askchapo

23291 readers

78 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net

replaceable@hexbear.net

VILenin@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

Wakmrow@hexbear.net

abc@hexbear.net

How useful is knowing right wing theory? (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 days ago by wideopenarms@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Tangential to your question, but I think one of the worst things you can do is stifle your curiosity. There's way too much of a trend in the Western left of refusing to engage with anyone that isn't firmly in-group (the parameters of which are determined by memes and whim and whatever single sentence was most recently quote-mined).

Ideally you should develop the ability to read fascist or liberal or leftist concepts and identify their problems and merits (if any) through analysis, rather than just being told to dismiss them. Lenin wasn't a brilliant theoretician because he selectively read only "correct" theory; he read everything and refined his analytical power through critique (in tandem with praxis/experimentation).

People who seriously put thought into their theory (as in, eliminating bad faith nonsense like peterson and the like) are rarely just gonna be simply wrong, wrong, wrong. They're gonna have ideas that may speak to different material interests, from different experiences, through different ideological lenses. Their ideas might be right for the wrong reasons, right in specific circumstances, almost right but mistaken because of xyz, or corruptions/deviations from "right". Any idea that's had influence or gained a following speaks to something in people, which is often worth trying to understand, if for no other reason than to be better able to engage with those people.

At tension with all my vague nonsense is our limited time and attention. We're forced to be selective with our efforts. So threads like this can be useful, or skipping over an idea to read its critiques (e.g. Losurdo instead of Nietzsche as mentioned in this thread). Just don't short-change your own analytical abilities by only engaging with consensus-approved theory. Way too few Marxists have studied Hegel, in my opinion.

And if you're curious about someone like Land or Heidegger or Schmidt, sometimes it's worth the effort to hop on libgen and spend a few hours skimming their work. Nothing to say you have to develop a perfect and comprehensive understanding of every single theorist before you decide they're not worth your time. You can dive in, satiate your curiosity, hone your analytical muscles, and move on whenever.