Political philosophy general

what is this for? People who want a bunch of pseudo-theory to justify their juvenile leftism? Nothing wrong with Marx and Engels but you literally posted a ton of shitty communists mixed in with a couple of decent theorists, all of whom contradict each other, under the banner of "Marxists," while skimming over the best Marxists and post-Marxists (besides Adorno and Horkheimer, good choices) of the 20th/21st century for a bunch of shitty hacks like Harvey. The situationists are kindly or arbitrarily crammed in there, can't go wrong with them, it'll make you realize most of the other shit on that chart is bogus anyway. And then you have a bunch of pseud Anarchist shit mixed in with some quality like Proudhon and Bakunin.
>The Art of Not Being Governed

Is this chart for people who have already read political theory and political economy? I should hope so. If you haven't read your cornerstones like Plato, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Smith, etc. you're gonna come out with a pseud's understanding of all of it. Not impressed sorry op.

Here's another one. I guess the biggest problem with making a chart of just contemporary works is that they build on a long line of influences, which, as you've pointed out, most people who are interested in political philosophy already know. However, charts are typically made for people who don't know that much about the topic, so perhaps it would be better to make a "foundations of political philosophy" chart as part 1, then a "contemporary political philosophy" chart as part 2, or something like that.

...

...

MArx is bad lol

bump

>No Plato
>No Aristotle
>No Augustine

Kill
Your
Self

imagine the average /pol/ retard trying to read The Cantos

Marx is premarginalist. That's the best and most comprehensive insult you will ever hear.

its contemporary you retard learn to read

...

Unironically this. You don't understand modern history or politics if you haven't read Moldbug

but isn't he some /pol/tard?

why dont u read him and find out user

>Plato, Aristotle and Augustine have something to say about politics almost 1500 years after the collapse of any system that resembled theirs
Wew.

>There aren't enduring qualities which inform all political systems

Ok stumbled upon his blog, but judging from titles its 101% badeconomics, he unironically cites mises and rothbard, retards who have been debunked for over half a decade if not more

he sounds some peter schiff tier conspiracy retard who doesn't understand how federal reserve or fiscal policy works..

>I am Moldbug and when Leftists say they are atheists they are actually Christians and when Jews say they are Jewish they are also actually Christians, please donate to my babysitting fund

>debunked
>economics
Economists have zero predictive power, so it is not science, and there is no 'debunking', it's just retards hurling shit at each other, and 'theories' which clearly benefit various elite classes in society

Imagine being this much of a brainlet.
Modern economics is grounded in math, and nobody competent is claiming models describe human behavior.

>Enduring qualities
I can only think Plato or Aristotle to be relevant concerning slavery, but that was pretty much irrelevant during the middle age. By the time slavery was even brought back into its full glory, markets had expanded to western Africa to the New World. It's not even on the same playing field. Plato and Aristotle promoted slavery for a city-state, and would never imagine the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade or of that in the Islamic empire.
>Augustine
By the time feudalism started after the fall of both the Roman Empires, the church became radically different to Augustine's day. None of those three philosophers were even relevant by 500 AD.

Oh boy. I should have seen your autism coming mile away. Coming to Veeky Forums and expecting people to know their shit, stupid me!

nationalreview.com/2017/06/problems-mencius-moldbug-neoreaction/

>I of course can’t defend Moldbug’s defense of slavery as a natural institution, which comes with a little casual racism — guess which continent produces the best slaves? — and a lot of equivocation on the definition of “slavery.” I trust your programming languages are more consistent, Curt.)

Don't need to read any further. 'of course I can't defend' doesn't constitute a rebuttal or even a sliver of intellectual honesty

>communism
>no fascism
>marxism
>no reactionaries/idealism
at least try to be unbiased

>le racism is bad because i said so
>le slavery boogeyman its all wh*te """people""" fault the niggers dindu nuffin they was raped
truly the academic we deserve

When has fascism/reactionary "politics"/idealism ever been influential for more than a decade? In our zeitgeist, we call autistic frog men Nazis - but they have never even heard about Sorel or Garda de fier. Whenever you ask for a recommendation of "far right literature" on /pol/, all they know to do is post a picture of fucking Evola without even bothering to read his aspie rantings. Most of the "far right" today are just reacting to progressive policies, they don't have anything to fucking read.

[waiting for suggestions]

that critique was pretty trash. no substance. the slatestar critique was a lot better.

yeah I fucked up, I need to redo this whole thing... can someone suggest an alternative way of making these graphs? My thing is going nowhere I am afraid

The Slatestar critique is indeed better and yet here is Alexander's argument against racism:

I don’t want to dwell on the biological hypothesis too much, because it sort of creeps me out even in a “let me clearly explain a hypothesis I disagree with” way. I will mention that it leaves a lot unexplained, in that many of the “groups” that have such glaring luck differences are not biological groups at all, but rather religious groups such as the Mormons and the Sikhs, both of whom have strikingly different outcomes than the populations they originated from. Even many groups that are biologically different just aren’t different enough – the English and Irish have strikingly different luck, but attributing that to differences between which exact tiny little branch of the Indo-European tree they came from seems like a terrible explanation (although Konkvistador disagrees with me on this one).

Nevertheless, the people who dismiss the biological hypothesis as obviously stupid and totally discredited (by which I mean everyone) are doing it a disservice. For a sympathetic and extraordinarily impressive defense of the biological hypothesis I recommend this unpublished (and unpublishable) review article. I will add that I am extremely interested in comprehensive takedowns of that article (preferably a full fisking) and that if you have any counterevidence to it at all you should post it in the comments and I will be eternally grateful.

Ie. he has no argument at all. He also doesn't mind racism when it's saying that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ.
But of course even TIME magazine will publish that.

t. biased faggot

lovecraft (philosophy of literature and some social critue; The Conservative), evola, moldbug, musollini, Ezra Pound
not too familiar with the subject so these are pretty basic recommendations; Lovecraft is a must though due to the literature angle

...

>WAH! Biased! WAH!
You're one of the retarded manbabies I was talking about, you have literally nothing to read.
>Lovecraft is a fascist because he wrote that ebin nigger poem.
Wew.
>Pound
Ezra Pound wrote nothing on politics, you fucking pseud. When he did do politics, he was just giving speeches to disinterested Italians.
>Can't even spell Mussolini

Lovecraft was not a Fascist, but was a reactionary of sorts.

He was really a hyper-atheist science worshipper who liked religious tradition in an instrumental sort of way. His nihilism kind of gave way to a pragmatic philosophy about culture, stemming from his appreciation for the aesthetic.

>He was really a hyper-atheist science worshipper who liked religious tradition in an instrumental sort of way. His nihilism kind of gave way to a pragmatic philosophy about culture, stemming from his appreciation for the aesthetic.

So he was Rick Sanchez? I can't believe you think this is a political philosophy at all.

It's not really much of a philosophy, it's almost more a matter of taste. The guy was not a philosopher after all, he wrote horror stories.

But the gist of it is quite reactionary, in the 'decline of culture' sense. Some of his allegiance to the scientific process is also impliclty Rightist because it contradicts certain Leftist ideals like blank slateism or racial equality.

Henry George Progress and Poverty

This.

This is what positivism does to your brain

jesus christ your posts are so embarrassing

>ugh, I literally can't even
Manchild

Go on.

>t. haven't read Lovecraft or The Conservative
>t. don't know how to read
さすが

>Industrial Society and it's Future
>it's
>that's actually on the cover

>Industrial Society
>and it is (the) Future
what do you not understand, brainlet?

I have that Necronomicon collection, and Lovecraft can barely write prose or anything remotely scary. All it's done is inspire horror tropes, vinyl pop-tier fandoms, and a bunch of board games. Actually didn't mind Dunwich Horror though.

What I really don't get is how so many of you think being a weird introverted racist is some kind of political program.
Don't bring those faggot characters here. Back to

>actually unironically doesn't like Lovecraft
holy shit get the fuck out of here you fucking illiterate

This is the only chart that matters
Needs culture of critique and the turner diaries.

>Lovecraft can barely write prose or anything remotely scary
hahahHAHhahhhhhahahHHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>Lovecraft is literature

Where did all these genre faggots come from?

>Lovecraft isn't literature

It really isn't. I'm sad I had to tell you. Deviantart and reddit might be your speed. I sincerely hope you find some nice gifs there.

>look, mom! all i know about Lovecraft is his horror novellas! he never wrote anything else, despite an explicit work on politics, philosophy of language, and literature critique being posted multiple times in this thread!
the absolute state of ideologues on this board

It's true though

AAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh.

>look, mom! all i know about Lovecraft is his horror novellas! he never wrote anything else, despite an explicit work on politics, philosophy of language, and literature critique being posted multiple times in this thread!
Ah yes, that literally no one else but this samefag has heard of.

Problem with Molbug comes down to two things. First, he relies too much on Thomas Carlyle as a frame of reference. Although most of his work reference various primary sources Carlyle's pop history is quite subjective as a reactionary point of view.
Secondly the guy is formerly one of those silicon valley utopian believers and general wacko. His plan to put in a reactionary state (or hundreds of states I should say) is to develop an institution dedicated to rebutting every piece of information the United states government announces publicly that will bring about the 'dark enlightenment' reactionary revolution.
he's a fun blogger, but that's about it. The fact they he inspired a bunch of people to be edge lords on the Internet is pretty bewildering.

Sorry.

>it's obscure so it doesn't exist
need some help moving those goalposts? i can lend you an unfathomable, eldritch hand

It's okay.

It's not, sorry but it's genre fiction.

>Muh goalposts
I was the one saying you faggots complain about "bias" when it came to this thread. How can anyone even complain we're not adding some autist's very SERIOUS political scribblings in a political theory thread when it hasn't even been read by 20 Goodreaders? You should read people like Paine and Marx simply because they actually influenced politics. You're probably the first Lovecraftian to advocate for his non-philosophy. Well done on that.
>i can lend you an unfathomable, eldritch hand
Pic related is you.

>he thinks the conservative was literature
Do you also think long /pol/ posts are literature?

>Veeky Forums self-published shitposts by anonymous are literature
>/pol/ actually-published shitposts by peer-respected aren't
なに?

>peer-respected
Do you know what this means? Did you try to say peer-reviewed? Lovecraft self-published his political shitposts anyway lmao.

...

>lovecraft wasn't respected by his peers
hm?

>owning your own printing press and being your own publisher makes your publishing somehow not actual
mmmm...?

>>lovecraft wasn't respected by his peers
What does this mean? Did he even have peers? Thought he lived with mommy or something and barely talked to people.

>self-publishing isn't publishing
>But it is when you have a printing press!
OK, I'll just go buy a big Xerox, paper folder and bind my own books with glue so that they're proper literature. Lovecraft was only relevant in fringe horror magazines that were risque at the time, and lived off the kindness of small publishers who risked their finances to do such a thing. His self-published shit seems to only have influenced some sperg genre fags from /pol/.

Social contract theories are important. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke are outdated in some points, but they inform much of modern political theory. Machiavelli might also be worth considering.

>What does this mean? Did he even have peers? Thought he lived with mommy or something and barely talked to people.
cool, so you don't know anything about lovecraft or how he became a published author (like seriously published not meme-self-published)

honestly, just read the wiki page on lovecraft if you want to stop coming off as an ignoramus on the shittiest """literature""" critique forum on the internet

I think I actually read the foreword to the book I have of Lovecraft. Thanks for recommending me wikipedia though, pseud.

>>>/reddit/

Also, did you read past three sentences?

>Lovecraft was only relevant in fringe horror magazines that were risque at the time, and lived off the kindness of small publishers who risked their finances to do such a thing.

>>>>/reddit/
cringe

>Cringe
I spat out my tea, user.

Really sick of Hobbes getting the short end of the stick

He'd probably like that.

I need some essential Plato-core.

I agree with everything he says.

I don't know nigga,.... hmmm

I was under the assumption I'd get recommendations that weren't Plato?

Preferably economics. Or even arguments against his views

Hegel's lectures on history are the only responses I know of. Looked it up, and it's in Vol. II somewhere. Libgen dot io slash book/index.php?md5=0551595388B9250EC72B540693506A71

Invisible Cities by Calvini

Bump for the save

Leo Strauss