The political landscape in the West has shifted dramatically in recent decades, with increasing numbers of people becoming disillusioned with mainstream liberal politics gravitating toward the right. This trend is not accidental but rooted in systemic, cultural, and psychological factors that make the right a more accessible and appealing alternative for those feeling alienated.

The left’s historical strength lay in its ability to articulate a clear critique of the capitalist system, centered on the exploitative relationship between workers and owners. Class, as a concept, derives its significance from the process of surplus extraction: the transfer of wealth from those who labor to those who own. This dynamic is the engine of inequality, enabling a small elite to extract wealth from the working class majority who toil with little to show for it. Yet, the left in the West has largely moved away from class analysis, instead focusing on social issues and identity politics.

While issues of race, gender, and other forms of identity are undeniably important, the left’s emphasis on these concerns has often come at the expense of addressing the broader economic injustices that affect all working people. By treating these issues as separate from class struggle, the left has fractionalized its base, creating a patchwork of identity groups that often emphasize their distinctiveness rather than their shared interests. As such, the left is unable to present a unified front to the capitalist system and the ruling class.

In contrast, the right has adeptly tapped into the economic anxieties of working-class people. While the solutions they propose are misguided or outright harmful, the right acknowledges the very real frustrations of those who feel left behind by the system. When right-wing figures argue that the economy is rigged against ordinary people, they resonate with the lived experiences of many who see their wages stagnate, their costs of living rise, and their opportunities shrink.

The right’s message is effective because it doesn’t require a radical rethinking of the world. Instead, it builds on the capitalist and nationalist ideologies that people have been steeped in their entire lives. By blaming immigrants, government overreach, or cultural elites, the right offers scapegoats that align with preexisting prejudices and fears. This makes their ideology not only accessible but also emotionally satisfying.

On the other hand, moving to the left requires questioning the very foundations of the system. Socialist thinking runs contrary to the ideas of capitalism, individualism, and the myth of meritocracy that most people have been taught to accept as natural and inevitable. For many, this is a daunting prospect. It involves rejecting deeply held beliefs and confronting uncomfortable truths about the world and their place in it. While some are willing to make this leap, most find it easier to retreat into the familiar narratives offered by the right.

If the left hopes to counter this trend, it must reclaim class analysis as a central pillar of its politics. This doesn’t mean abandoning the fight against racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression but rather recognizing that these struggles are interconnected with the broader fight against economic exploitation. The forces that perpetuate class inequality are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, and ecological devastation. These issues must be framed as part of a unified struggle that unites all working class people.

The left needs to provide a compelling narrative that’s able to compete with the one that the right peddles. It has to be accessible and relatable to those feeling alienated from the political mainstream.

  • folaht@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    The move to the right is because the USSR fell.
    USSR fell because of the distribution of fossil fuels at the time,
    too much coal in the US making the country very strong regardless of politics
    and too much oil in a weak and vulnerable monarchic Saudi Arabia,
    that got exploited by the US, made the situation even worse.

    But people don’t listen to logic.
    Most people listen to results
    and then attribute emotional explanations to them.
    Even most people on the left.

    The gap the USSR left behind has been filled by US radical feminists
    and later US trans-feminists.
    Neither of them are much interested in social inequality,
    but are more about female victim-supremacy,
    while letting economic liberalism thrive.

    It’s female supremacism dressed up as the one true socialism,
    just like naziism being (white) male nationalist supremacism,
    with one big difference, which is how the former is merely restrictive and incompetent,
    while the latter is more competently
    world endingly destructive
    and more succesfully genocidal.

    Feminist power is very fickle.
    It derives it’s power from a shortage (100f:105m) of young (20-40) women and nothing else.
    In the 21st century with advanced technology,
    that’s not going to last very long, hence why we’ve already gotten into the age of transfeminism,
    where men seeing the benifits of female power
    are able to get halfway there and are able to influence
    the feminist movement to such an extend, that it has almost has been taken over.
    But the shortage still remains, so

    EU has sunk because it doesn’t have any fossil fuels left
    and thus has begun following the US even more than it already did.

    Feminist US then attacked Vladimir Putin’s Russia,
    although it would not have been different under ultra-capitalist US,
    but it did confuse the US white supremacist wing of the ultra-capitalists,
    and grow sympathy for Putin, because the feminists hate Putin
    for everything the white supremacists love,
    as Putin’s ideology is centrist Christian Conservatism
    and multipolarism.
    While the centrism (more left than US liberalism)
    and multiporarism (less imperialist than US liberalism) is glossed over
    by US feminists, his macho shirtless horse riding
    and hatred of the promotion of transfeminism, is not.
    Not to mention that US continues to be imperialist
    and has started to inflict color revolutions aimed directly against his country
    and every single one of the former Soviet States.
    This amplified his need to promote a macho personality and lifestyle
    for military morale support against these coups-and-attacks-by-payment.

    Since automation is moving on,
    we’re heading towards an accelerated second socialist revolution at lightning speed.
    We will see a giant move to the left once China starts to surpass the US,
    especially in nations surrounding China that trade with them the most.

    It’s unclear which country will ride the new socialist wave first,
    but I’m suspecting former socialist countries like Russia will go first and neighbouring nations like India won’t be far behind.

    • Are_Euclidding_Me [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This comment is chock full of misogyny, with some transphobia sprinkled in for good measure. You should reconsider your beliefs. Feminists aren’t the reason liberalism is the dominant political ideology in the US, come on, that should be obvious.