What would a left neoreactionary read?

I guess I should've have wrote left (neo)traditionalism or something. I meant a left that incorporates pre-enlightenment thought and ideas, not a leftist version of the Dark Enlightenment.

A (more or less) non-progressive left as it were. And I see no reason for that being impossible, political scientists argue that certain cognitive and biological traits make us more likely to be left or right, but otherwise ideas aren't hardwired in us.

Adorno

Nice

don't say neoreactionary if you have no clue

>non-progressive left
then vote clinton and do what you're told

dis

>Classless society seems like it would have cultural classes.
Richard Winfield the Hegellian says this.

What? Also isn't NRx actually a jumble of many different ideas and ideologies save for Moldbug and Neocameralism.

no such thing as left nrx. if I understand you correctly though, perhaps max weber and max scheler. weber gave an alternative to marxist histographic and political thinking. scheler gave an alternative to nietzche.

oh and matthew arnold's culture and anarchy gives an alternative to what is known in compt. culture as popism.

She doesn't look human.

>don't say neoreactionary if you have no clue
I was referring to the original use of reactionary, which possible was just as confusing. And while I have not read all Moldbug's blogposts, I've made myself, more or less, familiar with it.
But, again, I can agree that it was a bad word choice and that I should've used a different one, or should have defined it. Even non-progressive doesn't seem like the correct word, or the other words I've come up with.

And, no, American politics is alien to me. I come from Europe and have different experiences and we have a different political landscape. Which at least isn't that divided that some ideas become so entrenched into the left and right dichotomy.

We have several different parties. We even have left-conservatives here, but they are Christian.
Thanks. I think I made a fool out of myself with the opening post, so I am thankful for this input.
I knew about Adorno and know about the general gist of his ideas, but never looked futher, and I consider doing that.

By the way, I did read José Ortega y Gasset.

>Classless society seems like it wouldn't have cultural classes.
Yes the lower class culture would have been abolished

>I come from Europe and we have a different political landscape
Your reactionary "left" options are Merkel, Macron, Renzi, Berdoglio and whichever flavor of Clintonian centrist trapezocracy you might find in the other countries, Merkel still runs the place anyway.

Christopher Lasch

Paul Gottfried's political views have been described as "Marxism leaning right"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_socialism

>elitist but otherwise with mainstream and contemporary left ideas
Kek. That's like saying you're a pacifist but occasionally enjoy to kill.

Just these are clearly on the right and basically neo-liberals or christian democrats in Merkels case. Only Macron is somewhat different if he delivers on his promises.

Clinton is way more right-wing than either of these.

>Kek. That's like saying you're a pacifist but occasionally enjoy to kill.
I don't agree and already commented on my poor choice of words. Maybe next time I'll write down what I mean but I don't like making it that personal.

I don't see why the left has to be fully egalitarian and cannot be hierarchial. There is a genetic component in left and right leanings meaning it must have existed during our feudalism past.

I'll try again. Elitist meaning; against the disappearence of high and low culture into one giant mass culture. Against populist policies. Against mass conformity. And so on and so on.

>There is a genetic component in left and right leanings
That's a bit too simplistic, since the genetic bits are way more complex and less defined than some left and right shit.

>Elitist meaning; against the disappearence of high and low culture into one giant mass culture. Against populist policies. Against mass conformity. And so on and so on.
And taking it far enough is pretty much the opposite of left by most common definitions. Besides, egalitarianism and fight against hierarchies are some of the key factors that differentiate the left from the right.

Why do you perceive yourself on the side of "neoreactionary" left instead of the progressive right?

>Just these are clearly on the right and basically neo-liberals or christian democrats in Merkels case. Only Macron is somewhat different if he delivers on his promises.
>Clinton is way more right-wing than either of these.
Wherever you are, the left has been stolen and the world has become something that sounds like a "left reactionary" paradise.

If it's not left enough, your only choice is going back to Hegel and Marx and Hegel again. I mean every word of this.

>I think in terms of worldviews, can Veeky Forums give me one?
Good thread, asshole.
Hobbes. You're looking for Hobbes.

>left
>Hobbes

Marx got an outdated idea about labor on which most of his other ideas rely. He's basically like Freud for psychology students now.

Most Green parties picked up there but need to get rid off the treehugger stigma to get some fucking votes outside of Germany.

>outdated idea
Woe is me, a philosopher has one idea I don't agree with! I can no longer read him to find out about the other ideas or why I don't agree with that one!

What if I told you the whole marxist movement, is founded on fixing the previous guy's work, which is quite the common trend in the history of philosophy more generally?

>He's basically like Freud for psychology students now.
As in one of the founding figures among German writers, after Wundt and Brentano, that made psychology into an experimental science separate from clutches of neurology?

>I can no longer read him to find out about the other ideas
user, please. Das Kapital was one of the first books I read when making the jump to non fiction, like a decade ago. And many of the ideas do have merit, it's just the key that holds them together aged horribly with technological progress and I must admit, that I can't name a single Marxist thinker who moved away from the whole outdated "werk is good" crap. I do recall some guy who was hated by good ol' Karl himself and pulled a hero together with his wife but forgot the name.

>As in one of the founding figures
Emphasis on founding. While the initial work was absolutely groundbreaking in its time and influenced further developments, it's only worthy of study out of curiosity and historical understanding these days.

>There is no soul, there is only matter
>Glory is the same thing as vanity
>The purpose of government is to provide for security
Hobbes is what the left would be if it had a spine.

>I can't name a single Marxist thinker who moved away from the whole outdated "werk is good" crap
You're a worse brainlet that I thought

As I said, vote the current neoliberals and do what you're told, philosophy clearly isn't for you

>That's a bit too simplistic, since the genetic bits are way more complex and less defined than some left and right shit.
Agreed. But what I mean with that is that left ideology must have existed before the enlightenment as it is not fully a cultural construct.
>Besides, egalitarianism and fight against hierarchies are some of the key factors that differentiate the left from the right.
I am aware, but do not see why that has to be so. There is the moral foundations theory which does include equality as one of the pillars of the left, but it never argues whatever that is cultural or not.
>instead of the progressive right
I will repeat: it was a really stupid choice of words and it made a fool out of me. This makes more sense. Though I can't say I identify as the progressive right either. In my country that would be the center-right classical liberals. I would have to do more research on them but I've always associated them with less regulation and more economic freedom.

I think the Christian left I mentioned here might actually come closer. In my country we do talk of progressive vs conservative, and right vs left. I've always voted what is considered progressive left. I still agree with them on many points more as the right.

But I do think that some parts of the enlightenment thinking have gone too far, especially classical liberalism. And I think capitalism erodes culture.

I do not identify with any of the political parties we have here nor any political movement. The Christian left could come close to my ideas but they come with the package of Christianity. I cannot agree with people who think humans are exceptional and not animals. It is not just a disagreement of ideas, I think that thinking in terms of human exceptionalism will result in hubris and overconfidence.

It isn't a good thread, but everyone thinks in terms of worldview. That is what contemporary political science and cognitive science state.
Hobbes is alright but was proven wrong about human nature in the political science I've read.

>Hobbes says absolute monarchy is the best form of government
>the political term Left came from the French Revolutionists
Hmm...

science books
build a time machine and stop the agricultural revolution

NRx is just formalist neocameralism
anything else is an add-on or else a deviation

and kant said the hohenzollerns were the perfect leaders of the perfect prussian state

>Everyone thinks in terms of worldviews
>I know this because political science takes it as axiomatic, and I can't differentiate an axiom from a conclusion.
Read pic related and then get back to me.

Except Clinton is the reverse of what OP is describing: socially egalitarian-universalist, economically centrist/centre-right

Proudhon and his plan to exterminate the Juwes and expel all foreigners, confine women to the home, perhaps?