How often do you read authors that have different political views than you?

Of course it matters what they say on there, or anywhere. Why wouldn't it? To truly understand the work you must understand the person, as best as you possibly can. Well, in my opinion, that is.

So if this cocksucker is naive enough to believe that what he is saying is a good thing, then I can tick the "naive dumb cunt" box in my mind when reading his work, thus saving a great deal of wasted time reading into things that weren't meant to be read into, as this was not his intention when writing it. Which in turn, ensures that the overall integrity of his work remains intact and I haven't attached too much of myself onto it, as the integrity of the man and the context of his work are inextricably linked, old chap.

>once you understand left-leaning perspectives, surely you will agree with them!
Also, by today's standards, most authors would be at least centrist, if not right wing

>implying capitalism or nazism existed 2000 years ago

>Refugees are welcome here!
>I mean, generally here, not where I live, okay?
- every rich cunt in America

>John Green has never shown any aversion to refugees being in his neighbourhood but I'll pretend he has to make a shitty point!

I don't read to become virtual pals with the author, I read for the joy of the book itself. Authors could be switched around, I wouldn't care.

>nazis
spotted the pseud who has no idea what words means, what a fag

Are you serious? Capitalism hasn't been invented in the last century.

You're right, it was the century before that.

You simply misinterpreted my post

>being this dense
It was a joke you brainwashed idiots

You have a poor idea of what capitalism is and where it comes from.

It's a hotly contested term. Most people use it to mean the political structure that emerged around the collapse of the European aristocracies and the industrial revolution.

All the time. The only thing you're accomplishing by refusing to read the works of people who disagree with your political opinions is shutting yourself in to an echo chamber.

I agree on this point, but this is merely semantics. It doesn't have to be called “capitalism” to be capitalism in practice.

Such an organization dates back from Roman times, as far as I know. Wealth kept increasing in Rome. While it was allocated to military expenditures and infrastructures in 300 BC, in the next century, it became associated with private wealth, and is an instrument to acquire power. Election are expensive, and aediles in particular used to obtain praetorship by giving sumptuous games. Under the electorale pressure, increasing his wealth became an important matter to the nobilitas and required a capitalist structure to organize this system. I advice you to read on Publican companies, which appeared between 200 BC and 170 BC, but increasingly became a major component of the Roman economy in 150 BC. Look up the agreement of Bithynia, contracted in 61 BC, probably the first modern example of a trust. These societates were owned by shareholders, praedes, who were also legally responsible for the profit and loss accounts of the society. The praedes participated regularly in a shareholders' meeting, an assembly of socii, in Rome, which was where all the societates must have the headquarters registered. These assemblies also elected a CEO, the magister, and a COO, the pro-magistro, who supervised the operations in province branches. The CEO had ten chairmen to help him, called decumarii, all elected by the shareholders on the annual meeting. All partners and associates had their names listed on public registers, and these companies were audited. On top of the partes, that are modern equities, these societies were able to emit corporate bonds, particulae, first with a fixed rate, which could later be indexed. People who bought these were called adfines. By the end of 200 BC, many scholars think these societies might have had a moral personality, and thus the liabilities and assetsof the company were distinct from the shareholders. The first of this kind were slaves traders, venaliciarii, but soon the richest societates listed were banks, argentarii, entities that had various activities ranging from speculation, assurance, foreign exchange—their historically first activity—to lending. In Rome, it was regulated and the interest rates ranged between 6% to 12%. In provinces, it could attain 48%. By 90 BC, they also engage in trading and investment banking. Around 160 BC opens the first stock exchange in Rome. The 188 BC treaty of Apamea between Rome and Antiochus III has been directly elaborated to inject wealth into the largely speculative Roman economy. Some years later, the Seleucid Empire had to borrow money from Roman bankers to pay the Roman empire. Along with the shortage of wealth from military victories and the end of slavery, the breakdown of the Roman financial system have been cited as the major causes of the demise of the Romans.

well he was a sandnigger and never said anything against race mixing, immigration and communism

>kantianism, utilitarianism and virture ethics would all tweet like john green
No. Kant personally despised niggers just like the vast majority of thinkers of the past - they barely considered blacks and browns human. And rightfully so.

I read people of every ideology except liberals.

Sorry, the comment is too long.

If it isn't capitalism, then I don't know what it is.

Actually, when Jesus of Nazareth is said to “overthr[o]w the tables of the moneychangers (…)” in the Scriptures, these “tables” were called “banca” and that's precisely the origin of the word “bank”.

>Merely pretending

Build it high, build it low. No more spics from Mexico.

Literally all the time OP. Even my family members don't agree on anything political, and neither do my friends.

I don't agree with anyone I read politically either(or it's extremely rare), but I still listen to what they say because it's interesting.

>How often do you read authors that have different political views than you?
You can only get the whole picture if you read works from all ideologies, even and especially those that you despise.

John Green is a different animal though, he inserts his stupid opinions into his 'lectures' all the time, which is a big no-no. A teacher should represent the facts and not teach his opinions, unless he declares the course as such.

>defending meme green
Wew laddy

Kys tripfag

yeah how dare he go against the echo chamber

oh, yeah, uhh... uhh...

I'm masturbating to this post right now

I think Marlon James is probably the most gifted author of popular literary fiction at this time, but politically he deserves a bullet in the back of the head after a slow trudge into a basement.

I'd differentiate this as capitalism ~being present~, rather than capitalism being the overruling, general system.

You could say 'there was capitalism going on' but it would be weird to refer to capitalists as the ruling class (and therefore as having the same material and political dynamic they have today). A capitalist was still kind of an agent of revolution, so your capitalist-bashing Jesus should probably be read as taking pro-monarchic, in fact authoritarian actions. Which to me as a Catholic sounds exactly right, but I'm not sure it will to you.

Why? This is the most dignified defence of idpol I've ever seen (saying this as someone stridently anti-idpol).

Which makes it all the more poisonous. Operating on the very assumption that privilege removes a degree of authorial integrity is disgusting.

They trully were, though. These companies had a significant influence on Roman politics, very similar to ours. They are supported by the rich classes, because there's no alternatives to investment. The senate tried to oppose them but he failed, and by 134 BC senators promoted people from theses companies to magistracy. You can imagine how bad it was since it included quaestorship, that has among its functions the monetary policy.

This is fascinating and you're persuading me. Can you possibly link a decent text on this?

My reference is Jacques Ellul's “History of Institutions”, first volume but I doubt you would get it online. He refers to “Il capitalismo antico: storia dell'economia romana” by Giuseppe Salvioli a lot, but I haven't read it yet. I'd suggest you to read a lot on Roman law as well, it's instructive and has striking similarities with our own civilization.

Jesus actually was a mudskin though

All the time. My favourite authors are the ones who rail against my political views, i.e. Egoistic nihilism.

But the best realise that politics is fairly minor.
You know, when you read stuff like the Divine Comedy, you see a lot of very interesting condemnation of...usury. It's "creating money without creating anything of use", it's only playing number-games, moving money about.

Not even you can be this autistic.

Pretty much all the time. Hamsun is my favorite author even though I despise nazis. Not being able to appreciate art, even if it is infused with something you disagree with, is so fucking plebeian. It's on par with disliking a novel because you didn't think the characters were sympathetic.

>Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

- Matthew 19:21

Jesus was quite obviously heavily left-leaning bro. The single time he lost his shit was when the capitalists were peddling their shit in the temple.

Cheers

He'd look more like Nebuchadnezzar than some Somalian.

The author is dead

Living a life of asceticism isn't left wing. You can give away your worldly possessions in search of spiritual/intellectual enlightenment while believing in a well ordered conservative state. To give up your possessions is not an aim to benefit their recipients but to rid yourself of material things which restricts you from Ascension in the mind and soul.

If anything Jesus is advising him say fuck you guys enjoy worldly corruption I'm going with God.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean doing it isn't fucking retarded and self-contradictory.

Jesus, in any case, did not concern himself with the state. That was his whole "give unto Caesar" thing.

>"You can give away your worldly possessions in search of spiritual/intellectual enlightenment while believing in a well ordered conservative state"
>implying jesus was literally a modern conservative

>I'm masturbating to this post right now
Good taste.

Good job, Vesp.

This

>applying the left right dichotomy to 1st century Judea

LOL you can't argue that it isn't a valid criticism

Write from whatever perspective you want just don't cry when someone challenges you on it. If the work is good enough this shouldnt be a problem.

We are in times were writers arent intelectuals anymore
youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM

I'm confused, are you suggesting PJW is an intellectual?

All the time probably. But I can't really care wether Tolstoy agrees or disagrees with Russian intervention in Serbia or wether Poe voted democrat or republican.

I think apocalypto is one of the most underrated films of the its decade. Politically I think Mel Gibson is abhorrant why should I let personal details influence my opinions on art?

t. John Green

Read my post again, moron.
I said to UNDERSTAND the work. Not whether you fucking happen to like it or not.

ebin post friend

Does someone want to tell him to check his privilege for deciding for an entire nation what's ok?

Yes.

Ah yes, Apocalypto is after all just a portrayal of Mel's hatred on jews ;^)

Who cares?

I try to read stuff from different political POVs to not fall victim of my own bubble, but I admit it, it's harder than reading something you know you'll agree with.

You might actually be retarded

This is a perfectly acceptable review though.

He forgot to type not. As in "Say it loud. Say it clear. "Refugees" are not welcome here."