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)
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 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
Right-wing people embrace hierarchy. Left-wing people don’t.
Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
We aren’t talking about Democrats.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
These anarchists just need a good, strong leader.
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
Obligatory:
Because we are trying to make sense, not just to be convincing.
On the process divergences may appear.
In Canada, it’s because they threw out all the labor rights people and replaced them with people adding letters to LGBTQ+TS+ BLT…
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.
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.
