Why is the far-left so disorganised?
I keep hearing people say that the far-left is significantly less organised, more fragmented than the far-right. Why is that? (And to be clear: I’m asking about the far-left, not just the left in general (though they may be linked)
162 replies
The far right only have to organise around a handful of simplistic ideas. They talk in tabloid headlines. Smear shit and hope the millionaire fash send money your way. It’s as easy as flipping hamburgers.
The left have to deal with the complexities of reality. They need to talk with stakeholders and learn from specialists in a given subject at a given time. They are limited by language that can express the complexity of our societies and what makes them run well.
I’m not saying that’s the full explanation, but it’s inherently harder to organise something more complex and creative. It’s easier to organise a dirty protest.
The far right is funded by deep pockets and is not attacked by the establishment Republicans.
If the Democratic Party establishment would see the left as an asset rather than a threat then things might change.
Well, that’s the thing about the Democratic Party. They actually aren’t left of center. They are performatively left on a few social issues when it’s convenient.
The Democratic Party is at left as it can be without touching underlying capitalist structure, which is to say, it is not properly left at all.
I agree with this, and it's why movements like OWS and BLM have more or less done nothing. Those are complex concepts with lists of things that need to be done. The right has "Lower taxes" and "Let us be racist". The left though has nuanced concepts and new things that people have never heard of. People hear "Lower taxes" and know what that means. Universal healthcare is new and complex, and so the right reduces it to something they understand, "higher taxes" and other fearmongering. Meanwhile we're trying to show amortization rates of providing care to everyone and the right has simple phrases.
Rinse and repeat for everything. We tried "Defund police" but the right only heard "No more police" because there is a lot of nuance to "defund police", like demilitarizing and focusing on sending in people who can actually help. "Climate change" is a complex nuanced subject that takes a long time to understand, but the right reduces it to "They want to take away your truck".
Gay marriage I think worked because it was a very simple message, allow gays to marry. They tried to reduce it however they could but in that case their arguments were the harder ones to follow. I think we need to think about how we describe things, and try to avoid from the beginning needing to explain concept subjects to (I'm sorry but) simple people. Universal healthcare should simply mean "We run a government level insurance program, like all of the other countries, so no one gets denied coverage". Or something like that.
"No more police" is a pretty simple idea that seems to have slipped by you so idk
"No more police" is an idealistic concept that would never make it out of committee and is routinely used by the right to "prove" to themselves that we can't be taken seriously. "Demilitarized police" instead is a concept that could be actually implemented, and could get support from both the people and politicians and could actually be implemented.
If you seriously believe that we could pivot next year to "no more police" then you're deluding yourself, there's no politician in this entire country who would stake their career on that. Nice to dream, but no way in reality it would ever happen, and using it only fuels the right.
I'm not looking for a politician to take anything seriously. I am looking for we the people to remake this godforsaken place, and that means implementing our goals directly, which includes dismantling every police station and sheriff's office.
Seriously the police are kidnapping people at random and you still don't get that the system is broken?
I'm not so unreasonable to assume that no one who is currently wearing a badge and gun can rehabilitate themselves into productive members of society, but the systems that they work as a part of need shut the fuck down.
ICE is not the police, and I can't believe I have to state that.
ICE is a natural evolution of the way American police have operated for decades now. It's wild that people don't see that. They didn't just appear from nowhere.
Are they worse than police? Arguably yes, but they didn't just appear spontaneously from nowhere. Our failure to reign in the police and force them to obey the law led directly to the behavior we now see from ICE. We've let the white supremacists run wild and refine their techniques for a long time now.
The fraternal order of police supports ICE.
It depends on the place, many cities and states have rules that prevent local police from helping ICE. I'm not saying that police don't need reform because I think that's what the whole 'defund the police' movement is really about, but to say that all police support ICE is inaccurate - otherwise sanctuary cities simply wouldn't be allowed to exist. Now, there aren't nearly as many sanctuary cities as I'd like - and more states would do well to follow the example of states like Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, etc.
That's another topic entirely, though.
Is this the "left infighting" that i hear about
When you go far enough left and right on the spectrum they become indiscernible.
As others mentioned, ICE are not police.
On top of that again it's idealism vs realism. Yes idealism is what it could be, but the system isn't changing anytime soon. I'm sorry, but it's not. Unless the majority of people suddenly mobilize, but I've been waiting now 30 years and at multiple points thought maybe they finally would, but it's not happening. Once you realize that it's idealism, then you can move into realistic options.
And this is why those movements fail.
They only need to convince like 200 million people to their specific ideals, piece of cake.
I had a hysterical family member reading the DSA and saying "they want to abolish the police and prisons, that's crazy to just let all those people walk the streets."
I attempted to clarify that the prison industrial complex is so corrupt and broken it needs to be completely replaced and their reply was, "well the website doesn't say that so what am I supposed to believe?"
Caring about things like "facts" and "not hurting people" is a real drag.
I was at a Moral Mondays protest in Raleigh NC a while back and someone with a bullhorn called out "What do we want?!"
And the crowd yelled back, all at once:
"Racial justice!"
"Marriage equality!"
"Immigration reform!"
"Police reform!"
"Impeach Trump!"
"Close Guantanamo!"
"Better pay for teachers!"
...and a bunch of other demands too many to understand in a crowd that large, and while I knew I was with the right people, I had a sinking feeling about our chances of achieving much of anything.
That sounds like an exceptionally unplanned rally, or the wrong person had the bullhorn. But we have to start somewhere so well done all.
that's the funniest thing i've read in a while
Purity tests.
There's enough holier-than-thou in most leftist groups to power the Catholic church for millennia.
Yeah people on the right are lot more likely to overlook their disagreements as long as they can agree on a few things
And it spreads everywhere. Can't even partake in pride march because of my wrong cultural views. Simply being gay isn't enough anymore - need to sing up for the package deal.
What are these views, if I may ask? I have yet to see a pride march that is very exclusionary
Last pride march here had a ton of Palestinian flags there for example that not only has nothing to do with pride but is also a hilariously ignorant thing to do considering how gays get treated in most Muslim-majority countries.
It's a left-wing event pretty much. If you're gay who leans right you're effectively straight.
But you weren't excluded for not having a palestine flag, were you?
You could participate the same way as everone else.
The palestinians are fighting a similar fight as LGBT+ people because they are oppressed because of their identity. The people who bring Palestine flags want to show their support of the people affected by the genocide. They very rarely support the oppressive policies against LGBT+ People.
Pride should be against any sort of oppression.
No, I'm not excluded. I just don't want to march for an unrelated cause that people smuggle in which I don't support. They wouldn't tolerate me waving an Israeli flag there either, nor should they.
One of these nations is the victim of genocide right now, the other one is commiting it.
An Israel flag is similarly not appreciated like a russian or american flag would be. When the Ukraine war started, a lot of people also brought ukraine flags to unrelated protests.
It is also not a fully unrelated cause, as the palestine flag also stands for an oppressed group like the pride flag. By joining the march you are protesting against oppression, so it isn't that far off.
If you are against one kind of oppression but not against another, you aren't really against oppression.
Which circles back to my original point: simply being gay is no longer good enough.
"A similar fight because they are oppressed because of their identity" Which phrase like that u can include Hitler btw Having Palestinian flag at a pride dont help Palestinian. But it make lgbtq members being forced into a box that has nothing to do with them
It doesn't help that the right infiltrates and murders left wing movements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars
I'm not a historian so I'm struggling to remember specific details. "People's History of the United States" by Zinn includes many examples that went like "People wanted to organize for something better" -> "Capitalists said no, and had the police beat up and arrest people"
Apparently Gloria Steinem was funded by the CIA. Also, Jackson Pollock was a psy-op, more specifically, the supposed value of the dogshit he created.
That's a dishonest oversimplification of Gloria Steinem's situation, and you're going to have to elaborate on Pollock. (But it sounds like you're already biased against him too far to be objective, dismissing his contributions to modern art)
You sound like a bot. My opinions on Steinem and Pollock are based on recent revelations that they were both funded by the CIA. I couldn't care less about either one 5 years ago. The whole modern art movement was apparently a psy-op in order to discredit anyone farther (further?) left than Hillary Clinton.
The "whole modern art movement"? I'm not disputing the CIA's history of nefarious dealings or infiltrating groups to put their thumb on the scale, but the scope of that claim exceeds even COINTELPRO.
What they did was support a movement already in place because they felt it helped against Communism somehow. (And the USSR was doing pretty much the same thing the other direction) And it's not like they're signing a bunch of checks "CIA" and handing them out to artists and organizers, it was soft support through foundations and museums and stuff. It doesn't detract from their work. It kinda sounds like you half-watched one YouTube video.
So you acknowledge CIA fuckery, but have to resort to ad hominem attacks and whataboutism just like Kirk, Shapiro and Peterson. You and assholes like you are exactly the reason Left-wing politics are so ineffectual, hence proving my point.
Right-wing people embrace hierarchy. Left-wing people don't.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
We aren't talking about Democrats.
Is it really more disorganized? Ive seen and heard of far right groups tearing each other apart over minor differences of values or infidelity. Maybe its simply a matter of complexity of goals. The left is trying to build a new and fair world, all while preserving as much of humanity and the planet as possible. The far right on the other hand seems to concern itself almost entirely with destroying progress the left makes, they seem to not care at all about the what comes after or the harm that is caused by their changes. So they only need to agree on what needs to go, and don't need to agree on what comes next because they haven't thought about it and don't care who has to live in the squalor they leave behind.
And it's far far easier to destroy than it is to create.
The whole principle of right wing thought is strict vertical hierarchies. For their moral flaws, strict vertical hierarchies are a pretty efficient way to organize the average person. The whole principle of left wing thought is flattened, distributed hierarchies. For their moral virtues, decentralized flat hierarchies are pretty slow to organize. It's a lot simpler to fall in behind an authority figure than participate in never ending sub-sub-subcommittees.
It's hard to unify around a course of action when your whole thing is incorporating diverse perspectives and rejecting centralization. I'm not saying it's not the right thing to do, it is, but it presents inherent challenges.
In other words, taking differing opinions into account and building things is hard. Deferring to what a "superior" is telling you is easy.
In short, yes
Because, contrary to what they say, a lot of leftists are intolerant of opinions that differ from their own. A lot of them have a black-white mentality, where either you are 100% with them or otherwise you are against them and might as well be Hitler incarnate. They live in extreme bubbles which just enforces this behaviour. You can see this very well in some subreddits and also here on Lemmy, since Lemmy is very left leaning.
In german we have this saying:
"Treffen sich 2 Linke, bilden sich drei Splittergruppen"
"Two leftists meet, 3 splintergroups are formed".
Two leftists meet in the forest. Both die.
I think the far-left has more diversity in its political positions and its factions usually don't get along with each other simply because their projects are incompatible. That may cause a little bit of "disorganization" but I don't think that's bad per se. It could be seen as a sign of critical thinking.
What do you mean by that? Can you give me an example?
For example, marxist-leninists have a very different approach to the anti-capitalist fight compared to most anarchists. Another similar example would be platformists anarchists and communizers (communization theory): generally, both are communists; however, platformists stress the importance of a mass organization that would engage with dual power structures, while communizers don't.
Mit study said otherwise
Far left has a lot of good ideas and how to go about them is debated, often loudly and messily.
Far right has stupid people, which are happy to go confidently along.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell
It's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves. - Franz Kafka
Adding on:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
From W. B. Yeats, The Second Coming
But at least the center can hold, right? Right?
The falcon cannot hear the falconer 😔
Organization takes time and money. Two things the far left are generally not conducive to concentrating to the point where they can build effective political and economic campaigns.
It will take moments of political and economic crisis to mobilize against this current. If and when it does, no one will be happy about it regardless of the direction chosen.
There was a major effort by the government to dismantle functional far left political groups. The vacuum has been filled by a lot of people who are suspiciously unable to build a big tent and craft messages like they are designed to split communities rather than engage in effective change.
The DSA and Working Families Party seem to be building an effective political strategy to get shit done, but a lot of other groups seem to just want to argue and protest.
The far right is financed by billionaires. Guess who finances the far left?
To add to that, it's "easier" to be in the far right then the far left. Due to promotion of the right it feels easier to fit into that group, and lizard brain likes them bad us good make bad go away. Even when they are totally bass ackwards on the facts. U can't reason people out of positions that didn't reason themselves into, and it's easy to make people take up unreasonable positions when u flood them with misinformation campaigns and ruin the education system. This is u fortunatley appearing to be a global phenomenon, no doubt the global populace is headed toward Idiocracy.
Also billionaires, just fewer of them.
Name one.
George Soros
George Soros is a liberal 😂
Okay? He's still quite clearly a left-wing billionaire donor.
Oh, I see. He doesn't meet your purity standards. My mistake for not being able to find an anarcho-communist billionaire in an age where the Overton Window is floating somewhere in the mid Atlantic.
Republicans certainly denigrate him as far left all the time. I think that has to count for something.
He's literally, definitionally, not far left, no purity test needed, lmao. Far left would be communism, maybe anarchism. Do you think there are communist or anarchist billionaires?
Do you always concede to right wing framing at the drop of a hat? Grow a spine. Words have definitions.
Ok, sorry if I came across as hostile or sardonic earlier, not my intention, but... chill out a bit, yeah? We're having a conversation.
Let me clarify my position, just for the sake of argument.
If the Republican party is the far right party, and the Democratic party is not far-left enough to be considered far-left, then the answer to the question "Who funds the far-left" then is apparently nobody, because they functionally do not exist as a political power in the United States. It's kind of like asking "Who has been hiding Bigfoot all these years?" - it presumes that Bigfoot is real to begin with.
In the absence of a far-left party in America, you're right, there are no billionaires funding the far-left.
However, they call it the political spectrum because it's a spectrum. Words, as you say, have definitions. Who would be considered the farthest left politician in government right now? Bernie Sanders? AOC? Zohran Mamdani? Those folk could be considered progressive politicians, but that's about as far-left as you can possibly get in the current political climate. They represent the "far-left" faction of the democratic party. As much as I dislike it, progressives take money from billionaires too.
I'm not conceding to far-right framing, it's just reality.
One reason is that people on the left are more inclined to disagree with each other, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and accepted as part of the political process. You figure things out by voicing differing opinions and reaching some kind of middle ground. There's room for disagreement on the left.
People on the right (fascists in America) are more likely to do what they are told by their "superiors" and fall in line. Differing opinions, or lifestyles, are not readily tolerated and you will be excommunicated if you push the accepted boundaries too much.
You can say a lot of negative things about fascism, and you should, but fascists tend to have a lot of solidarity as long as they toe the line. That is, until the critical breaking point, which is usually everyone that isn't a fascist realizing they actually have to deal with the fascist threat, at which point the fascists start collapsing because you have to be stupid to be fascist so fascism can't really stand up against a united front against it.
Real-world problems are complex. Every solution to one problem affects other systems in unpredictable ways. When a large group of people agree on a solution, it is usually because it is simplistic and wrong.
Classic example: prices are high. The left blames actual scarcity, corporate greed, climate change, institutional problems. Any solution that might address high prices will be complex and will have side effects. This will cause people to disagree.
On the right, some jerkwad like Trump says "prices are high because of immigration - specifically, the immigration of brown people." The solution is ICE! Simple, easy to understand, dead wrong. Everyone on the right cheers!!!!!!
In other words: people hear what they want to, an easy scapegoat answer.
Yeah. It has happened over and over. For Hitler, it was the Jews: they cost Germany the war, they are the root of all social problems, etc. It is almost always some minority like immigrants or trans people. Scapegoats unify, complexity divides.
That’s an interesting point. I’ll definitely be more wary of scapegoat answers in party politics now.
Authoritarians have endless enemies and boogie men, the Nazi went after way more than just Jews exactly like the US is against way more than just brown immigrants. It's always all minorities, immigrants, queers, leftists, socialists, scientists, historians, they will just keep adding to the list until there is nobody left if they have control for long enough.
You are right! The Jews were their principal victims, but the Nazis feared and hated anyone who didn't match their chosen in-group. It is the same in America.
It makes me realize why solidarity among those opposed to fascism is so important. I am not trans (for example), but I must stand in solidarity with trans people because the right wants to divide us. In fact, we should count that desire as one of the reasons the 'left' appears disorganized: the right sows chaos and discord among its enemies to make them easier to subjugate.
The right is always about clear hierarchy and obedience. The left is more about personal freedom to the point of anarchy. Guess which side organizes better.
Obligatory:
I've tried to explain concepts to people. People don't kniw they are racist. People don't underatand why the shouldn't use Facebook or Google. People don't understand that trans people are not turning kids gay. I've tried to explain the horrors coming from privacy loss for 15 years.
Nobody listens. I'm tired boss.
Because we are trying to make sense, not just to be convincing.
On the process divergences may appear.
At least in the states every time the Left organizes the Feds start executing people, Chairman Fred, MLK Jr, the MOVE bombings…
The blind believe in 1 strong man at the top and a clear strict hierarchy are key ideas within far right ideology. It's easier to organise the right, but it's also easier for the right to en masse follow the crazy dumb ideas of that leader. Left organising from grassroots up is a lot harder, but in theory better.
The right/left divide has a lot of definitions but the one it feels right to apply here is the oldest one. Right wants to maintain and reinforce existent hierachies. Left wants to change them. Now, notice that there is an extremely well defined goal for the right, to maintain and reinforce the thing we all can see right in front if us. The left on the other hand, doesn't have a defined, unified goal state. Someone can be 'left' and want to bring down their current government in favour of an entirely different, maybe even more powerful and centralised state, or they can be 'left' and want to eliminate the idea of any person or group having authority over any other person or group. To use more modern examples, 'tankies' and 'anarcho-primitivists' are both 'leftist' insofar as they both agree the systems of places in the global 'west' should end, despite how little they agree on what should happen after.
Gotta say, not that others explanations aren’t good too, but I think yours is, so far, the most clear cut explanation
Someone else pointed out, the current hierarchy also actively maintains itself, including sabotaging any potential threats
The far-left and far-right are compromised of different groups with some common goals and some specific, often incompatible goals.
On the right the common goal is the more important one and groups are able to compromise on their specific goals in order to move the entire right wing agenda forward. Conservative brain is very good at accepting higher power type justifications and are able to sacrifice their own interests in the name of the leader/group.
On the left the group specific goals are based on identity and people can't compromise on them. The common goals become secondary issues that can be sacrificed and the groups specific goals are the main objective. Anyone proposing a compromise is seen as a traitor to their identity and their group.
there's a lot more far right billionaires than far left billionaires
The right is effectively a monolith: half a country rallying around rich white Christian men, to the detriment of everyone else. The left is the "everyone else". Rather than one central idea, the political left is a patchwork coalition of various identities and ideologies. Women's rights, black rights, gay rights, labor rights, immigrant rights, Muslims, pacifists, climate realists, anarchists, unionists, as well as a huge chunk that's also rich white Christian men who just happen to not be Republican. Everyone is trying to fly their own flag, but the one mostly-unifying ideal they all share is that Republicans are the enemy.
That actually makes sense tbf
For the most part it boils down to the right being largely status quo. They want to go back to a state that while in it's own way is anachronistic and a fantasy is still based on something old and familiar and easy to envision. The left, at least in the places where it isn't already the status quo, is always somewhat nebulous due to the desire for progress but there is a host of splits based around individual peoples comforts and privileges or their view of what new things and societies to attempt and what those things should look like. You see similar divisions in art spaces because there's multiple visions and disciplines and means of achieving a similar goal.
A lot of the division on the left exists due to a fairly foundational theory held by some but not others : that minority rights and protections are nessisary in all cases because if you can argue effectively against removing one set of rights then that argument will prove effective in the removal of other civil rights. The most vulnerable need protection not just because it is the right ethical thing to do but because in the game theory of protections it's the only locktight way to ensure safety for everyone's rights.
However many prejudices exist. Many leftists want exceptions to protections because defending all is difficult. When you exist in a democracy one has to appeal to the many and the prejudice against "the undeserving" whatever state that implies is always a hard sell to people who cannot apply empathy. Hierarchy is important to many people even though they might not think of it in those terms. They want to be the "deserving" over the "undeserving" and with that moral authority strip the protection from others. The shattered left is not immune to this desire, it just tends to be more choosy. Some look at incremental change as abhorrent and as a moral and ethical betrayal, others see the sacrifice of the hardest to protect as a temporary means to buy time and power so that change can be made and you can see some of those people make too much peace with the literal blood toll associated with that action by doubling down.
To be leftist is to be aware of a multitude of pains and since we all individually have only so much mental space to triage everyone prioritizes differently.
Are you familiar with Fred Hampton or any other celebrated leftist organizer's story? Most of them are remarkably similar.
Honestly, no. But I have to ask: are they far-left? Where on the left do they sit?
6ft below it, mostly.
Fair enough
well in the us the far right is a major political party while the far left at best influences the other party. Right priniciples if you want to call them that tend toward greed so even if there is something that someone does not agree with they kinda don't care as long as they see it not hurting them. left is based on morality so someone can have a variety of things but not agree with others.
$$$. Resources are the ultimate form of power. They have something you want. You do what they say to get it. Far-left doesn't have resources, they just want to take resources. That is why communism only worked in weak states. When you have a stable and well-equipped army, you quash rebellion before it even starts.
These anarchists just need a good, strong leader.
A century of COINTELPRO and NSPM-7 style tactics. The left stands to change the world, the right stands to entrench it.
From where I stand it seems that it's because those people have no mutual aspirations - just mutual enemies. The group is not held together by a shared common goal but a shared enemy.
I can't tell if you think this applies to the left or right.
Both. The far left and the far right have more in common with eachother than with the people in the middle.
Is it though? At least here in the Netherlands, the far right is not much better. There's constant infighting, egos tripping over each other, new "messiahs" taking over and crashing down. We have JA21 and van Haga who both split off of the FvD when the mask went fully off. We have groep Markuszower who split off of the PVV. And on top of that parties like the BBB and people like Mona Keijzer who try to claim the spotlight. The originally liberal VVD trying to get a piece of the pie.
I'm happy for it though. Much rather this than an organized right.
But yeah, leftists can definitely be a purity contest sometimes.
That doesn’t mean necessarily that the far left isn’t disorganised, only that the far right is as disorganised. If the far right is likewise disorganised over there, it doesn’t mean the far left isn’t, only that they’re both disorganised.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m afraid I’m not sure of who most of them people/groups are, though that’s purely because I’m from the Netherlands and don’t have knowledge of how your government works. But I’ll be sure to look into your country, it sounds like it could be interesting to see the disorganisation on both sides of the political spectrum.
Oh yeah the far left is also not necessarily organized. I feel like either extreme tends to converge to a dumpster fire of infighting. The moderate left is currently actually united here under the PRO (progressive) party, after a merger of the 2 largest left wing parties (our equivalents of labour and greens). And they're the largest in the polls, but only because the center failed to solve problems and the right is splintered into many factions. Unfortunately a lot of people here are still very much right wing.
Further left there's been plenty of infighting though, as is customary. Whether it's the Socialist Party trying to distance themselves from the communists within their ranks, the animal party getting into a row over defence spending, or the further left party constantly fighting and calling other members of its party racists etc. We have so many parties, yet apparently not yet enough to prevent this constant fighting.
As a moderate leftist I honestly struggle sometimes to communicate with the far left wing. To me it seems like they're constantly "purity testing" eachother and struggle with giving any kind of compromise. Despite not agreeing with them, the centrist parties like liberals and christian democrats seem like much more reliable and stable partners unfortunately.
I think it's a pretty big misconception of the far right is organized. They like to sell you on that notion. But if you look at it not really. They're full of in fighting and backstabbing and competition as much as anybody.
The Problem is oportunism vs. idealism.
Probably more motivated to address local problems than get dragged into stupid politics. Who has time to be a smarmy asshole on TV? I have shit to do.
Basically the "no-true Scotsman" fallacy. It was kind of the same way with libertarians. Some people would unironically argue that if you weren't in support of allowing someone to own a nuclear warhead recreationally then you "weren't a REAL libertarian" and should stfu. Then libertarians tried running for president and got like .9% of the vote.
This is a many faceted problem, but I'll throw in a few more that I didn't quite see touched on.
For a lot of people on the left, if you're more left than they are you're a tankie and if you're not as left you're a fascist.
There's a lot of worry about purity. For example, there's people who don't buy Harry Potter stuff because the money goes to JK Rowling who spends money on anti trans groups. That's sensible. But then there's people who think you're a bad person if you've enjoyed it, ever. Or didn't get rid of the books once you found out.
This is part of the same thought process that makes people have to say how someone was bad, no matter who they were. "Oh you like Rob Ross he was in the military you know".
The most extreme examples of this are when they go full horseshoe and support Republicans because they are so concerned with flaws the Democrats have, because they think that'll somehow get people to rise up.
On the left, it's more important to do nothing wrong than to do something right.
Funny enough, here in England, something similar to that happened on the far right: there’s this political party called ‘Reform UK’ which is considered the far-right, refuses to align with the Conservative Party (centre-right), but then one of their own disagreed and pushed for Reform UK to adopt even further-right policies. But when they refused to budge, he splintered and formed his own political party, ‘Restore Britain’, which is even further to the right of Reform Uk, but the two parties refuse to work together/form a coalition.
I do wonder if that’s an intentional form of radical flanking to make Reform appear more moderate to floating voters.
The problem with that is, Restore Britain has taken a significant share of former Reform and Conservative votes (I don’t know the exact stats off the top of my head, but in the last few local elections and by-elections, the right wing vote was pretty split between the 3 factions). Plus, for the last few years, the Labour Party (centre left-left wing party) has been the main target/political weapon of Reform, mainly since the last general election (wether that’s simply because Labour won the election seems likely, but also the party’s dwindling support under Keir Starmer before Burnham took over and boosted its numbers). Its also alleged that the Restore leader had a major falling out with the Reform leader; partially causing the split.
I see what you mean, yes.
Yeah, if it really was one of Farage (leader of Reform)’s strategies to make reform more appealing/get more votes, it’s ridiculously stupid — then again, it’s wouldn’t be the dumbest thing he did, nor will it be his last. It almost wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if it came to light…
In other words: the super-critical far-left pricks ruin it for the rest of the left wing non-pricks?
Ain't that just the way
Innit
There are many reasons given here. Many are not new though. These discussions existed in 1800s about the left having a hard time unifying.
Because the left is diverse, and they're also peaceful, productive members of society by and large. You have to be a real piece of shit to get good, peaceful, diverse people to unite together to give a strong and militant response
Conservatives are already living in echo chambers, and they thrive off group think, and they're too stupid to really understand the risks of what they're doing or how dangerous it is to the country. All you have to do is let a few of them get away with it, and that will embolden the rest.
Conservatives grow up living in fear and self suppression, and they think that's the natural state that everyone should be in.
Until they talk to each other.
Because anything left of center is a different group. Liberal Democrats, Social Democrats, Maoists, Stalinists, other Communists, and even Leftist Anarchists. I’m positive there’s more. Of those you can group them between fascists and anti fascists, pro-government or anti-government. The world is far from being black and white.
"Kreegyr's a Separatist. Maya Pei's a neo-Republican. The Ghorman Front, the Partisan Alliance? Sectorists! Human cultists! Galaxy partitionists! They're lost! All of them, lost! Lost!"
Decades of dedicated and zealous sabotage by alphabet agencies and corporate interests, mainly.
The far right is like ICE. Anybody is welcome. Far left is not like that.
Kind of ironic given the right are the ones always trying to close borders, etc.
And persecute LGBTQ+.
I guess "anybody" doesn't include immigrants or LGBTQ+.
If they were trying to join their side they would be.
Lack of money; lack of charismatic central leadership.
Occupy Wallstreet tried to be cute with the mic check thing but needed an MLK like figure.
Doesn't help that large money from the right is willing to play dirty and continuously drive wedges and stoke division.
Mostly agent provocateurs.
Highly organized movements usually have a strong leader/organizer with clear decision trees. Right wing politics like that approach. Left wingers tend to prefer concensus decision making, inclusion, open debate, and flinch from anyone who tries to assert total control. As a result, in spite of having wider coalitions and really great ideas, leftist movements often lack that command and control infrastructure we tend to associate with the term "well organized".
A lot of rightists go "jews suck lmao" or whatever everywhere possible IRL, which leads to people with similar opinions talking with them and leftists staying the fuck away.
The "far-left" is usually not triggered by everyday interactions. Asking people about their politics directly may come off as weird, especially if the ideas that were to follow are not widespread and/or they have not researched politics much. Btw, "I don't speak politics" (I once used to claim this) is often the audience to be targeted with right wing ideas even without realizing.
Oh, and oftentimes, the government is a direct enemy to the far-left. Only rarely not (Ukrainian anarchists are siding with Ukraine, Christiania is making tourism money for Denmark, etc).
Having done a lot of it myself, people become activists because they get off on it somehow. Abstract morality just isn't very motivating, and the work sucks. Quite often, they just like conflict, and are as likely to fight each other as capitalism/The Man/globalist woke Jews/whatever. There's things specific to the left, as well, but this is true across the board.
Fringe activism, where there's nobody motivated by money and career instead, tends to be even worse.
This all says not-great things about humanity.
my head-canon tells me the right's goal can be simplified down to whatever makes me the most money/power
the left, on the other hand, can have multiple ways and layers and sensitivities on what can be said is the morally-correct way to handle things.
Probably because most of us are neurodivergent.
In Canada, it's because they threw out all the labor rights people and replaced them with people adding letters to LGBTQ+TS+ BLT...
There IS no major far left movement, that's why. It's not necessarily left vs right either. Anyone not far right AND also gobble Trump's tiny mushroom is branded as far left, but that doesn't make it true. So what you're seeing as opposition to the far right is:
On the far right you have:
This makes it seem like the opposition far outnumbers the far right voters, but let me assure you, it does not. People not paying attention are by far the biggest population.
Why do I say all of this? Because first, the opposition group is disjointed. On the far right side, the fear mongerers and shit stirrers just like what they're brainwashed to like or what makes others upset respectively. The people not paying attention are not paying attention. The masterminds are the ones writing the script for the fear mongerers.
Most of the opposition actually believes what they believe and have principles, which is at times diametrically opposed to what their fellow anti-Trumpers believe. Not always, there are fear mongerers there too. But mostly.
Unfortunately, being anti-Trump is not a rallying cry. People are much more motivated by what they're passionate about, if they're passionate about anything. Thus, the infighting.
To begin to analyze this we have to have clear, simple definitions of the left and right. I think it very easily maps on to authoritarianism vs. freedom. You could take "being racist" as a right-wing position and say "but they want to be free to do that", but freedom only extends until you're compromising someone else's freedom, then it's power. Whether it's about being racist, controlling trans people or queer people, or whatever it is, the right worships one thing and that is power.
When you do that, by the very nature, it's more easy to be organized and disciplined. There's no one to push back on orders from above no matter how dumb because that's the goal. If we try to strive for their level of organization and discipline, we become like them. We have to stop, every moment, and make sure that what we're doing is something being consented to by the wider community. That's just the nature of the fight.
And I don't think it will ever end. There will always be this tension between permissiveness and discipline. We've just been stuck in the disciplined, authoritarian mode, since the authoritarians gained the upper hand by stealing the Americas.
If you're looking for more reading along these lines I believe Graeber and Wengrow talk about this in The Dawn of Everything. But I'm also drawing from my own experience and understanding.
The problem with the left isn't that anarchists and tankies get into internet arguments sometimes. That shit doesn't matter, none of this matters.
The lack of organization that matters is at the top. The root of the problem is that the far right likes the GOP, but the far left does not like the DNC. And first-past-the-post elections ensure that the far left can't hope to organize any kind of competition to challenge the DNC.
https://lemy.lol/post/71883809
As a right wing someone, the left is well much more organised than the right. It s just at one point your circlejerk way too much for your own good. At some point individuals push idea too far for the common people. They do that cauqenit serve personal interest to virtue signaling you are best than your peer, but they do that at the détriment of the cause. Like trans ppl The normal folks can agree it s not cool to be a dixk regarding that issue. Now let's see what came from ppl in your movement trying to one up each other to be the more virtuous of the movement. Anyone claiming to be transgendered should be treated as a biological women. Which give stuff like men in women space and something like 85% of ppl vehemently oppose. So you lost the plot and since your whole movement is based on the logic you are the majority which isn't the case on issue like thoses u just appear to be lunatics. I can do that on so many subject. But when your politics are be nice and some corporate shit u share with Hollywood and any big corpo in the world, to the average folks u juste are sheep. When u start to ressort to violence to defend your idea since they are so far gone u just are lunatics.
Another exemple we gonna do in real time. How much immigration is too much immigration ? U can't answer that simple question even if for 90% they can. Doesn't make any sens socially, economically and so on. But you aren't able to discuss thoses cause u either an ally or an ennemies.
Tldr u r too much radical for the normal ppl and trump seem more fair than you. Which should make you wake up
What you just typed was barely English. But I did catch this part.
Trump is a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who attempted to violently overthrow our Democracy and continues to take steps to do so. That makes anyone that thinks he's more fair a fucking idiot and/or traitor.
And he was elected president with a large majority. Yeah that should make u think what the fuck is wrong with you
extremist positions are disorganized, period.
the reason why they are is because extremism in general is an emotional reaction to the inability to see progress.
for example, far-left people are typically vegan out of an emotional sense of responsibility to animals. while far-right people are generally carnivorous out of an emotional sense of spite towards far-left vegans.
similar patterns begin to show up with other topics such as abortion rights, and socialist benefit programs.
this is why extremism of any kind is toxic. it hinders our ability to govern based on merit instead of frivolous emotional weights.
though, that's not to say that centrist views are any better since centrism is itself another form of extremism.
inflexibility is the death of all governments, that's why there are judges that provide perspective to law and how it is applied.
when your beliefs are based on fantasies and re-writing history so you have no base in reality, you're fucked from the start
that and you're a bunch of idiot protestors that never get elected and create anything lasting in society apart from the misery you revel in (the struggle) that is the meaning of your life
For someone against progressives to talk about "beliefs based on fantasies", "rewriting history", and "having no base in reality"
You have to be a special kind of idiot, right?
Please tell me all about the migrant caravans and how slavery wasn't that bad. Tell me about your macho leaders with mascara and multiple makeup studios. Tell me about how well the country is doing. Please tell me about the furries in schools with litter boxes and migrants eating cats.
Yeah, YOU pedophilia supporting traitor, please tell US about REALITY
Right-wingers in the US are the kings of living in a fantasy of their own creation, both in their rhetoric as well as their actual policy. That's why we're talking about trans athletes in sports being a widespread epidemic while waiting for that trickle down economics to finally hit the middle class.
The left's problem isn't strictly related to rhetoric or policy (though it would be foolish to call them masters of either), it's that they suck at coalition building and can never get even simple and widely popular ideas actually implemented or enforced.
Because they're legitimately crazy. The far right is obviously insane as well, but in a different way.
The far left has a snowflake mentality, every individual person has to be special in some way. This causes a same general "side" but because of them all being "special" in some way, it's limited.
The far right has the mentality of they're all cheering for the exact same football team. They're a mass of identical people at a football game all cheering together. It's typically called a tribe mentality. Because of those they have a singular goal and not a "I'm special" mentality.
That's why the ar right person asks you who you voted for and you say Kamala they have a temper tantrum. They are so into a person they've never met, never will meet or know nothing about them personally, but to them it's like their team going to the super bowl intensity. So they assume you must have the exact same intensity for who you voted for. When in reality, I think Kamala was dog shit too, but I'm not voting Trump.
This veers dangerously close to the horseshoe analogy…