What should I read to decide on a political identity?

This right here. Read a variety of political perspectives and form your own opinions. Don't choose an ideology just for the sake of having one. Once your opinions are well-established, expanding them further with certain books is alright

Is there any list having a good outline of all kinds of ideology, good enough to browse around

>What should I read to decide on a political identity?
Read both from the far-left and far-right and become a radical centrist.

which political ideologies you prescribe to depend on your view of human nature

...

People from ideology A will select the best for A and the worst for their opponent ideology B; no encyclopedia of "-isms" can be exhaustive enough, for pages are finite, ideas not as much; one day you will even realize that each author has disagreements even with his own fellow ideologues within the same party or movement.

Until then, grow up.

Good post. Don't read or select your readings from a pre-determined point of view, otherwise you'll end up in a community of people who all read the same books and all generally agree with their basic premises, with the only disagreements coming over tiny minutiae that are so trivial as to be non-existent to those outside your small clique. This makes your political views scarcely any different than a fashionable trend, like people arguing over which brand of high-priced designer glasses is better.

u very spooky boi

>wanting to be an ideological soldier
Don't. The increasing politicisation of mass democracy will be our own undoing. The mob is already forming that will put the new Caesar into power.

What we're witnessing is just a local high. The overall tendency is towards a de-politication of everday life.

>local high
local to what?
>a de-politication of everday life.
explain

Follow me

I've read the greatest political and philosophical books of the 21th century and I can outdebate anyone now.

I've always found it sad when people voice their supposed poltical opinions, but in reality they haven't formed them at all since they have not even read and digested real thought-out political theory but instead just watches your average late night political commentary shows for their weekly fix of politics.

this person exists

>a de-politication of everday life
The digitisation of mass democracy has made any opinion accessible on the internet. Out of a consumerist logic, people are encouraged on a daily basis to voice their opinion on anything. At the same time anybody can criticise anybody's opinion. The concrete issues don't matter. What matters is friction.

As Schmitt said: Politics is the distinction between friend and foe and democracy is enforcing homogeneity. Mass democracy coupled with internet-driven hyper-individualism will lead to bloodshed in the long run. Mark my words.

Guns, Germs, and Steel

>not knowing what you are inherently
I popped out of mommy already knowing I would live my life as an ancap techno-crat

There, much better now.

...

Compared to the general apathy towards politics you see in the western world since '68.

Thanks to the rowing division of labour and bureaucratisation of decision-making processes politics are seen more and more as a specialised business reserved to a caste of professional politicians and not as something in which the average citizen can meaningfully participate.
The same division of labour also leads to an ever higher isolation among individuals and makes them disregard collective political action.

growing*

liberalism ≠ marxism, are you american or something?

that's incredible

>didn't even account for mass digitisation which massively counteracts any other development
Opinion discarded.

mass digitization helped Trump, he had a stronk Internet presence.

just that retards like Clinton or Bush cant use it doesnt mean it it it it iti tititi ti ti titi depoliticzes people

Political identity is a spook

why is nerds so reactionary?

Focus on the person you are in the real world instead of letting your need to create an ideological identity limit you.

Learn and develop through experience, then read books that reinforce your opinions more eloquently and elaborately so as to anchor your own understanding more firmly.

Some might call this reinforcing a bias, but having convictions is more beneficial than vacillating between two or more viewpoints with every new book you read. You shouldn't live eternally in doubt of yourself.

>those wwe games

...

literally start with the greeks

>liberal
>left

Looks like someone needs to read more political philosophy

Unironically kys.

Plato -> Aristotle -> Thucydides -> Cicero -> Magna Carta -> Machiavelli -> Hobbes -> Locke -> Smith -> Federalist Papers -> Mill -> Kant -> Rousseau -> Hegel -> Marx -> Schmitt -> Rawls

Most basic outline I can think of.

Don't read anything OP, flip a coin heads you are a Republican, tails and you're a Democrat. Or you could do it in extremes, communist vs. fascist.

Schmitt there is pure revisionism. Even Arednt was more influential at the time.

I like this, but there is a 1000+ year gap between Cicero and the Magna Carta (not so much a philosophical document anyways as much as a temporary power-sharing agreement between King John and the barons), and then nearly 300 years between that and Machiavelli. A lot happened during that time, so someone as enormously influential as Aquinas ought to be included. Maybe Grotius too.

for the most basic outline you sure ignored Homer (which was essential for Plato) and Shakespeare.

Yeah but you need Heidegger for Arendt. And Concept of the Political is harmless enough.
For the basic enough outline I just don't feel like
she's necessary.

Eh, I just don't think they're that necessary for OP's purpose, which is basically "how do I into political philosophy"
Aquinas, Augustine, and Grotius-- like Hume and Burke, are massively influential but can probably be saved for later without missing much, IMO.

Is Homer really necessary for understanding Plato's political philosophy?
And why Shakespeare?

>people still read about politics as the respective writer imagine it should be, instead of about it as it is

Read:

Vilfredo Pareto - The Mind and Society
Gaetano Mosca - The Ruling Class
Robert Michels - Political Parties
James Burnham - The Managerial Revolution
Bertrand de Jouvenel - On Power

This is the basic literature for someone who doesn't want to be illiterate in political science.

You can read the entire Marxist canon and still be illiterate if you never touched above authors.

The fastest way to understand how radical Plato was, is to understand him trying to flip the Homeric world view upside down and revolutionize the Greek polis. Arendt herself makes amazing argument for this in The Human Condition. You don't need Heidegger for THC. Not that much, it's very standalone political book, but sure, you can tell she was influenced by him (especially when she talks about art) and that's not even counting Banality of Evil.

I think Schmitt's popularity is very modern view on him. Not that I mind that.

>why Shakespeare
Isn't he like oen of the biggest canon modifiers? His influence was massive.

That's a fair point for Plato, I hadn't thought of that.
And while Arendt can stand alone, certainly, I just think you miss a lot of the weight-- similar to how you can read Rousseau without Kant and Marx without Hegel.

To be honest, I'm just really not familiar with Shakespeare's influence on political philosophy.

> Eh, I just don't think they're that necessary for OP's purpose, which is basically "how do I into political philosophy"

I've always found the works of Aquinas and Grotius on natural law and international relations to be deeply foundational to Western political thought, even if some of the theological aspects of their arguments may no longer apply. Without them, it seems like Hobbes and Locke just came out of nowhere.

>Burke
Now that you mention him, I would add Burke as well. He's probably *the* core conservative thinker (as opposed to truly right-wing like Hobbes or Schmitt), which is a political doctrine that has remained vital for 200+ years.

I like your inclusion of Schmitt, he's very overlooked, and agree on Rawls, whose thought is probably the most influential doctrine of the past 50 years.

>tfw started my reread of Schmitt
He was pretty far seeing lad desu

those books aren't very liberal senpai

>Without them, it seems like Hobbes and Locke just came out of nowhere.
That's certainty true

Alright, how about this:

Plato -> Aristotle -> Thucydides -> Cicero -> Augustine -> Aquinas -> Machiavelli -> Hobbes -> Locke -> Smith -> Federalist Papers -> Burke -> Mill -> Kant -> Rousseau -> Hegel -> Marx -> Schmitt -> Arendt -> Popper -> Rawls

Unless there's already some pre-existing flow chart, I might just make this on photoshop real quick. There are plenty of political theory lists, but not many flowcharts for its introduction.

Damn straight. Concept of the Political is amazing, although I wish he defended his dualism.

...

oh wow THATS the 2nd picture fukin Veeky Forums X

This is the 1st pic

I really like your list now, but I would ditch Popper. He is a shallow thinker when it comes to political philosophy, The Open Society feels like a series of misinterpretations and ad hominems against Plato, Hegel and Marx, his totalitarian thesis and muh paradox of tolerance are lazy. He's obviously much more competent in his primary fields, philosophy of science and epistemology. Arendt is a much better post-war thinker when it comes to politics.

A lot of people would say Nozick should be in there as a response to Rawls, but my opinion is that he's not that influential outside of libertarians. I think Leo Strauss is also very important, but he's probably too arcane for the kind of list you're trying to make.

What's your opinion on including Clausewitz?

Neither Hobbes nor Schmitt were "truly righ-wing".

Those first three tiers aren't too bad for something that came out of /pol/.

Your list also lacks Weber.

Hey, this isn't so bad
Jesus christ make it stop

My thought is just to make a basic flowchart, then an additional section for "I was interested in this, and I want more". That's where Strauss, Clausewitz, Hume, Weber, Zizek, Paine, Montesqieu, Heidegger, Frankfurt School, etc can come in if need be.

I haven't read Nozick, so I can't say much on him

Weber is trash

Montesqieu, Weber, Hume, Paine are the most essential out of those.

thejosias.com

if anyone still cares, here's the first draft

>File deleted
?

Noticed some typos

>In Trump We Trust
She literally replaced God with Trump...

>all of Halo
Godly taste.

>WWE
>Trumpshit
>Lauren Southern
You had to go and ruin it.

Don't listen to them; study economics; base your political ideology on more important matters.

I always wonder who puts these lists together and how many of the book they've actually read.

I've read many, and used spark notes for the rest. The list is complete, kiddo. How many have you read, Mr. buzzkill?

I haven't read The Rights of Man, Weber, and I never finished Hegel. But everything else I've read / skimmed through.

Read books on economics, philosophy, law, theology and science. Ignore everything which is trying to sway you on the political binary. Then take a political compass test. If you are strongly swayed anything greater then 2 or -2 on either axis you havent been subjected to enough intellectualy diverse material.

why the fuck is Cioran there?

This is pretty good I would also recommend the life of solon by Plutarch or just Plutarch in general

>quotations around Greens
What did they mean by this?

i was gonna call it 3/10 but you caught some stupid fish so it's a 7/10. not too bad, sonny

I've seen this image posted before but I'm only just now completely repulsed by it

Of course he's American, Veeky Forums is an American website. You fuckin foreign faggoy.

>stopping at Rawls
>reading Rawls without following up with Nozick

Nice try Alinskyite

After Rawls:
Nozick - Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Sandel - Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
MacIntyre- Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
Pettit - Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government
Foucault - Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings
Agamben - Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life
Rorty - Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America

But in his critique of Marx in The Open Society, his isolation of Marx's descriptive sociology from his historicism exactly makes it possible to reactualize the marxist capitalist critique without succumbing to the flawed enlightenment-era progress thinking. That's at least how I see Popper as useful.

But Frankfurt School guys surely did efforts in the same direction.

Sorry, I just haven't read him.
If thread's still up tomorrow I could update it, given that a couple people have mentioned him now

I wanted to add:
Habermas - The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
Debord - Society of the Spectacle + Comments on the Society of the Spectacle
Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent
Klein - No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies
Baudrillard - The Spirit of Terrorism
Alinsky - Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

Hayek - The Road to Serfdom
Kolakowski - Main Currents of Marxism
Voegelin - Modernity Without Restraint: The Political Religions, The New Science of Politics, and Science, Politics, and Gnosticism (Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Volume 5)
Scruton - How to Be a Conservative
Kirk - The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot
Robert D. Putnam - Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community

>Bowling Alone

lmfao cmon

Why recommend pol phil without starting in phil altogether? It's, to me, the most unmotivating thing once you realize most of what you read is going to pass over you because you have zero context into anything that's being written. You might as well watch top 10 philosopher videos for ten hours.

Return that image from where you got it

i love you lit, this is the stuff i come to this board for

Someone should make a better version of this desu. Like 3 adornos and no 18th brumaire.

Reading about politics is a waste of time. The world we live in today is a different world from the time these books are written. You should pay attention to what happens in the real world. Gather information from every single source you can, left wing and right wing. Establish a truth by distilling the accurate information from all sources. Then attempt to evaluate the consequences of these truths using your own judgment.

Donnu. In Sweden and Germany the greens are more "fuck our shit up"-SJWs rather than environmentalists. Maybe that.

Except alll of the great political books improve your imagination and mind with regards to politics which helps you to recognize ideas and even generate your own. The "modern politics" composed of people didn't just randomly think what they will do. They had an idea.

lone bowler detected

Skip the meme books and read the best general introduction.

Information and data doesn't really mean a lot if you don't have any models to use them in. "Truth" in itself can't necessarily guide you politically.

v.2.

It's only supposed to be a bare introductory guide, guys.

>skip the primary sources and read secondary lit
what the fuck, user?

...

>leftist literature

This board is 18+. Maybe /co/mblr 2ould be more to your tastes