Is the far-right so strong because the (far-)left is so weak?

[noname223]

I think there are no easy answers.

I know right-wingers always criticize that the discourse hegemony is still in the hands of universities, mainstream media elites, NGOs, international corporations in favor of DEI, international trade organization, so called "globalists".

The irony is right-wingers are still able to portray themselves as innocent victims even though the executive, legislative and even the judiciary is dominated by te GOP, and far-right conservatives (of different colors). The far-right is also split into different divisions. But they have tropes where they can agree on certain topics. And agree on a global or domestic enemy.

I have not discussed the question of the title. The left isn't powerless. In my country the far-right is on the rise, though many voters from other parties agree that the AfD should not govern the country. There are many developments that favor the far-right. The Overton window shifts, media outlets and far-right actors keep moving the goalpost, even in mainstream outlets and in traditional parties there are more and more voices that are in favor of tearing down the Brandmauer. (fire-wall that stigmatizes the cooperation with the AfD)

The left is a broad term. You can consider liberal politicians part of the left. Then there are cultural elites that are moderates when it comes to taxation and income distribution, then there are Marxists, activists like ANTIFA or straight communists.

I recently read a newspaper article about leftwing postliberalism. And for me the article gave me the impression there is a sentiment even on the left in certain circles that there is a tyranny of minorities in our society. Moreover, the scope of the executive and demos is limited by international trade deals, juridification of decisions in our democracy. There are researchers like Philip Manow in Germany who reverse the causality when it comes to populism. The emergence of populism does not threaten liberal democracy with their policies. Instead the inherent flaws of liberal democracy necessarily had to cause an upheaval of populists. The deficiencies of liberal democracy and how it to comes to compromises are not all that democratic if we define democracy as the ruling by the people.

There are people who call this approach delusional. And consider these ideas a gift to the far-right. I can see where far-right outlets and actors can instrumentalize scientists that have a contrarian view on this for their agenda. Personally, I am not sure how to evaluate it. I think it is interesting to reverse the causality.

In certain aspects I can see where they are coming from. The leftwing elites often belittled the people left behind. The people who could not keep up with the pace of globalisation. Preaching them everything becomes better while for example rural areas deindustrialized and fell apart.

My initial thought for this thread was the article that I mentioned. But I also thought of the death of Jürgen Habermas. He warned about the impact of social media on public discourse. In my opinion the rise of the internet culture is connected to the polarization. I don't want to demonize the internet per se. But the way social platforms were implemented (surveillance, microtargeting, selling and analysis of data). Basically we had the development in our hands. Everything what happened could have turned out differently. I am not sure whether we were too dumb to anticipate of what was going to happen. There were voices that warned us from taking the wrong path at critical junctions. At the same time the imagination of many of us was limited to imagine the mistakes of the past could repeat themselves (in a similar form).

Personally, I have the feeling the world we currently live in could have been shaped differently. But instead of giving up we should remind ourselves of what is at stake and consider the agency we have. Determinism and fatalism is the enemy. And I think not going to vote is exactly what the elites who want to accumulate more wealth want from you.

I will end it here. I could go on and on.

 

[Hvergelmir]

On the contrary I think the right is so strong, as a rebound effect caused by a too strong and uncompromising left.

Cooperation at scale is not about subjugating the opposition, but to find common cause.
For a democracy to remain stable, all major factions must remain reasonably content.

The question that the left (and at this point also the right) ought to ask is not how to push their agenda further, but how to bring the opposition along.

 

[PimpHand]

If you want to see things through the lens of Marxism (which I don't like btw), there's a response to that:

The far-right rises as a reaction of the elites when there's a threat of proletariat insurgency. But in the case of Europe and USA the things are far more "macabre": what happened in the 2000s and 2010s was an experiment of social control through algorithms and radicalization. So people like Steve Bannon invested so much money into this new shift it actually worked. Because the working class is fragmented (weakening of Unions, labor laws weakened), poor (due to globalization and deindustrialization), and resented (due to technology and AI).

My response to this is that both extremes =want a solution called "collectivism", which is the imposition of collective will over any individuality. Hierarchies, authority, power and control, specially in the media and arts. The difference is that the far-left, like China, actually increases some parameters in life, but at the sake of controlling the thoughts and actions of every human being. I would say the difference is that the far-right is based on 1984, while the far-left is based on Brave New World.

 

[Hvergelmir]

I would say the difference is that the far-right is based on 1984, while the far-left is based on Brave New World.

To me, state control as a whole is a left-wing concept. I'd argue that the right is about letting things develop on their own, and have power where power naturally accumulates.

 

[limenlux]

What makes you think any of these people are "strong" or "weak" and not just flipped on and off by the system like Furbies? After neoliberalism prevailed in history's largest A/B test against communism, the most important lesson it internalized was to never let these radical, larger than life figures like many of the earlier 20th century dictators anywhere near power, because they're too independent, or too visionary (without endorsing the visions), or too mercurial.

Periodically, cracks show in the system, and the peasants get antsy, so they have to dust off a Le Pen or a Mélenchon to warble on about all the immigration controls or welfare expansions blah blah blah they'll enact, and the second they take office they'll be on the phone receiving orders from some mid-level employee of the US State Department (see Giorgia Meloni). They won't even get the courtesy of a sweaty, inexplicably nervous Marco Rubio sipping water every ten seconds while telling them how many refugees they're about to have to absorb from Trump having one last temper tantrum and nuking Tehran after getting chased out of the Middle-East by a million Shahed drones.

 

[noname223]

On the contrary I think the right is so strong, as a rebound effect caused by a too strong and uncompromising left.

Cooperation at scale is not about subjugating the opposition, but to find common cause.
For a democracy to remain stable, all major factions must remain reasonably content.

The question that the left (and at this point also the right) ought to ask is not how to push their agenda further, but how to bring the opposition along.

At least for the US there is no common ground with the GOP since 2016. The party has become anti-democratic.

If you want to see things through the lens of Marxism (which I don't like btw), there's a response to that:

The far-right rises as a reaction of the elites when there's a threat of proletariat insurgency. But in the case of Europe and USA the things are far more "macabre": what happened in the 2000s and 2010s was an experiment of social control through algorithms and radicalization. So people like Steve Bannon invested so much money into this new shift it actually worked. Because the working class is fragmented (weakening of Unions, labor laws weakened), poor (due to globalization and deindustrialization), and resented (due to technology and AI).

My response to this is that both extremes =want a solution called "collectivism", which is the imposition of collective will over any individuality. Hierarchies, authority, power and control, specially in the media and arts. The difference is that the far-left, like China, actually increases some parameters in life, but at the sake of controlling the thoughts and actions of every human being. I would say the difference is that the far-right is based on 1984, while the far-left is based on Brave New World.

Where was there a threat of proletariat insurgency in that time period in Europe or the US? Occupy Wallstreet? I think the movement was way too small to make a real change.

To me, state control as a whole is a left-wing concept. I'd argue that the right is about letting things develop on their own, and have power where power naturally accumulates.

I think that notion is outdated. The far-right has evolved into a strong state movement. There is even massive intervention into the economy. Monopolies win. The winnertakes it all.
Also in foreign policy realism dominates primarily in countries that are led by nationalistic governments. Or do you consider Russia leftwing?

What makes you think any of these people are "strong" or "weak" and not just flipped on and off by the system like Furbies? After neoliberalism prevailed in history's largest A/B test against communism, the most important lesson it internalized was to never let these radical, larger than life figures like many of the earlier 20th century dictators anywhere near power, because they're too independent, or too visionary (without endorsing the visions), or too mercurial.

Periodically, cracks show in the system, and the peasants get antsy, so they have to dust off a Le Pen or a Mélenchon to warble on about all the immigration controls or welfare expansions blah blah blah they'll enact, and the second they take office they'll be on the phone receiving orders from some mid-level employee of the US State Department (see Giorgia Meloni). They won't even get the courtesy of a sweaty, inexplicably nervous Marco Rubio sipping water every ten seconds while telling them how many refugees they're about to have to absorb from Trump having one last temper tantrum and nuking Tehran after getting chased out of the Middle-East by a million Shahed drones.

And Trump isn't a product of a personalistic cult? A larger than life figure? Isn't Trump a product of end-times/late capitalism? And neoliberalism evolves in neo feudalism under him?
Trump isn't visionary in term of being ideological or producing something new. The people behind him (Dark Enllightment philosophers, some billionaires) use a figure like Trump as a catalyst. As the destroyer of the status quo. Someone who prepares the world for the end times. And the elites flees in concepts like transhumanism and build bunkers in countries that seem to have the biggest chances of surviving what humankind will have to grapple with. Climate catastrophe. maybe societal collapse, desperate fights over resources etc.
I like the Gramsci quote: "The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

 

[Hvergelmir]

At least for the US there is no common ground with the GOP since 2016. The party has become anti-democratic.

When I mention opposition, I'm mainly talk about the voters. I think there's plenty of common ground, and where there's the possibility of compromise.
It has worked before, and can work again.
The only other option I can think of is to split the country, and that would come at a very high cost.

Also in foreign policy realism dominates primarily in countries that are led by nationalistic governments. Or do you consider Russia leftwing?

From what little I know about the oligarchy, I'd consider Russia right wing. While it's indeed intermixed with the state, my perception of Russia is that it's ruled by economic factions, more than a left-leaning party or ideology.
I would not attribute nationalism to the right (though many do). China, Soviet and North Korea have all been both nationalist and isolationist, during clearly left-wing regimes.

My interpretation is admittedly rather conservative, but I strongly oppose packing opinions about widely different things into a single position.

The far-right has evolved into a strong state movement. There is even massive intervention into the economy. Monopolies win. The winnertakes it all.

I don't think it's ideologically justified. A strong state transformed into an extension of companies, has no popular support.
I'd label it corruption.

 

[PeaceSeeker83]

The far right is on the rise (I am a staunch conservative) because the left wing has been a complete failure. Multiculturalism does not work; never has and never will. Open borders are disastrous. Left wingers in the judiciary are disastrous for societal safety. Language control and social, political correctness is disastrous too.