I can't decide if I want to be a Marxist or a classical conservative. Give me some literature to sway me to either side

Politics are for plebs. Both of your choices suck. If you really wanna be something, combine the two and become a Hobbesian.

Also Stagnation. It's also impossible.

>current year
>not having a radically absent economic stance while being a traditional reactionary

>Politics are for plebs

>thinking that there is intellectual activity separate from politics and socioeconomic status

Hunter-gatherers fifty thousand years ago sure thought about politics a lot.

Your mistake is conceiving of political activity as a specific discipline, not something that is constantly reproduced in a community via the distribution of power and social relations. One thing you should have taken from Marxist analysis is that it's naive to think there is such a thing as neutral theory.

WHO FUCKING CARES

W H O F U C K I N G C A R E S

WHO

FUCKING

CARES

W
H
O

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

C
A
R
E
S

W

H

O

F

U

C

K

I

N

G

C

A

R

E

S

We're talking about political ideas and ideals you complete autist, not the idea of politicking.

I feel that this website being a meeting place for conservatives creates an echo chamber. One they get pushed out of all other social media (aside from facebook) they come here to re-affirm their opinions. I've been on Veeky Forums for years and not once seen a logical conservative argument by someone of the /pol/ ilk. All they seem to present in response to social liberalism is bad conspiracy theories and institutionalized racism.

And political ideas are not intimately connected with one's social status, biases and human praxis?

>Just "deciding" your own political ideology

So you're saying stone-age hunter-gatherers were discussing their versions of communism and fascism?

Also this

>institutionalized racism

Who's the conspiracy theorist now, dipshit?

Have you read the last superstition? I'm only halfway through it but the author Edward Feser claims to logically conclude that conservative values are the way to go but I haven't personally got to it yet.

What did he mean by this?

He meant that the poster he responded to is a dipshit.

How tired are you?

I just woke up, so only a little tired, but it'll probably pass. Thanks for being concerned.

How are you feeling?

Neither is a terrible choice. Just don't be an insufferable bourgeois liberal.

Take the apolitical Über Pill and shit on everyone.

This . You can't be conservative while supporting capitalism. Capitalism will always destroy social norms and atomize individuals to increase the surface of the markets.

Gotta hand it to Reagan/Thatcher/etc, it was a neat trick they pulled - convincing people that the two were compatible, or even one in the same.

Conservative is a poor choice of world because the world they want to preserve has already been destroyed by capitalism. They want to create a new world. Conservatives are in fact revolutionaries and they don't realize it themselves.

You do, obviously, because you posted in the thread.

Absolutely this. Capitalism is ready to sacrifice anything and everything in the name of profit, and it's the main driving force behind the degeneracy we have today.

They should have realized something was amiss when Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society". Possibly the most un-conservative thing one could say. Thatcher/Reagans were to conservatism what Stalin/Pol Pot were to communism.

That doesn't make Socialism/etc any better.

We need to transcend economics. Communism pretends to do so, or rather aspire to do so, but cannot be divorced from its social/left-wing aims.

Read the works of the French New Right movement, especially Alain de Benoist. Marxism and a certain concept conservatism do not have to be mutually exclusive.

>transcending economics
What the fuck does that even mean? Economic inequality is fundamental, you can't conceal it with ideology.

>someone will have more than someone

philosophical discovery of the 21st century

Some people will have a higher income =/= half of the world's wealth owned by a few dozen individuals

Inequality is fundamental.

Economics is not.

That sounds liberal as fuck, the complete separation of the economic sphere from the political one, it's already happening. Unaccountable megacorporations control the world economy, do you really think state parliaments have any impact on this?
The EU deciding to wreck the Greek economy is a particularly blatant example in recent years.

You sound incoherent..are you saying tge separation is happening, or that the joining of the two has/is happening?

Just had some coffee, woke up after sleeping for most of yesterday, I'm good.

Well these megacorporations can't actually control the world since we live in democracies. Donald Trump just got elected to the presidency of the united states with no corporate backing. Hes just the first populist in the long line. It starts with a crazy guy who wins by shear charisma, but I assure you the next president of the united states will be a populist liberal. Demographic changes will wipe out the right and moderate left in the US, leaving only the socialists to create our governments.

>Capitalism is ready to sacrifice anything and everything in the name of profit, and it's the main driving force behind the degeneracy we have today.

That's one of the reason it is the best economic system

If instead of communism it was anarcho-capitalism that picture would be correct.

>half of the world's wealth owned by a few dozen individuals

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this

>Half of the world's wealth owned by a few individuals
>Half of the world in poverty because of this

Welcome to neo-feudalism

Define "neo-feudalism"

Marx was taller than Nietzsche

Its like feudalism except instead of farm kingdoms ruled by land owners we have business owners who rule over large swaths of population with their wealth. You can already see it in today's society, the poor of India work for the rich of america, but in 20 years it won't just be Indian's and Chinese making the majority of your tech and clothing, but American's too. If jobs are "brought back" from developing nations the only people it will benefit are the top crust of society, we'll bring the sweatshops back stateside. Californians will revel with their $15 minimum wage while the conservative poor who's leaders are demagogues will pay the price.

And what is the alternative?

Well with the rise of populism in the western world I see a future where the poor vote to benefit themselves, and in the end, make the economic disparity unimportant. If one can have food, living accommodations, healthcare, and running water without a job they won't really care if the rich run the world. Remember, bread and circuses.

trying to forcibly change natural inequality is a cure worse than the disease. Aristotle knew this, I don't see why edgy Marxist kids don't realise it yet.

the only correct answer

1. hunter gatherer societies have endured for tens of thousands of years

2. Hunting and gathering is a stable political form

3. Stability is desirable from multiple perspectives

4.hunting and gathering, having survived for longer than any socio-political form, is more traditional than whatever bullshit "tradition" traditionalists invent to bend people to their will.

5. Burkean conservatives aren't traditional enough.

>Thinks natural inequality is incompatible with more equality in resource distribution

>Aristotle knew this, I don't see why edgy Marxist kids don't realise it yet.

Because Aristotle was abandoned from the Medieval period onward, when thinkers like Hobbes could no longer be bothered to wrap their heads around works such as the Nicomachean Ethics/etc.

It's pretty funny that he's finally coming back into fashion.

Those who push for the latter inevitably push for the former.

just read hayek and friedman and not be a massive faggot, op

resource 'redistribution' in unjust, stealing from the most productive people in a given society will just make them take their money and skill elsewhere.

>Well these megacorporations can't actually control the world since we live in democracies.
Regulatory capture. It doesn't matter if Trump won through his own charms, if he staffs the government with people that will acquiesce to whatever large corporations want then the corporations effectively run the government.

Also look at TPP which failed to pass due to international protest but might come back in some form. It would have given international corporations the ability to sue governments for lost profits due to enacted policies in courts made up of people chosen by the corporations. Corporate power is tenuously restrained by democracy and the largest groups have become mostly independent from the governments that originally nurtured them.

Only if your definition of productivity is chained to some fossil measure such as GDP or GDP per capita.

This desu desu

Bourgeois liberalism is literally the best ideology there is. Only edgy teenagers disagree with this.

Marxism is for edgy teenage virgins

Traditional Conservatism is for matured and nuanced property owners

That's why this board is left wing and adult boards like /pol/ and /k/ are more conservative

>Adult boards
>Made up of ideologues and people who fawn over toys

/pol/ isn't really traditionalist either though.

>conservatism
>ideology

cringe

Conservatism isn't and ideology but the people who support it are generally (especially in /pol/) ideologues. Not to say there aren't any liberal ideologues, but the right far outnumbers them.

/pol/ is not a conservative board

Conservatism is absolutely an ideology. If it isn't how come wikipedia has a page on it?

Check and mate.

>>Half of the world in poverty because of this
>>because of

Holy shit some people really are stupid. Do us all a favour and either neck yourself or pick up a high school book on economics (provided you are literate enough to even read the toc).

samefag

I literally just entered the thread and responded to some old post, kys retard

Samefags don't normally disagree with each other my man.

Oh and here ya go faggot

Read Guy Debord

>be year of new milenium plus 17 years - 10 hours
>not being socially liberal, politically leftist, and economically centrist

this 2bh

>being extreme bourgeois-normie tier

Lmao, haven't you got some late night comedians to go watch or something?

Dont be either. Communism/ Marxism is one of the single worst economic systems ever devised and conservatism is just spooky af. Honestly Im weary of anyone who defines themselves with a certain political group.

It's the format of the website:

The anonymity destroys any incentive to build a reputation by constructing complex arguments.

The website is not conducive to post archiving that allows for easy searching (although this is changing kinda).

Post volume on many boards combined with thread pruning is an incentive to post in ways that are easy to digest, polarizing or just highly visible

Lack of a requirement to register an account means that anyone can just jump in and start shitposting

This board is made for the repetition of talking points on all but the slowest of boards.

I'm gonna upload a bunch of images I've gathered from /leftypol/ for ya OP. It's mostly theory.

...

3/5

4/5

Politics are spooks.

5/5

>megacorporations can't actually control the world since we live in democracies

Do you still believe in God and the Tooth Fairy too?

Seconding Debord. Society of the Spectacle is great and IRRC you should be able to find it free online.

2/3

>not being a nazi
kys

3/3

To answer part of your request, OP:
In argument of Marxism:

The Communist Manifesto if you need a short and sweet version of the inherent inequalities of capitalism and the overall objectives and goals of socialism (it's only ~50 pages so you might as well).

Das Kapital if you're hardcore like that and really want to go in depth with Marxism (very long).

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair if you can stomach it, and you're up for a critique of laissez-faire capitalism that will make you want to vomit.

Animal Farm by George Orwell if you want a critique of State-Capitalism (Stalinism), socialism's own boogieman. A decent allegory of the events leading up to Stalin's Soviet Union.

1984 by George Orwell is a good book on cult of personality and totalitarianism, if you're into that sort of thing.

And now, for a few honorable mentions:

The State and Revolution (Vladimir Lenin)
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (Engels)
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels)
The German Ideology (Marx)
The Condition of the Working Class in England (Engels)
Homage to Catalonia (Orwell)
What Is to Be Done? (Lenin)
Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Marx)

These are just a few of the books you should read if you want to have a better conception of Marxism.

Really, you can't go wrong with anything by Marx, Lenin, Engels, Orwell, or even Hegel for that matter. Just keep in mind that this list is non-exhaustive, and that there is much more on socialism and Marxism than what I just posted.

I hope that you found this list helpful.
Happy travels!

-TWP

How do I know if I'm a fascist or a marxist? They seem so similar. :(

>le ebil all powerful corporations maymay

>I want to be a Marxist or a classical conservative
One of these things is not like the other.

ITT

>100 replies
>not a single remotely convincing case for Marxism

Marxism is fake as hell

t. Marxist jew