The Paleocons viewed big business as much of a threat to freedom and culture as big government. Sam Francis saw both in the lens of James Burnham's managerial elite. They're all dead now except Pat Buchanan.
Which other conservatives and right wingers spoke the truth on Capitalism?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Evola
none of them. when it comes doen to it, they always serve the interests of the capitalists.
How can you oppose Capitalism if you don't reject Materialism? If you leave Materialism intact and just quibble about how to split the goods Capitalism can remain morally intact. Only by attacking Materialism can Capitalism lose cultural hegemony.
Spooky
Carl Schmitt. He was basically a Marxist without knowing it. The same applies to Wittgenstein, though he wasn't necessarily conservative.
Stirner is the greatest savior of Capitalism by his invention of "spooks". By making all the calculations against Capitalism occur within the logic of Capitalism they effectively canceled themselves out. That's partly why Gramsci et al had to fix the deficiencies in Marxist theory regarding culture.
stop spouting this crypto-fascist "le capitalism and communism are the same because materialism" and read a fucking book
forgot sage
Stop spouting this materialist apologia and make an argument.
Wasn't there some jewish guy that exposed some shit about Israel or some shit like and he """killed himself""" like 10 days later?
what's the point in arguing with someone who thinks materialism is when people care about money
Nothing wrong with that
Spooky
Materialism transcends capitalism. It's roots go back as far as ancient Greece and India.
I'm also not seeing how Gramisci isn't somehow isn't a materialist.
Communists (Except petty-bourj suburban rad-libs) oppose capitalism from a material standpoint, not a moral one.
If you discount the other factors influencing human action how can you ever expect to understand human action.
When people embrace "spooks" they reveal other factors influencing their decisions.
Gramsci understood that political power alone wouldn't sustain a political victory. That's where cultural hegemony came into play. You rightly note that Materialism transcends Capitalism which is precisely the point. Without rejecting the moral foundations of Capitalism it remains intact. The wholly Materialist attack on Capitalism, as opposed to a moral one, occurs within the context of Capitalism. As such it can never escape a paradigm it never fully repudiates.
You can draw parallels between the two, both materialistic products of the enlightenment
gramsci was a hack
He was still right.
Probably. People with anything real to say are either suicided or totally ignored.
who does that? again, read a book
it was literally fascists like who first came up with that "critique" and if you read about any historical fascist movement their "criticism" of both capitalism and communism always goes like that, no exceptions
No
Someone call an exorcist
What other factors? You mean other than direct material needs and desires?
Even false consciousness is ultimately propagated through materials means: Mass media
Yeah, Gramisci was right in that you need to counter bourgeois cultural hegemony, in the same way that Lenin & co cracked down upon organized religion and it's support for the reactionary Tsarist state.
But I don't see how this invalidates materialism. We're still doing all this to a material end. To be absolved from a dreary existence under capitalism.
When Marxists attacked the moral foundations of capitalism, they did so from a material stand point. Revealing them to be spooks that only served to reproduce the existing order.
We don't need to conjure new spooks to justify communism. It's materially self-evident why we desire it.
Not everyone you don't like/everyone who isn't a communist is a fascist.
criticizing capitalism and communism is not exclusive to fascists
You do. Whenever you call something "spooky" that's what you do. Don't let Stirner rob you of the ability to think.
If you can't state the argument yourself you don't understand it.
i'm not the one who talked about stirner, but this is a vulgar understanding of his philosophy, not to speak of marx's
If you can't make the connection between Stirner and spooks then you need to "read a book" as they say here.
How can you solve a symptom without addressing underlying causes?
so this is the power of paleoconservatism
Evola wasn't but the others were
good job you identified some fascists
pathetic. idealist retards like you belong on larpy hippie communes and no where else
t. Old-fashioned elite
t. Anhedonist
If Houellebecq were a Marxist, he would have been the brightest mind of the 20th century.
This has to be bait
Noam Chomsky
Vid related
youtu.be
Critically support Peter Hitchens in his fight against Blairite Eurocommunism.
Philsophical, Marxist materialism isnt "We need more things" Materialism. It is a statement that material, real thing stake precedent over other things. Man is shaped by the world, then man shapes the world. Rather than man shapes everything, i.e. idealism.
I think this is a troll post, and is causing many anons to act like absolute apes.
The possible interpretation of "materialism causes capitalism" idealism is just too perfectly confusing to not be a troll post.
William S. Lind was spot on about how the Nation-State was doomed and that people would divide themselves along like Race, Religion, and etc more so than the Nation-State. It's even more so with shit like Incels, Trannies, and etc.
Everything is now a secertian mess and if you play your cards right you can have loyal fighters. ISIS was literally a bunch of anime watching vidya playing Incels. They even made their maps from Victoria 1.
Funny enough Evola was a fanboy of Stiner. But all the Fascists loved Anarchists. Feder was a fanboy of Market Anarchists in the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
You don't have to like him to respect him
I don't respect imperialists who try to destroy the USSR
He was right you know
It's true. People seek more money than the bare minimum because they believe that it can bring fulfillment, whether that is material goods or desire to manipulate people.
If you could negate those materialistic desires you could have a person that is loyal to whatever cause is believed to be best for the state, but then you would have either worker-drones or zealous state worship.
this is a stupid question. all conservatives are reactionaries.
i guess the only right answer is nazbol i guess, because at least they dont like capitalism.
My second favorite person ever
shit taste
mediocre taste
based
my own contribution to the thread is Edmund Burke, pic related
fun fact: Marx was quoting Burke in Capital vol 1 in a passage discussing imperialism and the the East India Company. Burke lead the prosecution of it's Governor General in Parliament.
en.wikipedia.org
relevant passage
Read notes on the third reich
no u
Redpill me on Burke's theories. I know he's supposed to be the father of modern conservatism but what does that mean exactly?
His most famous work is Reflections on The Revolution in France (attached)
Burke was famously sympathetic to the American revolution, so when the French Revolution rolled around, people were eager to hear his take on it. tl;dr, he thought it was unjustified and going to end badly. Five months after the storming of the Bastille, Burke basically called that the whole affair was going end up as a bloody shit show, and get coopted by some opportunistic and tyrannical general.
Burkean thought experienced a renaissance in America during the 1950s, partially because Reflections could easily be reread as a Paleo-Conservative and anti-marxist manifesto. iirc Goldwater quoted Burke in his (ghostwritten) book. That might have been how 'father of modern conservatism' arose.
pat buchanan vividly supported american involvement in nicaragua, grenada and el salvador
fuck that guy
Daphne Caruana Galizia (journalist in the panama papers leaks) was killed by a car bomb in malta after she unearthed information about the maltese pm and his connections in offshore accounts which were used to launder money used from illegal profits from selling Maltese passports to people linked to the Azerbaijani govt.
Micheal Hastings (american journalist) was killed in a car accident early in the morning in west los angeles. this was a journalist who had a history of exposing higher ups. his career started with him being engaged to Air America(CIA owned) spokeswoman andrea parhamovich who then worked for the NDI (us govt think tank) while she was tragically killed when her convoy was rushed by militants. he later wrote a book about it. but he put himself on the map when wrote a profile of general and nato top man in Afghanistan Stanley McCrystal. nothing major just comments from many in his team about the state of their mission and their command. it got McCrystal FIRED and this was also later turned into a book. Hastings reported many feather ruffling bylines, the department of homeland security was keeping track of the occupy wall street movement, bo bergdhal was a paria in the pentagon, and that in may of 2013 he was done with obamas foreign policy. this was somewhat of a big deal since he had close ties to many high up in the obama circle (jay carney) and many enemies ( rahm, reines).
less than 2 months later he would be dead. counter terrorism experts have claimed it looks like a automobile cyber attack, and he emailed coworkers the day before that he was quote "onto a big story", that he needed to "go off the radar" and that he believed the fbi was investigating him. a few hours before the crash he contacted his lawyer and his widow said that he was investigating something involving cia director john brennan .
this is just in the past few years of actual high profile journalists, let alone this has happened for decades with Gary Webb (revealed contra drug running with the cia and using the profits to fund arm sales and flooding it into south central LA and other american ghettos) who had a "suicide", and David Kelly the welsh chemical weapons expert ( challenged the iraq war WMD dossier and went to journalists abbout it and was called into parliment for a hearing were he said the whole weapon facilities shit was BS) who had a" suicide" two days later
This makes me hate him even more, tbh.
If we can apply the term conservative to Aristotle, then he's my favorite conservative thinker. His influence is just unavoidable, even in Marx.
As much of a capitalist vulture as Romney is, he's the only politician I know of to have the balls to suggest banning children from the internet.
Every good leftist should read Heidegger, Schmitt, and Strauss.
Every good conservative should read Adorno, Benjamin, and Kojève.
Same, I feel some sort of personal attachment to him for some reason. I've even had a dream where I was friends with him and stuff. I just find something about his persona and stuff appealing. I reccomend the Documentary "Mitt" on Netflix as well.