non-leftist philosophers who are usefull

[scarletghoul]

What are some philosophers or thinkers that are not politically on the 'left' but have contributed to your understanding of reality as a leftist/revolutionary ?

For me Lacan has to be at the top (except perhaps for hegel, does he count as leftist ?? lol) because his work on the unconscious and subjectivity in general adds a lot to dialectical materialism, particularly in the areas where marxism historically has struggled to make much progress.. and the fact that he saved psychoanalysis from being assimilated into the standard repressive psychiatry and upheld it as emancipatory

made this thread because i know there are many people in our history who have contributed to our liberation who dont necessarily fall into the category of communist or whatever, so please mention some :]

[L.A.P.]

For me Lacan has to be at the top (except perhaps for hegel, does he count as leftist ?? lol) because his work on the unconscious and subjectivity in general adds a lot to dialectical materialism, particularly in the areas where marxism historically has struggled to make much progress.. and the fact that he saved psychoanalysis from being assimilated into the standard repressive psychiatry and upheld it as emancipatory


Yes, I thought I was the only one. Lacan was the man, so many people grossly misunderstand that guy's work though and lash out on it. Like Richard Dawkins called Lacan a whackjob yet Dawkin's meme theory is pretty much a plagarism of Lacan's contribution to signifier-signified through a "Darwinian" perspective. Not to mention that Lacanian psychoanalysis does wonders for artificial intelligence.

I also think Nietzsche is a given as far as radical non-leftist philosophers. I would also say Foucault but I consider him a leftist.

[Caj]

Max Stirner

The so-called "individualists" and right-wing libertarians that claim to be influenced by him have a very simplistic understanding of his thought.

[L.A.P.]

Max Stirner

The so-called "individualists" and right-wing libertarians that claim to be influenced by him have a very simplistic understanding of his thought.

I like his work on "humanity" being an alienating ideal along with religion and ideology. And his egoist anarchism resembles free association more than some stateless market economy.

[Ostrinski]

Psychoanalysis and existentialism are interests of mine but I never really related them to my politics.

[Avocado]

Over the years I have read quite a bit of stuff. I'm not sure on the usefulness or the compatibility but I have found the following 'non-leftist' Philosopher's interesting on various points...

Locke - on religious tolerance
Mill - on freedom of speech
Russell, Dawkins - on religion
Regan - on animal rights
Thoreau -on ecology
Aristotle - on ethics

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Hegel was quite right-wing and actually an anti-materialist in our standards (the whole "Matter revolves around the idea" bullshit), but it is his analysis of history and struggle that is important to left-wing politics.

That is why Marx was part of the group called the Young Hegelians, which basically was a left wing intellectual group that took Hegel's idea that the purpose of history was the total negation of everything restrictive to freedom and rationality and mixed it with left-wing politics and rhetoric.

His concept of the dialectic and the concept of his that I stated above are what really make him one of the most important non-leftist philosophers to have ever influenced the revolutionary left.

[Woodsman]

when it comes to emancipation from fundamentalist religion I think I would include Thomas Paine and David Hume.

[hatzel]

Carl Schmitt.

[ForgedConscience]

...

Agreed, his influence on Marx was probably larger than any other thinker too.

I'd have to say Emmanuel Kant (Marx inherited some aspects of his thought, though heavily criticized him as well), simply because he convinced me to abandon my former enlightened egoist leanings well before I began to take an interest in political thought. I also found his work on conceptual schemes and synthetic a priori etc fascinating.

[Valdyr]

Hegel, for his formulation and exploration of dialectics. Spinoza, for his work on substance and the relationship between necessity and freedom. Fichte for his work on activity. I'll also throw in another vote for Lacan.

[scarletghoul]

Been looking into Levinas lately and like what ive read a lot. No idea what his political views are or if he even has any lol

Hegel was quite right-wing and actually an anti-materialist in our standards (the whole "Matter revolves around the idea" bullshit), but it is his analysis of history and struggle that is important to left-wing politics.

That is why Marx was part of the group called the Young Hegelians, which basically was a left wing intellectual group that took Hegel's idea that the purpose of history was the total negation of everything restrictive to freedom and rationality and mixed it with left-wing politics and rhetoric.

His concept of the dialectic and the concept of his that I stated above are what really make him one of the most important non-leftist philosophers to have ever influenced the revolutionary left.
I found a good compilation of young hegelian writings a while ago, its now one of my favourite books. Marx was just the tip of the iceberg (though in this case the tip is the most important bit as it rises above the murky waters of bourgeois thinking and informs the bourgeoisie that their ship is gonna be torn into pieces and sent to its ocean grave), theres a lot of amazing philosophy to be found in that area. Augest Cieszkovski from what ive read is super cool.

Also imo hegels idealism was 'destined' to give rise to a materialist philosophy; it was idealism sublating itself and becoming its other (materialism) without completely realising it. the more i read of hegel the more i think this


when it comes to emancipation from fundamentalist religion I think I would include Thomas Paine and David Hume.
Thomas Paine indeed is great htough i think everyone would class him as left wing

[MarxSchmarx]

Although there are several non-lefitst social scientists that are probably better resources to seek to improve the left, among philosophers Robert Nozick has to top the list.

the man supported capitalism in all its injustices and strove almost heroically to justify it. Any budding leftist, once they feel committed enough to the leftist cause, must read Nozick. Read with respect, Nozick helps a leftist identify and challenge their core beliefs like no other rightwing or even nonleftist philosopher. Nozick challanges the left's most powerful assumptions so systematically and so compellingly, that responding in a 20 page essay to his challanges ought to be a seroius criteria for entry into any serious leftist org. if you can articulate Nozick's arguments,and carefully dileate to a non-specialist why they are gibberish, you can respond to pretty much any rightwing claim thrown your way.



Russell
Thoreau

I would consider Russell and Thoreau to be leftists; the former advocated something called "guild socialism", resigned the labor party in protest over its support of the Vietnam war and was arrested more times than any of us combined probably have for pissing off the authorities.

Thoreau might require a bit broader definition of "leftist" but when the poet Emerson visited him in jail and asked him why he's there, rather than saying "for not paying taxes to fund the Mexican american war", Thoreau asked"Why aren't you here with me?"; not that one has to spend time in jail for political reasons, but I don't believe Engels spent a day in jail, for what that's worth.

[Valdyr]

Although there are several non-lefitst social scientists that are probably better resources to seek to improve the left, among philosophers Robert Nozick has to top the list.

the man supported capitalism in all its injustices and strove almost heroically to justify it. Any budding leftist, once they feel committed enough to the leftist cause, must read Nozick. Read with respect, Nozick helps a leftist identify and challenge their core beliefs like no other rightwing or even nonleftist philosopher. Nozick challanges the left's most powerful assumptions so systematically and so compellingly, that responding in a 20 page essay to his challanges ought to be a seroius criteria for entry into any serious leftist org. if you can articulate Nozick's arguments,and carefully dileate to a non-specialist why they are gibberish, you can respond to pretty much any rightwing claim thrown your way.

Definitely agree with this. If you can deal with Nozick you'll come to see how full of shit right-libertarians are.

[scarletghoul]

Although there are several non-lefitst social scientists that are probably better resources to seek to improve the left, among philosophers Robert Nozick has to top the list.

the man supported capitalism in all its injustices and strove almost heroically to justify it. Any budding leftist, once they feel committed enough to the leftist cause, must read Nozick. Read with respect, Nozick helps a leftist identify and challenge their core beliefs like no other rightwing or even nonleftist philosopher. Nozick challanges the left's most powerful assumptions so systematically and so compellingly, that responding in a 20 page essay to his challanges ought to be a seroius criteria for entry into any serious leftist org. if you can articulate Nozick's arguments,and carefully dileate to a non-specialist why they are gibberish, you can respond to pretty much any rightwing claim thrown your way.

Cool, can you recommend a text

[Leo]

Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmanides, Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, Epicurus, Rhazes, Ibn-ar Rawandi, Al Ma'arri, William of Ockham, Galileo, Bruno, Pascal, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Poincaré, Wittgenstein, Feyerabend.

Obviously, I don't find everything any of the people above defend useful.

[Ocean Seal]

Locke - on religious tolerance
Mill - on freedom of speech
Russell, Dawkins - on religion
Regan - on animal rights
Thoreau -on ecology
Aristotle - on ethics
*cough* liberal *cough*
But anyway, freedom of speech? And animal rights, rights like not being used to test for disease in a laboratory? Nien Danke.

Useful non-leftist philosophers... far fewer than useless leftist philosophers.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Psychoanalysis and existentialism are interests of mine but I never really related them to my politics.

Same here. Most of the philosophy that interests me does so for very non- political reasons in most cases.

But, for the sake of the topic: I think the best way to arrive at communist conclusions via books is to read Herbert Spencer.

[Thirsty Crow]

Also imo hegels idealism was 'destined' to give rise to a materialist philosophy; it was idealism sublating itself and becoming its other (materialism) without completely realising it. the more i read of hegel the more i think this

It's weird that a philosophical system entirely based on the postulate of the self-movement of the Absolute might be "destined to give rise to a materialist philosophy"; though, that might depend on what you mean by "sublating".

As far as OP is concerned, it's kind of hard to see what you mean by useful. Generally, I don't find philosophy useful in anything other than historical investigation into the mystification of the real process of human life and history. But then again, the notion of philosophy itself is contested probably, and I wouldn't put psychoanalysis as a "non-leftist philosophy I find useful" since I don't think it represents a philosophy, but okay, let's say psychoanalysis. And Foucault's work.

[The Idler]

Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, Rousseau and Stuart Mill too.

[Tim Finnegan]

As far as OP is concerned, it's kind of hard to see what you mean by useful. Generally, I don't find philosophy useful in anything other than historical investigation into the mystification of the real process of human life and history.
Even though that itself implies a host of philosophical assumptions? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2419841#post2419841)
Although there are several non-lefitst social scientists that are probably better resources to seek to improve the left, among philosophers Robert Nozick has to top the list.

the man supported capitalism in all its injustices and strove almost heroically to justify it. Any budding leftist, once they feel committed enough to the leftist cause, must read Nozick. Read with respect, Nozick helps a leftist identify and challenge their core beliefs like no other rightwing or even nonleftist philosopher. Nozick challanges the left's most powerful assumptions so systematically and so compellingly, that responding in a 20 page essay to his challanges ought to be a seroius criteria for entry into any serious leftist org. if you can articulate Nozick's arguments,and carefully dileate to a non-specialist why they are gibberish, you can respond to pretty much any rightwing claim thrown your way.
Cool, can you recommend a text

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

[L.A.P.]

I would consider Russell to be leftists; the former advocated something called "guild socialism",

I thought Russell was a proponent of the free market? I'm pretty sure at best he was a social democrat.

[ridethejetski]

*cough* liberal *cough*
But anyway, freedom of speech?

have u even read Mill's arguments for free speech, or is this just part of the rev left forum's dismissal of all things liberal.

when Mill says that free speech is good as it allows us to really know what we believe is true or not, it seems to me the Really-Existing Socialism states of the 20th century could have benefited from this principle. If you are convinced that Marxism is true, and a valid theory, and socialism is superior to capitalism, surely allowing that to be challenged poses no threat, and only reinforces your views concerning marxism and socialism. By the end of the life of the socialist states, no one bothered to defend them because no one was really convinced of their (supposed) superiority etc. Had the subject been open for open debate, and you are firm in your convictions of socialism being superior, the only result would have been demonstration through debate of that truth.

[MarxSchmarx]

I thought Russell was a proponent of the free market? I'm pretty sure at best he was a social democrat.

Russell was quite opposed to capitalism and, at worst, saw capitalism as a system that spectacularly failed to even approximate the idealization of academic economics. I am not sure if Russell ever really read the Austrian economists, but he did not mince words against capitalism. Indeed:


and the Socialist ... is not a cynic, but merely the friend of the wage-earners, maddened by the spectacle of the needless misery which capitalism inflicts upon them.

And when he addresses how capitalism must be transcended:


Socialism with inequality of income would not differ greatly as regards the economic stimulus to work from the society in which we live. Such differences as it would entail would undoubtedly be to the good from our present point of view. Under the existing system many people enjoy idleness and affluence through the mere accident of inheriting land or capital. Many others, through their activities in industry or finance, enjoy an income which is certainly very far in excess of anything to which their social utility entitles them. On the other hand, it often happens that inventors and discoverers, whose work has the very greatest social utility, are robbed of their reward either by capitalists or by the failure of the public to appreciate their work until too late. The better paid work is only open to those who have been able to afford an expensive training, and these men are selected in the main not by merit but by luck. The wage earner is not paid for his willingness to work, but only for his utility to the employer. Consequently, he may be plunged into destitution by causes over which he has no control. Such destitution is a constant fear, and when it occurs it produces undeserved suffering, and often deterioration in the social value of the sufferer. These are a few among the evils of our existing system from the standpoint of production. All these evils we might expect to see remedied under any system of Socialism.

TBH, that sounds a lot less reformist than a lot of contemporary leftists.

True, arguably Russell despised what he called "State Socialism" which, by all indications, included what we would today call "social democracy". True, Russell did not at least at the time of his "Roads to Freedom" realistically envisage something like the Nordic welfare state. Yet he does not seem content with such a system throughout. For example, contemporary social democrats do not really object to the inheritance of wealth or the mechanisms of capitalism, which Russell does above.