Why do nearly all great books have left-wing themes?

Did you even read any of their works?
Huge difference between leftist ideologies and the Stalinism that Orwell vehemently opposed. If you've read anything about the man, and the same goes for Huxley, you would find they are fairy left-wing. Orwell himself joined the ILP party.

Right-wing "themes" are God-based and have nothing to do with "thoughts." They are predetermined, they pre-exist and we already know all about them.

There's only one right wing book and it's the one for the religion that you're in or looking at.

>creating a binary paradigm between art and politics

ho boy.

Not true at all, it's not atheism vs religion, everyone has a belief system

>Only revolution can save England, that has been obvious for years, but now the revolution has started, and it may proceed quite quickly if only we can keep Hitler out. Within two years, maybe a year, if only we can hang on, we shall see changes that will surprise the idiots who have no foresight. I dare say the London gutters will have to run with blood. All right, let them, if it is necessary.

yeah I'm liberal I guess but I disagree with you.

I think the same thoughts you have about rightists are of the same nature as rightists think that leftists all want shit for free, lazy bums, want gov to pay for everything etc etc.

don't be dense and fall into that trap.

McCarthy isn't a good writer

>implying thats what I did

Obviously art has a political context and can be interpreted based on it, that's well and good. My problem is forcing works of art into the particular conflict of the time and assigning it ideological allegiance.

Please explain I would like to hear your thoughts on why

But they don't.

It's a new trend here because he's popular. Ignore. McCarthy is good.

ahahah

I'm sorry to hear about your problems.

See? Either a meme or a non-response. Never change.

>new trend

hi summer

>le summer

It is a new trend, relatively, compared to other phases this place has had.

They're not necessarily locked in eternal battle, cape-obsessed nerd.

You sound brilliant.

le pretend old-fag

it's kind of like a dignified internet tuff guy.

Yeah, keep avoiding having to explain why you think McCarthy is shit by projecting.

You're fooling no one.

lmao, that's not me, retard

I was the one calling McCarthy shit

I think you're on the wrong website.

Go somewhere and register or use a trip, idiot, if you crave IDENTITY over idea.

Baited ;)

that was actually me

HAHAHA

He was a Brit that joined commies is Spain to overthrow the leaders of a foreign government. I call that good old British geopolitics.

If he were a real socialist he would have been staring workers marches in his own country and putting a bullet in the queens head.

I'm glad you took the time to type that. thanks, user.

Does drinking cause one to post the same bait?

Are British Muslims who leave to fight for ISIS also doing good old British geopolitics?

Trolled hard

I don't actually think you're brilliant

no, why would they, they're not British to begin with

After the French Revolution that hasn't been true at all

oh, was that sarcasm? I'm glad you took the time to type that. thanks, user.

Holly shit your master of disguise.

hahaha so mad :)

No they just dumb

But you guys love dem Saudis

In a pinch you could probably argue ways to call all sorts of things inherently "leftist" or "rightist" - but describing the thing doesn't change it's actual nature.

Men who must whittle everything down to a political allegiance aren't worth listening to because they only care about art in relation to their beliefs; they don't possess a sense of objectivity or human universality.

Are you joking? It's a revisionist takedown of the Western myth, removing any glory from Manifest Destiny and underlying the inherent brutality upon which 20th century America was built.

It's just a more literary exploration of the themes established in The Searchers and Little Big Man several decades earlier.

Heart of Darkness was radically progressive for the time.

>It's a revisionist takedown of the Western myth, removing any glory from Manifest Destiny and underlying the inherent brutality upon which 20th century America was built.

lol, the whole concept of Manifest Destiny is that this violence is justified by definition.

It isn't removing any glory from it at all, it's showing everyone that people took sincere pleasure in it.

But even if that was true, that has literally nothing to do with leftism.

>objectivity or human universality
PURE UNADULTERED

There's a lot of books that are pro-religion, thus right wing according to the retarded left-right paradigm.
This is especially true for the great Russian authors.
Dostoyevsky, Tolstoj etc.
Other great authors were completely /pol/-tier, for example Hamsun.

>Other great authors were completely /pol/-tier, for example Hamsun.

He was a nazi-sympathizer himself, but his books can't be construed as such.

"Growth of the Soil", for which Hamsun got a Nobel prize, have a definite right wing theme.

>Hamsun's protagonists were often outcasts and vagabonds that opposed civilization, industrialization, and modernisation. These rootless individuals who distrusted organized society were a reflection of Hamsun himself. The novel “Growth of the Soil” expresses back-to-nature, old-school philosophies, and peasant life. His works set simple agrarian values against those of industrial society, showing a deep aversion to civilization proving that people’s fulfillment lies with the soil. The novel showed Hamsun’s favour of primitivism and aversion to modernity. He opposed naturalism and realism and wanted “modern literature to represent the complex intricacies of human mind”. Hamsun believed that the true nature of an individual could only be revealed through a subjective and irrational approach. Hamsun’s political beliefs and ideologies were often expressed in his books, especially Growth of the Soil.[2]

>The character Isak conforms to Hamsun's vision of an ideal individual. He has little connection with industrialized society or modernity, and when he does, it usually is in a negative light. For example, when he was informed that he was needing to purchase the farms land from the State, Isak was confused as this had never crossed his mind. Luckily for him, the cost was mild thanks to Lensmand Geissler's generosity. Isak was a pioneer of the soil, he started with nothing and built a great farm out of it. The theme of hard work yielding results was evident throughout the book with Isak as an example.[3]

Conrad believed in Empire, he was just disgusted by the brutality of what he saw in colonialism. He shared accomodation with Roger Casement in the Congo but disparaged him and his work as misguided

Seems like retroactive bullshit to me, and an attempt by leftists to smear his work simply because of his political opinions.

How is being a Luddite that shuns modern technology and civilization Nazism?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Soil
Blut und Boden.

Ok, so South-East Asian farmers that like their simple life are Nazis?

kill yourself, retard

I wonder what Hamsun wrote about?
Ayn Randish "sweat of my brow only belong to me" or South-East Asian farmers...

The point I'm trying to make is that just because Hamsun equated Nazism with rural life and anti-industrialization, and supported it because if that, doesn't mean that this is what Nazism is.

The Nazis created the one of most technologically advanced war machines at the time, and cannot be said to have been against either modernity or industrialization.

It's far more likely to me, that Hamsun hated the British for being the source of industrialization and modernity, than that he actually was for Nazism, given that when he finally got an audience with Hitler, he complained about their treatment of Norwegians, so much so that Hitler was infuriated by him.

I say that the views he had was part of the right-side of the spectrum, and it resonated a lot with Nazism, thus his later love for that movement. His books are great, but to deny that he espouses a rightist world-view because it goes against your own beliefs is just dishonest. I am a leftist, but it is clear to me that there is a definite "right-wing" tint in his authorship, but it doesn't hinder me from liking his work.

BRB, gonna listen to Wagner.

I agree that it has a right-wing tint, but it's not a Nazi-propaganda pamphlet.

There's a difference.

>left wing
>right wing

Good goy.

This

Yes, but it was a far different brand of socialism than what we have now. Orwell's sympathies lied with the common laborers, the miners, the farmers.

Today's current college socialists have sympathies for people wanting bullshit liberal arts degrees.

What the fuck do "left wing" and "right wing" even mean?

Those flappy things on the sides of a bird

Jesus, I hope everyone's only pretending to be baited.

Generally "right wing" looks backwards to reaffirm the old ways, including for some segregation and even slavery and power/wealth elites. While the left builds an inclusive future on more or less notions of equality.
It's also very important to divorce the ideologies from the political parties that claim to represent them. Capitalism corrupts all.

>There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous.
Cormac McCarthy, in an interview.

are you suggesting that blood meridian does? i don't see it

>revisionist
user the antiwestern has existed almost as long as the western itself. nobody thinks the pioneers made a jolly march into the new land without any rape and murder. it's not leftist to acknowledge that manifest destiny is a codeword for "invade and take"

Said a fucking author.

>Generally "right wing" looks backwards to reaffirm the old ways, including for some segregation and even slavery and power/wealth elites. While the left builds an inclusive future on more or less notions of equality.

lol, this post is so biased I have no idea where to start.

Anybody can try to look at a thing objectively.

All you need to do is consider it as if you were an outside observer with no stakes.

Who is the aggressor?

Who is the manipulator?

What roles are being played?

So you think you're right-wing and you object to what? Don't like centralized govt.? Neither do real leftists.
(I'm an anarchist btw)

>Anyone can try
Operative word being "try"

>So you think you're right-wing and you object to what?

I never said I was right-wing. But characterizing them as slavers and wanting segregation, meanwhile leftists are moral superheroes is a retarded strawman.

Kay why ess retard

Not what I meant. We're all slaves to the power elites of capitalism. Right or left. *Some* of the right are okay with returning to slavery, empire a-la Rome, nationalism is a heavy problem with them. Yes some on the left can edge that way too, but not without becoming more more right-wing. The left aren't so much super heroes, as a great mass of disorganized people who want to be free.

These are only brief generalizations, duh.

Why are /pol/tards so incapable of understanding the arts? Yes, Cormac wrote Blood Meridian just to show what a wonderful time everyone was having, and all the brutal child killings that are inherently justified.

I think it is, because the inclusion of violence in a way meant to invoke disgust or unease is a deliberate political statement

conflict and war are not just a perennial part of human life, they're inherent to all of nature

if you have a comfortable life today, it's because your ancestors were better at killing people than those whose lands you now occupy, so show some fucking gratitude, you little bitch

what you mean like the part where the delaware indian holds two babies by the ankles and dashes their skulls against rocks in the river and mccarthy describes their brains in detail

the white man isn't responsible here
the book is an open look at pain and the infliction of pain, nobody is exempt from giving or receiving, that's the point

EXCEPT THE JUDGE BOYYY

All 19th century novels are written about people wealthy enough to live without working like it is the most natural thing in the world.
The main characters are 99% of the time the 1%.
It's written by the upper class, for the upper class.
Basically all classics before the 20th century are "right-wing".

Every time I see the ascii insect, a retarded comment is glued to it.

Intelligent people are rarely right-wing.

Conservatives rarely have time to get into humanities. Liberals tend to think that there is no world outside their arts, that's why they generally are no different from a 13 year old kid in the suburbs who's only worry is his CoD game. Just switch CoD with atheist texts and poetry collections and you'll have the standard "well read" liberal.

The concept of "right-wing" changes over time. The American conservative right-wing movement of the 1980s-2000s was a combination of religiosity and laissez-faire economics. Trump has transformed the definition of "right-wing" by removing the religious component and replacing laissez-faire economics with Nationalism and economic protectionism. Plenty of intelligent people are somewhat Nationalist.

Because real life has a left liberal bias and progess is unavoidable. What counted as radical left ideas couple centuries ago is established base stuff these days, even in countries like US of A.

Politics affect every level of human lives, artists are humans, it's bound that their creation will reflect politics to some level, even if they actively try to avoid it.

Why wouldn't he condemn an abomination of an idea he supports?

>written from the perspective of the 1% means support for the 1%

>Plenty of intelligent people are somewhat Nationalist.
livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

>Conservatives rarely have time to get into humanities
They have no interests.
>Degrades all liberals as 13 year olds
To the conservatives 6 year olds.

You're trying too hard.

define "left-wing"

>livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Nationalism and social conservatism are not the same thing.

But connected by a very similar "we" and "them" mentality. It was short sighted back in the day but is downright ignorant now.

>They have you interests.
You're talking to a conservative that enjoys humanities. A lot of us have interests in them, but we have duty and family in front of them. On top of that most of us refuse to pay extreme prices for a biased professor to tell us how to feel about books, we actually read them instead.
>To the conservatives 6 year olds.
Wow using my insult at me, after three years of silently hating you I thought our first verbal encounter would result in better japes than that.

>a biased professor to tell us how to feel about books
So you never went to college, eh?

What do you think of Basic Income. Could replace a lot of welfare programs.

>insults
I actually think the real conservatives are somewhat salvageable. What do you think of climate change?

>Conservatives rarely have time to get into humanities.
>You're talking to a conservative that enjoys humanities.
>to tell us how to feel about books, we actually read them instead

You're close to contradicting yourself to try and win this argument. You come across as a weak debater, and a little stupid.

If Blood Meridian is the 'great book containing left-wing themes' then what would a great right-wing book entail?