You're viewing a single thread.
Funnily enough, many online leftists think something similar is true for the right.
The right may not have great organization, but they have an astounding ability to put their blinders on for the Ten Minutes' Hate when it's called for. The right's problem is that when they smell blood in the water, THEN the unity falls apart. It's power games for them.
Parts of the left, or what passes for it in this country, would prefer martyrdom to cooperating with heretics.
This is because "the left" tries to unite groups that ultimately are at odds with each other. Anarchists of all types work very well with each other usually, but not with Auth left because they have bad praxis and care about being in control of the movement. Likewise it's difficult to align with social democrats who think electoralism and reformism is a solution and stifle direct action.
Likewise Auth left and social democrats tend to infight, even within themselves, because their hierarchical praxis causes power play friction.
It's simpler than that - the left has principles, while the right has unity and message discipline driven by deference to authority, a victim complex fear, hate, and thirst for power.
You're mistaken that the right is unified. The fight among each other quite a lot. They can only manage to unite under a charismatic strongman, but quickly fall into infighting when that falters.
They're not unified, they're unified ...now?
The fact that they have conflicting ideologies (e.g. Nazis and Zionists as I said below) and continue to push in the same direction is pretty straightforward evidence of this.
The unification pre-dates Trump - the rise of the tea party saw ideological rifts, but they all fell in line when the time came. Bush wasn't a charismatic strongman... nor was McConnell for that matter.
You only think they're pushing in the same direction because you're on the outside looking in. As the op points out, they think the same about leftists.
What issues is the left actually coordinated on? The non-specific "weird" narrative. Access to reproductive healthcare maybe.
Where is there meaningful dissent on the right?
-
It's not the obvious "stolen" election bullshit
-
Even the Nazis are backing Israel
-
They're fighting regulation of firearms
-
They're all pushing for austerity broadly
-
They want to restrict immigration
-
They want to deregulate companies
-
They want to outlaw trans people
-
They broadly support Russia with a bit of surface-level sabre-rattling
-
Right. It doesn't take long to find reasons that conservatives should be divided. Libertarians hyper-capitalists only care about taxes and eliminating government regulations, but are happy to ally with Christian Dominionists. Christian Dominionists, in turn, would only benefit from bringing traditionally black and latinx churches under their philosophy, but they're also allied with racists who only care about religion and libertarian hyper-capitalism if it provides a way for white people to dominate all others. You can categorize any given conservative by which policy they choose when a contradiction comes up.
None of these groups fit together at all, and there are obvious contradictions between them. Racists will happily add regulations that black people can't sit in the same diners as white people, which the libertarians ought to hate. Libertarians end social programs that help people, which Christians ought to hate. They're masters of ignoring all that to get their party into power.
See also: Nazis and Zionists.
That one may be less contradictory than you think. Depends on the brand.
Historically, there were many Christian Zionists who thought "we should give the Jews their homeland so we can kick them out of Europe". Likewise, certain white nationalists argue that every race should have their own homeland (granted, this may be a ploy more than a real conviction), and Bibi often finds himself in friendly company there.
Reasonable, but understanding that doesn't solve for the core "sinister Jewish cabal" narrative, I think it comes down to simple ideological alignment - far-right fascist autocracy with genocidal tendencies. There's not much they disagree on.
I take great offense in you saying that tankies and socdems infight, lol. (I mean, I get it, they are both statists, but I feel on a emotional level most socdems feel more for anarchism than for leninism.)
I would be an anarchist if I weren't socdem. The problem with anarchism is that it only works on a very small scale, where people know each other well enough to work on mutual understanding. That wouldn't work on a very large scale due to people having their own ideas. I was told before that anarchism is basically the norm for most of human history and thus it could be implemented. Well, look around, aren't we already living in anarchism under the nation-state model? Even though there is the United Nations, most of their power is non-binding and could easily be ignored by a more powerful member. And thus we are already living in anarchism; and it's not working as idealised.
I'm more anarchistic in personal beliefs but am willing to embrace social democrats to get some benefit.
The idea of the greatest social good for the largest group is more important than trusting everyone to follow the correct policies when given power. I also personally think that state power is incompatible with anarchist beliefs.
anarchism isn't the lack of rules. Nor is it many little kingdoms.
Generally speaking, anarchy isn't some lost golden age that anarchists want to return to, it's something new that we want to create. Both past and present societies have anarchistic elements that we can draw inspiration from, but none of those societies really live up to our ideals.
There are some that characterize anarchism as equivalent to direct democracy. I disagree with that, but I do think it can be categorized as a further evolution of democracy. Autonomous democracy, if you will. It retains the idea that everyone is equal and that we don't need monarchs to govern us. However, where democracy sets up a centralized apparatus for majoritarian, society-wide rule-making and enforcement, in anarchy the rules are created and applied in a decentralized fashion where they are needed, by mutual agreement.
Well if meant to in the context of the occasional big tent movements. I don't think most socdems think much about anarchists at all except when it comes time to scold us for not voting.
Yes, and I think that when together in a big tent, socdems would associate more easily with anarchists than with leninists. Especially with syndicalists, for example.
Was under the impression that most anarchists are aware that voting is still important. like it or not, we are still citizens of some state for the time being, but we can use that to promote useful change or to exercise damage control, as part of the overall praxis arsenal. especially with some organization within your local groups, it can be a good tool.
We are, surprisingly enough, not very unified on that point. I used to be a non-voter, annoyed at the anarchists that would harangue me to vote. Now I'm a grudging voter, annoyed at the anarchists that harangue me *not* to vote. xD
Both then and now, I maintain that anarchists should either vote or not, and then shut the hell up about it. The whole argument is just a lot of pointless bikeshedding about the most marginal effects.
I think there's a lot more agreement among anarchists that we shouldn't get involved in or donate to electoral campaigns. We have better things to do with our time and resources.
How does one then answer the question “If you think elections don’t work, then why do you participate?” by a non-anarchist?
You've made plenty of good points throughout the article about the problems with the system. I don't see why that can't be your answer. There's no contradiction in acknowledging major problems and still exerting what little influence you do have.
But if they “work a little” for an anarchist, certainly they would work a lot for a non-anarchist.
How does that logic follow? Assuming you both have the same values and are trying to achieve the same thing, then a solution that works for one person will work just as well for another. The difference in opinions is on which solution will work, not on what you're trying to achieve.
There’s no contradiction in acknowledging major problems and still exerting what little influence you do have.
I just disagree this is any sort of influence instead of a palliative.
How does that logic follow? Assuming you both have the same values and are trying to achieve the same thing, then a solution that works for one person will work just as well for another.
You are quoting a rhetorical question. The point I'm making here is that if someone isn't an anarchist and therefore doesn't do direct action, then seeing even anarchists take part in elections, reinforces to them the idea that elections work well enough.
This post borders on sovcit levels of delusion.
well what's important is that you get to feel smugly superior.
I'm not particularly far left compared to the Lemmy Lunatics, but I suspect that is far more true for the right than it is for the left.
I've seen people go from "are all these COVID precautions necessary?", and tumble down a rabbit-hole to "we need to kick the foreigners out, Trump is the best choice for the US, and Russia is entitled to Ukraine" in a matter of months.
They're very good at keeping people on message. They grab people on one issue and make them go all-in.
The liberal to fascist pipeline is a thing ofc, but it doesn't represent unity of action.