Can anyone recommend good "Leftist" political theory and literature...

Marcuse's One Dimensional Man is good.

He's not 'left-wing' in the way you probably intend, but I'd say John Gray's writings (Postscript to 'Hayek on Liberty', 'Enlightenment's Wake') is an interesting and oft-neglected counterpoint to neoliberalism and similar social-democratic approaches to politics.

triggered

>dominant right-wing ideology
How far gone does somebody have to be to not recognize that the entire Western establishment actively caters to progressive causes

Yeah that's why they made Erdogan their border patrol.

No I meant into the "social" as well, even as loosely as you and your wretched define it.

Fairly far gone into being well read. It's like they are read on the subject and don't get their information from Breitbart and click bait

Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell

Read Lenin.

Jean-Claude Michéa is good. He actually attacks social liberalism for being a relativist force which destroys communal values.

What in the actual hell are you talking about. The only people who could *possibly* think that are introverted white boy college students.

Pic related sure has dominated global media coverage this year. It'll be fun to see this movement go back to total irrelevance once Trump isn't there to grab attention anymore.

The dominant current ideology is neither left-wing nor right-wing per se but radical social and economic neoliberalism.

Left-wing thought negates its economic dimension while right-wing thought negates its social dimension. You all are both right and wrong.

Looks like someone's been SPOOK'd.

>unpleasant truths are spooks
Upboated fellow plebbitor ;^)

Read anything by Marx or Lenin. Remember, believing it makes you a Communist; understanding it makes you a Capitalist.

Ptttttfffffff

>The dominant current ideology is neither left-wing nor right-wing per se but radical social and economic neoliberalism

Almost a quarter correct. The real
dominant force is simply just the wealthiest and those countries who represent them, acting in self interest for themselves and their own self interested ideology, through constant manipulation, of which neoliberalism is a branch.

But then again, so is essentially all forms of nationalism

Since when is visa-free travel for Turks not progressive?

Well-read should be hyphenated, by the way

Your post is an example of this though. The Western establishment e.g. academia, media, and political figures have long since normalized animosity toward Whites in order to promote progressive causes. Attempting to shame Whites for acting in their self-interest is textbook progressive establishment tactics.

>Since when is visa-free travel for Turks not progressive?
That's not what I'm talking about.

That's the deal for Erdogan's "border patrol," so yes it is.

Well I guess if a government made a deal that they would allow gay marriage if people lynched black people that would be progressive by your logic.

I understand what you are saying about neoliberalism, but how does nationalism factor into it?

Nationalism is essentially the go to form of control able to be used by the wealthy few to perpetuate their own interests. If they are attached to the strongest country, they will use every ounce of it to their advantage via manipulation and control. You see this throughout the Cold War, the Americans funded every single nationalist to fascist group throughout the third world through giving money to contras to giving arms. You can blame the entirety of the rise of Muslim xenophobic radicalism to the West's influence there, and particularly the later birth of Al Qaeda and the Taliban through Reagan's decision making in the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

In order to have the true form of nationalism for all a nation's inhabitants you would first have to find out a way to not be manipulated first.

That's a massive false equivalency and we both know it. The EU-Turkey deal doesn't make any mention of lynching ethnic minorities, it only concerns nonviolent and perfectly safe immigration practices. The deal is actually on the verge of collapse because Turkey's recent authoritarian tones do not gel with the Western establishment's hyper-progressive humanitarian stances.

It's alright. You got caught up in the heat of the moment and accidentally referenced a political situation you didn't know much about, inadvertently demonstrating that the Western establishment is progressive and proving yourself wrong. But now it's time to show some humility. You made a mistake. Don't try to save the mistake with weaker and weaker arguments that focus less on the argument and more on desperately trying to one-up your interlocutor; instead, simply accept that you were wrong and think before posting next time.

>That's a massive false equivalency
I wasn't making an equivalency, I was talking about the form of your reasoning.
>The EU-Turkey deal doesn't make any mention of lynching ethnic minorities, it only concerns nonviolent and perfectly safe immigration practices.
I just told my henchmen to take care of the situation, nowhere did I tell them to murder the guy.
>inadvertently demonstrating that the Western establishment is progressive
nope

keep watching the circuses breadfag, remember to root for the blue neocon instead of the red neocon #hope #ireallyreallyreallywanttoelecthillary #makechangehappen #paynoattentiontothemenbehindthegrove #hyperreality

>If you think my team's good guy is bad you must be the other team's bad guy

Not disputing your claims, but the problem that stays with us is the fact that nationalism is at its heart a leftist ideology, because it values the common good over particular interests.

Also: Do you even liberation nationalism?

more that if you care about the factitious hand-puppet "teams" enough to have a sassy opinion about trump you are a fucking retard

>HEHE WILL BE GOOD TO SEE TRUMPSTERS BTFO ;)
t. you, future and current retard

I've never read Zizek so I don't get the joke :(((

PS: Where should I start with him?

So if you have a negative view of the these presidential candidates at all, you care about one of them, in appreciation. You have to choose one.

Here is your pat on the back for thinking you are being a contrarian by appealing to broader popularity.

Because white self-interest often involves murdering, enslaving, occupying and subjugating brown people. Learn some damn history.

you were being triumphalist about the illusory particulars of a slurry of identical technocrats

maybe you should learn to read and suck my dick

There's video with him where he rages about how much Marcuse and The 1d Dude sucks (and Eros and Civilization even more so).

Ascribing "left" to nationalism in toto is nonsense, and taking that out of the argument I was making is also nonsense. I said nationalism can be easily manipulated by powers they otherwise want to fight against. They're more hopeless at achieving their own goals than anarchists are.

>I wasn't making an equivalency, I was talking about the form of your reasoning.
You were making an equivalency. You compared my form of reasoning to a faulty form of reasoning that in no way reflected the views of anybody outside your warped imagination. I then explained to you the difference in my reasoning and your portrayal of my reasoning. Please read my post carefully before replying next time.
>I just told my henchmen to take care of the situation, nowhere did I tell them to murder the guy.
In your next post, please provide evidence that the hyper-progressive Western establishment approved of Turkey genociding refugees as a solution to the refugee crisis
>nope
Yep

>please prove this claim you never made

You clearly implied that the hyper-progressive Western establishment tacitly approved of Turkey murdering refugees in order to keep them from Europe. Do you admit that you have absolutely no evidence for this implication?

No I didn't. I was talking about the form of your argument.

So that's a yes.

If you think right-wing ideology is "dominant" you are either:

a) totally deluded, probably due to the influence of some other ideology

or

b) confused about what "right-wing" (or perhaps "dominant") actually mean.

The reasons for progressive hypocrisy are aside the point; the discussion topic is whether progressivism dominates in the West, which it of course does.

Republic, Plato

>he thinks liberalism is the left wing in modern society

goodreads.com/book/show/12618.On_Anarchism
pure garbage (this from a guy who read Mein Kampf)

>he thinks liberalism is the right wing in modern society

Do you admit thar you have absolutely no evidence for the implication that DFW became an author because he couldn't get into clown college?

It's literally a reply to a quote specifically crying about white self-interest.

The right ring is dominant all around the world right now. You're the one who is far gone.

Neat? Nobody was questioning whether there was reasoning behind progressive hypocrisy when it comes to the persecution of Whites and White self-interest. Paranoid schizophrenics often have intricate explanations for beliefs that are textbook cases of cognitive dissonance.

Can you point out where someone was believing in the "progressive hypocrisy" by arguing with you

>good
>leftist

Get of here, normie cuck.

Kek pwned him again xD

What r some good nazi literature btw

Mein Kamf is my favorite

Yes, that is why conservative causes like racially pure ethnostates, religious traditionalism, and authoriarianism are so dominant in the West

What did he mean by this?

Western civilization nearly got destroyed this way by the Third Reich. People aren't going to fall for this again.

If you want a "racially pure state" move to a white suburban community and shut off the internet. Boom. Done.

Not really because it's immediately obvious if you actually read the posts in the thread before replying to it. Try that next time

I really am not interested in defending the merits of right-wing ideology. I am simply pointing out that contrary to the fantasies of the self-described oppressed proletariat and their sympathizers, left-wing ideology is obviously dominant to right-wing ideology in the modern West.

Okay, lay it on me then. Prove it to me.

This is getting weirdly sexual.

You do understand that the these terrorists who are trying to spread sharia law around the world are on the far right, right?

No I was asking you what your definition of it was. It being progressive hypocrisy. Sorry for the confusion

It's because your argument seems to be experiencing performance anxiety.

>t-this has never happened to me before, I s-swear