I'm looking for some works that outline the conservative tradition in political philosophy

NY editorials were a joke since I started seeing all those shocked exclamations by economic ((experts)) who couldn't believe why people were returning to ethno-nationalism and weren't perfectly in line with the neoliberal project. These people live in a charmed liberal world, they have no concept of the working class.

>the nytimes is getting wacky
*Is* getting? Has been for a while. And wacky's putting it nicely.

>something anathema to socialists
Not anymore. Most "socialists" peddle this more than any economic theory.

I definitely agree with you, but I would split "The Left" into three vital groups at this point:
>those college kid SJWs, not really leftists at all like you said
>academic Marxists who do claim to be doing class analysis, but who are still doing it from within academia while making a six figure salary and being a "capitalist intellectual"
>fringe Marxists who reject the system, which is why they're fringe

The problem is not just that #3 is rare, but that people who are developing their moral consciousness and discovering that critique of society is possible will be drawn almost inexorably into #1 and #2.

Most well-intentioned people will be sucked into #1, because #1 immediately gives you a cult with a hierarchy and established meanings to participate in, and it makes you feel like a hero right away. It also attracts a lot of people who aren't well-intentioned, and who just do whatever is popular.

But even the people who resist the urge to conform, as #1 calls them bigots and fascists for not thinking that liberal slacktivism is good, will "escape" right into the clutches of #2, which is more select, more elect, quieter, and which allows them to spend their lives reading and writing theory. The feeling of being the Elite Marxist Who Knows That Class Is What Matters is just another trap.

Only #3 are interesting, but the only people who make it to #3 are usually addled people who couldn't make it in the other categories. What you really want for a worker's movement is the aggregate good will of #1's better elements, the malleability of its conformist elements, the competence and doggedness of #2's careerism, and #3's willingness to stand outside existing hierarchies and orders.

Capitalism has naturally evolved to eat #1 and #2, and push #3 into being fringe weirdos who discredit themselves.

Lugenpresse gonna lugen

Once the welfare state has been completely dismantled and together with it every other gain of social democracy in the post-ww2 world, maybe we'll see an actual return to economic leftism. People have short memories and we've been masterfully led to ignore that decent working conditions were won by hard political battle and looming threat of the communist hobgoblin.
Every genuine lefty should be used to disappointment though, you deal with what you've got. Nobody said it was easy to fight the global economic structure.

The minister for justice in my country actually wrote an impassioned defense of Neoliberalism and Globalisation in our national paper because he felt it was getting a bad rap, it was one of the most revolting things I ever read. Still the media give more socur to alt right Twitter babbies

>How alive is the anti-capitalist sentiment in the far-right though?
If you are an american(a non-aristocratic degenerate culture) then you aren't going to see it. although the alt-right does have anti-capitalist sentiments in those groups that express innawoods ideology likes the Traditional Workers Party. A right-winger should not think too much about economics regardless, since culture makes certain economic models fit for certain countries and not for others.
>I've seen Kirk's The Conservative Mind recommended here, is it a good start?
Yes, but you'll be reading the extremely anglo-centric right-wing philosophy. He even outlines how the liberals of yesterday became the conservatives of today, since the leftist parties drove them to the tories in the late 19th century.

>What you really want for a worker's movement is the aggregate good will of #1's better elements, the malleability of its conformist elements, the competence and doggedness of #2's careerism, and #3's willingness to stand outside existing hierarchies and orders.

This is too much to ask for. No such workers' movement could exist. The groups you mentioned are all at odds with each other because their impetus for opposing capitalism are different. Sectarianism in the left exists because people want different things and so use different methods to get them. Your average college middle/upper-middle class "socialist" is satisfied with cultural handouts that can easily be handled within a capitalist system. They don't really go beyond things like "increased diversity" or "opposing fascism." Opposing the system would ruin them. They want the system to patch the holes, not fix the pipe itself.

As for the 3rd group, these people discredit themselves because like you said, they are often hard to deal with as people and often have many idiosyncrasies themselves. For the most part, if they could fit in with the other groups they would.

The group that matters isn't the weirdos who choose to live outside the system, it is the working class that has been the most hurt by capitalism. This group that often selectively wants collectivist policy only for it's own gain, this group that is very unPC unlike the pop left, and this group that doesn't for the most part understand the alienation they are feeling but know something is terribly wrong anyways. This group has the real power, and the attitude that many of those on the left have towards them is disappointing. These groups turn towards xenophobia and racism as a way to regain their damaged pride primarily because their individual self worth has been degraded by the capitalist structures that leave their communities destitute. I don't see anything funny about mocking them(like I see so many on the left do) when they ignorantly turn towards populists and fascists out of desperation.

>This group has the real power, and the attitude that many of those on the left have towards them is disappointing. These groups turn towards xenophobia and racism as a way to regain their damaged pride primarily because their individual self worth has been degraded by the capitalist structures that leave their communities destitute. I don't see anything funny about mocking them(like I see so many on the left do) when they ignorantly turn towards populists and fascists out of desperation.

I agree with this. I would also add that I think it is significantly easier to be socially progressive if you are born into a relatively well-off family and interact with like-minded people. This is just one of the ways material conditions impact social reality, and it is foolish and counter-productive to treat the conservative-minded working class with scorn. I think these same people would join a genuine labour movement, but it has been inert and dismantled by neoliberalism for so long that it is hard for most people to imagine a genuine alternative. I'm anything but a nationalist, but if I had no perspective outside of a barely sustainable wage existence, it is clear that economic protectionism starts to sound attractive.

Nothing to learn about conservatism.

>suffering of billions in the third world is necessary to sustain liberal capitalism

Why do so many people who are economically illiterate tend to make such extraordinary claims about economics? The view that capitalism and globalization have lifted millions of people living in the Third World out of poverty has broad consensus among people who have spent their entire lives studying economics, but for some reason this view is contentious among noneconomists.

Are you implying there is anything wrong with neoliberalism and globalization?

user pls

Name one flaw of neoliberalism.

...

And? How is this a bad thing?

economics is a self-justifying priesthood for a religion nobody wants

Ludovici's Defense of Aristocracy might have what you want.

archive.org/details/cu31924060296278

>tfw to smart

You just described Marxism, right?

kek

Why are opponents of neoliberalism and globalization openly against science?

>there is only one perspective in economics
>there are no economists who aren't neoliberal shills

I like this meme. God, what a horrible fucking discipline.

There are multiple perspectives in economics, but the view that globalization had a net positive impact on international economic well-being is shared by virtually all economists, including relatively leftist ones like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. Just because you don't understand the theory of comparative advantage doesn't mean economics is a horrible discipline.

I really like kirk. Origins of the american order is good too. Yuval Levin has a good book on burke and pain.

yes, actually, economists under finance capitalism are pretty close to marxist theologians under soviet or maoist communism. good observation.

Is this the economic version of creationists?

You are aware that Stiglitz criticizes precisely these things, right? He is an opponent of free-market capitalism and wrote works which challenge neoclassical paradigms such as market efficiency. Which proves my point that even well-known economists can challenge the orthodoxy without it being seriously considered in practice. Shockingly, economic theory is not an objective science, it has clear implications on corporate and state interests.

>You are aware that Stiglitz criticizes precisely these things, right?

I'm not denying that Stiglitz is against "neoliberalism" and neoclassical economics, I claimed that Stiglitz concedes that globalization has done more good than harm.

>Im personally a far-leftist

You belong on /co/ or reddit then, you underage retard

off to reddit you faggot

>i have more arbitrarily awarded points that i can exchange for widgets therefore my life has improved

third world population boom btfos utilitarians. even if these people are suffering less than they used to (theyre not), theres 1000x as many of them.

What the fuck are you talking about? Hunger, thirst, and disease have all fallen dramatically. Far fewer people are subsistence farmers than ever before. From these facts, how do you reach the conclusion that people are actually worse off than before?

Also, did you know that if you interview the sweatshop workers in places like SE Asia, they admit that they are very happy with their wages and their lives are far better than before they got their sweatshop job.

Why? You're the edgy fetard teenager who hates me capitalist fascism, I've heard /r/socialism will fit you great

I suggest Thomas Sowell - A Conflict of Visions

youre the kind of retard to think that some random 21st century wageslave lives a better life than romulus because he can use the internet and buy a plane ticket to Rome

>"the industrial revolution made life better in the short-term because GDP grew and fewer people were subsistence farmers"
t. you

I FUCKING HATE CONSERVATIVES I HOPE THEY ALL DIE THEY ARE FUCKING EVIL
BERNIE SEND THEM ALL TO REEDUCATION CAMPS

Kirk also edited a conservative reader, which is very worth getting. besides ofc the classic texts (Burke and Hume,) look into Roger Scruton and Yuval Levin.

>Far more alive than it is in the left.
doubt.jpg

>only counting The True Right so you can say it's more anticapitalist than the entire left
Bad post.

Yes, he did. There is no difference between Capitalism and Socialism.

Neither has EVER offered anything other than lifelong employment for the worship of money for its own sake and perpetuation.

Subsistence farming is preferable to 50 years of forced labor.

Also, subsistence farmers disappeared because industrialists and "revolutionaries" started murdering them.

this

also property tax, zoning laws, etc etc

>but the view that globalization had a net positive impact on international economic well-being is shared by virtually all economists

Not by me.

t.economist.

Explain.

>he likes Burke
I see your problem right there you're an utilitiarian jackass read Schmitt.

You a shit economist.

It's been coming back pretty hard; a lot of this alt-right hubbub is about an identity/tradition oriented right rising up against tax cut and deregulation focused GOP conservatism. This is only going to intensify as more and more of them recognize that the feminism/multiculturalism/progressivism they despise is very compatible with capitalism and drop the "cultural Marxism" narrative. Hell, I've seen /pol/ start considering the Soviets as the defenders of traditional values while America was a wasteland of consumerist degeneracy.

Kinda like was saying, the left at large has jettisoned any meaningful anti-capitalism, and frankly you can't really blame them. Obviously the legacy of the Cold War is an obstacle to hard socialism, the dominant party is hell-bent on destroying the ACA, and many contingents from Silicon Valley libertarians to conservative Christians (see DeVos) want to dismantle the rest of the federal government. There's a massive instinctual distrust of government agencies baked into American culture, so socialism's gonna be a hard sell as long as everyone hates the DMV.

I never understood why this is such a parroted opinion among academia. Burke is openly critical of utilitarian thought, deriding ideas such as "the common good" and "maximum happiness" in Reflections. He expressly demonstrates the dangers of adopting such a position, arguing that any crime is enabled so long as those who calculate utility can construe the crime to benefit the general public in some way.

You disagree with that proposition?

Even the poorest modern Americans are better off than Romulus.

People in the Industrial Age still faced things like famines and disease though. Modern people don't.

If subsistence farming is preferable, please turn off your computer and sell it along with most of your other possessions. It will be enough money to buy a few acres of arable land in rural Alabama. Once you've done that, get to work and enjoy your objectively superior lifestyle of subsistence farming.

His point is that quality of life isn't determined by material goods. I suppose I could accept Romulus having a better life than the average modern man, but anyone who dismisses modern technology and prosperity out of hand is probably basing their standards on a level of emotional/spiritual satisfaction that never really existed for the vast bulk of humanity. You probably aren't gonna achieve inner peace and purpose by chucking all your shit into the ocean.

This desu, to use another economic term, the revealed preferences of the critics of industrial prosperity are pretty damn clear.

>not being well read on neoreactionary and fascist critiques of capitalism why is Veeky Forums so full of brainlets

The left has embraced capitalism because it means more immigration and more multiculturalism. It really is that simple. They rag on capitalism in their discussions, but when it comes to supporting pro-immigrant, pro-capitalist candidates like Macron, Trudea, Clinton, etc, they will suddenly lavish capitalisn and free trade for the increased diversity it brings.

They will argue it's silly for people to care about jobs being outsourced, as automation will just replace them all anyway, while simultaneously arguing that we need more immigration for to do jobs.

Modern politics is virtually all about demographics, it's the subtext behind every argument, in general the right-wing is trying to resist demographic change while the left wing is trying to spur it on. They have given up on the white working class as a lost cause and are trying to diminish their influence as a voting bloc.

Kinda true, I long maintained that the left flipped around on free trade/outsourcing because once you've accepted the argument that illegal immigrants working crap jobs are getting a better life than in their home countries, you can't really decry sweatshops where the same basic principle applies.

Even a sincere leftist who isn't primarily fixed on importing voters would come to that logic if they didn't think international socialism was a feasible option. And even if they do want worldwide communism, it's not hard to see why they'd go for the neoliberal over the nativist, again even without thinking of electoral strategy. Some would prefer the hard-right candidate to break the system, of course (as Marx himself would), but accelerationism loses its appeal when you've actually got Trump in office (I know Trump himself isn't actually Hitler 2 Tangerine Boogaloo, but he's still shaken the romantic notion of crashing the system with no survivors for many).