Is there any other author that acknowledges the weakness of liberalism of atomising people and emptying out human connections and social bonds and offer solutions without being a right wing or fascist?
>>25428644>the weakness of liberalism of atomising peopleit is its strength
Alain de Benoist. He also isn't a massive faggot like MacIntyre
>>25428649i love having my psyche blasted to smithereens. i love being an interchangeable source of labour power. a culture where no unconscious investments have the time and space to organically grow - i just love that shit. to the boss class i extend my heartiest thanks, and declare myself an atom ready to agglomerate into whatever structure the market demands. this is true strength. when i log into a zoom job interview and smile and nod at the face on my screen, it is as one joyful overman hailing another. and i hope it never ends.
what do you mean by 'right wing'?
>>25428644>and offer solutions without being a right wing or fascist?That's simply not possible as far as I can tell. You'll have to kill the Liberal to stop him, and the Left can't kill the Liberal because the Left needs the Liberal to pave the ground for Socialism. Waiting for a socialism that never comes has hamstrung the Leftist and left him unable to respond to the Liberal in a decisive way.
>>25428689That’s important to me because far-right/fascism is not a departure from liberalism’s alienating process, it’s in fact alienation on steroids, stripping the individual of all his agency and making him an interchangeable cog in the war machine and the state apparatus. I don’t want a collectivist theory, but a relational one, one that strengthens community, but not state.
>>25428644deleuze and guattari use the terms 'decoding' and 'deterritorialisation' to refer to social atomisation and the breakdown of stable systems of meaning. but to them this isn't necessarily bad. it has made us aware of our power to infinitely reshape the world. it's bad only because the logic doing the reshaping is the logic of capital. their project is about seizing the power capital has unlocked and putting it in the service of desire, which for them is always social, collective desire. one danger in right wing thought is that it 'reterritorialises' us onto artificial recreations of those past collective forms that are compatible with and useful to capital, cutting us off from our power to explore desire and create new forms, and leaving the axioms of capital unchallenged. this is the jordan peterson move, pretending your miserable life is a mythic struggle against chaos, when the real determinants of your life lie in the inhuman world of global markets.
>>25428664“i love having my psyche blasted to smithereens.”>My manager asked me to rewrite the subject line of an email I’d already sent. “i love being an interchangeable source of labour power.”>They put my name in the shared calendar for the Tuesday standup and moved it by 2 hours.“a culture where no unconscious investments have the time and space to organically grow - i just love that shit.”>I had to close Teams for twenty minutes to finish a spreadsheet.
>>25428712you can't even imagine what you've lost, or what there was to win. obviously my post wasn't addressed to frogs with no sense for what's at stake in human history. don't bother trying to engage.
>>25428712The social disintegration is obviously there, you can feel it everywhere.
>>25428724>>25428729
>>25428644Mystical human connections and social bonds, many years ago in a far far away land humans lived in perfect harmony until the evil liberalism
>>25428644Nope. No one. In fact you asking this actually killed any chance of there being anything else.
>>25428701You're a funny little Jacobin.
>>25428660Benoist is a massive third worldist favela monkey LARPer
>>25428644>without being a [sic] right wingThe "right wing" as it exists in today's politics still comes out of Illuminism and is inherently liberal. And this is not a matter of "the republicans of today are just the democrats of 50 years ago". No, since the inception of the left-right wing dichotomy, they were both flavors of the same type of enlightenment liberalism.>or fascistStop misusing that word. You can't fascism without corporatism. Any "fascism" lacking that is just totalitarianism. Anyway, read any pro-monarchy book, what the fuck do I know
>>25429213I do not like monarchy I believe in meritocracy. But I do not believe in fully abandoning the working class either. I am a liberal, but I want to somehow integrate its weaknesses also, and find ways to suggest solutions within its most basic premises, if that makes any sense.
>>25429260>I believe in meritocracyAs utopic a view as any sort of communism>I am a liberal, but I want to somehow integrate its weaknesses also, and find ways to suggest solutions within its most basic premises, if that makes any senseIt doesn't, but I think it's just you lacking writing ability
>>25428644Yes, Charles Taylor (like in his article literally called "Atomism"). Probably also Sandel and Walzer but I haven't read them. These guys plus MacIntyre were lumped together as a movement called "communitarianism."Marx too, actually, in the 1844 manuscripts. Engels also briefly criticizes the atomism in Socialism Utopian and Scientific (which is an excerpt from Anti-Duhring). It's worth looking at the 1844 stuff.Finally, I think it's worth it to check out what Martin Buber has to say about this stuff too.
>>25429339Thanks for the effort post
>>25429260Haven't you ever asked yourself, "why ISN'T there corruption"? 'Cuz if you start thinking about it, what's indistinguishable from corruption or anti-meritocracy really is the best way to get things done. I mean, taken to its logical extreme, a true meritocracy would mean screening every single person on the planet for every single job. Obviously ridiculous and unworkable, but how much screening do you have to do before your candidate isn't chosen based on "merit" anymore? How many people do I have to tell about a job opening before I'm no longer corrupt? And then you get the "best" guy for the job, and he quits for a better job a year down the line, while your less-good friend would've stuck around for a decade. So was that really a good outcome for you? I guess it was for the guy who got the job then ditched it, but everyone else got screwed. Can you sign people to contracts, if that gets in the way of the best person being given the job? Or, without contracts, wouldn't people just bounce around endlessly in search of better opportunities, preventing any kind of building up of long-term competence or institutional memory? Anyway, the problems with going just on merit are endless. But ignoring it completely has just as many problems. So you try to find some kind of golden mean. And maybe that golden mean looks a lot like a bunch of nobles, with some room for new men among their ranks.Of course, the nobles will quickly give up on the ideal of pragmatic meritocracy and become insular and corrupt for its own sake regardless.
>>25428644Most great authors have been chuds.
>>25431326I agree with you, that is the issue that is somewhat solved by the separation of private sector and the state sector. You are for the most part free to hire anyone you want and for how ever long you want in the private sector and that is a good thing, since you private business is ultimately targeted at profit and if you are good at it, you are inherently a pragmatist. Businesses that don't follow the market logic and stick to old notions and discriminate based on them, might start to lack behind the competition because they start to pursue other goals other than profit. The profit logic does not force you to do anything, it's completely up to you to stay relatively meritocratic and keep up, or not. That is very valuable. So the question is how you keep this, and also try to maintain a somewhat cohesive society where persons feel like they matter and belong to something.
>>25428644Christopher Lasch, though that's hard to see sometimes given the positive attention he gets from certain quarters of the Right who forget he's a non-Marxist socialist.
>>25431433>non-Marxist socialistWhat does that mean?
>>25431434Despises the effect of the markets on developing the consumer mindset, despises atomization, despises heavy bureaucracy, thinks there still needs to be some basic safety net, thinks it's important to prevent corporate consumption of the commons. He's close to Orwell, but somehow even less Marxist.
Would you like to know a secret?All the power of Liberalism is bound up in the Entity of the United States of America. Everything you hate about the Modern West derives its support in a magical, occult way from the USA, and from its Constitution and Declaration.To break Liberalism's hold on the West, simply destroy the totem. Shatter the idol.In other words: kill the United States.
>>25431460You sound third world
>>25429339Wouldn't Personalism qualify too?
>>25431474There were White people before America ruled the world and there will be White people when America is long gone.
>>25431493Fair enough. But I'm not dying because you have trouble getting laid.
>>25431509I don't understand the reluctance to acknowledge that the United States is A problem, if not THE problem. America especially since World War 2 has loved to meddle in Europe and the Americas in ways that are bad for White people. Something is not right with the government in Washington.
>>25428644holy kek you just asked if your stupid right wing ideology has any non-right winger supportersfuck off
