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)
At least in the states every time the Left organizes the Feds start executing people, Chairman Fred, MLK Jr, the MOVE bombings…
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.
Because we are trying to make sense, not just to be convincing.
On the process divergences may appear.
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.
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
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.
its factions usually don’t get along with each other simply because their projects are incompatible
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
The far right is financed by billionaires. Guess who finances the far left?
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.
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.
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:
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 dogs hit 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.
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
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
