Why don't people consider Evola a marxists

That's why the right/left dicotomy is retarded.

Yeah, pretty much. He fetishizes ancient civilization and spiritualism while decrying the 'degeneracy' of modern society.

>Is he the prototype of what we now call "fedora"?
No? He doesn't share even one trait with them.
Fedoras are materialists, keyboard warriors who waste time arguing with people.
Evola was deeply spiritual, he actually fought in war, and he barely gave a fuck about converting people to his way of thinking.

hmm yes all those fedoras and their... solar masculinity?

you're a clown

>onthology
u wot

>Solar Masculinity

Reminder that if you support capitalism you're not a true conservative.

Third way is the only way.

Hitler also criticized capitalism and the bourgeois in his writings. So did Walther Darré

>pic related: The book he criticises the topics in is "Neuadel aus Blut und Boden"

which translated means something like
>"The new Royalty of Blood and Earth"

He wanted farmers to become the new royalty

Distributism
Social capital theory
Agrarianism
Physiocracy

Those are the economic theories of the differentiated man.

Guild Socialism
National Socialism
National Libertarianism
Hoppean Anarcho Capitalism

>He doesn't share even one trait with them.
Really?
>Impotent hatred against "deeply decadent society"
>Idealizes past
>Loser, died as lone cripple
>Poser, I suppose you know that story how he went "test his luck" and ended up as a burden to his peers?
>Based his life on naive (on par with our wikiwarriors) understanding of exotic religions
>Idealizes soldiers and combat, while being a pushover
>His "ride the tiger" doctrine is pretty much the definition of acting as fedora
>Lost in his own theories that are not challenged by outsiders

>he actually fought in war
Oh yeah, I forgot that arty-men are truly the bravest warriors that fight spiritually. Totally not "le materialistic"

>Fedoras are materialists
Fedora is a way of life, where you pose as Uncorrupted Man in corrupted society with super deep solid principles, while not backing it up with deeds and being a laughing stock. It has little to do with opinions one holds.

you obviously havn't read Evola

I tried, but my Diaphragma couldn't handle it.

Why don't you try to make an argument for that idol of yours, instead of acting butthurt?

Fedora's are *generally* athiests but that speaks nothing of materialism. They are usually cringe-ily idealistic. Also he treats things like spirituality as a currency that societies and people have bartered away, he's hardly different in ideology from a materialist.

>Impotent hatred against "deeply decadent society"
Fedora's are atheists who think science will solve all of their problem, this literally doesn't describe them at all.

>Idealizes past
Again, Fedoras are atheists there's no reason they'd idealize the past

>Loser, died as lone cripple
I guess? I mean you might as well call Caesar or Napoleon a fedora if this is what you're going by.

>Poser, I suppose you know that story how he went "test his luck" and ended up as a burden to his peers?
How does that make him a poser? He put his money where his mouth was instead of sitting behind a computer his entire life, that's the opposite of a poser.

>Based his life on naive (on par with our wikiwarriors) understanding of exotic religions
Fedoras are atheistic materialists who worship science, Evola was about as spiritual as you can get.

>Idealizes soldiers and combat, while being a pushover
Fedoras idealize this shit and then do nothing about it. Evola actually went and fought in a war. They are opposites.

>His "ride the tiger" doctrine is pretty much the definition of acting as fedora
What?

>Lost in his own theories that are not challenged by outsiders
Fedoras try to proselytize their bullshit to everyone on the internet, Evola couldn't give less of a fuck about whether the masses accepted his ideas.

All in all, you either don't know what a fedora is, don't know what Evola believed, or both. 2/10

no he doesn't

have you ever read him?

Right=libertarianism/an-cap is more an anglo thing.

capitalism is classical liberalism given an economic form. you have an extremely idiotic (read: american) notion of what is right and what is left
Evola thought that far right traditionalist parties of the time were not nearly far right enough.

Actually, the fedora meme precedes the euphoric atheist meme by a fair bit and both existed as memes for a while until they were combined.

A "fedora" in regards to a person is anyone who believes something that the type of young man who would buy a fedora would believe, and Evola's brand of anomy driven "I'm better for my enlightenment" contrarianism fits the bill perfectly.

But Evola actually went out and tried to live out his ideals, instead of sitting around spouting memes. If you're going to call him a fedora, you might as well call Caesar or Napoleon a fedora.

>Fedora's are atheists who think science will solve all of their problem, this literally doesn't describe them at all.
Again, Fedora is a way of life, where you pose as Uncorrupted Man in corrupted society with super deep solid principles, while not backing it up with deeds and being a laughing stock. It has little to do with opinions one holds. Connecting it with science or atheism, you are just reddit maymays. Pic related for explanation.

>Again, Fedoras are atheists there's no reason they'd idealize the past
That's why the term fedora was coined after men that dress in in outdated clothing on purpose, right?

>I mean you might as well call Caesar or Napoleon a fedora if this is what you're going by.
Wrong, Ceasar and Napoleon achieved Gilgamesh-ian immortality. Not to mention it took a entire world or assasing to take these men down.

>How does that make him a poser?
"Hey, I'm gonna walk in a bombardment! Look how spiritual I am!" *bang* "Oops! Now take care of me!" I don't see why would anyone act this retarded, if not for posing.

>Fedoras are atheistic materialists who worship science
Again, Fedora is a way of life, where you pose as Uncorrupted Man in corrupted society with super deep solid principles, while not backing it up with deeds and being a laughing stock. It has little to do with opinions one holds.

>Fedoras try to proselytize their bullshit to everyone on the internet
Nope, Fedora are "elitist losers". They view normal people with contempt (since they are viewed by normal people). See: youtube.com/watch?v=wRQry89ZcQk this guy also couldn't give less of a fuck about whether the masses accepted his ideas.

>Evola actually went and fought in a war.
As an...artyman? He would have right to idealize combat while being a fighter pilot, a footsoldier or at least direct-fire arty.

>went out and tried

And accomplished nothing. His great claim to fame was being the pet intellectual of fascist Italy.

Plenty of young men that bought fedoras went out and tried to live by the ideals of Bertrand Russell or Friedrich Nietzsche; it doesn't make them any less fedoras for it.

Julius Caesar and Napoleon however were highly successful leaders whose actions changed society; they were not idle contrarians, and in fact their ideals weren't all that contrary to the time.

That said I think Evola was a philosopher, not really all that fitting of being a fedora (he had a long writing career, was involved in art and counter-culture, etc.). But modern Evolists are absolutely fedora tippers personified.

What did Caesar accomplish? What did Napoleon accomplish? Nothing that did or will stand the test of time. They were losers, and by your standards fedoras which is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, really anyone who wasn't a strict realist who won is a fedora, which again is completely incorrect.

>Nothing they did stands the test of time
You're speaking their names right now faggot because of what they did 2,000 and 200 years ago

Artillery is called the King of Battle for a reason pleb.

and here we are taking part in a thread talking about Evola, so what's your point?

>What did Caesar accomplish?
Provincial reform? Conquest of Gaul? Becoming the first non-formal emperor of Rome?

>What did Napoleon accomplish?
He took a country devastated by civil war and Conquered much of Europe? He became a symbol for Great General?

These men achieved greatness, they did not spent their lives as abandonden cripples gloryfying rape.

This is a weak argument, I would advise you to abandon it.

Far right is against capitalism you stupid Ameriblob. Right wingers criticized the bourgeoise decaded before marxism was a thing.

Where did I suggested otherwise? Point was that people manning modern indirect fire guns are more of mathematicians, rather than warriors.

If one wants to idolize combat, he must have first-hand experience with it, like Ernst Jünger for example

Both men reshaped society and set the tone of civilization in Europe for centuries to come.

>In fact, really anyone who wasn't a strict realist who won is a fedora, which again is completely incorrect.

No, just losers that consider themselves to be some sort of separate class above and apart from others without an actual reason to be so. Evola was a successful writer, but he wasn't the aristocrat of the spirit he liked to pretend to be. Even Nietzsche had the necessary self-awareness to recognize that he wasn't the superman.

Yeah, solely because they weren't of noble stock and thus posed a threat to the 'natural order' they so loved.

I feel like Evola would really dig living in Qing China, given they epitomized much of the things he valued.

capitalism is not the defining feature of the right wing, hating the left is. Evola comes from a place where liberalism (libertarianism, capitalism, what have you) would also be considered left wing.

he is not a marxist because marxism was a materialist "scientific" belief system that literally believed capitalism would evolve into socialism as countries industrialized. marxism in that pure sense doesn't exist among anybody who considers themselves communists, who go on to different branches that address the issues that capitalism didn't work how marx said it would and so some opted to try and form political parties and run elections, others went to trade unions, and a good deal of them (this is th eone that was really big for like half the 20th century) tried revolutions with intellectual oligarchies.

i am neither a marxist or a communist, but this is my best understanding of these things i can express without vitriol.

to go on about evola, though, he was really just repeating a lot of classic sorts of feudal-elitist apologetics that you would find in a lot of hard nationalist-anti-liberal writings from even the late 18th century. you can parse through him for a few good quotes, i think this one snippet of his that was passed around here on the french revolution, where he talks about all of the social systems that were accumulated being destroyed, was actually spot on, but he can't seem to wrap his head around how that might contradict a lot of his other thought, especially when it comes to economics.

(You'll find that he like many other hard-righties kind of just reject the entire discipline of economics while many lefties engage with it. Not all lefties, mind you, but generally there's at least an understanding up to ricardo present. Rightists consider it either a "dismal science" or a bunch of nonsense because a lot of (modern) economics is a bit nonsensical, and that they don't understand what rationality actually means.)

Care to expand on this? I don't know a lot about Qing China, but I do love Evola.

It's probably the super rigid caste system and complete shunning of economic development.

This is basically the same argument that classical liberals make when they say that "reactionaries are just like SJW's". It's totally missing the point. Reactionaries don't hate SJW's because of petty things like the censorship of free speech, which is an issue that classical liberals tend to fetishize. Reactionaries hate them for their values and what they stand for.

You could connect together vague equivalencies all you want, you're still making a pointless argument.

Fedoras act the way they do because of a shallow sense of superiority that they want to show off. If you read any of Evola's works, you would realise that there is depth to things he preached and believed in and why he did the things he did. He had principles that actually meant something.

If you want to talk about image without bringing the issue of principles into the matter, then you're just a one-dimensional blockhead.

And when you say he "accomplished nothing", I think you could say that about any philosopher or scholar in that case. Evola wasn't anywhere close to Julius Caesar or the people he idolized, but you're just offering a baseless trivialization. Particularly your non-argument about him walking around in bombing raids.

Of course it's not the ideal image of a warrior and not anything close to being a hero, but artillerymen still had to confront the risk of getting bombed or shot in combat. A guy firing artillery from one side could just as easily get blown up by a guy firing artillery from the other side. I would still regard that as combat experience, at least enough so that one could say they experienced combat.

Although it's true that Evola never really acknowledged his own inadequacies, at least to my knowledge.

Because in his view both were shitty. Capitalism led to a materialistic love of wealth and greed, while Marxism is inherently degenerate because of its egalitarian nature. He doesn't focus on economics too much because the material is irrelevant in the long run. If anything he was kinda close to distributism.

Exactly. The nobility have ancient ties, with a long illustrious history while the bourgois are just rich

The nobility throughout the world and throughout time are the largest criminals in human history.

...

Capitalism was originally a progressive ideology as well. You've just become so accustomed to it that you now see it as the norm that conservatives should protect.

Evola wants to restore feudalism.

Left and Right originate in the French Revolution, which predates capitalism in France.

Capitalism, and the industrial revolution making it the standard, were't there yet, mercantilism was still the economic doctrine in place, and 2/3 of France were employed in agriculture.

The fundamental difference between left and right isn't their opinions on how the economy should be ordered.

>The most serious error of liberalism has been that is has had nothing to offer man's deeper and nobler aspirations
That's not the issue here. The problem is simply that liberalism is formed from a materialistic world view. As a result, any society that becomes dominated by liberalism also becomes fundamentally materialistic. When materialism takes control of an individual, it trivializes the importance of spirituality.

This man is wrong when he says that liberalism simply serves a person's material well-being. That may be the idea in theory, but realistically the effects go much deeper than that. He's really undermining the profound consequences that liberalism has on the individual's psyche. Do you think society has become more or less spiritual since the French revolution?

Are using the reddit r/niceguys definition of "fedora"

Uses the traditional meaning of "fedora" which is a prejorative for internet antitheists

>Uses the traditional meaning of "fedora" which is a prejorative for internet antitheists

Actually, the first guys are using the original definition. The fedora as a garment reappeared in the late 00's as a niche fashion item and was quickly lambasted as something that geeky guys trying to substitute a hat for a sense of style and a personality. It then became associated with opinions that a contrarian, socially awkward young man might believe. The euphoric atheist meme came from a reddit quote, which was posted all around the internet for a while. Later, the two were fused together.

Literally everything you said is either flat out wrong or so vague that it can mean anything.

They are two sides of the same coin. They both have strong appeals to identity politics. They both are absolutists in their resolve, refusing to see facts that are inconvenient and listen to outside opinions.They both act like they are persecuted victims to create a heroic narrative that they are the good guys. Both are pussies irl too but act like keyboard warriors online.

I chose matter and spirit, I see them as one and the same.
Nominalism
Horizontal
Socially Constructed
Creativity and Evolution
Concious agents
Family
Egalitarian
Class/ethnic/gender warfare
Consensual
Transcendence
Welfare State
Man
Wisdom
To each according to his need
The person
body and soul
Inherited characteristics
Rational desires

So where am I on this spectrum?

the warped realm of cognitive dissonance