saints") and other works that come from an experience of ACTUAL opposition to a strangling, smothering totalitarian "powah", as against an experience of LARPing through your Williamsburg trust-fund whiskers at being a "rebel".

>> No.14480713

>>14480686
>"we are all equal"
god christ, nobody believes this.
you think a leftist thinks that a black male adult who has been in prison is "equal" o a math professor? of course not, the former would probably never in his lifetime be able to understand a fraction of what the latter does
what it does say is that this differences are not genetic, but of environment, and this includes biology, since proper alimentation during childhood is crucial to a well developed brain. Many black adults are fucked up and will never recover, but it's because environmental conditions, not because of their genetics

furthermore, the left doesn't think that women are equal to men. It is obvious that an adult male has a lot more of strength than an adult women

>> No.14480731

>>14479719
Don't ask these retards. /pol/tards contaminate every board push their bullshit everywhere. Just search on like a subreddit(breadtube subreddit maybe) and ask them instead. But don't expect any smarter person over there than over here.

>> No.14480741

>>14479719
David Harvey, Bakunin, Chomsky, Liebknecht, Jackie Wang, Lefebvre, Gramsci and Radhakrishnan are excellent starter points for genuine opposition to white nationalist and imperialist shit that comes out of /pol/. don't be poisoned by the train of thought that you have to either be a rightist or a neoliberal -- in many cases, they are allied in order to appropriate the most easily swallowable aspects of leftist though (LGBT acceptance, pro-refugee, etc.) because it requires nothing of them and implicitly condones their importing of an immigrant underclass to cut wages.

>> No.14480745

>>14479719
Stein Steinberg, Chaim Leibowitz, Moshe Greenblatt the list goes on...

>> No.14480752

>>14480618
>I simply don’t agree with them and would like to align with a political agenda opposite to that.
Cut off your dick, start eating grass and join Antifa.

>> No.14480764

>>14479719
Almost everyone opposes them. Just pick up any old book.

>> No.14480774

>>14480713
I highly doubt that you could find a single leftist in 2020 - by which I mean, say, a single member of the US Democratic Party - who would dare to say that an Afro-American adult is "fucked up" by bad nutrition or by anything else at all. Any Democrat who said anything even distantly resembling that would immediately be drummed out of the party - and very probably be punched and beaten and run over (as a "Nazi") by "the Squad" and the hundreds of thousands of Dems who idolize the squad. The narrative today about EVERY ugly fucked-up aspect of life in the US's indeed 100-percent-fucked black ghettoes - 50 per cent fatherless "families", massive rates of illiteracy and incarceration - always HAS to be "yeah! you GO, girl, you BLACK and you BEAUTIFUL!"
So I have no idea what "left" you have had contact with? The circle around George Bernard Shaw in Bloomsbury in the late 1890s, maybe?

>> No.14480782

>>14480774
Democrats aren't leftists.

>> No.14480794
File: 14 KB, 229x211, soiboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14480794

>>14480782
>Democrats aren't leftists

>> No.14480802

>>14480794
Here's your (You).

>> No.14480813

>>14480741
>David Harvey, Bakunin, Chomsky, Liebknecht, Jackie Wang, Lefebvre, Gramsci and Radhakrishnan
Lol. Half of the people you mention here died before the concept of "white nationalism" could even have a historical point of reference.
What one earth could Bakunin or Karl Liebknecht possibly have to say that would be in any way relevant to the problems that White Nationalism is responding to today?
Today's White Nationalists principally face and respond to the problem of having their home towns and neighbourhoods being taken over by millions of members of non-white races imported by their countries' ruling classes. Liebknecht and Bakunin lived in a Europe that was still 99.9 per cent white and where "racial conflict" in today's sense was simply unimaginable.

>> No.14480817

>>14480802
Liberalism and socialism are enlightenment ideologies and therefore leftist.

>> No.14480822

>>14480774
>what "left" you have had contact with?
admittedly not with american left. I know they can be quite stupid, but to me their lack of theory and logical thought is childish and musn't be taken seriously
>"yeah! you GO, girl, you BLACK and you BEAUTIFUL!"
yes, this is what I mean with childish. This is just some voluntaristic bullshit. It's as lame as saying that everyone can become a self made millonaire. Ultimately, it helps to hide the systemic conditions of oppression by repeating voluntaristic slogans that distract us from the real problems and real solutions

A good way to familiarize yourself with leftist values is thinking of the following formula as an irrevocable conviction: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This means we recognize everyone is different and some of this differences are biological (for example the ones between men and women, or an adult and a child, though we do think races don't exist), but we struggle for a society where every elementary need can be fulfilled. And this is truly the most rational and fair way to organize a society. Think of it this way: would you demand the same amount of work to a male adult and a male elder? Of course you wouldn't. Yet you would like to fulfill their elementary needs in the same way, even though the elder can't produce his own means of subsistence anymore. You would do it because it's fair.

>> No.14480824

>>14480741
>David Harvey
>implying the alt right would disagree with him

>> No.14480831

The Israel Lobby
Joseph Stalin
Ibn Khaldun
Otto Weininger
Goethe

>> No.14480839

>>14480817
Damn they couldn't pay me to act this retarded

>> No.14480840

>>14480782
Let me assure you, as a much older man, kid, that the differences between the Democratic Party vintage 2020 and, say, the Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party of America vintage 1975 are pretty negligible.
If the kind of insane shit that comes out of Alexandra Occasional Cortez's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, isn't "leftism", I don't know what is

>> No.14480868

>>14480822
>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Sounds to me anon that there's an inherent assumption in that statement that the wellbeing of two different people are equal. This is an assumption that I would argue is not necessarily warranted. Should an intelligent, hardworking person really be forced to pay the way for a lazy person who lives off the system and acts in a way that disrupts society?

>> No.14480930

>>14480868
>hardworking person really be forced to pay the way for a lazy person
you're mistaken if you think that laziness is well received in a leftist society. Like it's usually repeated, leftism holds collectivism as a value. You can't be a lazy motherfucker who does nothing leeching on another people's labor (in fact, marxists think that that's what most capitalists do, and other owners). By letting a group of people leech from another, you would be creating a classs society, when leftism aims for a classless society.

What the phrase means is that everyone should work up to their best, but that the product of the common labor should be distributed according to people's needs. A smart person will produce, let's say, $50 of value in 1 hr, and a somehow mentally disabled person will produce (if he can work at all, let's suppose it's a minor disability) $25 of value in 1 hr. Yet, if the smart and able bodied person needs 25$ to fulfill his needs and the disabled needs $50 to do the same, it's only fair that they receive just what they need.

This means that the smartests persons work for their community. But this is good. Because nobody is a 150iq adult male forever. That adult male was once a child, and he received more than he produced. Furthermore, the adult male will once be an elder, and he will need help from the society to survive.

This is what leftism aims to. Of course, it would be difficult to put in practice such a thing. But, for beginners, redistributism is one way. Taxes and other policies that redistribute the social product according to this formula go closer to what a socialist society would look like

>> No.14480948

>>14480930
this is truly the most rational way to organize a society while being fair with all of its members
would it be rational to demand the same amount of work from an elder or a child that for an adult? if everyone received what they produce, the society would be extremely unfair, conflict and violence would proliferate

>> No.14480956

>>14480822
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Lol. It's a terrible waste of my time but it amuses me to impart a little basic education to children sometimes, so here goes:

You are clearly too ignorant about the "leftist" ideology you subscribe to to even be aware where the formula you cite comes from.

It comes from Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programm" and Marx proposes it as the formula not for a society that would still need to be "struggled for" but for the FULLY COMMUNIST society he envisaged as being imposed on the world one day.
It implies a society in which literally NOTHING would belong to the individual any more, not even his own energies. He would be expected to work until he dropped from exhaustion, EVERYTHING his work produced would go directly to the State, and the State would then distribute according to what it perceived to be people's "needs".
The "Sanders / Ocasio Cortez" "you go, girl" ideology that you claim is NOT "leftist" is certainly a step on the road to this nightmare of State oppression since it expresses an attitude of uncritical worship toward social groups that have the reputation of being "oppressed". Ocasio Cortez and Sanders would certainly agree with you about "the systemic conditions of oppression" and to believe that everything is "systemic" is to eliminate completely the idea of a person's DESERVING either the good things or the bad things that come to them in life. Down that road, you DO very quickly get to the totalitarian "Critique of the Gotha Programme" position that the "good society" is one in which every human being belongs completely to the State and must give every ounce of his energy and second of his time to the State, which will then do with it what it will.

>> No.14480996
File: 3.67 MB, 600x338, 88022.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14480996

>>14479719
This is 10/10 bait.

>> No.14481066

>>14480956
Okay, here I go:

>It comes from Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programm" and Marx proposes it as the formula not for a society that would still need to be "struggled for" but for the FULLY COMMUNIST society he envisaged as being imposed on the world one day.
Totally right. I know this and I agree with this.
That's exactly the reason why I said "This is what leftism aims to". Because I know it's an aspiration that could, in the eyes of Marx, only be fulfilled by a proper communist society. It's not something that can be implanted in capitalism nor the day following the collapse of capitalism (if that happens anyday). In capitalism, one has redistributism (taxes, govt intervention and other policies implemented by the welfare state). But this policies have a limit, because you can't redistribute the product without affecting capitalist reproduction (that's what happened to keynesianism). So the only way to really fulfill the motto is through a communist society.

>It implies a society in which literally NOTHING would belong to the individual any more, not even his own energies. He would be expected to work until he dropped from exhaustion, EVERYTHING his work produced would go directly to the State, and the State would then distribute according to what it perceived to be people's "needs".
This is a highly abstract and speculative debate. But I'll follow you, so beware of that before you call me "utopian", daydreamer or whatever.
A communist society must also be a democratic society. So, society decides in a democratic way the amount of surplus product, that is, the total consumption —of course, in the first place a part of the production goes to reinvesting—. After the amount of product is decided, you can calculate how many labor hours would be needed to produce such amount. Remind you that this is all decided in an organic and democratic way, not by "the market". What this obviously means is that a society would rarely force itself to have people working 12 hours a day just to produce a bigger amount of goods (of course, it could happen at an early stage where a big effort is needed to surpass underdevelopment). What's good about such a society is that it's a RATIONAL society, because mankind is in control of it's own production process. There's no anarchic market. The idea is not that an abstraction (the state) replaces another (the market) the idea is that the whole of society decides it's production process.

>Ocasio Cortez and Sanders would certainly agree with you about "the systemic conditions of oppression" and to believe that everything is "systemic" is to eliminate completely the idea of a person's DESERVING either the good things or the bad things that come to them in life.
You're mixing things. Believing that things are systemic comes just from watching reality and seeing that there is economic inequality that in turn produces social inequality.

>> No.14481083

>>14481066
cont.
It does NOT mean that once we reach communism everyone will be good. Of course, there will be lazy people. And you will need some sort of coercive mechanism. In capitalism, this mechanism is poverty and hunger. If you don't work, you starve. This is not ideal, but OF COURSE some sort of coercive mechanism is needed.

>> No.14481115

You could read into pacifism and the religious traditions that created it.

Nobody has bothered challenging the ideas of the right because they have dystopian thinking
>man is evil, isolated and unkind
Like all reactions thinking it is impregnable to reason. Their conclusions coherently follow from fundamental assumptions. You wont find in their writings
>forgiveness, patience, kindness
The left and right are two sides cleaved apart they are joined in the world tradition known as Christianity. It's fundamental text is a collection of books written across centuries which reinforce and refute left and right allowing salvation only through God. Read your Bible.

>> No.14481127

>>14480956
Wrong, communism will be STATELESS, so the whole world government will be inside everyone's heads spontaneously synchronized across 8 billion or however many people. This is what Marxists unironically must believe in, that's why they try prohibit talk about what the full communist society will be like, not because it's illicit utopianism but because it's laughably unfeasible on its face.

>> No.14481148

>>14481127
>This is what Marxists unironically must believe in
Yes, communism will be stateless according to Marx. I wanted to say that but it would have taken more explanations and I was lazy. But now that you say this, I'm obligated to answer.

Marxists understand state as the instrument of the dominant class. In a classless society, there would be no state. However, there WOULD be some kind of centralized organization (what you would understand as state). So the "stateless" debate it's pretty much a sterile stupid debate about the nature of the state in capitalism. I can post the quotes of Engels saying this if you want to

>> No.14481158

>>14480618
There exists a spectrum or even a sphere of political agendas and ideologies, saying you dont like one political idea is fine but if you say you want to align with an opposite agenda instead of trying to understand yourself and existing political ideologies then you are quite ignorant, just like screeching white nationalist and his antifa counterpart on the far left spectrum.

>> No.14481178

>>14481083
No right leaning person gives a shit about democracy. They have paternalistic thinking towards people but they believe in strict meritocracy and would never choose the tyranny of majority or minority swing groups in an ossified two camp majority. You're arguing against neoconservative ghosts who are liberals that hijacked the republican party. Anticommunists are socialists the real right agrees with everything you want they just want to arrange the solution in a different way eg. Dictator. An American right never existed because conditions of the civil war led to extreme opposition to Lincoln who was a tyrant and republican. This forced both parties left. You are a soft mother to an illiberal hard father. The right is further left than you they just don't care about people outside whatever group they determine is sufficient for them to gain and hold power. Typically disaffected veterans who have experience with fighting civilian resistance inside bombed out cityscapes. You should be worried. Because if trump ever pulls the pin on the wars there and they all come home... 20-30k disgruntled ex-military who have been fighting black masked insurgents for decades. Yikes.

>> No.14481304

>>14480930
>>14480948
But why does this 150 IQ person have to work for the brainlet in the first place? Yes, he may not be able to maintain his own wellbeing forever, but through the superiority of his labour he would be able to gather enough resources to pay someone else to look after him in his old age, and still have resources left over. In fact, as he gets older, he can move to instruct the young (either his children or others) in his chosen craft, bypassing the issue of his increasing age.

Before you say it, yes, this does put him into a more capitalistic managerial role. However, through him, the worker gains skills he would not have otherwise. This idea that the capitalist merely leaches off labour is moronic. Most entrepreneurs who start SMEs are the furthest being from leaches you can possibly find. The Marxist theory of value simply is incorrect.

Now, that is not to excuse the multinational. Many on the social right would agree that such an institution needs to be reeled in, if not destroyed outright. However, this is because of other transgressions against the people and their state rather than some obscure economic principle.

>> No.14481423

>>14480713
That notion is almost as stupid though... Heritability studies completely btfo it.

Even just on the face of it, if you think that environment is important in shaping us, then obviously the cumulative result of thousands of years of that shaping is going to be more consequential to our capacities than environmental variance in an individual lifetime.

You have some nerve to feel justified in expressing exasperation when you cleave to such asburdities.

>> No.14482447

>>14479719
Just read the news. That's the best way to refute /pol/-thought, unironically. A basic understanding of Biology and genetics helps too.

>> No.14482457

>>14482447
Yeah read the msm goy

>> No.14482487
File: 838 KB, 847x641, destiny.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14482487

>>14479719
Watch this guy

>> No.14482491

>>14481148
>I can post the quotes of Engels saying this if you want to
Do it

>> No.14482537

>>14481148
>“Accounting and control – that is mainly what is needed for the ‘smooth working’, for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens have become employees and workers of a single country-wide ‘syndicate’. All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay. The accounting and control necessary for this have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations – which any literate person can perform – of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts.
>“When the majority of people begin independently and everywhere to keep such accounts and exercise such control over the capitalists (now converted into employees) and over the intellectual gentry who preserve their capitalist habits, this control will really become universal, general and popular; and there will be no getting away from it, there will be ‘nowhere to go’.
>“The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, will equality of labour and pay. ...”
>“The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’, i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labour has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. ‘The narrow horizon of bourgeois law’, which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else – this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely “according to his needs”.
Lenin, State and Revolution

communists did believe social coordination would become a spontaneous activity without central control

>> No.14482551

>>14480618
Reactionary politics is the reason why the world is so fucked in the internet age

>> No.14482674

Gramsci, but don't be a "bread tube" douche about it

>> No.14482691
File: 75 KB, 618x741, He who helps the helper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14482691

>>14481115
Have this as I wait for my soup to cool down.

>> No.14482703

>>14480731
Breadtube is full of pseuds who are even worse than /pol/

>> No.14482719

>>14482487
Are you trolling or are you just dumb?

>> No.14483328

>>14480713
Why would genetics suddenly stop working when applied to humans? Where is the scientific evidence that all races of humans have 100% identical intellectual genetics?

>> No.14483481

Trying to dissociate from /pol/ is oversocialized behaviour. Everyone should be aware that /pol/ is irrelevant and dumb and ranting about it seems to come from a lack of confidence that you won't be mistaken for some /pol/tard and lose pseud cred without affirming your disdain for them.

Right now, on this board in particular, leftypol is a much bigger issue as they have just migrated after the shutdown. At this point, unless you are some sort of sissyfag, general /pol/ behaviour is just benign and not particularly obstructive or offensive. /pol/ is literally just the new /b/. They are as harmless as /b/tards.

>> No.14483582

>>14482719
I'm serious. Nowhere else do you get a better btfo learning material than a guy who destroys actual poltards

>> No.14483698

>>14480329
lol look at this dummy.
just read critial theory and other cultural marxist like gramsci or marcuse

>> No.14483750
File: 325 KB, 1200x758, 1574001222398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14483750

>>14479719
>brainlet tier
Universalism
>midwit tier
Civic nationalism
>psued tier
Racial collectivism/nationalism
>galaxy brain tier
Individualistic Hyperracialism

>> No.14483788

>>14480618
>and would like to align with a political agenda
You are literally an ideologue in the making.

>> No.14483830

>>14483582
>the guy who was literally btfo by sargon and nick fucking fuentes.
his sophistry skills are very high indeed, and I doubt many here could match him in live debate

>> No.14484152

>>14480618
This has to be bait.

>> No.14484283

>>14483830
Name a single time he was btfoed by nick or sargon.

>> No.14484369

Just buy any book, if you cant btfo poltards naturally then idk what to tell you