Why are great writers predominantly left-wing?

Why are great writers predominantly left-wing?

Other urls found in this thread:

bobdylan.com/songs/tombstone-blues/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You have it backwards, champ

another profoundly intellectual capital-T Truth bomb from our friends at /pol/.
I for one can't get enough of these tasty redpills

Wew lad

How can people consider Kipling a good poet, let alone a great one? I always see "If" posted here as if it were the greatest thing ever, but it isn't, by any stretch of the mind.

Those of you who like Kipling, could you tell me why? I'm genuinely interested, perhaps I've been approaching his work from an incorrect perspective.

>those fonts

Perfect

Because they have more emotion, and both art and left wing politics are products of emotion.

Why, isn't the leftwinger shitposter who created the thread made exactly of the same media feeded turd material of which pol people are made of?
Don't quarrel over different shades of brown, friend.

This. Let's just forget OP's shitpost and blame /pol/ for ruining such a great thread.

...

Pinochet did nothing wrong.

It was conservatives that banned DH Lawrence's stuff on moral grounds, even though politically he could be considered very much right wing.

Hemingway had some reactionary views
Eliot and Pound were reactionary
Johnson was a conservative
Yeats was somewhat reactionary
Shelley mourned the death of tradition, Lawrence was reactionary etc

Are there any good left wing writers who aren't boomers?

Most of the conservatives you named also had liberal views. Shelley as the most obvious example.

>Most of the conservatives you named also had liberal views
So does every conservative. What competent thinker can be perfectly described with the words "conservative" or "liberal?"

Literally all political terms and memes and totally useless, descriptively.

Any word that is about a belief system (socialism, capitalism, left wing, right wing, authoritarian, feminism etc) is useless. They have no real definition.

It doesn't matter if something is socialist, or capitalist. It matters what you want to do, how you want resources to be distributed and where you want to take money from. It's so tiring looking at political debates online; 95% of them are just saying "such and such is not truly left wing they are actually right of center". Who cares.

*everything

Because these writers have no talent that is actually useful in an economy. So naturally they are going to want more money distributed to them. These writers view themselves as gifts for the masses and they think they should be rewarded for it.

you know you've done the RIGHT thing when commiecucks are still mad LOL

Almost every French writer would count as left in their time, then there is some Russian guy, what was his name ... Tolstoy? Maybe you heard of Gorky too.

Yeah, fair enough.

I wouldn't say useless, just most are very vague. Say "socialist" is a pretty solid term with a decent definition, for the basics at least, while "capitalist" by itself doesn't say enough to know where the person stands. Generally neither is enough to describe a person but it should be obvious unless you're having a conversation with 14 year olds. People misusing them isn't a problem with the labels.

His GDP was only good because he whored out to big companies.
He's hilary with a helicopter

Words that only describe beliefs, and not actions, are doomed to be perpetually misused.

You do realize that every single artist/intellectual from pre 20th century Europe would be deemed extremely right wing according to contemporary standards?

I do not understand all the /pol/ bashing while you are unable to refute *any* of their common beliefs (e.g. - third world immigration is bad).

> Friedman said “Chilean economy did very well, but more importantly, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.”
> Chile was, for most of the 1990s, the best-performing economy in Latin America
> Under the influence of the free market-oriented neoliberal "Chicago Boys", the military government implemented economic liberalization, including currency stabilization, removed tariff protections for local industry, banned trade unions and privatized social security and hundreds of state-owned enterprises. These policies produced what has been referred to as the "Miracle of Chile,"

This is absolute trash. The left can't meme.

Bob Dylan is on par with the 'canon' you fucking retard. If you can't acknowledge that you'll never make it.

bobdylan.com/songs/tombstone-blues/

And Sylvia Plath has as good of a handle on rhythm and rhyme as Eliot.

>And Sylvia Plath has as good of a handle on rhythm and rhyme as Eliot.
This fucking board..

she does you illiterate, Daddy's on par with Prufrock in that dept.

The closest he ever got back to it was the 2nd Quartet.

>Daddy's on par with Prufrock in that dept.

it is man. if you want to complain about Plath, the only suitable platform is subject matter. Her craftsmanship and understanding of form is impeccable

those ARE some bad teeth btw

italo calvino, louis zukofsky, pablo neruda, julio cortázar, (for that matter, almost every latinamerican writer with the exception of the blind guy) louis aragon, andrei platonov, bataille are all lefties..

You have both the Elektra and Oedipus complex. Traps aren't gay after all, you just wanna fuck your parents.

That's pretty gay, man.

Because they are not driven by money. Capitalism is a disease. If you like capitalism you should consider suicide for the good of humanity.

Actually I would say the distribution is pretty even up until the 1960s, and not much worthwhile has been written since then anyway.

>if you like making something out of your life rather than being a leech and being dependent on something you have no power over you should consider suicide for the good of humanity.

Because right-wing people have a lower IQ and are more interested in simple pleasures like fucking and eating.

Most of my favourite writers are hardcore Catholics, which would probably make them right if anything. The left are probably more likely to be into new ideas and so would be the ones pushing in new directions but their isn't anything inherently better about that. Also Gene Wolfe is America's greatest living storyteller.

are not driven by money

lol

This

I'm a Chilean and this is all bullshit

>Also Gene Wolfe is America's greatest living storyteller.
on the day of the rope, you people will be the first

SERVE ME UP THAT NEOLIBERALISM WITH A SIDE OF HELICOPTER SO THE ALTRIGHT CAN WORSHIP ME

you know this idiot rolled with the Clintons, right? If you want a figure on the right in Latin America, we got you in Brazil dawg. Check out our junta period

the right tends to be anti-intellectual and anti intellectual endeavours such as writing literature.

trump, for example, appeals to the inadequacies felt by those of lower intellect by demeaning academics, experts etc......its a trend with all right wing, populist ideologies.

Gucci mane is like ten times a man than any of those virginal faggots on the left and isnt that what matters at the end of the day?

oga booga nigga muh dick

This is meant to be fucking dumb, right?

Fighting ardently against third world immigration is immoral and hypocritical as the west is very much responsible for the state of the third world which is the result of the extreme imperialism and colonialism that we took part in. Even the smart right-wing writers were aware of this, they just thought it was a good thing, rather than a bad thing. They were Social Darwinists.

>We WUZ Ozymandias and shieeet

The nations of Europe gave up on Imperialism without much of a fight long ago, it's not their fault that those countries imploded as soon as they left. Zimbabwe is a good example, and south africa is slowly sliding into hell too.

Brazil's military dictatorship was nationalistic and managed to get some really good economic growth, what are you talking about?

Most literature was, according to modern standards up until 20th Century, extreme right wing though.

>writers
>leftists

Pick one. Leftists are too busy at their communal book burnings to be writing.

yeah they provide discomforting facts compared to emotionally driven sophistry

LAAAAAME

Do you seriously think subsaharn Africa or meso/native America would be paradises today without European colonization?

That's beside the point. If you stick your arm into a beehive, you have no moral authority whine and pretend you're innocent when the bees swarm you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*inhale*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAAHHA

They aren't.

I don't know about the guy you're responding to, but as for myself, I agree with /pol/ on basically two matters: I agree that third world immigration is bad, and I believe that some races are intellectually superior to others on average. But I disagree with almost every single other common /pol/ belief. I like Jews and, while they are obviously powerful way out of proportion to their numbers, I don't think they rule the world or are conspiring to destroy whites. I don't care about so-called "degeneracy". I don't give a crap about "saving the family", etc. I dislike authoritarianism. I don't think fascism would be a good political system. I don't think racial distinction should have any part to play in politics (that is, I think that politics should be race-blind and individuals should be treated according to their individual characteristics only, not the averages of their race). I don't hate women or think they should be disenfranchised. And so on.
Basically, to me /pol/ seems like a couple of good ideas, plus vast amounts of retarded and hateful Nazi bullshit.

>Immorality
>Moral authority
You seem to be thinking as if those who are fighting against third world immigration have the same moral beliefs as you.

Also,
>Reading writers who put politics before art
ISHYGDDT

ctrl + f > "Pasolini"

no results

kys plebeians

Both the left and right have their share of wonderful writers, poets, and philosophers. I wouldn't say that most were left-wing, but it's possible that both sides claim to have the most writers because of confirmation bias; you're more likely to hear of writers if you're led to them by people you support. An example would be how virtually no one knows about Zizek nor Evola, yet the far-left and far-right respectively cherish these two intellectuals.

There's also some other factors to consider. Around the 1960's is when academia was thoroughly conquered by the abomination of Neo-liberals with a tinge of Marxism. The force of this group is so powerful that Hermann Hess is made out to be a leftist hippie; despite being close friends with Miguel Serrano of all people. The problem is that when the intellectual sphere was thoroughly crushed, both by neo-liberal insistence on control of society institution, and the increased spread of capitalism making the proliferation of intellectuals economical unfeasible, the only way to get money or notoriety was by appealing to existing hegemons. The only way the right has been able to counteract this is through the use of figureheads to sell a book. These are the books you see shilled by O'reily, Beck, Lauren Southern, and those kinds of people. The problem is that those books, in order to be successful, must be simplistic in order to be understood by everyone. Those celebrities are known because their career is built on appealing to everyone, so it would be self-detrimental to make anything of intense academic worth.

The pre-modern era shows that all political affiliations could make good writers. I'm under the impression that right-wing writers are better, but that's obviously just a result of personal bias; I have no doubt that many a leftist feels the same way I do. It's unfortunate that the global intellectual sphere has been smothered to death by profit, demagoguery, nepotism, and outright repression. There's a beautiful world to be reconquered in the arts and academic sphere.

>There's a beautiful world to be reconquered in the arts and academic sphere.

Bumping for this

The openness personality trait correlates with left-leaning beliefs and creativity.

Your understanding of what you're attempting to address in this post is not very nuanced and full of assumptions and emotional roadblocks that are causing you to seemingly misinterpret what you obviously to some innate degree understand. Read the Culture of Critique -- this is not about people who hate jews, it's about how jews hate you.

because the right are FUCKING TEDIOUS. look what the /pol/ tourists have done to Veeky Forums! they do this to every cultural endeavour. Veeky Forums was shit to begin with but now its beyond redemption.

>Implying that lefties aren't populist as well

I've known lots of Jews and none of them showed any sign of hating me. I also see that Jews have contributed a lot more to human civilization than fascists ever did.

Really makes u think

I can tell by the way you use the long-irrelevant term "fascist" that you're deeply brainwashed. As a European who is wired to view people on an individualized basis you assume everyone does the same, but they don't. Jews think tribally, not individualistically, which is why they are known as "the tribe" and why they employ a tribal strategy that wins against your individualistic one. Don't speak out against the jewish problem or condemn those who do until you're willing to educate yourself on the matter. You can start by reading the book I previously referred you to.

>the long-irrelevant term
I guarantee if I look on /pol/ I can find someone enthusiastically calling himself a fascist right now

That doesn't make fascism relevant, because it hasn't been relevant for many decades and was only ever a response to jewish boshevism, which killed tens of millions of people. You can ask yourself why you've been told all your life that the historically less murderous boogeyman of "fascism" is held up as the epitome of evil instead of the far more murderous ideology of jewish bolshevism/communism, or you can continue to regurgitate the talking points that have been embedded in you and pretend you're saying anything of substance.

I used the term "fascist" because originally this began as a discussion of /pol/, and /pol/ has quite a number of people on it who unironically support fascism and/or NatSoc.
Bolshevism being evil doesn't mean I should take seriously or support people who want fascism/NatSoc. As for the supposed Jewish nature of Bolshevism, obviously there's nothing inherently Jewish about the murderousness that communist regimes tend to exhibit, since there are many examples of murderous communist regimes in Asia.

You are uninformed on the topic you're attempting to speak about, and what you're saying has been framed for you. It's nothing new to me.

Now, you can inform yourself on the jewish problem or you can continue down the path you're already on. That's your choice, but I've provided you with step one if you choose the former. If you choose the latter and refuse to educate yourself on the jewish problem, just stay silent next time instead of voicing your uninformed opinion about it. Okay?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*inhale penis*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAAHHA

because art is mostly left

You're not being convincing. Your assumption that I'm ill-informed on the matter or that my ideas are shaped mainly by bias is without merit. The mere fact that books exist which portray Jews in a certain light does not mean that those books are accurate. I am far more open to the sort of theories that you espouse than the average person is. However, my own independent look into these questions has led me to form different conclusions from the ones that you have formed. You can continue to believe that everyone who doubts your perspective is brainwashed, but I'm afraid that's not actually the case.

I'm not so sure about that.

Great writers on the Right:
>Dostoevsky
>Tolstoy
>Pretty much anyone from the Western Canon

Great writers on the left:
>John Green
>Ta-Nehese Coates
>Rupi Kaur

This. I know it's hip to call him a fascist but he's pretty much the antithesis to fascism, he sold his nation to the highest bidder, he's reviled by the far left and right alike

The person you're replying to might indeed be a commie, but it would be absurd to believe that anyone who criticizes Pinochet must therefore be a commie. The man presided over a torturing, raping police state for fuck's sake.

Man, I don't know whether I'm left wing or right wing anymore. Is there any surefire way of telling?

nightmare mode: name a leftist nobel prize winner who wasnt full of shit and everybody tries to forget

I am also a great writer so it's relevant dig

>Tolstoy having right-wing attitudes about anything except gender
>Any of those liberals you mention being left-wing
Read more

Do you suscribe to a 200 year old paradigm that essentialises the entire nuances of polity into French republican's and reactionaries? Then yes, something

Sane people are neither left-wing nor right-wing. The main difference between left and right is what the people get triggered by. The actual psychological mechanisms underlying the politics are more or less the same for both. Both are for the most part cults, the surface-level politics being simply a cover for deep-rooted psychological defense mechanisms.

Except it *is* the case. The jewish problem is not something that is up for debate, it's very clear and obvious. I was never trying to convince you of this, though, I simply provided you with a resource and asked that in the future you refrain from counter-signaling or speaking out against those who talk about the jewish problem until you've studied that resource. I also acknowledged that it was your choice to not read it because I'm well aware that you aren't going to since you are clearly comfortable with anecdotes obtained through your personal life. But I'm going to ask you again, nicely, and as a fellow gentile, to not voice your uninformed opinion on this subject until you've read that book. Thanks, enjoy the rest of your day.

>>Any of those liberals you mention being left-wing
left-wing does not mean "people I like"

Because (((publishers))) are predominantly left-wing.

>The jewish problem is not something that is up for debate, it's very clear and obvious.
And I'm the brainwashed one?
>But I'm going to ask you again, nicely, and as a fellow gentile, to not voice your uninformed opinion on this subject until you've read that book.
Go fuck yourself.
>Thanks, enjoy the rest of your day.
More importantly, tell me this: given your understanding of the Jewish "problem", what exactly do you propose to DO about it?
I think that your answer to that question will make some things clear about the kind of person you are.