Reading rightist theory

What rightist theory have you read, are you reading or planning to read?
Can be either liberal, conservative, reactionary but not outright facist or actual fascist.
I've been thinking it could be useful to atleast "know your enemy". Anything you could recommend?

Pic semi-related.

Other urls found in this thread:

Check this out: The comments are also good. Ended up reading a few of them, and it was more of a wild ride than anything else. The problem is that you can't really learn anything about them, just what they think they know about themselves; what motivates them. In truth, just about any good materialist analysis will yield better explanations, be it even the simplest and most vulgar Trotskyist theory of fascism to the better ultra-left ones or the Freudian ones. But yeah, reading fashy shit will certainly visualise their own thought processes and weird fantasies.

What this guy said.

Not right per se, but influential in the right worldview:

Intellectual right:


Trust me, few people on the right actually read source texts. They're content to read summaries and go from there.

Have read: Evola, Heidegger, Leo Strauss

Going to read: Carl Schmitt, René Guénon

I unironically thought these books were masterpieces when I was a fedora ancap.

I read Hitler Mein Kampf Vol II, planning on reading the second book (Zweites Buch)


Evola is a loopy hellride and worth skimming through, especially his /fringe/ tier shit.

Jacobitemag is a good window into the NRx world. The Dark Enlightenment and Moldbug's blogposts are interesting too.
I might read De Maistre one day because Naziposter memes him and I'm French.


It really depends on how you read the texts, and at what conclusions you arrive. Sure there are some obvious names like Evola, but the thing I found most reinforcing reactionary views was reading Marxist and anarchist literature. Also a lot of the 'leftcom', post-marxist, situationist and post-structuralist stuff. (Bordiga, Endnotes, Debord, Kaczynski, Badiou, etc.).
It really comes down to what conclusion you arrive at: populist, elitist, egalitarian, authoritarian, etc. And whether you agree or disagree with the philosophical basis of the enlightenment.

A few authors have already been mentioned here, so I'll recommend some current reactionary/NRx blogs:

Reactionary blogs:
Note: Today's reactionaries are a lot more serious about their anti-liberalism than Moldburg and his followers ever were. Both capitalism and nationalism are actively opposed. This is what the true anti-enlightenment looks like.

Another interesting read is Savitri Devi's The Lightning and The Sun for those wanting to read esoteric fascist literature. Also consider reading "Might is Right".

So these guys are more or less neo-feudalists. Great.

NRx like Roo, now?

I tried to do Road to Serfdom but I had a hard time. It starts slinging strawmen right out of the gate and it’s pretty hard to continue reading a person’s argument when they are arguing against positions and beliefs nobody holds.

It's an interesting insight into how brainwashing and ideology works

It's very interesting to read as an intellectual exercise. Begin with absolute freedom, and end up justifying slavery in only a few hundred pages. I could never manage any sophistry so brilliant.

Does any of it even really qualify as theory?
Evola is the only one I think comes close.

Wew; the absolute state of leftykikes…

Basically every single classic work of political philosophy, user.

son, both the "right" and "liberals" support capitalism. Just different flavors.
Read a fucking book you mongrel

If you're actually interested in what the standard milquetoast American conservative considers a rigorous defense of his worldview read some book by Newt Gingrich. I don't say that at all ironically or anything, it's uncanny.

liberals are rightists


What strikes me the most about this book is that it was written in the middle of WWII. He had the nerve to compare the nazis to the soviets while they were out there fighting to death in the bloodiest war in history.

Pretty accurate. The modern alt right is anti-intellectual in nature and have their attention spans shot from their anime/shitposting/porn habit so they don't really bother to read books. They'll just name drop a few names to give off an appeal to authority.

Oh yeah. I was NRx for years and that's pretty much all I read.

This is a serious problem for everyone in politics. People are being seriously fucked up by too much ADHD-inducing web design.

A book on Weimar Conservatism
Juenger's The Worker
I've read some of the Counter Currents stuff on Heidegger.

Nah I think Nouvelle Droit is having an influence on the New Right in the US. A lot of them are returning to Weimar Conservatives like Heidegger, and Juenger (as Benoist has).

I'm reading Guenon right now, going to read Shmiddt next

Mein Kampf, Germany tomorrow, and The Decline of the West on the authoritarian side.

The Machinery of Freedom on the "libertarian" side.

Old Land

I really hope you were using the term in its loosest sense.

You didn’t know this already? They are historically and economically illiterate. All of them are either cultural conservatives who associate their traditional values with some imagined versioned of monarchist feudal Europe and therefore support such systems, or pseuds with delusions of grandeur who think if they can create a monarchist feudal society they’ll be made part of the nobility.

Evola was a semi-theosophist nut, who’s only contribution to philosphy was translating philosophers who actaully matter into Italian.


Is there a single contemporary reactionary, save for the Dork Enlightenment, that is worth picking up? And I don't mean "contemporary" as in being within the last 50 years, someone who is kinda like Zizek but on the right.

I don't think rightists read Gibbon dude
I don't think anyone does except for some history students

How do you propose to put the genie back in the bottle re: the Enlightenment?

Serious question: should John Michael Greer be considered a reactionary?

One word: re-enchantment


Mises, Rand & Mussolini

Is this a joke

Doesn't exist. "Theory" is a signalling activity peculiar to the far-left. There is no "rightism" as a political ideology either, much like "heathenism" is not a religion.

Stop seeing yourself as the center of the universe.


When done by others it's just called conspiracy theory.

Most far right theory is built as propaganda for the interests of capital. If it isn't farther right, it isn't building upon anything that doesn't already exist in capitalism, as proposing dramatic changes to the market both would not make sense to Capitalist interests at all, and capitalism works to be the same.

The far right is in essence, theory of how best to strategize protection of capital while appealing to populism and getting rid of what the larger property owning class consider undesirable. The meat of it, is almost always excuses to get to that point, truth isn't necessary.

This is precisely what I meant with the far-left imagining itself as the center of the universe. They can't for the life of them imagine anything existing outside of their paradigm, much like christian cults who see anyone outside of their cult as either the devil or instruments of the devil.

I never suggested that anyone who isn't farther left is farther right, in fact you have this idea that any current philosophy that grounds the world isn't centered around capitalism. Both the right, and the left. What it means, what it should do, if it should exist, and why it behaves the way it does.

That's because our world is currently governed not by state or nation, but property and wealth, largely inherited.

If you read more of my post, you would understand that we both see capital as the primary crux of any argument. The problem with theory from the right is it fails to propose any real change to the order of things that is not protectionist to their own class interests. This has nothing to do with "if you disagree with socialism you're a socialist"

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen someone on the right post here. And there have been very stupid posts.

Maurras, Lagardelle, Valois, Gentile, Pareto, Evola, Schmitt, Heidegger, Spengler, Kita, De Benoist, Dugin, etc — but no one on the right actually read those anymore, save for a few blogging "intellectuals" who usually aren't associated with actual militant groups. I mean, do you really expect your garden-variety alt-rightist to be familiar with the Konservative Revolution?

That's not because you're persecuted, but because autistic screeching about Jews doesn't qualify as "theory".

You're begging the question and you're doing it so much that you can't even understand what I mean with that.

Thereby proving themselves right when they state they need a sovereign lord to dictate all matters for them because the proles are too stupid to rule themselves. It's simple prefigurative politics.

Also Guillame Faye, read Archeofuturism part 1 been meaning to start pic related

are you literally me
I mean who the fuck else has read Kita Ikki

Not rightist, but read:
by Ted Kaczynski aka The UNABomber.




Rightism is not Capitalism boys

Liberals are our enemy. Fascists are useful idiots.

Snowflake reactionaries and fascists are de facto capitalists even when they pretend otherwise, because they usually shun economics and are perfectly okay with private property, commodity production, market imperatives, etc. What they describe and criticize as "capitalist" or "bourgeois" society is a purely political-cultural pejoration used as a vague — and much more subversive-sounding — synonym to liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism, secularism, modernity, etc. That's why so many of their purported solutions to (what they erroneously identify as) capitalism are extra-economic: eliminate the Jews, build the Volksgemeinschaft, enforce the separation of the races, ride the fucking tiger, whatever.

Besides, I don't think it makes sense to describe Durkheim or Lasch as "right-wing", really. "Culturally conservative" in some aspects maybe, but not right-wing.

I got to know about Kita because I love Japanese New Wave cinema and Kiju Yoshida (of Eros+Massacre fame) made a film about the February 26 Incident, Coup d'État in 1973. Great film, by the way — it was recently released in Blu-Ray format as part of a box set.
He's also discussed in Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (if memory serves me right), where he's quoted as claiming that struggles between nations is as legitimate as struggle between classes, an argument he likely picked up from early Italian Fascists who similarly framed their support for militarism and imperialism in "revolutionary" wording.

True enough, but I would say that's due to the intellectual poverty of mass movements and does not necessarily call into question the genuine anti-capitalism of right-wing thinkers. If right-wingers propose extra-economic solutions to economic problems it's because they don't read, not because right-wing thought doesn't seek a re-organization of economic systems whose logic would run along completely different guidelines than those of market-logic.

Durkheim was a Corporatist and Lasch was a communitarian moralist. I don't think it's a crime to consider them right-wing

"Vox Day", Sargon, people like this are fat gamer neets larping as intellectuals who vanity publish a book and act like that gives them credibility. Of course the alt right looks up to these people.

Got these at a Goodwill but I'm not sure about their leanings. Just started "revolutions and revolutionary waves" seems interesting so far.
Anyone read any of these?

Reading the new wave of internet political scientist is a waste of time. Why not Benoist or something.

Does Holla Forums even have literature threads anymore?

I disagree. When they criticize "capitalism", they actually refer to political-cultural shifts associated with capitalism — liberal democracy, globalization, mass immigration, secularism, etc — but not to capitalism (as an economic mode of production and set of social relations) itself, which they rarely if ever truly address. It's no more genuine anti-capitalism than some socdem calling for the regulation of financial transactions. Fascists historically left economics out of their project of radically altering society and the state, even in most of their "theory".

That's true, but AFAIK they both supported universalism, egalitarianism and democracy which puts them at odds with other names on your list like De Maistre, Maurras, Schmitt or Jünger.

There is no right wing theory.

Not right wing, just outright mad ramblings.
Isn't that just historical fanfiction the right constantly uses to jack off?


I guess this disagreement will eventually come down to how you define capitalism.

I'm guessing you would define it as "private ownership of the means of production", whereas I would define it as something more like "the reign of market logic over all aspects of society and the exploitation of the worker".

This could also be posed as a question "If you excise the economy of land and financial rents, if property ownership is widespread, if you prohibit banks from creating money, have strong institutions of organized labor and/or state-directed economic planning, and contain market logic strictly to the economic sphere (to such an extent that, for example, advertising ceased to be as we now know it) and subordinated to a larger, all-encompassing national ethos, would you still consider such a society to be 'Capitalist'?"

Personally I would not. Though there may still be wage-laborers in this hypothetical scenario, it would be unrecognizable as a capitalist economy. Put it this way: a banker would certainly think of this as an anti-capitalist proposal.

And this brings me to another question: if Capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production, then why, with such an all-encompassing definition, are Feudalism and other pre-Capitalistic systems not also considered Capitalism? Because I think it's a bit intellectually dishonest to create such a dichotomy where 'Capitalism' is basically defined as anything that falls outside the sphere of Communist thought.

Fair enough.

(Not the guy who you were replying too). Easy, you don't understand what Capitalism is in Marxian theory. Capitalism is not simply "private control of mop". It's *generalized commodity production*. That is, in the process of societal reproduction all social forms of labour are the form of the commodity. Land, means of sustenance, means of production, materials of production, and most importantly labour power itself. When labour power takes the form of the commodity it follows that its estrangement from the objective conditions of labour is also presupposed - this social relation is what Marx refers to as Capital.

So no, the scenario you described would still be Capitalist. As someone who has read some of the theorist you've mentioned (like Gentile and Jünger) the user is right in saying they no where come close to criticizing Capitalism as a set of social relations but the fact that the "values" associated with Capitalism (like individualism and reductionism) infringe on the organic nature of society. There is nothing as radical as the Marxian critique concerning the nature of Capital as a system of production, rather a lapse into obscurantism is put forward as the truly more radical alternative to tracing social ills out of actually existing relations (Jünger's concept of "Form" is a good example, as is Mussolini/Gentile's use of the category of totality).

I guess I'd have to read Das Kapital to understand you here; I don't understand the significance of your use of the word 'commodity'.

Yeah, the commodity as a unity of substance, magnitude and form is the first thing Marx goes over in Capital as the simplest relation of production in bourgeois society. It marks the point of departure in Capital, as the absolute beginning or the presupposition of capital, which through the process of production appears absolutely mediated or as its result.

Read Hegel.

Tell that to rightwingers. I can respect neo-feudal rightists who totally reject the Enlightenment to some extent, but your average reactionary or conservative just wants a slightly prior version of liberal enlightenment society and is blind to the structural causes for society being as it is.

is it your typical talking points or is it actually worth reading?

I try

Seems like it takes too much time / attention. I have a long backlog already and would rather just read Marx. Is it absolutely necessary?

I guess you don't need too in the sense you can get a grasp of Marx without him, but after you read Volume 1 of Capital take a look at the Manuscript "The Immediate Process of Production". What fascinated Marx about Hegel's logic was Hegel's "circle" in which at the end of the investigation the result appears as the point of departure which Marx used to understand how Capital (as a social relation) reproduces itself regardless of any conscious organization.

should read Ted Kaczynski, he is pretty good. even if he dont seem to like the left much that more because the ""left"" ruins most anprim action he talks more about it in his second book i think, but i dont know if i would descibe him as a rightwinger

No idea. in the middle of two books right now but I think some boot licking old fuck passed away in a bunch of shit was donated. I'll be sure to make a post when I get around to starting it.

He what Kaczynski talks about when he means "the left" and liberals of the 1990s America.

Still, read his shit, it is good even if you hate what he did.

"What do I mean by "the left"? If you think that racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, indigenous people's rights, and "social justice" in general are among the most important issues that the world currently faces, then you are a leftist as I use that term. If you don't like this application of the world "leftist," then you are free to designate the people I'm referring to by some other term. But, whatever you call them, the people who extinguish revolutionary movements arc the people who arc drawn indiscriminately to causes: racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, the environment, poverty, sweatshops, neocolonialism … it's all the same to them. These people constitute a subculture that has been labeled "the adversary culture."ISI Whenever a movement of resistance begins to emerge, these leftists (or whatever you choose to call them) come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members of the movement, take it over, and turn it into just another leftist faction, thereby emasculating it. The history of "Earth First!" provides an elegant example of this process."

also yes, his work is good and he is way more honest that other primitivist, specially the politcal correct ones

why not fascist? they have some of the most intressing theory besides leftwingers and a lot of diffrent stuff too. Asser and mosley pretty good

Why should i? It's just schizoid crap. I don't want to read 500 pages of how Hitler is the avatar of Vishnu or how ancient Indian caste system is appliable to modern society, Right-wing literature is straightforward conspiracy-tier.

It's a bit of both, plus more. It is not sufficient to describe capitalism merely as private property because (as you rightly pointed out) it is not the only system with that feature. The key distinction between capitalism and pre-capitalist systems is that the latter have markets embedded into wider society whereas the former is a set of social relations embedded into a market — a "market society". Property before the rise of capitalism was mostly acquired through extra-economical means like taxation, arbitration, loot, titles, office, etc — Ellen Wood calls this "politically-constituted property". But with capitalism, impersonal market dynamics rule the day and those who own the means of production have an incentive, nay an imperative to adapt to market pressures — and therefore to revolutionize the productive forces and to squeeze out as much value out of the dispossessed masses forced to offer them their labor power. Capitalists obey not a person like a Lord or the King but the abstract principle that is the Profit Motive. Fascists might sometimes criticize certain instances of profit-making — those that allegedly go "against the nation's interest" — but they never address the profit motive itself.

You heard it here first folks: The Unabomber predicted SJW entryism…

Man you guys really don't know your enemies at all do you, just grasping at straws eh?

Why should i? It's just utopian crap. I don't want to read 500 pages of how Stalin justifies the Great Man theory or how 19th century archaic economic models apply to globally interconnected modern world, Left-wing literature is straightforward delusional-tier.

This is what you sound like. Right-wing economic "theory" should be deconstructed and exposed as fraudulent, not ignored. Like it or not, leftists are far more politically insignificant than those that promote Keynes-Fisher macroeconomics.

Pic related encapsulates the problem with right wingers, even when they are correct to identify Capital as their main enemy - it obliterates tradition, calls into question hierarchy, reorganizes social life for its own sake with complete indifference to any transcendental values- they disregard any concrete analysis of modernity for a variation of "masonic liberals did it" never questioning WHY liberal ideas were successful in the first place. They are oblivious to the fact capitalist modernity might be *gasp* a process without a subject (protip: whatever the subject of capitalism might be… its certainly not the bourgeoisie) and liberalism succeded only insofar as it appeared concurrently with the basic conditions for capitalist takeoff (the basic circuit of modernity: M-C-M') In other words they should read Marx alongside Nick Land.

Given that they misaprehend the nature of capitalist modernity is no surprise their praxis its such a mess. They seem to oscillate between vitalist voluntarism and, when that inevitably runs out of steam, Evolian apoliteia. Both approaches accomplish nothing for as long as they still believe modernity will be overcome by some variation of remove liberals.


neoabsolutism is good though sometimes I feel he goes too far with "Everything is liberal"

how is he begging the question?

your post encapsulates the problem with left-wingers, they already have their conclusions and reason towards them.

the victorian era, when capitalism was at its most brutal and unrestrained, was quite unlike what you describe as the inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Except you aren't born into a gun and shaped by it.

there are guns, people use guns, so we can conclude that we live in a system of gunnism, just as we can conclude capitalism from the existence of capital.

This is a really, really bad analogy, guns don't make people shoot each other, motivations do, what ever could be behind those motivations? Are All Fancies Motions within us, reliques of those made in the Sense: And those motions that immediately succeeded one another in the sense, continue also together after Sense: In so much as the former comming again to take place, and be praedominant, the later followeth, by coherence of the matter moved, is such manner, as water upon a plain Table is drawn which way any one part of it is guided by the finger

then you should know that no worldly thing can ever be a motivation, capital being no exception.

Except there is no divine thing, there is only the world, and an incomplete one at that, so only worldly things can cause motivations, simply by process of elimination.

You said it yourself, the Victorian Era was only a stage of capitalist development, not its endpoint.

then it must be sex, not capital

like i said, ad-hoc reasoning towards the predetermined conclusion

Is hindsight no longer 20/20?

The site seemed to experience difficulties in uploading these .pdfs, so here's a list instead:
Thomas Carlyle - Latter-Day Pamphlets
Anthony M. Ludovici - The Specious Origins of Liberalism: The Genesis of a Delusion (also check out The False Assumption of Democracy, and A Defense of Aristocracy)
Sir Henry Maine - Popular Government
de Maistre - Considerations on France

I-it gets better though…r-right, comrades?

Have you read the smaller booklets of Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Really I'm reading Capital right now, and I think it's good I put it off until I'd read the smaller stuff. The reason being that a lot of people jump right into Marx's treatises on economics and totally neglect historical and dialectical materialism, or writing on revolution, the national question, etc.

It's not ad-hoc reasoning. Marx's critique of dumb shit like this (though in regards to Feurbach and the Young Hegellians) is that it's easy to say that we can fix ails by pointing them out superficially, either as "alienated universality" with Feurbach of "The Jews" with right wingers (or whatever). What's not easy is to show precisely how these situations evolve out of actually existing relations and how these forms assert themselves independently of their form of appearance.

Read the introduction to Science of Logic.

Those people have been around for quite a while. It's just that with the rise of social media they became very noticeable and started spreading their opinions.

I don't think that these people understand that inequality occurs naturally in an economy due to certain products being more in demand / popular. So wealth naturally follows more of a power law (Zipf's law) curve, rather than a normal division.

So when you're going to protest for any kind of oppressed or disadvantaged group that belongs to the bottom of that curve, well you wouldn't get much done. Since wealth follows a power law the ones at the very peak of it all make sure that there is no real alternative for their product and keep competition low (since that would maintain their position). Naturally over time the 0.1% just keep growing and growing at a much faster pace than the rest.

The real issue is addressing the absolute top earners in a society, not the middle class or even upper middle class plebs. Just going after the middle and upper middle class will put everyone in a poor class and you still have the issue of the exploiters. Which is probably the best way to describe how countries like Germany are.


I understand as much. And in the example of political economy I offered, which both 1) permitted private property and 2) relegated economic principles to the economic sphere via things like social control over investment and prohibition of certain practices, essentially amounting to a narrowing of the domain of the [economic] struggle, I consider that to be Not Capitalism. Wouldn't you?

Anti-Capitalism is, as I understand it, breaking the spirit that seeks to subsume everything under its mantle of P/L calculation. And, as I see it, the combination of policies of A) authority over investment patterns and money supply B) extrication from the world market and C) a moral / spiritual authority over the economic is sufficient to meet the conditions of breaking the back of that spirit.

Had you considered that some realize that it is a process without a subject, but also a process without a subject WITH stewards. Meaning they don't control the logic of the system, but they understand the nature of the system and that it functions to their advantage, so they labor to protect it from any attempt to unseat it. Because this is factually true and can be proven with not-too-much reading. Rockefeller family being one of the most notable examples (and if you want to understand this from a leftist perspective - because you can't bear to dirty your hands with right-wingers - read the compilation of essays Trilateralism edited by Holly Sklar, to get an idea for how these things work).

The Alternative by Oswald Mosley. Had he went further left and advocated for a Socialist British Commonwealth I could see a lot of good in him.

He's imo the only bearable fascist

Mein Kampf is boring and dropped it in the second or third chapter where he starts off with the "let me tell you about the jews"

That's called being a good rhetorician

Nice implications bro, I never said I was a leftist.

My bad bro. I was just trying to say in my own spicy way that the essays that comprise the book "Trilateralism" are mostly written by Atlantic Democrats and Democratic Socialists

And furthermore what I wanted to talk about was: why do communists / socialists / leftists / whatever, never want to point fingers at the people who control the Commanding Heights of society (finance, media, intelligence) in order to protect the international capitalist order both materially and intellectually? Because it's a secret that's hidden in very plain sight, yet names are never named. Why? Because being factual and specific, believing that individuals spending money and collaborating on projects actually has an effect on real material conditions belies a Rightist / Individualist / non-dialectical interpretation of reality?

Wasn't all this crap answered with critical theory?


Google him and you will see

I used to be a dumbass Holla Forumstard 5 years ago so that would be Mein Kampf, Ride The Tiger, Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Holla Forums doesn't recommends a lot of books, they don't read much and don't know what to read either.

I've been wanting to read some Austrian shit. Specifically, Mises' Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Mostly because it is shit and I want to be able to directly address pro-capitalist proganda and misinformation about socialism.
Also thinking about reading some Adam Smith and David Ricardo, in order to get a better understanding of classical liberalism

Not completely true. They have a good pdf thread, or used to, on political philosophy, history, economics, international relations, sociology, etc.

Austrianism is an interesting read for the precision and internal consistence of the framework it creates. I would say skip Rothbard and just read Mises, Menger, Boehm-Bawerk maybe and Hayek's prices and production if you want to get an idea for Austrian business cycle.

Ultimately reading Austrianism is a completely empty venture, however, because it is very easily rebutted. Austrianism either assumes full employment or disregards the the rate of unemployment and is indifferent to output. They talk about capital heterogeneity but don't capitalize on this topic at all, and treat all investment decisions as macro-economically equal, as long as they have the same rate of profitability. Zero treatment of the effects of growth of some sectors on the effect of growth on other sectors and other mid-level topics for analysis.

It's sad because there's a fair amount of complexity in Austrianism which takes a long time to understand but it's all useless in the end because the starting assumptions of the general framework are so corrupt or callous that any economy in which capital isn't wasted on something sub-optimally profitable could be considered successful, even if everyone is starving and nothing is being produced.

Huh, interesting, thanks for the input.
Yea I was thinking of also reading Hayek's Road to Serfdom and his Individualism and Economic Order. But I'll look into that one as well.

It feels gross to even consider reading them but I think its important nevertheless to understand the opposition's arguments

In our historical context, private property is synonymous with capitalist private property because it was the result of the same process of primitive accumulation that created market imperatives.

You can't do that, it's not possible. You can't "relegate" capitalism to the "economic sphere". You can't "isolate" capitalist relations from "real life". Base and superstructure — material conditions determine the course of politics, culture, law, etc.

It is capitalism because it doesn't do away with any of the core categories of capitalism (private property, commodity production, market imperatives, abstract labor, etc).

That's just state intervention.

That's just protectionism.

And that's just flat-out idealism. You can't humanize capitalism, let alone through a "moral" or "spiritual" authority.

Capitalism is not a "spirit", it's an abstract system that spawns very real social relations. All of the things you support amount to nothing more than regulation. Just like SocDems, you're bemoaning the "commodification" of what you believe shouldn't be and calling for capitalism to be "contained wherein it belongs" — but not criticizing capitalism itself.

In other words: impotent idealism.

How did reading Debord or Endnotes reinforce your reactionary views?

it's all over the place
some parts are good, like his analysis of syndicalism
others are facepalm inducing, like his screeching about eastern barbarian communist hordes
his zealous belief that without capital goods market there cannot be rational economic calculation leads him to conclusion that communism means a literal end of Civilization
so to fight communism means to fight for Civilization for him
his bias also shows in his treatment of vertical integration
for him market allocation is the only viable method, so he dismisses vertical integration strategies from the get go as a harmful symptom of corporate over-bureaucratization

So my intention with reading that isn't necessarily because its a good critique or a bad critique, or because I necessarily agree with it. I am undeniably a communist in no way is there any sufficient evidence that I've come across personally to suggest we should continue operating under a capitalist mode of production.
I want to read this specifically because it is bullshit, but because also it is ammunition for the Right. They cling to this shit like flies. Thank you for the pointers, they are thing I can keep an eye out for while reading it. My primary goal is simply to understand the counter-arguments and rhetoric so I can better address them and refute them in discourse.

nah man, I'm not saying that you shouldn't read it
it is a must read for any even semi-serious leftie and definitely a best piece of austrian school if you ask me maybe because it's wholly dedicated to my sphere of interest, i.e. communism
I'm just sharing some of my thoughts after reading it

Ah ok, I misunderunderstood your criticisms as dissuasion. Well cool, will definitely read it then, thanks for the info man


Addressing the contents of my post line-by-line doesn't really do anything to convince me I'm wrong, as it indicates that you were less interested in digesting the overall line of thought and more interested in finding the faults in the points that might eventually constitute the former.

But that being said, I don't see an inherent contradiction between 'spirit' and 'abstract system that spawns very real social relations' and furthermore I disagree with your claims that you can't relegate economic principles to the economic sphere because there are numerous examples throughout pre-capitalist world history of societies which did exactly that.

I take issue with being compared to SocDems, since their proposals basically do nothing to thwart market logic from proceeding normally, but only seek to skim some of the money off the upper class and redistribute to the lower and middle class (allow the market to do its thing, but then tax the wealthy and spend on social services). This is distinct from my proposals in that they actively seek to deny market logic from pursuing its own imperatives (force investment capital into providing high-wage positions and radical growth).

What do you want, politically?

Has anyone here read Reflections on Violence?

Yeah. I think it's pretty decent. It's basic message is just "socdems are trash, amirite? Let's tear this shit up". Though it shits pretty hard on any form of class collaboration so I don't get why fashies are so enamoured with it.

I suppose it's to do with the concept of a revitalizing struggle, the push through against nihilism for a creative process.
Also the hard anti-materialism ("atoms arent really real!")

the efficiency vertical integration is a pretty good argument against capitalism

*efficiency of

Aren't you precious? Your post contains point-by-point arguments, so I addressed them point-by-point too. Makes sense to me.

I do. The latter is a materialist approach taking into account material conditions and their wider effects on the whole of society and its radical conclusion is to seek the abolition of the essential categories of capitalism. The former is an idealist approach that assumes system naturally spring out of ethical-cultural norms and its reformist conclusion is to attempt to moralize capitalism.

It's true some societies did that, but you said it yourself: pre-capitalist societies. Societies that existed before the proletarianization of peasants and the generalization of market imperatives. You can't go back to pre-capitalist material conditions. You can't undo primitive accumulation.

How are "high wages" and "radical (?) growth" distinct from SocDem programs?

Not an end to "unbridled capitalism" but an end to capitalism itself.

1) Material is inert, nothing can 'spring from' it and 2) I don't think that it springs out of ethical-cultural norms. It springs out of legal norms. Formally speaking, ethical-cultural norms could lead to a change in legal norms yes but the primary cause of it would be legal norms: as you say, the (contradictory) expropriation of the peasantry and the establishment of the right to private property and its freedom of use.

Which text would you say is most responsible for the line of thought you've just offered?

I thought it was self-evident. SocDem programs entail an imposition of a state-regulatory apparatus over the pre-existing arrangement of capital, with which they would tax wealth and use it to fund their Welfare State. What I'm talking about (state-capitalism I guess?) is the partial seizure of the pre-existing arrangement of capital by the state and the change from market-driven investment decisions to State-driven decisions based on notions of macroeconomic planning rather than investor profit, an arrangement that a Liberal would surely label 'arbitrary' (insofar as economic planning proceeds along lines that are sub-optimally-or-not-at-all profitable to investors - which is now essentially the State). That's quite obviously a reversal of market logic, since otherwise, under Capitalism, all calculation and decision-making follows from the P/L returns on finance capital. Furthermore, in such a system, it's quite conceivable that primitive accumulation or its class-galvanizing effects could be reversed.

Can you expound on that?

Uh? Historical materialism isn't about materiality as a physical substance. What it asserts is that the "ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life" (Engels).

Indeed. Doesn't matter anyway — those legal norms too are defined by material conditions. They come to existence in a specific context.

Capitalist private property was legally enforced because of the growing reliance of landowners on market imperatives and their willingness to organize as a class to remove legal barriers that were mostly obsolete anyway. It supplemented the economic shift, it didn't cause it.

Well yeah, you've just accurately described state capitalism or, as Lenin put it, "state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". It's a different way of managing capitalism, not socialism.

So does state capitalism, eventually. Especially when it's inescapably inserted into the world economy.

You'd need to abolish market imperatives for that to happen, which involve much more than just state control of the economy — it implies seeking the abolition of economy itself. And even then, the effects of primitive accumulation couldn't be said t have been "reversed", but rather to have been sublated into a new form of social organization. Sorry about the jargon, but I'm not sure how to put it any other way.

Not sure what you're asking for exactly, but a good read on the subject is Ellen Wood's Origin of Capitalism.

Check out "value criticism". This ( is a good read too.

why are you not reading Carlyle as well

Jesus, I doubt you guys can even name Holla Forums's favorite dystopian sci-fi novel.

I consider Boštjan M. Zupančič to be similar to him in that regard, don't know how well known he is in the anglosphere though

>Absolutism/Statism: Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan based
>Civics/Republicanism: Aristotle, Politics based

Also Carl Schmitt is apparently a good read.

Guess what? You don't know Rightism

Like who?

On two separate occasion I've been told to read "The Gulag Archipelago" by random spergs. Both have claimed that it explains how communism is based on envy and why this dooms it too failure. The thing is I've read this book and it doesn't really make an attempt to do this its just an account of various Soviet crimes and an attempt to argue these crimes were an integral part of bolshevism. I can only assume these people are just parroting things in Kermit's videos and then giving themselves an aura of intellectualism by saying read Solzhenitsyn. When I called them out for this they just blocked me.

brainlet detected

Isn't Lasch a socialist? I remember Angela Nagle saying he was one of her biggest influences and they quoted him in a zero books video.

Don't jump right into Capital do the reading list.

Leftists absolutely do criticize individual member of the ruling class.

I'm assuming your real question is why leftists mainly attack capitalism as a system or the bourgeoisie as a class instead of going on about muh Rothschild's or whatever. It's because we recognize capitalism as a system which reproduces itself according to a sort of logic. This logic is based on forces independent of the individuals on the top of the class hierarchy. Identifying the problem of our society as being with certain individual of families obfuscates the issue and makes people believe we can change our society functions simply by killing a bunch of individual members of the ruling class often the jewish ones . The truth is that transcending capitalism involves altering the way property ownership and social relations function and killing people should only be done insofar as it is necessary for achieving that goal.

You need to read Marx brother. It's obvious you are intelligent but the way you are misunderstanding Marxist terminology the other user is using (commodity, idealism, materialism, value form etc.) betrays the fact you haven't read the big man himself. Even if you have no interest in being a communist or socialist its still absolutely indispensable to read Marx if you want to understand what capitalism is, how it functions, and how to transcend it.

The problem with the endnotes is the problem with ALL value form theory which is that they fallaciously conflate value substance with value form (or objectivity) and thus start the ball rolling towards circulationism.

The Konservative Revolution (Jünger, Van Den Bruck, Niekisch, Schmitt, Spengler, etc) are a big part of "woke" early 20th-century right-wing thought.

And what exactly is the problem with that?

If there's one thing value criticism can't be accused of doing, it's to focus on circulation over production.

It gets rid of the actual materialism in Marx's theory where the mass of value is created in production and sets necessary limits on exchange.Why is this? Because value-substance exist outside exchange since as Marx says over and over in every edition of Capital unambiguously, abstract labour is labour considered from its physiological aspect as opposed to its heterogeneous useful aspect. There's a reason value form theory is where all circulationist interpretations of Marx arise from and that's because it really is arbitrary to say that the magnitude of value substance is dependent on the aggregate labour invested in branches production of production when the value substance is only posited in exchange. The idea of a sector of production receiving an equivalent of the social labour expended in their branch is incoherent if there is no necessary connection and identity between the substance of value (what they receive in exchange) and the labour which posits commodities prior to its appearance in value form.

Reading the End Notes article, this paragraph for example has NO textual basis in Marx:

To see what I mean I recommend you go back and read the first chapter of Capital of both the Penguin or Moore-Avelling and translation of the first chapter from the first edition on Even in Critique of the Gotha Program when Marx talks about when marks something value form he uses the exact definition Endnotes gives here. Trying to support these interpretations of Marx honestly is usually convoluted as hell. Heinrich quotemines (and this is well known amongst his German colleagues) and Rubin's lectures and Essays' on this are terrible. He has to posit three kinds of abstract labour which have no textual basis in Marx in order to support his reading.

Value-form theory as a "novel" reading of Marx is a wrong reading of Marx.

I'll be honest with you, I barely understand what you're trying to say and what you think exactly is wrong with value-form theory. Please make it clearer if you can spare the time.

He's a populist / communitarian. I consider him right-of-center due to his thoughts on religion, producerism, anti-utopianism and most importantly the strains of thought that have manifested in contemporary feminism and identity politics, but I also take skepticism of Capitalism to be a pre-condition for 'theory'.

I understand as much and I think many on the right ought to contemplate this further, but by the same token it seems that Left-wingers take the position that they do (it's a system, not a group of people) as a knee-jerk reaction against what they see as conceptual illiteracy on the right. But I think that they don't consider conceiving both of Capitalism as a system with its own imperatives and the families as stewards of this system. In other words, they don't need to control it, because it already produces outcomes favorable to them, but they do need to protect it and create the conditions that allow it to proceed unmolested by local, regional, national, etc. politics. Meaning, if you killed the Rothschilds and their ilk, it wouldn't end private credit-creation. But the question is whether you can end private credit-creation without killing them or at least opposing them? Killing the protector of a thing does not kill the thing, but it makes it easier to kill the thing, see? They brought it into being as the norm for finance, first nationally and then internationally, until it got to the point, where it still stands today, that extricating oneself from it becomes unthinkable without crashing the economy or inviting war. So, yes it's a system and yes it produces predictable outcomes regardless of the intentions of the participating actors, but its wealthiest stewards actively pursue highly-long-term strategies of psychological and physical warfare against anyone who could be considered hostile at a future point.

Thx man, I'm going to this year.

Sombart, List, Spengler, and Schmitt for starters

Picked up a few different books from arktos. Mostly introductory texts to the new right, with some ecology related things

Hmm okay how much Rubin or Heinrich have you said? The main thesis the value-form school puts forward starting with Rubin's lecture on Abstract Labour ( and his "Essay's On Marx's Theory of Value" is that the "substance of value" as abstract labour is not part of the transhistorical metabolism between humans and nature (i.e. its labour considered from its physiological aspect) but is rooted in the process of "real abstraction" that occurs in exchange when we equate two heterogenous types of labour. In other words, for most value form theory (at least the theorist I've read - Heinrich, Murray, Rubin and Backhaus) ALL the "peculiarities of the value form" are rooted in its existence as a social "form" of labour, as a particular way in which the product of labour is brought fourth from productive relations between the members of society.

This line of thinking is generally where most circulationist interpretations of Marx come from. You don't "have" to be a circulationist to be a "value form theorist" but that interpretation is implicit and follows naturally from the denial that value substance magnitude does not exist independently of exchange but is constituted in exchange as well. Whereas Marx thinks they do exist independently of exchange because exchange is a way of distributing the allocation of social labour through a society which takes place on a transhistorical, and not a particularly historical basis. Is that clearer?

A big part of the Marxian critique of Capitalism is that Capitalism operates via an inversion of the subject/object relation in which an autonomous logic which we enter through possession of material "things" controls social subjects and reproduces itself without any necessary conscious direction or even awareness of the true nature of things. It's not conceptual illiteracy on the right so much as a central part of the Marxian critique of Fetishism and Reification.

I haven't read much from Rubin, I'm mostly familiar with people who have been influenced by him like Moishe Postone or Anselm Jappe.
How is value criticism wrong when they claim that abstract labor is not transhistorical? Is the conception of human labor as being commensurable and quantifiable not specific to the capitalist mode of production? Besides, I don't see how that would even implicitly lead to a circulationist interpretation of Marx.

I don't quite understand what you're saying but it's clear from this that you're proposing that Capitalism is much more than an economic system, so I'll just have to get back to you after I've read Marx.

See this? When seen at such a timescale is clear this explosion we call capitalist modernity is much, much bigger than judeomasonic liberals or the Rothschilds. Even if the managers of capitalism were to be dethroned tomorrow, the role would befall on the Revolutionary Vanguard to become the managers of Capital, the system is quite simply, "too big to fail."

Stop being a brainlet

I'm gonna be another cuck who goes for the low-hanging fruit and say, don't bother with rightist theory. Beyond being very slim pickings in quantity, its even slimmer in quality. Reactionarism is, by definition, the defense of an already existing, or a past, or even imagined past social order. Thus, the vast majority of their argumentation takes the form of circular reasoning. First comes the goal – defending the most noble custom of primae noctis – and only then come the arguments to make their literally barbaric proposals seem palatable – "It would introduce precious blue blood in the lineage of a peasant family, making it more likely to beget a man invested with enough divine right in order to be acclaimed king. Primae noctis promotes upwards social mobility!"

This inversion of basic logic has come to define the entire field of modern economics, arguably the biggest source of rightwing theory today. Look back on the great names of the past, like Marx, Ricardo, Smith etc., and you'll proper philosophy, treatises written according to at least the most basic interpretation of the scientific method. They observe phenomena, devise an hypothesis, provide arguments and examples, reach conclusions and possibly will expand on their hypothesis in future works. Now take your average neoliberal shill. He's starting from the notion that this hellhole we live in now is as good as it gets (assuming he isn't a flat-out sociopath who just wants to defend the system that has him and his family as members of the elite), and changes, or rather systemic and big changes, would inevitably be for the worse. So his intellectual production methodology changes completely. He needs little to no observation of a society and its economy since he already made his conclusion, all he needs is to collect as many arguments and examples he can get, no matter how cherry-picked, misinterpreted or otherwise flimsy, and violently hammer them all together into a cargo-cult book, treatise or academic paper. The economist no longer creates philosophy, but apologia.

Of course, I'm far from being well read on rightwing theory, but every fucking piece of it that had a pretense to be serious philosophy has, without fail, followed the path I described above. If I see that some author is or was in certain think tanks, I immediately disregard his entire body of work until I hear in the grapevine that he wrote something of value for once.

Of course, this bullshit methodology isn't unique to the right, but damn if they don't have mastered it.

Afraid I still don't see your point…

Modernity is explosive sustained economic growth, far beyond anything individual human actors can control (although politicians and revolutionaries alike love to try, of course)

wtf i love Nagle now

Christopher Lasch and his disciple David F. Noble abandoned Marxism but not critique of capitalism.

Schmitt is g*rman

are there any right-wing approaches to Marxism worth checking out? I like some of Land's stuff but he's too crazy for me.
I'm looking for a pessimist outlook on the future of capitalism (not absurd dystopian sci-fi tier) instead of the usual "revolutionary" push the left adopts, something that talks about how we became too dependent on wage labor and the workings of our economy are too complex, no one know what's happening anymore for the proletariat to seize the means of production.

Sorel is the closest thing to a right-Marxism of which I can think.

sorel was actually full commie. he was just mad disappointed about the broader left's stance towards forced mass immigration and idpol, which he rightly critisized as porky's favourite tools to manipulate the labour market. i still like him a lot, it's a great loss for the french left that he is now essentially working for right-wingers.

Growth is a function of paradigms / egregores, which are a function of institutions, which are a function of the individuals who fund / staff them. Pretty straightforward imho.

He didn't say Schmitt you dingace

a lot of rawls writings are somewhat compatible with analytical socialism but ehhh
i thought berlin was a big joke before i actually read two concepts of liberty
two concepts of liberty is a good intro to modern liberal philosophy imo

Would any of you guys want to talk about Corporatism, or other right-wing anti-Capitalist economic theory?

Good joke tbh famalam.

I guess there's no point if you can't conceive of a political spectrum in which the farthest right point isn't laissez-faire capitalism…

All far right regimes have been capitalist. Name one that wasn't. Well I guess idk maybe you could point to feudalists but that's pretty esoteric.


You're projecting Holla Forums's Holla Forums-inherited obsessions on an early 20th-century philosopher. This is downright embarrassing.

Corporatism isn't anti-capitalist; it is first and foremost the expression of state-mandated class collaboration.

Hans Herman Hoppe

Mencius Moldbug

Some essays

I know OP said fascist theory doesn't count but I do want to say that I read mein kampf and oh god it was awful

Aside from that, I've only ready ayn rand after playing BioShock, out of curiosity, a game that says not kings not gods and talk about stealing the sweat and work of other sounds like a good theory and by that time i didnt had an ideology.

It was also awful, also BioShock is pure anti ancap/radical liberalism so thats good

I've read some text posted by alt-right dudes back in my days in 4chan, but nothing serious or theory
such patriotism
What a hissy faggot!
and possible a closeted homosexual as well

I tried visualizing this too hard.

whose state?

That of traditional elites ruling in uneasy collaboration with the new fascist elites.

Didn't Gramsci draw a parallel between Machiavelli's "prince" and the Leninist conception of the vanguard party? That goes to show he isn't somehow exclusively right-wing. Lenin also drew tons from Clausewitz in his theory of revolution. Ideas don't become "left" or "right" wing due to the people that come up with them, they become so depending on how they are applied and by whom, and what worldview they attempt to justify.

Machiavelli is also seen as an early precursor of political science, so one could see his work as just him being a realist about how royal power works.

hahahahah idpol and mass immigration weren't even a thing back then

Alt-right """""""""""""""""""""""""""intellectuals""""""""""""""""""""""

You don't need to read any right-wing neoliberal apologia since the critiques marx wrote 150 years ago pretty much cover you. Neoliberal discourse isn't scientific, hence studying it is a waste of time since it's already been scientifically disputed



That’s from a novel fam.

Hi Satan.

Fascists are indeed right wing. Sorry but your nonsensical rhetoric about turd positionism holds no water as all fascist regimes have indeed been capitalist in nature.


really makes me think