I am here for the left wing literature

Most writers are left wing user, it comes with the territory.

People say this but I find it absolutely trite. Most great writers are decisively non-political, Shakespeare and Joyce were just as beloved by the Nazis as any Leftist

I should say, transcend-politics, as opposed to non-political, its a nuanced difference

Clearly you don't know about the great historical writers of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Good choices except from
>Orwell
who was a snitch.

Most writers are right wing user, it comes with the territory.

how can you be a snitch if stalinism wasn't "true communism" and he just snitched on a bunch of tankies? at that point you have to choose either one or the other

>they were all counter-revolutions and deserved it

This is why I'm not a Leftist anymore

...

I'd remove Althussar and Jameson, I never understand the point of those hacks

revolutions are just a meme, you can't create anything through revolution that wasn't already in potency in the society that you try to transform

also why is it bad that some leftists have standards? i know most of them would have no standards if it wasn't for the double standards, but still

marcuse is also garbage, baudrillard is a right winger, zizek is a meme even though he has nice insights he can't develop ideas for shit which kind of fits the times but it becomes old fast after reading 1 or 2 of his books,

>revolutions are just a meme
After years of meticulous study--hours spent scouring the oldest and most reputable books, days scrawling away at his desk--user had finally conjured his most potent criticism yet.

not that the arguments for it are much more developed than that to be fair

>you can't create anything through revolution that wasn't already in potency in the society that you try to transform

This is a naive misreading, Marx wasn't a determinist. While the changes in a society are dictated within the limits of its material foundation this potential itself can have multiple paths based on movements within it.
Thats to stay the stone will fall either way but we can decide which way and when the stone will fall

not materialist enough

...

doesn't read books

You're right really, its not quite like we have a choice either. Marx's reading was rather like predestination, history will progress as it is to progress but while our individual actions shape it our very attitude to this shaping will be constitutive of that change

do you really think that OP wants to read rousseau and diderot? there's a reason why everyone prefers voltaire, and it's because monarchists tell better jokes.

>On Politics: A History of Political Thought From Herodotus to the Present
>Bertrand De Jouvenel On Power, and, The Ethics of Redistribution
>Red Famine: Stalin's War on Ukraine, 1921-1933
>A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924
>Economic Sophisms
>The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century
>The Crowd And The Mob: From Plato To Canetti
>The Faith of the Faithless: Experiments in Political Theology
> Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from the Rights of Man to Robespierre
>War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
>The Cunning Of Unreason
>Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage
>Death by Government
>The Collapse of Complex Societies

Jews Without Money
The Jungle
The Crab Cannery Ship
The Octopus

Leftism is by its very nature antithetical to literature and artistic expression. Leftists regard aesthetics and literary qualities as mere oppressive constructs concocted by 'dominant groups', hence humana writers must give way to a vibrancy algorithm designed to optimize diversity and empowerment, texts must be submitted to 'sensitivity readers' and vibrant focus groups. Seriously, this article is fucking insane, read it if you want a glimpse of the future of fiction under managerial gynocratic totalitarianism. I'm above all struck by the soulless, bureaucratic nature of leftist 'art', wasn't it like that back in the USSR? to be fair, those tales of stakhanovite steelworkers and Bolshevik martyrs had a certain naive charm, that is entirely absent in current media.

mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/movies/star-wars-last-jedi-women-run-universe.html?referer=https://www.google.com.mx/

Come on, give the man a break. He was dying from tuberculosis, it fucked up his brain.

Holy kekeroni. This is your rat-sized brain on /pol/

progressive liberals who identify as social democrats are not the same thing as Marxists user

bomb america

we need to convince the mods to ban the US/UK. board quality would drastically improve.

Marxists are nothing but the left wing of the progressive managerial state( a totalitarian entity which is anything but liberal) their foremost aiders and abetters. True radicalism in this day and age is by necessity right wing.

...

He was, but Orwell was also a radical leftist and his literature comes from that perspective.

Homage to Catalonia is a pretty great look at the formation of a libertarian socialist society and what horizontal power structures actually look like.

Right wingers read Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro lmao

So much going on in one image

Kick out that shithead Marcuse and add Bordiga and Bukharin.

The Marx texts included are good, but nobody is going to actually read Capitol so I would add Wage Labor and Capitol, Critique of the Gotha Program, and The German Ideology

Unto This Last by John Ruskin.

How is it possible that leftists are so good at producing tons upon tons of writing, but their theories always crash against the wall in real life?

Probably because every far-left government has been an attempt to forcibly implement what Karl Marx believed would be inevitable, bottom-up developments by the working class

Marxism is the source of conflict theory and sjwism, though. Leftist logic displays the same results whenever it is applied: universal banalisation. Once you accept the premises that muh oppression is bad and everything else is an evil social construct, then nothing remains but the purposeful degeneration of Man into a single indistinct mass of 'equal' units subject to totalitarian management.

This resentful attitude has always existed, Marxism is just a refined form of it. If you read Thomas Hobbes you can see him criticizing certain parliamentarians for the exact same psychology

>Marxism is the source of conflict theory and sjwism
yes and monarchism and christian morality are the source of conservative idiocy user.
>Leftist logic displays the same results whenever it is applied: universal banalisation
That's your opinion, I find the fascist aesthetic and intellectual output to be unbelievably tiresome in every conceivable way it can be examined. Everything down to the pageantry and parades is revolting to me.
>Once you accept the premises that muh oppression is bad
It is by definition bad for the people who are oppressed
>everything is an evil social construct
that's not what Marx says, he talks about classes and their relationship to 'material conditions' and 'modes of production' and the ownership of the 'means of production'
>then nothing remains but the purposeful degeneration of Man into a single indistinct mass of 'equal' units subject to totalitarian management
the antecedent of the final sentence in your last argument doesn't entail the consequent and is also based on a false premise. And fascism sought to turn the whole of the Fatherland into a factory for identical soldiers, factory workers, ministers of state and commanders of industry/military forces. You can make similar generalized arguments about capitalism and monarchy as well. The distinct nature of the aristocracy is hard to argue for when they all imitated one another, the peasantry all resembled one another and the monarchs themselves followed strict and often homogenous (across populations) codes of conduct that rendered them quite indistinguishable. Additionally, the idea of in-breeding and racial purity is predicated upon keeping the same type in a population for long periods. I'm not arguing for whether these things are or are not correct, moral or true; just pointing out that your arguments go both ways and are weak, based upon weak premises and misunderstandings.

>Everything down to the pageantry and parades is revolting to me.

t. Blue haired dyke

while the theories of the right melts the poles and fill the ocean with plastic

"SJWism" is just traditional liberalism with a focus on the natural rights of marginalized groups. There's not really anything Marxist about it. Progressive liberals don't believe that races are conflicting social classes which inevitably conquer another. If anything, this attitude is instead more common the right.

SJWs don't really talk about class that much, instead just identifying specific manifestations of racism or sexism (manifestations that are often minute or invalid) and trying to abolish these manifestations of oppression one by one

yeah blue haired lesbians are famous for hating parades and ostentatious displays of identity

>backs off to name calling like a schizo
whatever you want to do with your free time user. this place is my displacement activity

Yeah then feel free to displace yourself again you smelly fucking rancid waste of space. You incomplete pile of nothing

>You incomplete pile of nothing
>sentence fragment

>Once you accept the premises that muh oppression is bad and everything else is an evil social construct, then nothing remains but the purposeful degeneration of Man into a single indistinct mass of 'equal' units subject to totalitarian management.
No, this kind of atomization happens in every form of social organization. 30% of Roman inhabitants were slaves who the law didn't consider to be people, and today under capitalism all of us are reduced to the value of our labor. We can carve out a meaningful existence for ourselves by reading book or making art or building close relationships with others, but unless we're fortunate enough to be rich, the bulk of our time and energy will be spent earning the money we need to survive.

>and today under capitalism all of us are reduced to the value of our labor.

This is nowhere near true and were it true it would have always been true. Consider your words you stupid fuck

this is what Veeky Forums has become. This is your new audience anons

>Post literally linking to an example of the phenomenon it's attempting to describe and prescribing to the future
>lol /pol/eddit xDD?
You're seriously a massive fucking brainlet. Leave this board.

Holy shit you're actually autistic

It's absolutely fucking true. You're naive if you think your employer or your congressman cares about you beyond the extent that you make a profit or vote him in office.

You're correct that every economic system has been brutal and dehumanizing to most people, but modern capitalism is uniquely alienating. Only through this system can millions of people be employed by the same anonymous company for daily labor, rather than giving a share of their crop to a baron they've known since childhood.

A lot of guys on your side recognize this kind of alienation and think we should actually return to feudal production, but this isn't really tenable because it would effectively disempower all wealthy people who don't own arable soil and strip away political rights from everybody else. It would take some apocalyptic cataclysm for us to willingly revert back to a manorial system.

>t. rw pseud retard who thinks that anti-intellectual traditions require any thought to smash into pieces

> rather than giving a share of their crop to a baron they've known since childhood.

So thats it? Once you know a dude then its not alienating?
Bullshit, you've not described at all how we're reduced to our labor position and you totally neglected to consider consumerism as a form of constituting identity

You're the worst type of pseud so common on the Left who just dribbles out whatever screed sounds right to him without bothering to even consider your own fucking arguments.

>Leftists regard aesthetics and literary qualities as mere oppressive constructs concocted by 'dominant groups', hence humana writers must give way to a vibrancy algorithm designed to optimize diversity and empowerment, texts must be submitted to 'sensitivity readers' and vibrant focus groups.
Utter bullshit. The majority of artists and writers lean to the left, and the only people who complain about specific visual styles being "oppressive" are irrelevant bloggers.

The rise of focus groups isn't some victory of the feminist movement, but instead the result of our media industries existing only to generate profit for their investors. These forces churn out bland art because they seek to please the most number of people. This is why you rarely see far-right movies or movies with all-black casts: most audiences don't want to seem them.

You're doing that thing /pol/ guys do where you think problems in our society are somehow representative of leftism, when in fact leftists also hate these phenomena and see them as artefacts of an imperfect societal order they wish to correct.

Ok, what's wrong with that? People are only defined by the value of their labor, eg the value of whatever pleasure or means-of-pleasure they can provide to one another. In aggregate, every person acts as a hedonistic, materialist "egoist"- you know in what sense I mean when I say this- after all, in truth, people ARE only defined to us by what pleasure or means-of-pleasure they offer to us. Is ~reducing people's value to numbers and hours~ anything but making this as efficient as possible?

You're totally smashing that patriarchy! Epic! Le science, intellectualism and diversity!

>The majority of artists and writers lean to the left

Of people who call themselves artists and writers maybe, but I've yet to see this as anything but an arbitrary reflection of the class of people they originate from and whether the same "leaning" extends to actual artists of merit.
Virtue signalling is a real thing that needs to be considered as well, anyone whose career is based on their reputation in the public eye is going to be pressured to give pleasant opinions but may not reflect their sensibilities in private

If you're looking for entertainment, tvtropes is always my go-to for quickly finding some new material to check out based on specific themes I'm currently interested in. For example:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InTheFutureHumansWillBeOneRace

Hold on I’m actually seeing some dumbass who believes the labor theory of value can be assigned to people permanently. It’s like he doesn’t understand how the world actually works.

>I mean when I say this- after all, in truth, people ARE only defined to us by what pleasure or means-of-pleasure they offer to us

Only in a naive sense, symbolic significance, history and interrelationships all dramatically complicate this picture even if it ultimately rests on the pleasure principle

I'm working with your terms you utter fucking retard. Not only labor but any form of anything you can provide that I can perceive as valuable, all of which can be commodified (because everything is, again, pleasure or a means of making us feel pleasure).

>even if it ultimately rests on the pleasure principle
Uh... Yup.

Its still an important distinction, you may as well say other people are nothing to us but atoms. Emergent phenomenon is categorically different than bare phenomenon

And is this pleasure the ultimate attainment of value??? Fuck the modern free marketists who make the simple mistake of thinking that just because something is assigned a price at large it is the designated value of what it affords to them psychologically without accounting for ANY other variables, you have gone one step further and said that pure pleasure is the simple meaning of life. Plato and every philosopher, not to mention economist (and this is a big deal trust me, lot of psychopaths they are) disagrees with you fundamentally.

Leftism is nothing but a continuation of Christian slave morality with its emphasis on guilt and the glorification of victimhood. Leftism sacrifices all the other precepts of Christianity to the righteousness of the almighty victim. That's why leftists will defend even pedophilia as progressive when those oh so vibrant and marginalized gay trannies are doing it.

Progressive ideology has ascended to a quasi religious dogma that overrides economics. If the audience doesn't like the vibrancy then it is THEIR problem. Refer to recent controversies related to Hillary Clinton, Rupi Kaur, Star Wars, lady ghostbusters. The establishment regards any deviation from the ethos of gynocratic managerialism as a mere technical problem to be stamped out.

>>The majority of artists and writers lean to the left
>Of people who call themselves artists and writers maybe, but I've yet to see this as anything but an arbitrary reflection of the class of people they originate from and whether the same "leaning" extends to actual artists of merit.
>Virtue signalling is a real thing that needs to be considered as well, anyone whose career is based on their reputation in the public eye is going to be pressured to give pleasant opinions but may not reflect their sensibilities in private
I totally agree. I was just reflecting on this when I disposed of the trash this afternoon. I live in a Leftist enclave and I saw some tripe artwork in the dumpster. IME pretty much every Leftist thinks that they are innately an artist. I usually just make use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy when I want to disregard them because I used to be a "professional artist" for four years - sure it's a fallacy but they are retards and I do not want to dedicate the time necessary for a legitimate critique. No one is an artist unless they have a message that they need to convey. Most Leftists adhere to the construct "look at me look at me look at me, I am an artist" so I grow weary of wasting my time on them.

>Once you know a dude then its not alienating?
Obviously not, but that difference is a microcosm of what separates feudalism and other traditional economic systems from industrial capitalism. Until pretty recently, production was wholly inseparable from community. Individual workers were tied to the land they cultivated, and in many cases every one of their known ancestors had performed the same kind of work in the same general vicinity. Feudal agriculture is home-based and necessarily communal, because small-time farmers would regularly help each other out to generate higher yields that benefit the whole community. Production happened on a far smaller scale than would be acceptable today, because a community of peasants supported a small aristocratic class and a barely-larger market of urban buyers, rather than producing food for a whole nation.

You're right that consumerism can provide meaning to some of people's lives, but most often people don't cherish the act of buying but instead the goods that they acquire. This is why the guys at /mu/ and /v/ are such prolific pirates. Regardless, many people find their lives devoid of serious enjoyment and find themselves increasingly lonesome and shiftless. A couple right-wingers in this thread insisted that the culprit is leftist ideology, while the real factors behind contemporary alienation are economic processes that aren't progressive or egalitarian at all.

The complexity here is different on incredibly scales, so much so that it makes you disingenuous- atoms to molecules to x to x to x to x etc to humans isn't very comparable to being friends with someone to extra dopamine when socialization or empathy happens because that helps us for our survival.

I don't give a shit about philosophers or economics who work at the behest of biologists (not to sound like a stem supremacist)- pleasure literally /is/ our reward, for continuing our purpose as evolutionary units and surviving and fucking. Give me a want or need, I'll give you an action or series of actions or actions allowing actions that leads to the dopamine reward. Fruits and sugars let us not starve, and so we get pleasure- same with having sex and holding a baby. A cool thing about capitalism and the free market is that it is slowly discovering that all consumers, always, want only pleasure- and fulfilling the market demand by substituting inefficient forms of pleasure ("spiritual" stuff, national or racial pride, aesthetics and art where more efficient, greater distributions of pleasure can be substituted, etc) for more efficient forms. Simply the market at work, baby. You're already seeing people and companies realizing how inefficient having babies is at granting us pleasure- and there is no motivation for anything except low-time-preferenced, intelligent, purposeful pleasure-getting, so soon we'll wipe ourselves out. Our rationality, perhaps not now but over the generations as the culture [downstream of the market] changes and transforms, will be our suicide. Capitalism is the great discovery of man and man's nature, enlightenment-exctinction. I WAS BORN TO DIE!

not being able to discern irony is a trait of autism, as is thinking you're personally excluded from it.

Hahahaha

>The complexity here is different on incredibly scales, so much so that it makes you disingenuous- atoms to molecules to x to x to x to x etc to humans isn't very comparable to being friends with someone to extra dopamine when socialization or empathy happens because that helps us for our survival.

Only if your relations are so simple. Speak for yourself in that case, I fear you may have the 'tisms

You, in the quite silly fashion of altruists and ~nuanced humans~, imagine yourself to be complex.

Complexity is a creative act not an inherent state of affairs. If you would like to have a deeper life yourself then I suggest trying a little harder

>not being able to discern irony is a trait of autism, as is thinking you're personally excluded from it.
Irony is an outdated artifact in the Land of Poe's Law.

zing

Checked

it's fucking absurd to suggest that Shakespeare and Joyce aren't political

Yeah I'm sure you believe in evolution too.

Go read Gorgias by Plato and get back to me.

This, both writers were in fact highly redpilled fashsters. See The Taming of the Shrew for an example of Shakespeare's misogyny

Do you think at some point you'll outgrow posting things like this?

We need something like that right wing chart that has category keys. Something like:
>Social Equality
>Collectivist
>Anarchy
>Feminism
>Bat-shit crazy
>Welfare Statist
>Relativist/Anti-Traditionalist
Obviously some can be dropped an a lot missing, but something like that, so that the question "what do you want from the left?" is easily answerable.

Theozoology: or, the science of the sodomite apelings and the divine electron by Georg Hans von Liebenfels. Leftist numales cant handle such esoteric truths, if they were to read theozoology they would self combust while screeching crimethink! Crimethink!

Honestly I’ve been working on one, problem is that the left is a lot more booky than the right and it’s not easy.

I literally organized out a hundred book chart for just varieties of Marxism. There is at least a dozen major anarchist works, all the different schools of feminism would be substantial, and then when you get into the realms of liberalism now you are talking from Locke to Rawls, Sen, Naussbaum.

And we aren’t even talking about people like Foucault, Derrida, deleuze and so on. I’ve been putting it in a google doc that I’ll post soon enough,

Lol? Every textbook covering everything from liberal to neoclassical economics is "right-leaning", which is meaningless, by the way. The greeks, Hegel, the Chigaco to Austrian school, all "rightists". Marxism is heterodox and leftism only flourishes in humanities, eg sociology or socio-linguistics or new civics, writings. I'd recommend getting the fuck out of your bubble.

I'll grant you that right wingers tend to be really averse to reading their underappreciated canon, and a lot of them are, unfortunately and frustratingly, fucking retard brainlets. In aggregate, are their more "right" or "left" lit? Probably left, so I don't know why I wrote this entire post, but I'm probably just a little angry that smug lw pseud faggots tend to underestimate their opposition's collective oeuvre out of a combination of all the feminist or explicitly leftist bookstores and the fact that college-academia is in a little bit of a tight spot right now. So much shit, especially economics, and yet every free market advocate online hasn't read a word and doesn't know what he's talking about.

>I'm above all struck by the soulless, bureaucratic nature of leftist 'art', wasn't it like that back in the USSR? to be fair, those tales of stakhanovite steelworkers and Bolshevik martyrs had a certain naive charm, that is entirely absent in current media.
the funniest thing is the subsidized by the establishment "transgresive" leftist art, always gives me a chuckle when i see that shit in a museum

>I find the fascist aesthetic and intellectual output to be unbelievably tiresome in every conceivable way it can be examined. Everything down to the pageantry and parades is revolting to me.
you know they stole that from worker's movements, right?

>"SJWism" is just traditional liberalism with a focus on the natural rights of marginalized groups. There's not really anything Marxist about it.
by that standard there's nothing liberal about it either, liberalism is an individualist political theory, you just apply purity test however it fits you better

This

>1488

>The majority of artists and writers lean to the left
While this is true today, it has only been the case for half of a century, and the vast majority of the literature created in this period is hardly memorable. Very few of today writers will survive the pass of time, and a fair share of them aren't necessarily leftists.