Why is right-wing literature so bad...

Why is right-wing literature so bad? Who would form their political opinions from some hack romanticising about a non-existent past, or reading religious myths, than from the genius and layered analysis of Das Kapital? My conclusion from reading economics and political theory can only be that conservative & reactionary "thinkers" are huge retards who resort to LARP-ing because they can't handle the phenomenon of modernity, and liberals are just insufficiently educated to identify the real material causes of social strife.

dear god please let this be bait

Face it, historical materialism is still the most valid framework of social analysis, and the only way you can be a conservative is pure wilful ignorance of the economic basis of social relations. Their arguments all revolve around constructed identities such as nationality, religion and race, like any of these things actually matter in the pervasive reality of the global marketplace.

So ... this is ... the power ... of ... american liberal education?

>actually matter in the pervasive reality of the global marketplace
Yes, there is no difference between the people but they usually come to study in first world countries just because. I mean even after they do there is no difference at all but at least the virtue signalling has been shown.

>the genius and layered analysis of Das Kapital

Nobody has ever read Das Kapital. Absolutely no one. It's such an abstract/logical book. People fail to even address it correctly. It isn't even about communism.

>why does this person that lives in a poor shithole come to study in the economic imperialist powerhouse that is the West
A true mystery user, I'm sure it has something to do with the natural god-given inferiority of their race and society.

>why do all non-white countries turn into shitholes no matter how many more resources they get
Yep, I can sense that something is wrong but just can't put my finger on it

Almost all historical literature is right-wing by today's standards.
Prove me wrong.
Protip: [you are unable]

By dadgum...

To join the rat race of techno-capitalism and die without children in order to further the feverishly accelerating stripping-away of the "human" in human capital.

I mean you're right and you're wrong.

Take the field of economics for example. The left and the right being polarized on this so much at a very basic level you see more mathematical analysis from Keynes than from Von Mises. Now why is this the case? Keynes and the Austrian school of thought are literally at ends with each other on fundamental tenets. If Keynes is considered 'left' (which would be generous, I think he is rather both conservative and liberal) his work is infinitely more detailed regarding the individual variables. But never once does he mention fractional reserves or the issue of current account creation like Von Mises does. You see, inherently, it seems economics is all about how you view or perceive the system of resources we have. Are you allocating them efficiently in a free state? If the answer is yes, then we need to analyze what hinders this free state. If the answer is no, then we need to analyze what the flaw is in this free state.

Which is why you'll see Keynes and Von Mises' theories of production periods(which Keynes actually even has a definitive problem with, but I believe it is just a functional one, because he cannot conceive of the Austrian's theory of a longer production period being equated with a higher interest rate) at complete ends with each other. Because Von Mises graph of supply and demand has an equilibrium point at full maximization of consumer's effective demand having the elasticity of effective demand take up the entirety of the elasticity function overall. This means Von Mises isn't concerned with the elasticity of price, he may just take it as a given with the free market.

Now Keynes has his equilibrium point for 'aggregate demand' below 'aggregate supply' almost always. Functional full employment, like full or over-investment is rarely, if ever, attained in Keynesianism. It is always functional with a gap due to consumer saving.

So you're right OP. If you consider Keynesianism leftist, that's the reason this post is a clusterfuck. Von Mises, while his institutional perspective of economics affords the viability of being subject to very few Petito Principiis because of the inherent lack of interconnectivity of the theories (so if one is proven false, the others have some viability), is not very inherently complex or layered.

>Why is right-wing literature so bad?

Bait, The right literature is usually much higher, especially in Europe, in Spain is very traditional to associate fascism with the habit of reading for this reason.

>doesn't like capitalism
>doesn't like organic social structures that could buffer against capitalism's dehumanization

Well to be quite honest I don't consider anything meaningfully left if it's not anti-capitalist. I can be pragmatic and advocate socdem reforms but I'm not delusional enough to see them as long-term solutions to a broken system. A real step towards a fairer society would be a market socialist economy with UBI, but I don't see this happening within parliamentary politics ever.

>market """socialist""" economy with UBI

Stop this meme

Not a parliamentary democracy, no. Thank god we have administrative clearances at the federal reserve level. Too bad they all just deal with artificially lowering the interest rate. The New Deal in the early 20th century elicited the help of the federal reserve in buying stocks of agricultural firms to stabilize the marginal efficiency of capital during a slump. That was smart. How we handled this shit, just screams stupid. We still have the banks standing that were rewarded for risks, and we haven't done anything about reinstating a bill like Glass-Steagall, which was Republican and Democrat introduced ffs. Can't push anything forward in this climate.

Market socialism, at least the way I use the term, implies worker-owned and democratically controlled enterprises within a market economy, surely a valid socialist system. There is also no real argument that such enterprises would be inefficient, research shows that they can operate even better than private corporations.

>genius analysis
>das kapital
The most atrocious, painful kek I've ever had. Well, I guess being a degenerate socially and dying of hunger because of that """""genius""''" economical idea is appealing to you. Fuck off.

Austrians and commies are.both retarded and need to get shot.

>muh democracy
>muh worker's ownership

Socialism is about freeing humanity from the yoke of capital. As long as you keep the profit motive nothing is going to change.

You may be right, but the abolishment of markets in total has basically no support, and presents fundamentally bigger problems. What would you propose as a stable system to plan production and exchange without markets?
I advocate market socialism since it's proven to work.

>What would you propose as a stable system to plan production and exchange without markets?

Some balance needs to be found between centralised and de-centralised forms of planning. We need to both avoid the lack of adaptability to consumers' demands of central planning as in the USSR and the disorder of decentralised planning as in anarchist Catalonia.

>I advocate market socialism since it's proven to work.

Do you mean the fact that coops like Mondragon exist? Because Yugoslavias market socialism most definitely didn't work.

Yugoslavian enterprises weren't cooperatives in any meaningful sense (source: being an ex-Yugoslavian), worker councils could be easily overturned and the Party retained far too much control over the functioning of the economy.
Still, I don't see how you can portray them as total failures compared to the widespread privatization of today ; job security was much better then.

>everytime my country stops being less of a shithole there is an american coup
>this has happened twice in 50 years
but I'm sure it has to do with white superiority

>any materialism
>valid
Get out.

Any form of literature that labels itself as right wing or left wing is immediately shit on the grounds that the left-right dichotomy is a polarization that indicates stupidity and naiveness about the complex political landscape.

Historical materialism, which I'm sure you haven't examined, has little to do with bourgeois forms of materialism. It is a theory of historical development that considers economic relations in a given mode of production as the primary determinants of the social/ideological superstructure. Such a perspective would look at the material causes of social change as opposed to their claimed ideological basis ; for instance, the western liberation of women had an immediate effect on the productive forces of capitalism and the structure of the family, which poses a question of just how much it had to do with educational enlightenment.
His.mat. is still immensely useful for social science and in my experience hasn't been persuasively argued against - its controversy has much more to do with the practical experiences of Marxism-Leninism in the 20th century.

>Why is right-wing literature so bad?
Inquiry, challenging, creating new things, etc is bad and wrong
The past is good and right and proper and must not be changed

how did whites get in such a position that the fate of your country rests on the whim of theirs?

you lost, 8 years

after 2016 the left will never have power again; if anything, we're going to round you all up and subject you to the gulag you so ardently wish for

It's not. You're just too stupid to understand it. Marx is for pseudo-intellectuals.

You should know about south american and north american colonization differences and their outcome on the respective colonnies development, and how fragilized other countries already were from not being allowed by any number of colonial policies to develop local industry, for example.

It's funny, Thorstein Veblen asserted that sociologically conservatism plays a valid role in society as a check on innovations, but only if there is a sufficiently large scientific, progressive class of workers developing an amount of technological innovations.

>he thinks the changes in histories were because of economics, and not because of individualistic and group beliefs in certain ideals
How delusinal can you be? Socities changed because the ideals changed. Because of religion, because of nations which people wanted to create or protect. Stop being this delusional, no one except atheists (might as well say nihilists, because atheism leads to that) can believe this nonsense. Even in today's day and age we are advancing because of the ideals of certain people. There'll always be those who will guide their life based on ecomonics, and they do dip their fingers into the water of history (calling it that to fit the idiom), but they're nowhere near as relevant as the idealistic people.

This is true. For now.

sweet jesus. a communist is saying that conservative can't into economics.

also, what's the link between economics and Veeky Forums?

>8 ch filename ending in leftypol
Is this bait?

>the soviets will work!

how is possible that anarchists and trotskists are still a thing?

neither nationality nor race are merely constructs

Epic trell, bro.

This is a good post by a good boy.

>I know, I'll jeer at the fact that a statement has been made without articulating any reason why that statement is wrong, and simply expect everyone to agree with me! That's a good trick!

Nationality is simply imaginary lines drawn on a map, with flags and anthems that somebody made up. Means nothing.

>Nationality is simply imaginary lines drawn on a map, with flags and anthems that somebody made up. Means nothing.
This is entry level criticism. You can break any concept down like this until you reach the very concept of breaking down concepts and then you're just racing into the void realizing how much of a goof you are.

right. So why were white people able to attain such a position that they could do these things without other races saying "no" and stopping them?

nationality refers to two things: citizens of a particular nation, and the ethnic group that primarily comprises that nation. all of those things (flags, anthems, etc.) are extensions and cultural products of the people who lived in those states, delineated by those "imaginary lines." for example, if france had no french people living in it, no borders, and such emblems as flags and anthems were different or never created in the first place, would france still be considered french?

How can someone be so poorly educated as to ask that question. I understand coming at it from different directions, or in pieces, like citing geographic determinism, cultural superiority, technological competitiveness between fractured nation states, the power of competitive institutions, whatever.

But to ask that question like that might as well be an indicator for downs syndrome.

Its like Ben Affleck and Sam Harris.

>historical materialism is still the most valid framework

It's just one of many bro

Intellectuals support communism because communism creates more jobs to intellectuals.

Someone needs to staff all those planning commissions, and it won't be Joe the Plumber.