Which is better overall, Veeky Forums, right-winged or left-winged literature?

>in the past, left wing certainly

as if some of the greatest writers haven't been Tories

Scott, Swift, Coleridge, Johnson all come to mind

(Of course, Tory didn't necessarily mean "conservative")

Right-wing?*

I hate these threads because they assume that all literature can be divided into two subjective categories.

>orwell interviewing stalin
HG Wells you mean? That's all I can find anyway

Left wing ------- Right wing
Socialism ---------- capitalism/fascism
femininity -------- masculinity
feelings ----------- rationality/logic
equality --------- achievement
multiculturalism --- nationalism
degeneracy ----- tradition
all's relative ------ objectivity
muh feels -------- facts
delusion/illusion - realism
self-hating ------- proud
facebook -------- Veeky Forums
soy milk ---------- oil and grit
marginalized --- Western civilization
mentally ill ----- sane
brainwashed --- undeceived
cuckolding ----- loving sex between man and woman
homosexual ---- heterosexual
feminism -------- male responsibility
histrionic ------- composed
anarchy ------- civilized

you get the point

Lol, that's a terrible example. Wordsworth and Coleridge went to shit after they turned conservative, and the younger generation of Byron/Shelley/Keats were all radicals and much better anyway.

How can the right be logical when the majority of the leaders believe in God?

/thread

Forgot that one

left wing --------- right wing
atheism --------- religious

>equality --------- achievement
>facebook -------- Veeky Forums
>marginalized --- Western civilization
>feminism -------- male responsibility (you're either a very radical feminist or you're opposing it)
>anarchy ------- civilized

Few biased picks there, mate.

what about Borges, Vargas Llosa etc?

Left wing ---- Right Wing
gets policy and legislation passed ---- bitches and moans

What did you expect?

left wing --------- right wing
biased --------- objective

...

Eh, you're not wrong. Just wanted to point them out because they were genuinely funny.

For instance, the feminism-male responsibility one. My girlfriend (radical feminist, yeah, I know, carve me a new one if you like, doesn't make a difference) spent the entirety of her afternoon arguing with someone online about how chivalry is bullshit and, if you want equality, you need to get down to it and plit the bills, household duties, that kind of stuff - then I see someone on here propose this dichotomy, and he doesn't strike me as a proponent of anarchist/"left wing" thought - well you can see why I'm having a laugh.

youtube.com/watch?v=q6-ZGAGcJrk

>fascism as an economic system
fascists are socialists

>anarchy as left wing
just kek

>Veeky Forums
you brag this?

it's not

Subs-----dubs

>fascists are socialists
Not really. They were nationalistic social democrats. They followed capitalism but established many social programs to protect the poor (if they were a member the right ethnic group).

Although these days, people seem to think social democrats are the same as gommies

Thanks for the laff

(Don't let 'em get you down, you're right)

yes, i mixed them up. just looked through my copy of pic related which has the HG Wells/Stalin interview reproduced. the Orwell article is about "common lodging houses", very much a predecessor to Road to Wigan Pier.

what about them?

Use all the adjectives you'd like, but in Nazi Germany the state took control of many sectors of the economy. That is socialism.

Liberals are not left-wing tho

Most historians agree that Nazi economic policies were centrist.

wow, a tyrannical government took control of some of the economy? there's a surprise

the nazis also encouraged private industry and gave some companies free reign

Most historians

this is the dumbest thing and it's actually boggling how many of you believe this unironically

When will this meme die?

Kill you'are'selve already

It's true. Libertarians are the pitch boys for fiancé capital. Sure I guess the Anglo-American companies that were owned by Hitlers sponsors were given free reign. Doesn't really help the Germans though.

*finance

I'm surprised how dumb people are Nazism means Nationalsozialismus or NATIONAL SOCIALISM. Nazis were a socialist party.

>Nazis were a socialist party.

This is what morons unironically believe

Nationalsozialismus aka Nazi means National Socialism. Fucking hell you need to burn in an oven.

There is very little good "right wing" Veeky Forums unless you include Christian/Traditionalist authors like Graham Greene and Hillaire Belloc and weird aberrations like Mishima. I say this as a self proclaimed conservative.

Actual leftist lit is garbage but literature with a progressive bent tends to be much more interesting in their depiction of human suffering.

I could call myself a can of pepsi but I still wouldn't be one

Just because you give yourself a name/category doesn't necessarily mean you'll act according to the label you've give yourself.

Maybe you need to slowly burn in a clay oven until your screams have ceased and your ashen reamins have been taken out, molded into a night pot and baked to perfection.

Depends on how loosely you define those terms. If by "right-wing" you just mean works with elitist values, obviously right-wing tends to win here, they have people like Homer and Shakespeare. If you mean work that is intended primarily as a polemic, though, the left tends to, as their art revolves entirely around polemic (although there is some decent polemical right-wing literature, like Dostoevsky's "Devils", though he was by no means an elitist).

If you arent trolling then you need to actually look into Hitler's pre-war economic policies. It was basically the courting of the major German industrial interests that got him domestic support. In no way did he nationalize labor, he subcontracted most military support systems.

>DEES MENTAL GYMNASTICS

You libertarian cucks love labels though. It's your main strength.

No country is purely socialist or capitalist you fucking dumbasses yet we call the US capitalism it's not purely capitalism. China or Russia weren't communist. You lose all meaning to all the words you dip.

>From the camp of bourgeoistradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism

Too bad I judge people on their actions, not what they say.

>not judging people by the color of their skin

Found the loser

You sound pretty red pilled m8, nice

>facebook -------- Veeky Forums
You do realise that Veeky Forums was liberal as fuck during the Bush Years, and it's only lately that /pol/ has become """"serious"""".

>China or Russia weren't communist
wew

Hitler's actions were that he courted companies like Porsche, MAN, Daimler-Benz, Rheinmetall-Borsig, and Krupp with huge state contracts that allowed for massive profits and employment. That may be called state capitalism or it might be called a war economy, but it isnt socialism.

>libertarian

I actually live in a country where there are more than two parties, user, and I've never bothered to label myself or others, instead trying to engage with their opinions - so here's what I'm saying to you:

It's not mental gymanstics, merely common sense. If I remember correctly, Hitler joined the NSDAP when it had like 50 or 60 members - which isn'treally a guarantee against someone with charisma and an innate quality of leadership taking control and subverting your norms while, for burocratic and "advertising" reasons, maintening the name.

...what are you even argiung against? I merely said that you can give yourself a label and act against those principles, which is more or less the basis of politics from the XVI century onwards.

Liberal had a different meaning back then.

yeah
and the democratic people's republic of korea is totally democratic

fucking hell, this thread. american teenagers talking about politics

>people aligned against the presidential party thinking they have all the answers

nothing new here buddo

You can't have a state and be purely communist, fag.

My point is that they were socialist just like Russia was communist.

i wonder what the cat is trying to type

Lenin's Russia wasnt a state. It was a Vanguard of the Comintern, internationalist. But lets face it, the only people who claim that x was never communist are 20 something marxists who are subconsciously frustrated that everyone communism pops up, the effects are catastrophic. Sharia law is preferable to a communist society.

>but it isnt true communism!

Even Lenin admitted that the revolution was a progression. There must be revolution for the internationalist plan to work, and the progression pasty tyranny doesn't seem possible.

>My point is that they were socialist just like Russia was communist.

Good job! It almost sounds like you got what almost all communists have been saying for the last 70 years. Thanks for your insight, comrade!

Hitler was a puppet that went rouge. You don't simply ascend the thrown and ride Europe based on personal merit.

well you sound like an egg spurt, user

A puppet? I don't think so. Someone who's been repeatedly helped by a multitude of sources during his ascent, for instance the Ford industries? Yes, of course.

1. It was elitist at that time, amused at the ignorance of the common herd, who happened to have elected Bush. Real liberalism wasn't in it - Veeky Forums brand 'ironic' racism was always about the pleasure of wilful crassness and the hilarity of people giving a fuck about niggers' feelings.

2. Facebook was just a social network back then, not a neoliberal reality filter.

Cite sources. This isnt /pol/, would legit like to see what kind of monograph you are deriving this information from.

please kill yourself

The 'source' is American teenagers' inability to understand that for over a century, Europe's leadership has been more in the hands of the working classes than America's has.

>dealing with labour foreign policy first hand
>mfw

i think im a leftist tbqh
i hate liberals, feminists, and overall progressive fags tho, so im on a werid spot it seems.
Whenver i talk to real life open "right-wing" faggots they are usually just rich, ignorant, evil people.

his rise was supported by the Harrimans and the Thyssens and many other blue blood families in Europe and America, the Bishes and Rockefellers also. he was supposed to push east and star a war that would ruin both germany and russia, making the anglo-american allience the only world power. but he was a true believer in his own causes, jews and what not, and he instead pushed westward, endangering the balance of power his backers sought.

Wall St and the Rise of Hitler - Antony Sutton

thays good one there are others. my question is if you know your idol was a tool of the elite, even of he quickly took up his own adgenda, what credibility do his ideas have? im not a commie btw.

fucking auto correct bullshit

Both are trash.
Fuck off you positivist /pol/tard
He's ERPing with a 13-year-old girl, as a dog.
>evil
How arbitrary

...

>he hurt my feeling by disagreeing

Sounds like you aren't a leftist, just an envious guy.

There are right wing books but there is no right wing literature.

LOL

one of the worst posts I've ever seen in my life

> mishima
> faulkner
> hemingway

sure, joyce is left wing; enjoy your Cucklysses

'no'

'liberal' has meant what it means today since at least 1985

0/10

i just dont get how can you be rich and still be an ignorant piece of shit

Faulkner wasn't really political, let alone right-wing. Sure, you can point to some Good Ol' Boy syndrome about the South, but the vast majority of his writing is a critique of that mindset. Sure, he told the civil rights movement to "slow down," but significant portions of his novels, in particular Go Down Moses, concern themselves with the marginalization of minorities.

Hemingway wasn't political either. He was fairly anti-communism and anti-fascism, but that's about it. If you want to ascribe a political philosophy to him, he's a libertarian, I guess. But even that seems reductive.

Mishima was a fascist. So there's that.

In contemporary acadamia, Modernism, and Joyce by proxy, is often seen as fairly conservative. A casual glance at the references in The Waste Land will show you that all of texts that modernism obsesses over are the classic foundations of Western society. I think Joyce is on record saying something to the effect of "Non-Greek literature is backwards."

Assuming a fiction writer voted in a particular direction is dumb unless they say how they're voting or attempt a fucking coup.

Why is this thread on Veeky Forums? When did Veeky Forums become /pol/? This sort of thing isn't a discussion of literature. I don't give a shit about any of you people's political opinions. I'd very much like to talk about books with you though.

Thanks for the info, user. And I agree - this thread sucks.

maybe not socialism, because private property is safe, but for the alt-right, with their antistatist, free markets/free minds, antidirigistic stance, it's still quite a contradiction. what is nationalization? taking control or at least directing economic operations though government institutions. I mean you could use goons, but if they serve the state, it basically the same thing you voluntarist anarcocap dupe. why is this so had to swallow?

I don't think any serious person would say that Shelley or Keats were better than Wordsworth, though a few might say it for Byron. I wouldn't.

Coleridge didn't go to shit, except as a poet. Much of his best work is from his later life—his criticism especially.

Take your two minutes' worth of education on Romanticism and shove it up your ass

He could have said Pound and Elliot instead of Hemingway

I disagree. Pound was a fascist. Convicted as such. Clearly, there was political motivation there. And it shows in his writing. To my knowledge, Hemingway never espoused his political opinions as strongly as Pound did. And it never shows up as clearly in his writing, if ever.

To be sure, there are politically charged authors and texts. Generally, however, these are confined to non-fiction and (usually bad) poetry. The vast majority of fiction isn't overtly political and the authors who write it have little to no interest in political readings of their work. Pynchon's been rather vocal (by Pynchon standards) about his displeasure of "liberal readings" of his work; he said on several occasions that politics aren't the primary concern of his novels. I realize that a lot of people here don't give authorial intent much credence, but for most authors, Pynchon included, overtly political readings require some serious stretching.

The whole process of determining which authors are a part of what political faction is counter-productive. Like basically anything else, highly partisan individuals on both sides will cherry pick information, ignore the opposition, and claim that their favorite/the best authors are "on their side." It's idiotic, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the authors or the works themselves.

Sorry; that rant wasn't directed at you. I'm just frustrated by the politicization of this board, as, I imagine, a lot of other anons are.

wordsworth sucked before he turned conservative too

...

what if I told you that degeneracy can be reinforced by tradition

or that socialism is nothing like anarchy

or that some feminist causes emphasize male responsibility (ie strengthening the sexual assault legislation)

or that some Veeky Forums users also use facebook

Veeky Forums liberal was anarchistic but now liberal is SJW. I first came here around the first Exodus, when 7chan first started.

pound was left wing he was a progressive

You forgot some:
things I dislike ------- things I like
not my opinion -------- my opinion
something bad ------- something good