I'm a Leftist

>I'm a Leftist

Other urls found in this thread:


Because unfortunately, the PC left is too cowardly to align with fellow anti-capitalists on the right

pure ideology

That's why I say I'm an anarchist so I can get accused of being a bomb-throwing lunatic

Doesn't exist sweetums.

I say I am a communist. Because I am a communist


Most Nazis, National Syndicalists, ect, are socialists. They just aren't Communist socialists. There's more to socialism than just Marxism you know…

in nothing but very vague words that are really just smoke screen



So are anti-enlightenment reactionaries/neo-absolutists/red reactionaries/etc. somehow leftists now?

I reject the label "leftist". I fucking cringe everytime someone says "the left should" or "as a leftist". At this point a fucking neoliberal is a leftist. I refer to myself only as a communist or a Marxist-Leninist.

It makes no sense to adopt the label leftist for communists anyway. Notice how only left-liberal brainlets like Muke and his ilk keep using that term? Communists are for the abolition of both right and left politics.

The Marxist concept of privitization is very different from the Volkish concept of privitization.

They support the rights of the people who make up their race, they fight against foreign banking interests, they wish to organize the economy along lines that benefit those who actually work for it rather than fat cat cronies…I could go on. But yes, they are socialist. They aren't communist, I'll give you that, but there's no need to be dogmatic.

no, they're rightists, and anti-capitalist in nothing but words. vague, deceitful words.

Can you explain beyond vague buzzwords?

You better have proof for this bucko. Because those "fat cat cronies" donated to Hitler's party and just so happened to reap enormous rewards from the war economy.

Simply put, Volkish socialism seeks to make a socialist system that is compatible with human nature, whereas Communism seeks to abolish human nature. They have different paths, but ultimately similar goals.

What does that mean? What are the specific policys you promote?


Abolishing of unearned income, requiring business to serve the people and national interest rather than profits, a national identity that transcends class (thus ending the class war), support of national trade unions, public education, elimination of unemployment, outlawing of usury, and other such actions. I dont claim to be an expert on Nazism, but I think any socialist who's not a full blown dogmatic or SJW can see value in those proposals.(I applaud your efforts)

that's a phrase retarded people like you keep repeating
you never prove anything of it and it's nothing but pulled straight out of your ass
there is no völkischer sozialismus and you are a retard to pretend otherwise
i know very well and probably understand way better the concepts of you faggots "socialism" and there is nothing to back it up, it's ideological trash for class-collaborationism to justify continued exploitation of the workers
vague, deceitful words
that's literally all you faggots have

idpol trash, go kill yourself you eternal cuck

That's another thing about Marxists that separates them from other socialists and makes them weak, you neglect to see that there are values beyond the material…

That doesn't explain at all the differences bewteen "Marxist" and "Volkisch" privatization. In fact, your post is meaningless if you don't define what you mean by human nature, why socialism is incompatible with that definition, and why "Volkisch socialism" is.

that's not even keeping it vague, you're just uttering random nonsense now

I seek to try change the meaning back and from experience, people I talk to go "oooooh, so that's socialism"
Idk tho

I understand what you're trying to do, for the record. I'm well read, and I've learned well from history. The Hegelian method, itself derived from Kabbalistic rituals, of inducing fluidity in definitions to affect the metaphysical, whether consciously or unconsciously aware of your intent. Either way, if you're going to argue on dishonest terms using dishonest methods, then I'm afraid you have already lost.

Never happened under the Nazis

Never happened under the Nazis

Ok well this one is right for once

ahahahaha no

After all competing trade unions were killed off, thus fulfilling german employers' demands and allowing them even more control over the nation's economic structure

Brainwashing people into hating jews doesn't count and it's not really public education when you literally start persecuting minorities and people with disabilities

Would have been accomplished anyways without the Nazis

Never happened under the Nazis.

Good because you're an idiot who thinks the Nazis actually carried out the populist leaning promises in their platform when anyone who has read a history book in their lives knows they didn't.

Read Wages to Destruction by Adam Tooze if you wish to know the truth behind the Nazi economic "miracle".

Forgot link.

I hate you for being retarded.

I don't ever call myself a Socialist/leftist, but I really, really think "anticapitalist" sounds retarded. Also
Well I want business to be socially owned and for people to have real control over the forces that run their lives, so, yeah I guess I do "want the government to run everything".
I see no problem with taxing rich people more. Also people that look at countries with better Healthcare and screech about taxes are retarded because it is shown that the majority get better care for the cost. Just mentioning that specifically because people act as if taxes are just magical money deductions you don't get anything for.
Yeah I like this too.
If only he killed more.
Fug toothbrushes.

Wow how beautifully vague and inpotent.

You mean like the capitalist class? Ultra-porkies such as the Krupp family or WW1 Aryan profiteers such as Hugo Stinnes?

The whole point of capitalist enterprises is to make profit. And what about the actual workers?
The "people" in this context don't matter because it is a non-existent idealistic entity, a mental phantasm. Which unlike family or other direct relations, does not actually describe a concrete relation between people. (See Dunbar's number, or the difference between an actual community. and just a vague collection of people identified by shared characteristics, but who otherwise do not interact with one another.)

That's not how class works. It describes a relation of people the means of production, and doesn't simply disappear the moment you're part of the same 'nation'.

You mean like all those German banks?

Like what?


You're not even the same dude.

the nazis always do this
once they know they lost the argument they just pull out something vague (preferably about jews) that literally makes no sense, talk about how smart they are and then accuse you of being intellectualy dishonest.


Leftist server, also not an argument, a Leftist doesn't need to be considered what you'd call a SJW, you're creating the illusion.

aha but you forget naziposter, everyone is jewish there! they arent german, theyre really jewish. let me just conveniently forget the fact that a large part of the nazi party was jewish as well tho, since they dont count lol

no but seriously, ive had literal nazis say that being jewish isnt the main problem, and that some jews can be good its just the overwelming majority of jews that suck.

the cognitive dissonance

It's an illusion that people associate liberals, neolibs, SJW and other non-socialists with the left

That should have been >implying

Well, you got it right by accident. :^)

Communists should call themselves "the Left", because they will be the only ones left. Everybody else gets the bullet.

Who are you replying to?

lucky I don't usually get asked about labels but instead engage in actual debate.

of course, the nazis are fine with private property as long as it's within national boundaries. They are not concerned with an actual economic analysis nor with the contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of production.


how would a "right wing anti capitalist" state and economy even look? Does some clergyman or aristocratic fuck make the decisions instead of the workers or bourgeois?

That's an obvious lie right off the bat

Pics related



This meme again, interest rates remained, i bet you believe the nazis "created their own currency" too even though the Reichsmark had been around since the 20s and remained beyond the end of the war

What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?… The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.
Adolf Hitler to Max Amann, May 1930 quotes in A History of Not Socialism (Responding to Fascism Vol 2)

"Socialism" and "communism" are only scary words for old people. More and more people under 30 are actually embracing them, in one way or another.

Also trying to come up with some other faggot appellation for C/S is "brand dilution" and would only confuse people more, and I can't help but strongly suspect that some of the people pushing it are doing so with just that aim in mind.

Probably a monarchistic version of Vanguardism.

Because most people on here DO support refugees, high texas, 100 dollar an hour minimum wage, etc

Continuous spazzing of pure ideology.

Of course, because those things are great.
Welcome to America, fellow Americans!
Well how the fuck else are you going to tolerate being in texas?
Well how the fuck else are you going to afford getting high in texas?

Because we're actually proud of what we are and are willing to educate the ignorant.

And, no, in a world where reactionaries accuse the fucking Democrats of being socialists and communists, we won't find any shelter under a different moniker. It's better to face these things head-on, especially considering that socialists and communists trying to enter politics under a different name is actually a part of the old anti-communist propaganda we struggle against. I think it's better to show the world that we aren't the bogeymen right-wing propaganda makes us out to be.

ITT; champagne socialists defending their liberal masters

Okay, so you've reinstated the nobility and the laws are exactly like France 1788, how would you actually prevent a liberal revolution?

except now it will be legal weed instead of meth


I don't (not "leftist" anyway) and I do not recommend it for most people. Either way, that's hardly something one should concern himself with since mass-media can distort any term.

Because it's ten times vaguer than "Leftist". Also, there is no way I would want to associate myself in any way with the Fascist degenerates.

Fascists usually claim to be this.

IIRC the originator of this meme ended up in psychiatric facility even before the WWII begun.

That was a semi-official line in Reich propaganda in 1930s that was heavily based on their bullshit Aryan mysticism. See below:


Just imagine something like that, except this time without guilds, 'cities' (in the traditional sense) and other forms of proto-capitalism. And excluding the religious elements as well for the most part.
Obviously distributing the MoP throughout society would be a monumental effort. But not fundamentally impossible.
It would also take considerable advances in fields like additive manufacturing, biotech, and even the embracing of transhumanism, in order to make locally autarky viable.
One important aspect here - regardless of where the future ends up going - is moving from linear economic systems to ecological balance. If we don't, hundreds of millions risk dying from resource depletion alone. See the modern phosphorus cycle.

The tank gets it.

The same way China has managed to crush liberal democracy for decades.


Oh boy…

I can find one. You don't live in a vacuum. When you raise taxes on porkies, they move their money off shore to a country that doesn't have high taxes. Same thing with businesses. It's why china make it policy to lower its corporate tax rate at least 15% relative to the US. Now you've drained billions from the economy that you can't tax, and have to rely on the small fry suckers who can't afford the luxury of scamming their way out. There are lots of factors in play - for instance, if economic growth outpaces the reduction in tax percentage, the costs can be offset with more purchasing power to the consumer and more capital in circulation.

That's why you implement a system like Bretton Woods to prevent capital flight you moron.



Fot those people, everything to the left from far right is a leftists, including other right wingers. Like democrats in US, theyre leftists for them, when theyre right wing.

Thats why everything needs to be nationalized, so it wouldnt.

The deffiniton for “left-wing” and “right-wing” are highly subjective. As such under some subjective deffiniton its possible to label some ideologies as “right-wing” that most of Holla Forums would consider to be leftist.

Taken from Germany Tomorrow, Part 3, Chapter 6:

"Manager, staff of workers, and State are the three partners in any enterprise They constitute a factory fellowship…

Management, possession, and profits are thus assigned in thirds to the manager, the staff of workers, and the State. The management decides about the world policy of the enterprise, settling the kind and quantity of goods to be produced, fixing the respective amounts payable for depreciation (wear and tear), reserve, and profit, and prescribing the wages to be paid…

"The respective shares of the manager and the working staff in the profits must be so apportioned that the manager will be able to provide for his own living expenses and those of his family out of Ms share In the profits and nothing more, whereas the worker's ordinary expenditure will be defrayed out of his wages. The manager's share In possession and profits must, therefore, be comparatively large, whilst that of the individual worker can be comparatively small."



I just say I'm a libertarian communist, and most people who aren't rightist libertarians kinda drop it after that. Plus I don't mind explaining what communism is about to me, because it spreads the info and very often makes people slightly sympathetic.

It has been very well-known for over a century now that communism is the best label. It's mere utterance provokes pants-shitting terror and vehement strawmans the likes of which this planet has never seen on such a scale.

Pseudoradical chumps here will unironically suggest it's unsalvageable though because God forbid a movement seeking to abolish capital could cause some fucking controversy.

It's so easy to turn the communism=Stalinism association around on anticommunists dude. When pressed on their use of the term they usually fall back on a fucking dictionary lmao

Doesn't really make sense to me, they cant stop doing business in the U.S. They can't just "pack up" their capital and go hang out in Switzerland. I don't know about your country but I can't see this in the U.S. In fact I can't see this at all, people can't just stop doing business. They can move their money into another bank or w/e, but they are income taxes (assumably, wasn't really clear but w/e) so its not like they can put their income in amother country, right?

I don't think pussies consider themselves radicals.

From my own experience, people are as suspicious of "anti-capitalist" as they are of "socialist" and in fact often conflate the two.
Besides, there's the problem of "anti-capitalist" being quite frankly as vague as "socialist" to begin with, since capitalism is often as ill-defined as socialism.

It doesn't really make sense to describe figures like De Maistre as "anti-capitalist". They barely ever addressed economics and focused on politics instead.

He's a meme. Just like every fascist pretending to be anti-capitalist, he supported a corporatist version of capitalism — nothing more.

True. Though other reactionary thinkers have.
Genuine anti-capitalist reactionaries are rare though.

Because most people including leftists believe capitalism is synonymous with the dawn of man to the extent that most people would think Alexander the Great was a capitalist akin to how most people modern times also think that the Columbus proved the world was round.

What are some examples of reactionary thinkers criticizing capitalism? And I mean capitalism, not "modernity" or "industrialization".

Why are you so edgy, "nazi"poster? You're obviously not a nazi.

How do you imagine such a system would come into being? The bourgies won't like it one bit, and 'socialism except it's explicitly a monarchic dictatorship' is harder to sell to the plebs than just socialism. As you yourself admit, these ideas are very rare and have few intellectuals backing them up or 'ordinary' rightwingers supporting them. It seems like the most niche thing imaginable which has zero chance of actually happening.

"I hate Porky but I also hate skinheads and I don't want to be friends with either" is not cowardice user it's having a fucking spine.

Go back.

I don't know why people are disagreeing with you. Obviously there are other economic systems besides communism and capitalism, fascism being a prominent one, traditional economies being another.

Anyone who callls themselves "socialists" are not my comrades.


I don't care about actual meanings, I care about how the ideology is presented. And "socialists" present themselves as more moderate communists. Pure ideology, but fuck socialists.

I love edibles but weed smells fucking awful.

if you smoke blunts yes, because you get the smell of stale gas station cigars later, weed out of a bong or a dry bowl isn't bad at all.

420chan detected

Fascism is a political system, not an economic mode of production. What fascists called "corporatism" is just state-mandated class collaboration within a capitalist framework.

Also there is no such thing as a "traditional economy".

Feudalism, dummy

Modern academia believes that there was never a coherent and uniform system in place across European societies which could be called "feudalism" and the term is slowly disappearing from textbooks.

Feudalism was system of legal customs and reciprocal obligations (whose very existence is actually subject to controversy), not a "traditional economy". Actually, I would argue there is no such thing as a "pre-capitalist economy" because before capitalism, there was no such thing as a society in which the economic sphere could be described as autonomous or distinct from other spheres of human activity in general.

What about slavery then?

This. As far as I can tell, reactionaries never seem to criticize the economic system but instead choose to criticize "corruption of values".

Do you mean the systemic theft of Jewish property?

I have to admit I'm not too knowledgeable about slavery, so I'm afraid I can't help you here. However, I'd still argue that slavery, being "politically-constituted property" (Ellen Wood), does not really qualify as an "economy".

Dictatorship of the proletariat

No, literal privatization of government companies, except they're privatized to Aryans so it's not really privatization because it remains within the Volksgemeinschaft and everyone is on the same side and has no problems.

And the only reactionary thinkers who do realize that this "corruption of values" is related to capitalism miss the mark by employing a purely idealist approach as they try to locate the mythological locus of capitalism (its Jewish essence, its feminine nature, its break with Tradition, etc). This is why their proposed policies often involve delusional time travel back to the 13th century or essentially nothing more than state regulations Keynesians already came up with in the '20s.

Privatization isn't a "Marxist" concept, it simply describes the transfer of a company or service from the public to the private sector. I can't wait to hear about your "Völkisch" definition; does it involve Siegfried being hired by the World Bank?

This is hardly incompatible with capitalism. It doesn't even have anything to do with economics. Friendly reminder that interracial marriage remained illegal in many US states until 1967 and South Africa until 1985.

Why "foreign" banking interests? Why not banking interests period? Anyway, criticism of finance as somehow distinct from "productive" or "national" capitalism is the anti-capitalism of brainlets.

This is incredibly vague and might as well be uttered by a libertarian.

Please do, because so far you've got nothing besides milquetoast social-democracy + Germanic runes.

Translation: "Why don't you accept the validity of concepts as I choose to redefine them?"


do you have some reading you can post for this? asking for a friend

It's not that theyre scared, their emotions just got played by porky so hard that they screech at imaginary differences between capitalistic wings.

Liberals refuse to see Obama as a black trump precisely like how conservatives screech at the though of Trump really being a white Obama. In their own ways, they are enemies of the workers.

Rightwingers like to use the "UH BACK THEN DUH REPUBLICANS WUR DUH DEMCRATS!@!!1" argument while failing to realize that the only conclusion drawn from that is "liberal and conservative ideology is the same force of porky which uses idpol to rob and gaslight their workers.".

The majority of americans are just a bunch of drones trained to scream at their own reflection.

To use somewhat esoteric metaphors, idpol is a hatchery of tribalism.

So basically pray to The Cosmic Order of Truth for guidance. Good read.


Mods you fucking niggers stop deleting posts if they don't have gore or CP. It's bad enough trying to see through Nazi bullshit IF WE CAN'T SEE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! If I want to have half the posts on my thread missing I can go to fucking reddit thank you very much.

Johann Fichte, Friedrich List, Othmar Spann, Heinrich Pesch - genuine anti-capitalist right-wing economic theoreticians; corporatism / nationalism / solidarism.

The reason why communists / marxists think that there is no genuine right-wing anti-capitalist theory is that the RWAC theory that does exist is directed toward specific problems of economy, not the larger picture of capitalism as a mode of production. Traditionally these focuses have been Trade, Money & Banking, Agricultural & Industrial Policy, etc. RWAC Theory thus more envisions the economy with the anti-social aspects of the market economy subtracted from it whereas Marxism starts from the genesis of Wage Labor and goes from there.

But if I think that an autarkic, heavily-unionized state with no private banks isn't Capitalism, I'm retarded yes?

When will you people learn?


Then you've thought yourself into a position where, your intellectual vocabulary lacks acuity so badly that [Total Violation of Market Imperatives] == [Market Imperatives]

None of those were "anti-capitalists". Fichte didn't care about economics, List was a protectionist, Sparr was a corporatist and Pesch a social Catholic. Neither set out to study and criticize capitalism as a mode of production.

… So you confirm they weren't anti-capitalists but merely opposed to this or that policy within the framework of capitalism. Got it.

Yeah, so "moralized" capitalism — through welfare, regulations and protectionism. Just like social-democracy.

… Yes, you are? Capitalism is a mode of production. The amount of self-reliance, the extent of unionization or the absence of private banks doesn't make it not capitalism.

Just because there are government regulations that address some of the most destructive social consequences of market imperatives doesn't mean your mode of production isn't capitalist — in fact, the very fact that you need regulations to rein in their destructiveness is evidence that market imperatives rule supreme in the first place and that the only thing you can hope to achieve against them is putting government-sponsored band-aids on the trail of blood they leave behind. Do you believe Depression-era America was somehow not capitalist because the government paid farmers to reduce crop yields and therefore keep prices high? Socialism isn't about "violating" market imperatives but abolishing them.

because defining yourself as a simple negation of the current status quo serves no purpose and can never bring true change. you'd understand that dialectic if you weren't an uneducated philistine

I appreciate this response. Honest question: do you consider post-Lenin to USSR to have been capitalism?

Suck my dick you chicken-swinger

no it's not you dumb fuck. you didn't even understand what I wrote, how about your actually study marx (crazy idea, right?) before shitposting?

The Soviet Union, under Lenin and post-Lenin, was state capitalist. Lenin said in 1917: "For socialism [as he understood it] is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent [somehow] ceased to be capitalist monopoly."
I suggest reading Aufheben's What was the USSR? for further insight on that matter.

That's the plan, but it's long and I have other things to read.

Stop trying earn points based on appeals to psychology. What you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote; nowhere did I "define myself" or do anything of the kind. Furthermore, what are you implying? That policy change has no effect? I know, dialectics, etc.

OK thank you

you are a literal faggot. You call yourself a leftist When your a nat soc. Thats pure inbred faggotry right there. Re-read your ideology and learn what a turd position is

how thick are you? honest question

to the question asked by op, "why not define your ideology as anti-capitalist?" or any anti-x for that matter, the answer is that simply defining yourself as a negation of the current status quo has no point. The purpose of marxism isn't to be a form of anti-capitalism or anti-theism, but to dialectically reveal their workings and render them obsolete by ushering society into the next step of it's evolution. This is the key difference between Marx and the so called "socialists" of his era (ruge,bauer etc).

I can't see "how thick are you" and read some other context into that question at this point.

you should stop being so e-arrogant towards people who've actually studied marxism and dismissing sentences you didn't even understand with that pround-to-be-ignorant attitude

all language and labels is completely meaningless, even my own use of "is" there where "are" would have been appropriate.
when you say "I'm a leftist" and they reply "muh immigration", it's because on a subconscious level they want you to believe that. They want the easy argument, the singular object of hate. You can change the labels all you want, and they'll still try and force you within that framework. That's why you have the whole Cultural Marxism meme - because they need a way to push together the Soviet Union, the gays, and the Democratic Party as a single enemy.

Nobody likes a complex world. Even in serious analysis, it's necessary to create structures for understanding things (like "neoliberalism" to some degree) that can soon slide into meaning everything and nothing simultaneously. Even then, if you're in the right groups you know what they mean.

I don't know about you, but the mainstream misunderstanding of what constitutes socialism/communism seems to be one of the biggest pet peeves here. It's also a source of hysterical strawmen the world over. Which looking back, I assume is hurting your movement more than it's helping it.
People cling to toxic labels, but then getting furious that the plebs don't have an advanced understanding of Marxism or the communist movement. For every well read-socialist able to carefully explain the theoretical basis of Marxism - and untangle over a century worth of strawmen - there exists a million dollars worth of Mercer-Koch (and alphabet soup) propaganda that 'socialism' is actually about stealing your paycheck and giving it to the state.

It's surprising to me that the proponents of mass politics do not - or fail - to recognize the prime importance of optics. The idea that you can disperse communist/socialist views without making any explicit reference to either Marxism or communism seems to be mostly lost here. Contrast that to (what you refer to as) 'rightist' thinkers, who have no problem wrapping their neoliberal or fascistic views in innocuous sounding terms like "patriotism", "human biodiversity", "freedom", "self-determination" and other such Orwellian terminology.
The fact that the previous crisis saw millions flock to the very forces that caused it in the first place, just confirms that you are at a memetic disadvantage here.

Market imperatives haven't disappeared the moment you lack private banks.It goes deeper than that. It's the whole system of people producing for exchange rather than their (or their communities) own needs. As long as you have that, you end up with capitalism. Wage labor, capital accumulation, etc.

And here I was thinking that communism was the "real movement which abolishes the present state of things".
Now I get what you're saying here. But I'm not talking about what is the more "comprehensive" stance here. I know that there's more to it than a simple negation.
I'm talking about the labels you use to convey your points. In regards to capitalism you talk about "dialectically revealing their workings and render them obsolete". How are you going to do that when people consistently misconstrue and misinterpret your points?
Instead of being able to focus on dismantling the ideology of capitalism, you constantly have to waste time defending yourself against ridiculous strawmen, which in some cases are specifically engineered to take the minimum effort to spread and the maximum amount of effort to debunk. (See Black Book of Communism, Road to Serfdom, etc.)

Made me chuckle 9/10

This might sound surprising. But most of my reactionary inspiration doesn't come from 'rightist' thinkers (I.e people like Evola, Sprengler, Guenon, Jünger, Gómez Dávila, etc.), but rather nominally 'leftist' and/or 'Marxist' thinkers like Kazcynski, Bordiga, Camatte, Marcuse, Adorno, Gunter Anders, Zerzan, etc. Even Lenin, and not to forget - Marx and Engels.
I mentioned this briefly in the other thread: It really depends to what end you use theory. A devastating critique of liberal democracy or wage labor can be used to support populist mass politics, just as it can be used in service of supporting an elitist reaction.
A lot of people refuse to recognize it, but the movement against capitalism (or the 'present state of things') has at least two directions. And one of them is distinctly non-(or even anti-)egalitarian.

Why would I allow Liberal and reactionary talking points control how I define my own politics? This is a retarded question. Besides, just because someone is anti-Capitalist doesn't mean they're a Communist, and just because the average Burger thinks Communism means "big gubment" doesn't mean that Communism is just the name for a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

They'll do that no matter what. Even Liberals get called Communists. It doesn't make sense to constantly allow your ideological enemies to define the parameters of your own discourse.

I wouldn't describe that inspiration as "reactionary", really. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to define anyone critical of progress or mass culture (like Adorno) as "reactionary" which to me necessarily implies glorification of a pre-Enlightenment golden age — and in that case, certain "left-wing" figures like Christopher Lasch or Claude Lévi-Strauss would qualify.

Pretty much what I do. It does get people upset though.

Those would be the technocrats. Why do you call yourself a reactionary and not a technocrat? Do you really believe that the traditional elites are also elite in a scientific sense? This seems like a highly dubious proposition.

Anyone can be a socialist, it is meaningless. I am for communism.

Again, it's not about letting others define your politics. It's about getting things done. And fanatically clinging to labels hurts your movement in this regard.

On itself? No. But when it's used to advocate for pre-modern political and economic relations, I'd argue that's a pretty reactionary stance.

Thanks for the mentions, I'll check those out as well. Do you have any specific works to recommend?

There are definitely similarities, and in reality I'd assume it'd be pretty similar in terms of execution. However, I'm more for a greater focus on local autonomy/autarky.
Though obviously appointing sovereigns with academic and technical expertise is a must. Succession where the sovereigns have no control over who will replace them is a terrible idea as history has shown.

Granting this, where does the reactionary self-identification enter in? What you describe is more revolutionary than reactionary; local autonomy and sovereigns with academic and technical expertise is not the historical norm to say the least. Even the most technocratic civilization that is China was always strongly centralized, as were the enlightened despot type early modern European states. So strike against local autonomy.

I don't think Lévi-Strauss' conference Race and Culture — in which his ethno-differentialism is most stringent — was ever translated to English, sadly. As for Lasch, anything could do but you can just go for his most famous work, The Culture of Narcissism.

I just say I'm a communist.

t. ultraleft

Do you denounce USSR as state capitalist to normies?

pure ideology