Before you complain about how people never read leftist literature...

yeah, by reading marx

no point in reading their 'invisible hand' bullshit, if I'm going to spend time reading theory it'll be marxist

I somehow doubt upon reading Mises I'll change my mind

But I am a state socialist :^)

see, this is exactly what im talking about. you keep complaining about how people never give half a shit about leftism, but you yourself doesnt understand shit about libertarianism, thats why youve lost every single debate between marxists/leftists and right wingers.

no wonder why muke got rekt so hard, he doesnt understand fuck about life, just like Holla Forums

no one said you'll change your mind, just saying you need to understand the right's argument if you're going to debate with them. most of you know about libertarianism through memes, have you even read friedman or rothbard?

well north korea and china worked out so great didnt they

I think we understand plenty.
We've never had a debate with right wingers.

wew, now who needs to read theory

no i haven't read all the great minds or whatever of right wing politics, why would I? I understand the basic ideas well enough, it's not my job to advocate for libertarianism.

Muke got btfo because he wasn't aggressive enough and let too much shit fly by in the debate, he let them monopolise the discussion. Also he shouldn't have brought a guy who says 'Marxism is outdated' in as part of his team, jesus.

Everyone, even leftists, should read Adam Smith.

Exactly this.

Once again, fam, that wasn't a debate. It was just a bunch of idiots arguing.

I've listened to right-libertarians a lot. They make some decent points on critiquing the government and then give supremely retarded answers and their analysis doesn't go to its logical conclusions (tax is theft very, very quickly can be shown to be that rent is theft)

There's some really good right wing philosophers, both historical (Diderot, Heidegger) and contemporary (Sloterdijk, Dennett). The thing is that none of them (bar Heidegger, ironically, and even he wasn't too convinced) today that are worth anything are advocates of reactionary ideology. They're at their 'rightest' conservative liberals, who will usually hold traditionally left-leaning philosophers at least in high regard.

please, pic related is what 99% of leftypol knows about libertarianism
youtube.com/watch?v=ZiiOz6V-9N8&feature=youtu.be
youtube.com/watch?v=IvPKu-iUuEQ

that was some retarded nazi dipshit who probably havent read anything other than harry potter.

good to see rebel yiannopoulos back.

see what i mean? if you want an actual debate, read some of our stuff.

just like how we understand the basic ideas of socialism well enough, even if libertarian socialism does work, it would require all of society to conform to its rules. the only difference is if someone wants to create a business under libsoc, they'll get lynched. if someone wants to create a worker's cooperative under libcap, they are free to do so.

maybe that says something about leftism

forgot pic related lol

on that basis good thing we can immediately throw away libertarianism then

youtube.com/watch?v=Ul0qfEL_Zog

Why should I when you didn't make the effort yourself. I know Somalia isn't true ancapistan or whatever, but there's plenty of practical problems you can point to

Also, I'm not a libertarian socialist (in the sense that you seem to be using that to mean anarcho-communist) so I won't get into that. I don't believe in market socialism et al so no, I wouldn't allow capitalism, but one isolated commune in a corporate hellhole isn't socialism

I know you guys are retards who can't tell the difference between a debate and a dinner table argument, but please stop calling these unstructured shit-flinging contests "debates".

It doesn't matter in our case because right wing literature is intellectually bankrupt and invalid :^)

Ah cmon calm down man. I don't think structured debates really convince anyone either, but at least freeform is more entertaining. Probably the right solution is something in between

xexizy didnt even have the balls to get angry though
except i actually do. ive read all the bullshit you guys have posted, and fundamentally disagree with all of it. also LTV is shit.

not an argument :^)

The only argument you deserve is a bullet in your kneecap :^)

I remember calling the entire thing stupid before it happened, and nobody asked him to do that in the first place.

most of modern libertarianism is a half-developed version of anarchism that was effectively built to sound radical while at the same time having the fantastic effect of not significantly changing society at all.

So are we producing glorified entertainment, or are we debating?

I'm only weighing in now because you faggots bring it on here.

wow so edgy

well too bad for you leftists, he did it and failed, and got so assblasted (by anonymous people on the internet) he probably killed himself
last time i checked, libertarian party got more support than the green party.

i bet your tone would be completely different if he had won

If you're only going to represent your own side anyway, you might as well make it entertaining. The more fun it is the more likely people are to share it too. Ideally it would be both informative and entertaining, I just don't think 15 minute speech vs 15 minute speech is that compelling for people

The amount of support a group gets is largely irrelevant of its philosophical-political validity. I mean the dems and repubs get huge amounts of support but they're both bunk from a serious philosophical ground.

You're right. If he had "won" your little shitflinging contest, I wouldn't have given a shit entirely. But since he lost, that seems to have given a bunch of right wingers the impression that this gives them a good reason to come shitpost on our board, prompting me to give a shit.

Why the fuck should it be compelling to anyone?

Why are you viewing this as some sort of entertainment? Debate isn't entertainment. If you want entertainment, just make regular videos.

The only thing edgy here is you. Ancap is literally "let's try to make capitalism hip and cool by commodifying drugs".

I agree with O.P. Be familiar with their ideas so you can debate them on their own terms,,
Yes.. Mein Kampf is boring. Who would of thought Hitler would be boring?

I would, if there philosophical arguments weren't all the same.
Honestly, if I have to read someone, it would be the right-wing economists.
You at least get variation there.

Early Liberals didn't know enough about Capitalism to criticize it, it was an early fenomenon. I'm certain Smith, Locke and crew would join Marx if they were able to meet him. As I'm sure most Right-Wingers from the 19th century would denounce Capitalism when confronted with consumer culture and National subordination to global markets.

It's funny, when reading The Law you can find tons of today's right wingers arguments 300 years ago.

Yes, It is cancer

DPRK is fascist ergo capitalist just with baseless socialist rhetoric, it's the equivalent of Nazi (calling itself socialist while being capitalist), china is a mixed economy
Somalia is lassiez-faire, the government doesn't interefere with the free market at all, ergo it is true capitalism. As for "the congo" you need to be more specific - are you talking about the Belgian Congo or the Republic of the Congo?
It's also rather ironic you criticize libsoc for "making people conform" to it when your system does the exact same thing
Confirmed for hasn't read any libsoc literature at all.
Or maybe it says something about one particular individual that cannot be generalized into a group.

These two negate each other you know
On a more serious note I'd love to see right wing propaganda that has as much of a solid base as, say, Das Kapital, but even Friedman is mostly "muh feels" "muh nature" "muh might makes right" "muh presupposition of equality fallacy" etc.

For bonus points:
Is "equality" a spook?

No, and I'll wager that the answer for most posters here is also no.

This is because we are not necessarily in the business of critiquing right-wing ideology, but rather we are in the business of critiquing capitalism. Capitalism, and its conflicts and contradictions, is not understood through the study of right-wing ideology but rather through the study of practices and social relationships within the Capitalist system. The right wing is not engaged in exploring and understanding the Capitalist system, but rather minimizing it as a factor or defending it out of misplaced personal identification with it, so their literature is useless to us.

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to expect right-wingers to understand left-wing theory and right-wing critiques when they are actively trying to refute and rebuke these very same left-wing critiques. When the critic does not understand what he is arguing against, you end up with ridiculous strawmen, which is the category into which the vast majority of right-wing arguments against leftism fall.

I've been reading it for most of my life.

Depends on how it's being used and what exactly a person means by equality.

i read lots of rw literature but it can't hold my attention probly because it's fucking austistic-stupid.

What literature? We're talking about political ideologies that believe thinking is for kikes

right wing is too broad term, be more specific.

Do you need to read Middle-Age theory to build a plane?

I've read some economic stuff. Its garbage that strawmans or ignores opposing views. Non economic stuff either abuses pseudo science or muh feels.
I have never gained anything from reading that trash.

I've read the classical Liberals, John Locke, Adam Smith, etc. Even if they don't to admit it, these are the basis of right wing thought. I've also read Friedman and Von mises. Also a bunch of fascists, Marinetti, parts of Kampf. Evola.

In short, I've read a whole load of right wing literature.

Its literally garbage. Friedman is probably the least garbage who talks most sense but even then he talks garbage. None of their claims stand up to real world actuality. Friedman is right about some things, but his underlying world view throws all of this into obscurity and irrelevance. I mean in general, people are better left to their own devices but being left to your own devices is NOT being left to trade capital.

The fascists are good polemic writers but they really don't have very much of a theory or structure at all. It all SOUNDS good but when you stop and think it doesn't really cohere to real life. Basically they are extremely good at arousing strong feelings, but only ever against an external enemy, they are very anti and not very pro. This is why they all say different shit and none of them actually agree on anything but having a strong nation.

I would like to say that early Fascists like Marinetti and the Spanish national Syndicalists deserve way more credit than they get. However, the Franco's and the Mussolini's ALWAYS shut down these useful parts of fascism WITHOUT ONE SINGLE HISTORICAL EXCEPTION.

Yes I've read right wing literature. I have even engaged with it, I even used to believe it, I started out a classical Liberal, then kept reading and realised its failings.

It is madness to think that enlightenment ideas are the be all and end all. It is madness to think that people literally just reacting to the growth of Marxism and Socialism basically attempting to keep the class structure created by Liberalism, without a coherent ideology, really had anything to offer.

Also obligatory Von Mises pic related

Being screamed at by monkeys with Roman statue avatars is now equivalent to losing a debate. Top kek dude.
What next? Are we gonna go a UFC match to see who's ideology is best?
You're such a fucking aspie, just hang yourself.
Pic related, the guy on the left is your future.

I think this a fair point. But you are mistaken if you think reading right wing theory is useless to a socialist. In a debate setting, meme tier knowledge of other schools of thought leaves a high risk that spaghetti will spill out of your pockets. It also greatly reduces the risk of misunderstandings getting in the way of a honest and productive dialog.

Which books?

Here is a right wing book, written by a Harvard professor of psychology:
The Blank Slate: A Modern Denial of Human Nature
By Steven Pinker

I don't think that at all, I'm just saying that debating right-wingers probably isn't the main priority of most leftists. If you're into that, it's certainly important to know what their ideas are before you get into the thick of it, naturally.

It used to be communist, that is when thney got their famines and everything went to hell before it collapsed into civil war
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Wew.

Damn, it used to be a post-scarcity, classless, stateless, moneyless society? I wonder why they ever went back.

Read Mein Kampf and some of Oswald Mosley's stuff. Mosley in all honestly wasn't terrible but Mein Kampf was literally just whining.

not to be a defense of voluntaryism (it's retarded) but in that picture the man who started a farm is already in violation of the NAP, because he's transgressed against the voluntaryist's property.

youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ
I liked his speech on globalization.

I wish I could show this shit to Hegel, he'd have a laugh.

I like how you can replace the part where he says "global goverment is about money" with "global goverment is about global capital" and make it sound like some communist speech lol

I read through all of mein kampf. It's terribly written. Hitler had the writing ability of a developmentally disabled kid who's being punched in the back of the head while he tries to write.

Yes, or atleast I tried. Its bullshit and bad theory. Reading rightwingers, libertarians, conservatives made me understand how futile social democracy is and radicalised me. I never even could have guessed how insane the right is till I read more of their stuff.

Rightwing is not capitalism but there are reasons why capitalists allways ally with fascists and the like when shit hits the fan.

Right wing is more Feudalism than Capitalism.

Yeah, i haven't read much yet but I'm intending on reading some classical liberal economic literature. I probably won't read much fascist literature because I know it'll just be muh feels, muh nation, muh morals etc. i'd probably get the same value by trudging through some Christian-Right drivel.

sasuga Holla Forums

i've read that one, unlike the vast majority of Holla Forums.
pinker's ideas are too complicated to categorize as either right or left wing.

i seem to remember friedman being especially averse to statistics and preferring to just pull things out of his ass. a common trait among lolbertarians is to claim, "economics always works according to certain a priori immutable principles which may or may not relate to the real world". no you idiot, you're getting confused with pure math, and even there we find inherent contradictions.

but yeah basically they're all shit.

i have read both sides before deciding

what were these so called "useful parts"?

I like how the appeal to feelings is something conservatives use against liberals in USA kek

Mein Kampf is fucking Atlas shrugged tier in terms of poorly written annoying tripe

I keep hearing people say this, but not one can create a single coherent argument as to why they're obsolete, nor do they offer any solution beyond "use Burgerland newspeak"

Burger liberals (the majority of the Burgerstan "left") are too tepid and centrist to attack any conservative sacred cows beyond religious fundamentalism. This allows the conservatives to pretend that they're hard-nosed realists rather than spooked, servile sycophants.

I finished Capitalism and Freedom and parts of Mein Kampf and Atlas Shrugged. I also got pdfs of Siege and some of Carlyle's and Lincoln Rockwell's works and a huge Evola collection I keep telling myself I'm going to get to eventually.

And I've watched countless Milton Friedman lectures, and a few episodes of his show Free to Choose.