I’ve been reading Neoreaction a Basilisk and, through the books criticisms, getting more acquainted with the current theories right wing “intellectuals” are propagating. That’s led me to consider reading through at least some of Nick Land’s work, maybe to better grasp what theory Silicon Valley elites are huffing at the moment.
I’ve done this once; before I ever became more ideologically aware, I read through Atlas Shrugged not knowing what it was and after finishing, even then, walked away pissed off I spent any time on it. However, it was useful for catching right wing references and understanding the basis for libertarianism later. It’s also been interesting, though not quite useful, to trace how right wing thought has evolved and what the resulting “praxis” has looked like; the Koch brothers using the tea party as an entryist/infiltration strategy for promoting libertarianism in government, the resulting frustration of those efforts leading to Steve Banon and the promotion of Trump and the beginnings of more “authoritarian” or dictatorial strategies, and now to Moldbug and Land promoting straight up accelerationism and fascism amongst the ascendant tech CEOs after they all abandoned their former siding with liberals.
But is it useful to know any of that? I feel like all that’s happening as I come to understand how they think and how they implement their vision for the world, the more I understand how fucked we are (let’s assume we’re fucked, right?).
You must log in or # to comment.
Right wing theory won’t tell you how right wingers think because right wing theory only exists to justify the reactionary worldviews they hold. They do not draw their views from that theory. Right wingers just believe whatever reactionary nonsense they want and use buzzwords from those “theories” or quote them in order to justify them. It’s like evangelicals and the bible. If you read the bible it’s not going to help you understand an evangelical. Because most of them haven’t even read it. They just pick and choose parts they like to justify what they already think.
If you want a real understanding of how reactionaries think read leftist theory. It will teach you more about them than right wing theory will.
Went to a Baptist funeral today. It ended with a threat that those of us who haven’t accepted christ won’t ever see my great subt again in heaven and thst she “got to the finish line first” which is a deeply morbid way of looking at things. It went over well wirh her church friends but nkt so well with the family.
I agree to an extent. The vast majority of right wing slop is post hoc justification and not forward-thinking.
But there are some VERY useful right wingers to understand to get the basis of their philosophy. Reading g Carl Schmitt was legitimately perspective changing, and (though you absolutely don’t have to hand it to him) he had a consistent rigorous method to analyze how the world worked and should be. At least he had some interesting claims and justifications that get to the core of society how he sees it. I came away much more knowledgeable about how fascism arises and is justified.
I think reading Nietzsche is similar, though it’s a little too easy to be placate by him and think ‘eh, hes not so bad’ so I would recommend reading Losurdo’s book on Nietzsche immediately before or after any reading of Nitezsche. But Nietzsche really did just have a reactionary response to growing trends based on his aristocratic class interests and says that pretty plainly. Right wingers today are similar but with slightly changed class forms (labor aristocracy, imperial core, white supremacy, petit bourgeois, etc)
Phrasing it as equivalent to reading scripture is good. And of course, I’m going to continue reading leftist thought.
I guess I was wondering why Sandifer put herself through reading all the shit she’s criticizing.
The podcast “Know your enemy” describes right wing theory, history and internal disputes. Its engaging enough to listen to sometimes but very rare for anything discussed to have much utility. If you want to do the reading yourself it might still be useful to skim their episode outlines for author names.
A lot of right wing theory is Marxism but inverted on class conflict. They recognize the bourgeois as a class, but right wing theory makes up reasons for why the bourgeois is good and that the working class is bad. Capitalists are aware of capital extraction from labor, but make up reasons for why the capitalist deserves it.
Early capitalism was an opposition to monarchy. Modern capitalist theory is an opposition to socialism. Capitalists just look at socialist theory and say that we should do the opposite.
Right wingers are driven by gut instinct reaction and emotion
Any theory is a wallpaper of intellectualism to satisfy the kind of right wingers that don’t like associating with hogs
“A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!”
-William F Buckley
The fundamental problem is you’re projecting how leftism works on to the right. The right doesn’t read theory, they have books but basically none of them read them, the right just gets angry and posts on twitter. At their very core reactionaries are anti-intellectural therefore their works hold no value.
The right doesn’t read theory, they have books but basically none of them read them, the right just gets angry and posts on twitter.
Damn, I too, hate being seen like this.
Well at least some of us sometimes read theory
It will help you as much as studying the bible helps combat evangelicals (i.e., not at all)
Do you know that chart that right-wingers love to show off that shows that the right has a greater diversity of thought than the left?
That’s because right wing theory ranges from stuff like Ayn Rand to QAnon and the Flat Earth movement. A lot of them believe we live in a world of demons and monsters.
As I said in my previous comment to someone else, reading any old slop will get you nowhere. But there is still a basis upon which the thinking generally arises, and that can be analyzed. Carl Schmitt, piece of absolute shit, was a very good philosopher (derogatory). And understanding him is vital, imo, to getting fascism. And Nietzsche too. I think Losurdo describes Nietzsche well enough that reading him directly might be unnecessary, but seeing how aesthetics lies at the bottom of his justification right next to goodness is really something that you only get from reading Good and Evil.
obligatory mention of https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/ which has some good stuff on Nietzsche
of course! Though this is mostly an extension of Losurdo (good thing), so I like the source a slight bit better myself :). But Redsails is amazing, yes, and I’ve linked this exact essay all over the internet and among friends/comrades
And Nietzsche too. I think Losurdo describes Nietzsche well enough that reading him directly might be unnecessary, but seeing how aesthetics lies at the bottom of his justification right next to goodness is really something that you only get from reading Good and Evil.
I second skipping Nietzsche and just reading Losurdo’s Nietzsche, the Aristocratic Rebel: Intellectual Biography and Critical Balance Sheet. I made the mistake of reading a lot of Nietzsche at a formative stage of my life and the poison still lingers in me to this day. I haven’t finished Losurdo’s book yet (it’s long af and I keep losing discipline for a few weeksiat a time before diving in for a few more weeks), but he does a good job of explaining Nietzsche’s ideas and their relevance.
There’s a lot about Nietzsche that trying to connect everything with someone unfamiliar with Losurdo’s explanation feels like being a conspiracy nut with red string and a corkboard, but, in a nutshell, his view is that keeping most people in a society enslaved is essential for it to have culture, and that the European ruling classes should abandon any attempts to better the lives of the masses. They should also abandon any views that lead to them treating people as fundamentally equal, especially Christianity (which, to him, is literally the same as post Babylonian Exile Judaism).
Nah, it is all wrong. Properly knowing leftist theory will allow you to see the holes in it readily.
Eeven without that you deserve better than that to spend your brain wrinkles on bullshit.
The 5-4 theory of conservative jurisprudence is useful: right wingers simply operate on good boy bad boy theory. The law is to punish bad boys (who are naturally so) and all leniency to good boys (and again, good as inborn based on race etc.)
Everything else is backfilled from that political end.
Right wing “thought” is fundamentally anti-scientific so it’s consistently wrong and useless. Anti-medicine (trans, vaccines, sexuality), anti-geology (climate change, hydrology, crops and sustainability), anti-sociology (racism, misogyny, discrimination), anti-economy (economic planning vs laissez faire, anti-MMT, anti Marxian economics)… I don’t see how you can honestly get any worth from understanding the position of people whose worldview is to systematically deny reality and to be intellectually dishonest.
Right wing “theory” doesn’t really exist. What passes for it is done in reverse. They don’t start with analysis and develop a position, they start with a vibe or a goal then engage in motivated reasoning to justify it ex post facto.
It’s only useful insofar as it’ll tell you what their factions are.
Occasionally they have useful theory - I think the “realist” school of international relations has a lot useful stuff (I’ll skip the rant about them for now) - but the realists have completely eaten shit over the last few years, replaced with people with completely magic-based world views, so you see how far all that theory got them.
If we follow Marx’s example, then there are two kinds of right-wing theory. First is vulgar theory, then there is scientific theory. He didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about the vulgarians except to make fun of them.
On the other hand, Marx understood the material advantage held by bourgeois intellectuals over proletarians, namely that proletarians don’t get paid to produce theory. Therefore not only was it necessary to generate theory from below, from the proletarian standpoint; it was also necessary to critically examine the most advanced bourgeois theory, to dust off the class bias, and then to hand it to the working class for their revolutionary purposes. That is essentially what Marx dedicated his life to, as himself an intellectual of bourgeois background and education. He took bourgeois political economy and created a revolutionary theory out of it, a practical theory that could be used to change things for the working class.
Lenin makes this point in What Is To Be Done, stating: ” We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness …” Gramsci also wrote about the need for the working class to have its own intellectuals and the nature of these different intellectual strata.
In brief: if you are going to read theory, left or right wing, clarify your own purpose before wading in. If your purpose is entertainment, go ahead and read whatever drivel is written by The Economist or Tucker Carlson. If your purpose is to advance your ability to help the working class, then at most I would read relevant academics pursuing science honestly, even if those academics adopt imperial or class-biased attitudes.
I unfortunately understand them too well, I was young once and surrounded by a frankly socially fascist society. To truly understand them is to destroy your mind and your life, at least from my experience.
