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)
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.
At least here in the Netherlands, the far right is not much better
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 post, 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.
deleted by creator
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.
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
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.
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).
These anarchists just need a good, strong leader.
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
The Problem is oportunism vs. idealism.
The far right is financed by billionaires. Guess who finances the far left?
Also billionaires, just fewer of them.
Name one.
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.
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.
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 😔
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
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.
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
Obligatory:
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.
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.
