Is he right about both Capitalism and Marxism

I don't know much about reddit, so maybe you can "enlighten" me, but I thought they were all the center-left 21st century "age of post ideology" kind

Evola is a meme, yes.
But he's a based meme, no way in fucking hell I'm letting reddit claim him.
Evola wasn't suggesting a middle ground. Evola was suggesting a society built less around material production and more towards cultural production, justice, history, manliness, etc. Economic system could be either for all the fucks he gave.

They're a bunch of edgy contrarians and a significant amount have made the switch from center left liberalism to edgy traditional larping

>minus all the fun! xDDDDDDD

Pretty much, the biggest difference between them is the letters preceding the -isms.

How so? He was a fascist. If anything he's /pol/ incarnate.

>dude wtf do you mean you need food?!?!
>stop being so materialistic

>mixed economics is bad
"no"

>Marxism [...] can only talk about consumption when discussing collective action.
What the fucc

He wrote books on spiritualism and was a dumb hippy. Check wikipedia or goodreads. being good at critising things you don't like doesn't make you right

Julius Evola was a progressive, anti-racist fascist who wanted to help his person of color brethren over in India help transcend the Age of the Kali Yuga by creating a Roman / Germanic / Indo-Aryan Empire that is ruled by a warrior aristocracy.

He was NOT a hippy.

He can't really be called anti-racist just because he arbitrarily liked some brown peoples. See his intro to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

>Julius "Better brink your own semen if you wish to become an enlightened individual" Evola

Mein gott and so on and so on

Hitler was both anti-capitalist and anti-communist.

They're both materialistic views of the world that focus on self-aggrandization.

Capitalism is the view that I want a Ferrari and damn anyone else in my way of getting that.

Communism is the view that I want a Ferrari but I can't have one so NO ONE should have a Ferrari.

>How so? He was a fascist.
He wasn't quite a fascist, but anyway, he's the go-to meme philosopher for LARPing kids on the internet. Now that doesn't necessarily discredit him, but it does make him pretty reddit.

/pol/ is also reddit incarnate

What I have to disagree with is that man's focus on acquiring wealth for themselves is innate and that focusing on any other goals cannot be done until those needs are met. "Wealth" could be simplified as food, water, shelter, etc. Of course nobody is focusing on culture when they're barely getting by. Other things are not as important to people as their personal comfort and status.

Ok, I agree with Evola here but what did he think actually was essential?

t. facebook post from my grandma

>He was a fascist.
"No."

>He was a fascist
No. Evola was a reactionary. Fascism grew away from reactionary veiws.

>why don't you belong to one of the extremes of my arbitrary old political axis?????
Why do people still fall for this retarded meme

>golden mean is purely a political stance

I don't even know what's going on this thread. Everyone is acting way too retarded to just be memeing

Spiritual activity. Man's aim should always be what is above

Evola is Heidegger for retards

>/pol/ is reddit
Just no.
If anything they are complete opposites.

>he doesn't know about r/The_Donald and r/Redpill
Hello newfriend

>man's focus on acquiring wealth for themselves is innate
So?

So glad that I am so unfamiliar with leddit that I don't even know what you are talking about.

Running a country without materialism - yea, that's a fantasy.

Governments deal in the material and the measurable. It is not their place to attempt to deal in immaterial ideals.

A government basically needs to concern itself with five things.

- maintaining a military
- foreign policy
- infrastructure
- economy
- education

Everything else is secondary.

That's retarded.
You can go on about materialism but having materials is pretty important.
Fascists are so fucking dumb.

It's interesting that only redditors claim reddit is identical to /pol/

What's going on here? Some sort of self-hatred issues?

>Evola
>fascist

On the one hand, human beings exist in the real world and have real, basic needs that need to be taken care of; I doubt a bloated, starving African kid, or even an American who couldn't afford life-saving surgery would get anything from Evola.

However, material wealth does not equate to self-actualization, purpose, spiritual fulfillment, etc.. It is a documented fact that Lottery winners generally say they were happier befote they struck gold; feel free to tell them to wipe their tears with their 100 dollar bills, but this material excess isolates them from their social circle, and doesn't solve the internal issues that probably manifested their gambling habit in the first place.

If you're lucky enough to have the material security and free time to post on Veeky Forums, your problems are probably more abstract than where your next meal is coming from, so maybe you'd benefit from hearing Evola out.

I'm not a redditor you faggot

Yes, not being able to believe in fairies and magic is certainly limiting

It's easier to point out a dichotomy than to propose a better alternative

Evola seems to have at least a rudimentary understanding of Marxism, which makes it truly baffling why the same people who insist on erroneously aligning the work of Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer et al. with Marx ("Cultural Marxism") hold him in such high regard.
Though you and seem to be confusing materialism and "materialistic values" for one another

>take any two philosophies
>find a single premise they agree on
>set yourself in opposition to that premise
>lol these two philosophies are basically the same
You can do this with anything.

You can't compare Reddit with thousands of subs to a single board on Veeky Forums.

Some subreddits are truly /pol/, but reddit as a whole is nothing like it.
RedPill and incels have misogyny
The_Donald has racism and xenophobia

All these can be found on "main" subs such as worldnews, news, europe, etc. too

The difference between pol and reddit shitholes is the moderation. You'll get banned from reddit if you go against the Huffington post level bullshit the mods and admins spread. On pol, it's basically encouraged to do so.

You're more inclined to notice a bias contrary to your views, so I can see why you wouldn't notice the alt-right tendencies of reddit.

As a Euro-lib I think both sides are fucking annoying. Sometimes I wish you'd start killing each other just to thin the herd of retards.

He talks a lot about technology and production and creation being useless but doesn't actually mention what is 'useful'. This is an empty quote.

but he proposed an alternative you idiot. A traditional monarchist caste system. Before you say it is too utopian, he agreed, he said that in the end capitalism is unstopable and one should focus on cultivating his inner self while living amidst degeneracy

I am rich and can confirm, I am not more happy for having money, I am only happy if I have a need(Real) and money can satisfy it: being really thirsty and buying a bottle of water, helping a friend in need,etc
Money can also bring unhappyness, as I said money covers need, when you have lots of money you can devote yourself to create false needs just to have something to do, and since you have basically unlimited money, you can afford it, but it wont make you happy, because you are wasting your time in fake needs, there are some real needs that money cant satisfy and a way to scape from confronting them is to make up fake needs which money can easily and directly satisfy

For happiness you need:
1. Basic necessities such as water, food and shelter
2.Friends
3.Strong selfcontrol
4.Hobbies, whether it is artistic(writting, poetry,painting,etc) or technical(blacksmithing, farming,woodcraft,etc). Even a job can fit in this point, if you enjoy your work you can make it part of your happiness

You dont need much money to live this life, money only helps with 1 and 4, money wont buy you real selfmastery nor it will buy you real friendship. It will buy you fake selfmastery(I bought this expensive dj set so I am automatically a dj) and fake friends(I can afford to do expensive shit so people admire me)

and the supreme form of Happyness is this:
1.Bare neccesities, dont seek superior pleasures but strive to cultivate appreciation for simple goods
2.Friends must form a closed group and enjoy simple pleasures together
3.Selfmastery is the only thing in life that is never, never, superflous
4. The superior hobby is philosophy, since it requires nothing but your own self to practice it

Pathetic.

Anyone who speaks like this is rich by having it handed to them. As a man who's rich by his own hands, I can tell you that I am happier for having more money. Not because I have more slips of green paper, but because I worked for and achieved my ambitions. I'm happier because of what those slips of green paper represent: Productivity and strength of self.

Off yourself, you waste of space. If your 'philosophy' is in wasting time and speaking on how making use of one's mind is a disgrace to it, you're a disgrace to the very idea.

Would you throw Jurgen Habermas in there as well? Or would he be considered "Cultural Marxist"?

Coming from Evolian-leaning student who was recently recommended Jurgen by a professor after having a conversation with him.

yes, I am rich in that way, I never claimed to deserve my wealth so I dont see why you have to insult me. You didnt even understand what I wrote since you say
> I'm happier because of what those slips of green paper represent:Productivity and strength of self.
That is literally what I said
>3.Strong selfcontrol 4.Hobbies
Supposing you dont need actual money, you would agree that what is left of value is selfcontrol and productivity

If you are valuing money as a SYMBOL of productivity and selfcontrol it is because, as I also said, you are buying it instead of owning it, money is not a substitute for actual productivity and actual selfcontrol, once you have enough money for a simple life all the rest is purely symbolic and doesnt make you more happy, it only makes you think you are more happy with this extra money than you would be with not this extra money, and that is simply not always true

But I forgive your insults because I understand that you only do it to assert your ego, ego is not self

Money might represent productivity and strength of self to you, but it's not an universal truth.

What about the kind of man you've responded to, rich by parents?
Golddiggers?
People who lucked into luxury?

I could go on.

Being rich is not a virtue in itself and it doesn't represent anything but the fact of having money.

Also, I want to let you know, productity and career succes are not the same, for you americans, forgive me if you are not american, it is, they make you believe so, it is in your culture, from the executive in wallstreet to the gangsta nigger, to acquire and show off wealth. And that wont make you happy, it will make you respected, it will make you proud, it will make your friends, family, etc appreciate you more but it wont make you happy. Happyness is not mere material comfort, happiness is a state of peace which is selfperpetuating, it depends on nothing but itself.

Why do you think Christ said that only the poor will go to heaven?, you cant see it because your material culture clouds your eyes, but there is something inherently corrupting in wealth

I am they guy this guy responded to. You are right, being rich is simply having a huge supply of money. But, if you want to enter the "society" then you suddenly need to justify your wealth, "rich man does this and dresses like this" is just a way that groups reinforce their identity, "rich man does this and dresses like this" exists because the vast majority of richmen want to show off their riches as a class status symbol, so they need an standard of "richman" so they can imitate it and associate "richman" with themselves. They want to associate "richman" with "positive" qualities for this reason:
A1. A richman is someone who has made himself and is worthy of praise
A2. A richman has a nice house
B.I have a nice house
C.I have made myself and I am worhty of praise

that is the internal logic of the high society, hope you found it interesting

>once you have enough money for a simple life all the rest is purely symbolic and doesnt make you more happy

That's not true. Spoken like a man who never had to live a simple life out of necessity. I grow up in relative poverty, coming from the lower class of my country, and worked my way up to middle-class. You know what? Money does make me happy. Not because of retarded symbolism that justifies others' suffering by claiming they lack "productivity" or "strength of self" or ambition, but because I can afford to enjoy life without forcing myself to be grateful for shelter, food and water despite the inability to live as I want to. I can afford my internet subscription, I can buy books, I can go to the movies, I can sit in a café with my friends, I can go out with them. All because of money.

You might say that my needs are shallow, that I don't have to go out with my friends, I don't need the internet, nor expensive coffee. Who's to say that I could be happy without these, though? I know I wasn't. Who are you to claim otherwise? What authority can tell me if I am content or not, if not me?

The poor man who's content with his life and wouldn't be rich rather than poor is a meme. Being happy in a bad situation is always out of necessity. "I know I won't get to eat out once in a while and that I will never buy new clothes, only second-hand, but at least I have a roof over my head, water to drink, and bread to eat." Yeah, fuck that. The needs are still there and are waiting to be satisfied, it's just that the man has accepted his relative poverty as a fact of life he can't change.

>Who's to say that I could be happy without these, though?
You wont know until you test it yourself. This is not something that can be proven by discussion but by practice. I am ok with you spending money in buying books, going to the movies etc, I am not saying that you should live in a cave. I am saying that as far as possible you shouldnt make your pleasures more complicated than is necesary. That is a simple life, I am not saying you dont live a simple life.

Also, you say you can go to movies, enjoy a cafe with your friends yada yada yada "All because of money", no, not at all, you can go to the movies first because you have an appreciation for movies, and secondly because you can afford it, you can have a cafe with friends first because you have friends that enjoy your company, second because you can afford it, you can buy books first because you enjoy literature, second because you can afford it

All I say is that it is wise to focus on the primary aspect, the enjoyment part, so that if the day comes you cant materially afford it, you can still be sure you master the essentials.

I dont fear that I wont have enough money to go with my friend to a cafe because I understand what friendship means and I have certainty in that I am able to enjoy that in an scenario where I dont need to spend money.

Money doesnt make you happy, enough money not to worry too much makes you happier but most happiness is something money cant buy, it is contrary to experience that rich people are happy, rich people are usually miserable and very rarely they are the 100%happy that follows from "money implies happiness", the only people that I have known that were 100%happy were never rich, I have never met a rich actually happy person in my life, they are all miserable in one way or another behind the scenes, this is what experience tells me and it would be unwise to deny experience.money cant solve the human condition, money can solve the "I need to eat" condition but there is more in life than that

But that's true for any clique and subculture. They all assign positive values to their style and way of life, set a standard, and strive to imitate it.

Metalheads wear rugged jeans and band T-shirts
I wear rugged jeans and band T-shirts, so I am worthy of being a metalhead.
He doesn't wear these things, so I'm not sure if he's truly one of us.

OGs live in the hood, smoke weed and fuck bitches and live a criminal's life
I live in the hood, I smoke weed, fuck bitches, and live a criminal's life, so I am an OG.
He doesn't do these things, he's not an OG.

The hypothetical metalhead and OG might as well be "posers" who just want to belong to their groups and be known for their values. It doesn't matter though, in the end he acts and lives the same way as the group he identified with.
A rich person wants the same, he acts like your described "richman" to be known as one of his group, a member of high society. To do so, he conforms to the ideas of the group and takes on the assigned values that come with it.

Exactly, but there is a difference, a metalhead that doesnt listen to metal, wears metal tshirts yadayadayada is obviously not a metalhead, an OG who doesnt act like an OG is not an OG.

But a richman who doesnt behave like a richman is still a richman because what actually makes you a richman is a big deposit in the bank. That is why it is different

That's just the difference between the requirements to belong to a certain group. Metalheads need to dress and act in a certain way and like a certain kind of music.

The rich simply need money and they're good to go.

They're still conforming to their group by their way of life and style. The difference is that metalheads need multiple boxes to tick off, while the rich need only one. If they're "qualified", they can take on the values of their group and be accepted. Same thing, different number of requirements.

That's Veeky Forums m8

Did you actually read what I wrote?
Productivity means nothing if you are not producing something of quality. 'Displaying' wealth is a pathetic measure enacted by those who are either insecure in their own worth or rely on the confirmations of others to prove that they are, in fact, virtuous by measure of having wealth.

Christ said the poor only go to heaven because he was starting a cult. Try throwing away all your money and actually living in poverty, and then talk about how progress and reality exist only in the mind. Thoreau couldn't do it, so why should you? For all your talk about self-control, you reek of a man who has none and can only bash those who exemplify it. No other virtue matters at all. Why should a man need others - friends - to confirm his own virtue? The virtuous individual's ability and strength stems from himself and himself alone.

Playing on two senses of the word "materialism" does not a critique make. Nonetheless, if Marxism appears or "feels like" a commodity fetishism to its opponents, that is because to a certain extent it has to be; Das Kapital, and Marxism generally, are attempts at representing an object, capitalism, and the methodology chosen to formulate those representations, namely, a totalizing, structural dialectics, begins with what Marx called the "cell" of capitalism, the commodity. In other words if Marxists seem to be overly valuing the material, it is out of a commitment to the study of their object, a system in which the quantified material stuff of life is our only viable form of evaluation.

The critical difference is that the internal laws and mechanisms of capitalism allow, or rather structurally require, two perfectly viable interpretations: on the one hand, capitalists interpret their purchase of labor power at a daily rate their right to use it for the entirety of the day; any concessions made to the laborer outside of what is necessary for his "reproduction" for use the following day (sleep, food, shelter) are seen as violations of contract, of the capitalist's fairly gotten stakes in the iron law of exchanges. thus capitalists make every effort to obtain maximum value from the working day. Hence one of the most dramatic passages of Capital comes shortly before the great chapter on The Working Day, when the laborer offers his own interpretation of exchange: because he has sold his labor power for a day at the same value of six hours of its implementation, he ought to work only for those six hours. each is "correct" from the point of view of exchange; it is the great contradiction, inherent in the disjunction between use- and exchange-value in the commodity form broken out onto the stage of history. a simplistic but not necessarily incorrect formula would be to say that Marxism is simply the commitment to labor's interpretation (which of course includes understanding the capitalist's interpretation as exploitation), both its development in theory and its defense in practice.

sorry, the passage i'm referring to is actually section one of The Working-Day, and not the chapter "just before" it

>there can't be enough Marx threads

Not that guy, but materialism without wanting to understand quantum mechanisms wave-particle dualism is just another belief, based on average disturbances that we physically detect

Habermas is in many ways a cultural marxist, but is his own very goyish and autistic way. The grande concept of him is the so called "herrschaftsfreie Diskurs" roughly translated with something like discussion where might has no weight. Everybody is equal (sounds like cultural marxism) and with the dialoge amongst all participating the relatively best solution is found by just looking at the arguments, without careing about who made them.

I agree only discussing about ecconomics isn't enough. But I disagree, with the statement of capitalism and communism being the same, this is so generalizing, that it leaves both terms meaningless.

>As a man who's rich by his own hands, I can tell you that I am happier for having more money. Not because I have more slips of green paper, but because I worked for and achieved my ambitions. I'm happier because of what those slips of green paper represent: Productivity and strength of self.

You've managed to hurl abuse and call them full of shit while simultaneously completely agreeing with them, impressive.