Political science Veeky Forums

I think that picture related will be of huge imporant for contemporary political thought, if it isn't already in the form of the rationalists from LessWrong and NRx-ers.
Anyway, I am looking for historical overviews of the thinkers behind anarchism, futurism and Italian fascism and perhaps others if anyone knows.
Question: what do you think which political ideologies might play an increasingly larger role in the future? And which books are related (this is Veeky Forums after all)?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
italianfuturism.org/manifestos/foundingmanifesto/
worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
insomnia.ac/essays/the_spirit_of_terrorism/
youtube.com/watch?v=_tkc76JTtDc
cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf
mantlethought.org/philosophy/living-society-control
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Political scientists tend to not really talk about what you're asking for unless they have some specialization in political theory. Even there, they tend to focus more on Plato, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill more than the arcane stuff you're asking about.

Most political science is about international relations and democratization in developing countries.

Also as for your question the book that is apparently a blueprint for whats going to happen in our lifetimes is Dugin's Fourth Political Theory.

If you want to know the real redpilled truth try Kevin McDonald's Culture of Critique Series

Here's a picture. You get the idea. It'll change your world

>anarchism
plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/
>futurism
italianfuturism.org/manifestos/foundingmanifesto/
>Italian fascism
worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

>which political ideologies might play an increasingly larger role in the future?
insomnia.ac/essays/the_spirit_of_terrorism/

>Most political science is about international relations and democratization in developing countries.
I'm imagining you are right and I should have named it political theory. I do know some political science which has nothing to do with political philosophy or the above though, it is about the psychology and biology of political ideology.
>Even there, they tend to focus more on Plato, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill
You mean that those are part of the curriculum, right?

Female chracters (usually narrators) who describe themselves as 'plain' or 'unattractive' yet describes their actual features as conventianally beautiful. They usually also have something 'unique' to them like a certain eyecathing hair or eye colour too undermining how 'plain' and unnoticable they are supposed to be.

>Dugin's Fourth Political Theory
Why this is so popular here?

Is it? This is actually the first time I've seen it mentioned. Is it just brought up in the Nick Land threads?

>i am looking for historical overviews of the thinkers behind anarchism, futurism and Italian fascism and perhaps others if anyone knows.
pic rel

>which political ideologies might play an increasingly larger role in the future?
tired: mimetic mass self-flagellation (political science)
wired: accelerando (political theology)
inspired: flaky new age bullshit (political heresy)

>And which books are related (this is Veeky Forums after all)
carl schmitt, political theology I & II

youtube.com/watch?v=_tkc76JTtDc

Nice get.
>carl schmitt
On my list already.
Thanks for picture related.

Does anybody have political theory recommendations that talk about how public discourse has been subverted for the sake of maintaining control, or political theory recommendations that talk about the growth of corporate-political complexes? i.e., things like Orwell's Politics and the English Language and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. I'm tired of reading shit about what is ideal when nobody talks about what is real, which is subversion of every idealized system.

The book called the dictator's handbook discusses the hard and cold reality of politics, though it is not exactly what you look for, it comes to closest
I think an evolutionary psychology perspective on politics could be valuable as well, and maybe even a complex systems perspective

>anarchism
just read Proudhon's 'what is property' and Kropotkin's 'the conquest of bread'

they arent heavy books at all and are the foundational texts of anarchism.

you could also read 'the ego and his own' by stirner for a look at individualist anarchism, but it is much heavier than the works of social anarchists and Marx debunked the whole volume in the german ideology.

i could have saved myself a high holy fuckload of reading marxist shit if i had just gotten into hip-hop earlier. cheers for the music rec
>no one man should have all that powah

>Does anybody have political theory recommendations that talk about how public discourse has been subverted for the sake of maintaining control, or political theory recommendations that talk about the growth of corporate-political complexes?

you might find this interesting
>While it had its own oppressive power relations, a disciplinary society seems to have had space for this: when I punch out at the factory, my time is my own, until I go back tomorrow, for another shift. In a society of control, this increasingly disappears. While freedom seems to be increased on the one hand, the control of our activities expands on the other. Rather than a Panopticon, with a centralized focal point from which activity is surveilled, we have a diffuse matrix of information gathering algorithms. Everything is tracked and encoded, interpreted into patterns that are either acceptable or unacceptable. Touch off enough markers in your internet activity, by going to certain sites, or using certain words, and you’ll be placed on some sort of “watch list.”

see why they call him Gilles "He'll Fuck All Your Right Shit Up" Deleuze

cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

mantlethought.org/philosophy/living-society-control

see also
ofc

>dem sexy grammar errors
>fucking shit
>tfw

Society of the Spectacle by Debord
Comments on the Society of the Spectacle by Debord
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by Habermas
No Logo by Klein
For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign by Baudrillard
Power/Knowledge by Foucault

>subverted for the sake of maintaining control
By the time you're through with Habermans you'll see it hasn't. It was the point all along,

Came closest to what I was looking for. I would like to know things about the nitty-gritty of a political apparatus, the "unspoken", "hidden", or "assumed" stuff that happens behind the scenes. i.e., the natural monopolization of power, the inevitable but incestuous affairs between the media, the government, lobbyists/think tanks, and corporations, the life cycle of bureaucracies and how they can be corrupted naturally or artificially over time, how legislation is ultimately constructed and advertised (in contrast to how it's portrayed in a "Schoolhouse Rock" fashion), etc.

This stuff, while interesting, is mostly continental kikery that turns politics from concrete actors with clear goals, provided that the mechanisms of politics have been identified, to some sort of nebulous ideological pursuit with a heaping platter of speculative psychoanalysis. It's good stuff to know, and I think Baudrillard and Debord would provide insight to the subversion and ultimately the destruction of meaningful language in politics, but I feel like this would lead me back into the idealistic side of political philosophy.

Let me be more serious about what I want to know. Baudrillard and Debord would provide the descriptive language to understand a society unaware that it is living in a totally separate world from the politicians that rule them in some sort of replica of the Allegory of the Cave minus the benevolent philosophers. It wouldn't tell me how we, as a society, found ourselves in that dystopian mess, at least not in concrete terms of understanding what pillars of a functional democracy have to be destroyed.

>the life cycle of bureaucracies and how they can be corrupted naturally or artificially over time
Related.
Hence I wrote about a complex systems, or really, network theory - as far as I understand.

What you really want is, justifiably so, very hard to grasp, because power play and oligarchies in society emerge (in the sense of being more than the sum of agents in society) rather than are driven by any one individual or subset of individuals. There is little textbook entries regarding this complex system treatment that I know of. In a sense, you need the continental idealistic views because they can pinpoint the global ordering effect dettached from the agents. But on the other hand, this description is incomplete because it lacks the local ordering of agents and their peer-2-peer interactions, and how it all builds up into the overall picture. This last bit is particularly lacking in most political analysis, and your best bet for a concrete answer, aside from the good suggestions already presented here, is to take on some statistics and draw your analogies.

>kikery
a kek was had

>some sort of nebulous ideological pursuit with a heaping platter of speculative psychoanalysis
not unfair. it's best to not skimp on the portions tho. psychoanalysis a thing. this fag is a true believer, or at least a believer in that whatever the fuck hegel/lacan/heidegger unlocked it is along *that* path that we will get to level-2
>or whatever

>I feel like this would lead me back into the idealistic side of political philosophy
not crazy. it's a little unusual to hear that someone might get idealism out of baudrillard or debord but i think i understand. if anything it's more likely to lead to overwhelming cynicism, which is maybe where fuckface idealism comes in after to fill the void. if that's the case i agree

>Baudrillard and Debord would provide the descriptive language to understand a society unaware that it is living in a totally separate world from the politicians that rule them in some sort of replica of the Allegory of the Cave minus the benevolent philosophers
jes

>It wouldn't tell me how we, as a society, found ourselves in that dystopian mess, at least not in concrete terms of understanding what pillars of a functional democracy have to be destroyed
not so uncharitable really. baudrillard is obv a Guy for me. TCS and SE&D are must-read books imho. but you're right.

in terms of how we got here, i will happily shill pic rel. i've read my share of history - spengler, braudel, hobsbawm, *barzun*
>barzun is a very good look
and others, but heidegger is the guy who traced it back to the level of *thought.* w/all that that entails. i was all about nietzsche until he showed up. Being a thing.

spengler is a good look too ofc, b/c he's channeling much of the same stuff. culture/poetics in2 civilization/technics. it's dated, but holy shit is it ever awesome to read. turn-of-the-century german philosophy really wrestles, imho, with the no joke Ultimate Foundations of this stuff. it's all about technology with them.

for Marx of course it was all about economics; Marx is a fucking redpill in his own right, however much he's today associated with the Blue Team. if i had read Hegel earlier, instead of much later, i'd probably be saying the same stuff.

so in terms of the Dystopian Mess my vote goes to Heidegger. ontotheology. Being & Time is all about this: first the Greek thought, then the Cartesian thought, and then later the ontic/ontological distinction. meatbags *thinking tech* - and rare meatbags, like heidegger, *thinking humans thinking tech* is what got me over the hump of metaphysics.
>which is where i am now going back to b/c deleuze so fucking interesting

it is in other words *hard* to write that total history. at least in my experience. the Beginnings/the Endings. you wind up in serious rabbit holes. these days nick land makes it all fairly simple. but heidegger's a good look also.

chaos & capitalism is infinite Fun
>also infinite fucking alcohol

this is a good post

>You mean that those are part of the curriculum, right?
Basically. It should be noted that "political theory" in the context of political science as a discipline tends to focus on the purpose and nature of the state and less on the human nature aspect that philosophy, sociology, and anthro focus on when it comes to Aristotle/Plato/Locke/Hobbes etc.

Alt-right presence on Veeky Forums. Whether we like it or not it is going to become a heavily studied text when people study the time we're living in now.

>on the human nature aspect that philosophy, sociology, and anthro focus
You would think that mainly cognitive science, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology would focus on this. Sociology and anthropology focus more on culture.

I know that what I was asking from you is probably outside of your expertise, but I appreciate providing more paths to read later on. Maybe there's some good pioneering ground here where, as long as I write SOMETHING that is of passable prose, has great evidence, and is marketed well, could become a good read.

These threads always go from zero to obtuse so fast.

>When you stop to think about the god machinic cock of the capital, it is already too late

bump

>redpilled
>truth

pick one

>It wouldn't tell me how we, as a society, found ourselves in that dystopian mess, at least not in concrete terms of understanding what pillars of a functional democracy have to be destroyed.
Habermas gives you a history of how merchants created the media. Klein isn't even a continental philosopher.
>what pillars of a functional democracy have to be destroyed
The democratist mythology that education will eradicate (insert things I don't like here) is not working.

People don't understand that education is not something done to you during childhood and adolescence, but something you do to yourself for your entire life. But education does continue: the media ideologues do it in place of the self throughout people's lives, which means the media are free to prey on the weak, and imprison them them into this semiological idealism of fake news, away from the real.

If you want to do something about it, work on education and media. Habermas's book on the public sphere is a history of how a bunch of merchants, with a system meant to exchange highly accurate and technical information on the movement of products and business-related things such as new wars, somehow ended up with one for programming non-merchants with detailed articles on the rising dead and other assorted stupidities.

Full Spectrum Dominance by F. William Engdahl comes to mind. Covers the NGO/Intelligence complex, Color Revolution technology and other techniques of psych warfare and soft power projection by the US establishment among other topics. All Engdahls books are well worth reading. "A Century of War - Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" being the most widely read.

>what do you think which political ideologies might play an increasingly larger role in the future?
Trapezocracy.
Postmodern populism.

>how merchants created the media.
Do you mean merchants or (((merchants)))?

Edgy jokes aside, thanks for your recommendation, it was thoroughly persuasive. I will give Habermas another look sometime in the distant future when I've read enough Continental philosophy to understand his referential background. I mean, I remember picking up one of his books and realizing that I wouldn't understand a fucking thing if I wasn't intimate with Husserl's concept of a lifeworld.

>Full Spectrum Dominance by F. William Engdahl
Is this like Tragedy and Hope? Anyway, it seems too specific to derive any sort of general theory about how politics degenerates, but this is getting there too. Thank you for your recommendation.