Literature for each political quadrant?

he disliked communists and marxists a bit too

>there's only one way to be right wing

>Stirner
>right wing
>Marx
>authoritarian

americans shouldn't have access to internet

Bookchin is god tier. Reminds me of Edward Abbey.

>tfw no cute brown anarchist gf

>libertarian right
>stirner
L O L

Egoism is anarchist philosophy critical of the Marxist anarchist utopia. If that isn't right-wing anarchism I don't know what is.
I wish Stirnerfags would realize that he isn't above being classified or summarized.

>Burgers

It was just an example of the kind of thread I wanted, if I already had greats reccs I wouldn't have made this thread asking for better ones.
I couldn't think of Stalinist or Marxist-Leninist literature off the top of my head so I just threw Marx on there and figured "good enough." You are right, though, in that he envisioned a classless, lawless utopia as the final stage of communism, but it's also worth mentioning that his idea of an "proletarian dictator" is pretty authoritarian and is a lot more concrete of an idea than "one day everyone will be in agreement and nobody will violate anybody else's rights."

There is definitely a clear philosophical divide between the authoritarian and libertarian right, while the division on the left tends to be more a more a matter of execution.

Fair enough, but as far as putting people on this particular (flawed) compass, I don't think putting Marx on the top is completely unjustified, due to his "execution" being pretty strict (the proletarian dictator, as I said).

Seems to me like the only thing leftists aren't divided on is execution ;^)

Agreed, I think your placements are accurate even if they aren't the best literary examples

Jfc this took me ages to find

Doesn't make him right. Pretty much everyone despised commies.

>libertarian left

Literally not possible. There is nothing libertarian about denying people right to their property.

There is nothing libertarian about denying people right to use other people's property, either.

There absolutely is. What right do you have to use something that is mine?

Found the lolbertarian

It's apolitical you spastic
Please read this guy's post

Left libertarians typically envision something like a nation of self-governing communes that people voluntarily choose between and join. Most early communists were left libertarians.

>National SOCIALISM
yeah and the DPRK is a Democratic People's Republic too right

Voluntary collectivism is possible in a right-libertarian society though.

what right do you have to claim stuff as your exclusive property? Ironically right libertarians tend to invoke a normative labor theory of value,ie. I mixed my labor with that property! as if we still lived in the age of independent homesteaders. Burger 'libertarianism' is pure jeffersonian yeoman farmer fantasy 200 years too late.

get stirner out of that box now you american pig you clearly know nothing

hey guys just made this what do you think

smaller version

I don't have a great philosophical case for this but I would argue that property rights are a very natural and intuitive concept to us. For instance we immediately know when our body, which is our property, is being violated or being used without our permission. Our body is for us and us only, I believe this concept extends to items we find and stuff we build.

IMO denying people any property at all, can never be more libertarian than allowing private property, because the former requires ridiculously more force and coercion. Private property is without question more libertarian the public property, i.e. government property

YIKES
i am not good with computer

FUCK

wait a sec its all fucked up
there we go

Private property is not personal property.

Hitler wasn't "right wing". He did the smart thing and abandoned silly political dichotomy of right-wing, anarchism-authoritarian.

>items we find

What does this mean?

It's not natural, it's deeply-ingrained ideology.

Private property is whatever the party or the collective deems it to be.

Your examples are pure cringe because you misapply ideologies on a reductionist two dimensional model.

Blue square is some Thatcherite/Reaganite bullshit (free market social conservatism)

Red square is classical soviet nationalism (state controlled economics and social conservatism)

Green is contemporary libshit ideology (state controlled economics plus social libertarianism)

Purple is lmao do whatever you want senpai I don't care

Veeky Forums may hate on you but you are correct. Hitler was an economic dirigist and put big industries under indirect state control. He was a pragmatic socialist at least.

That categorising seems pretty spooky to me if I'm quite honest

>national socialism can fit in any of the 100% retarded modern definitions of right or left
~

>big industries under state control
>socialist
please do a cursory reading of the wiki at the very least before you out yourself as a complete idiot

You sir are the one who needs to please do a cursory reading of the wiki. The idiot has been found, so to speak.

>essential
lmao

seriously consider to kys

How are these ideology-filled threads making it here for more than twenty minutes? The faggot janitors should do theit job and remove this disgusting shit from here.

Get Stirner out of there and replace it with Murray Rothbard. Stirner doesn't belong there

The most extreme ideology of libertarian right is anarcho-capitalism, which is propertarian anarchism. I don't think Stirner was a proponent of property rights

Chances are good this will be the best answer of the thread. Nice one user.

Also, OP, Stirner's Egoism can't be described as libertarian right, as he rejected private property. His philosophy is more apolitical than anything.

Pretty good desu

Good post. The list for libertarian right seems a little empty though; throw in Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises

looks like what some fucking retard who got all his politics from lit would come up with

Schmitt does not fit into right. He even denied Hobbes' as "liberalism". Frankly I don't know what to call him other than Schmittian.

I agree. Schmitt doesn't really fit here. I'm more inclined towards Leo Strauss for the authoritarian right. I'd think of Schmitt more as centrist when it comes to economics.

>Marx
>authoritarian left
That would be Lenin. Marx wasn't authoritarian.

>be caveman
>hunting for meat
>some other fucker tries to eat your meat
>kill him

I think private property is an intrinsic nature of human society. When an individual only has the bare essentials to survive, I can't see sharing beyond a small familial group; to improve genetic survival.

Cavemen have ideology you fucking retard. Holy shit, you are absolutely delusional. You're reading too much liberal political philosophy m8. There is no 'natural state'.

Marx's ideology only makes sense if you assume that it was a trick to create an autocracy. Bakunin BTFO'd him repeatedly on this point and it was borne out in fact.

Even Lenin considered the dictatorship of the proletariat a temporary measure to make the state wither away. You'd really want Stalin/Mao for that slot.

Well said my property.

I always knew Pope Benny was my man.

>Romney, Obama, Merkel anywhere near that right wing.
baka tf you are doin

Blue square is the cuck corner. What did you expect? All the based politicians are in the red square.

Aristotle's politics, the republic and the prince are all authoritarian centrist I'd say. Also in increasing levels of authoritarianism.

>the human nature argument in 2017

how is kant right winged?

this chart is retarded

personal property != private property

...

Thanks. Didn't know the guy, looks interesting.

Kant is definitely a liberal, therefore exerting an influence over both the libertarian left and right. His system includes the respect of "human freedom and dignity" which is "possible only within a constitutional state governed by law, which protects the civil rights of individuals," including the right of property. This would therefore put him closer to our contemporary right than to our left.

Where does Sam Harris fall on this politigraph?

I would say that he would be firmly in the libertarian half of the chart, and he would probably straddle the border between the left and right on economics, although close to the centre overall.

...

...

I gave you this reply out of generosity please make yourself better.

As Politics and The Prince are largely about the mechanisms of government rather than the form of policy, I would think that they are both impossible to classify (well, at least). As for the Republic, that is probably a decent place to put it but I wouldn't put it there because I am of the Strauss school of thought that it is an intellectual exercise rather than an actual ideological blueprint, so putting it there would be like classifying Nineteen Eighty-Four as authoritarian.

Thank you.

not an argument

Why do you even have to make a distinction? The fact that Marxists have to say "oh, you'll still have personal property!" seems to suggest they understand that ownership is important to people; people want to have things they can actually own.

If people can have personal property, why can't that extend to a piece of land, or a house, or anything like that? Will you only allow people to own toothbrushes and combs?

Someone please explain to me how left wing ideology can be libertarian. The main idea of left wing thought is that the means of production should not be used for profit, but rather to fit a public need. In order for this to happen there needs to be authoritative control over the means of production, and they also control what people receive. If the means of production can only be used to fit the public need then you are not allowing people to indulge in what they want.

Marx' materialism is frequently misunderstood.

>"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties"
-Das Kapital

The commodity form is so ingrained in our thinking we forget how utterly strange it is. Marx talked about commodity fetishism, comparing capitalism to the fetish worship of african tribes. The assumptions of commodity production permeate every aspect of our society.

Communism is the abolition of the commodity form. In capitalism, men relate to each other as objects. It is impossible to truly indulge in what one wants when one is forced to sell one's time to earn a living. In a truly socialist society, production is not geared towards profit and exchange, but towards a) the satisfaction of human needs and b) the creative construction of experiences, ie. truly living one's life. The desires produced by capitalist society are artificial desires. Why else would it be necessary to associate blue jeans with sex or automobiles with social status? Advertising imbues the product with an aura of fetishism.

Schmitt is right wing, stop trying to appropriate right wing political figures, for fuck-s sake, you already made a mess out of nietzsche, stop it.

Prince explicitly states it is eschewing discussion of republics to focus on principalities. That's an inherent focus on authoritarianism over liberalism.

Politics likewise identifies monarchies as the ideal form of government, though Aristotle argues himself into accepting polities as better in practice. Not to mention the focus on hierarchies and natural order due to a person's nature. If anything politics is authoritarian right, if only slightly.

>thinking Barack "Bailout" Obama was leftist
The banks should have had their assets seized and redistributed. Fuck Obamaism/Clintonism

The Prince FOCUSES on principalities over republics, it doesn't say they are better - in fact, the Discourses on Livy suggest that Machiavelli in fact preferred Republics. But the important point is that it does not make any normative claim that would endorse authoritarian govt.

As for Politics, Aristotle endorses "power to the people" as the best system exactly because he thinks a virtuous monarchy is impossible. If anything, I would think that he is closer to the lib right, but his views belong in just about every quadrant which makes him difficult to classify.

someone who owns a factory that they themselves don't work at or live in the society the factory is in, don't care for the factory for personal or sentimental value. all they care about is the profit they can make from production.

Macchiavelli's personal views are irrelevant to the actual content of the text. Which is overwhelmingly a treatise on the proper functioning of an authoritarian state.

Aristotle didn't advocate power to the people in any sense. He decried democracy just as his teacher did. Democracy is identified as the worst form of government idealistically and practically. The one he advocates for is a mixed representative government but absolutely not a "power to the people" libertarian bullshit.

thinking in 1 dimension

please read stirner

Not him but Obama actually enforced a lot of social libertarian changes. All that fagmarriage shazam and all... That's basically New Left 101 for you.

Of course it's not economically leftist and I think that's what you are referring to.