Left and right is dead

submitted by InumaGaming Socialist from (self.WayOfTheBern)

I keep seeing this for a lot of people that still don't quite understand what it means. Some people love to think that this is a football field and a 2D plane where you can guess who's where by knowing your left and right hand exist.

Folks, Obama isn't a "left leaning" person.

Neither is Trump the epitome of the "right wing"

Both are establishment critters in different veins.

People still like to use left and right all the time because it was ingrained into them. On the sidebar is a strong indicator that all of us need to remind ourselves of from time to time:

We don't see politics along a Left/Right divide; we see it along a Top/Bottom divide, and it is especially on issues of economic justice where people from across the political spectrum can meet and engage.

I'm not going to see eye to eye with every conservative out there but I'm finding more of a revolutionary spirit among libertarians and conservatives who want the dissolution of the FBI, more free speech protections, and less war than a liberal who loves Big Tech, swears Biden is the new FDR, and Democrats can just stop the Green Party from running while Bowman pulls a fire alarm to stop a vote.

To assist with this, understand that the ruling elite is fighting. They make alliances. Alliances form factions which trickle down to us. The question for us is as there's divisions of the ruling class, what can WE do to ensure a better alliance for us all?

This is called and considered Bonapartism and was done to realign the country after the French Revolution. But, you can use the same concepts to go back to how Julius Caesar was a Bernie Sanders and trying to reform the Senate and a different faction assassinated him as he did so. The point is that divisions at the top, lead to alliances and factions which group and align in certain ways to which you can use to understand what you're against and who is fighting for what.

If you don't like a faction then see about what they're fighting against and what you're fighting for. You may align more with others who are willing to work with you. Thus, politics can make strange bedfellows.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day.

all 14 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In the US we are allowed two political perspectives: Active authoritarian conservatives and passive authoritarian conservatives. The overton window isn't allowed outside that particular polarity. Politics in the US is a one way road that wobbles between lanes whether society more or less socially liberal or conservative. Policy however always, always remains going in the preordained conservative direction. So we the little people end up distracted fighting over the minutia in identity politics to make us feel like we actively participating in steering the ship when in reality we have no political impact what-so-ever.

[–]RR_2023 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Look how the establishment media treats Obama vs Trump. These are not the same.

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yet their administrations policy outcomes were nearly identical. Curious how when the policies are passive embraced when it's done quietly and yet wildly rejected when spoken about openly.

[–]Orochiwe don't need no water let the mother[honk] burn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Although I get what you're saying and have long tried to play nice with acquaintances of nearly every political stripe, it's dismaying to say that there are still a whole lot who haven't freed themselves from the Matrix yet. A friend who is a solar panel buff was grumbling at me because he'd shared this article around and some clueless critic said he "trusted" California's decisions because it's "broadly blue", before doing some hand wringing about corporations being off-grid or something. I game with a few... "progressives" (as they call themselves) and the most vocal of them has some pretty tribal takes and cognitive dissonance on policy. Refused to let her mother come to her house because she was "anti-vaxxer". Thinks Mitch McConnell's brain is going but doesn't think Pelosi or Biden have problems (but admitted that Feinstein was too old, I guess). When I said "the US wants to throw down with Russia and China at the same time" the response was "I don't think Biden wants WWIII, he's just putting the military over there so they don't... start something". All those ex-Bernie staffers made that ceasefire video for Bernie, and wasn't that cute?

That said I usually just tell people I'm an independent, mostly so they don't immediately jump to the conclusion I belong to a particular camp the moment I happen to trip one of the tribal boundaries such as disapproving of the wrong kinds of wars or criticizing whoever the current president happens to be.

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Identity politics is the politics of despair and hopelessness. They are all stuck in a rut terrified it's all crashing down around them. When you're in a gated community mentality anything not coming through the "approved" front gate is an enemy that has to be repelled regardless of intent. These people are crushed by fear. Anything their "team" is doing must be right as their "team" would never turn against them. "Progressives" are constantly in retreat with no shelter or direction forward. America has become saturated in deep paranoia, fear, and xenophilic zeal.

Refused to let her mother come to her house because she was "anti-vaxxer".

Simply ask them questions. Ask them if they feel powerful in rejecting their mother. Do they think perhaps that "conservatives" feeling get manipulated by they oligarchy into rejecting their families. The homeless child population by in large in the US are children rejected by their parents for their sexuality. Do they think the oligarchy benefits from dividing families. If the oligarchy told them to reject their family would they do it? Does the oligarchy have that power over them?

"I don't think Biden wants WWIII, he's just putting the military over there so they don't... start something".

Ask them if Trump did the same thing would they back Trump? If Trump was working us toward nuclear war would they continue to agree with that position. If Trump was Democrat would they quietly submit to a nuclear war just because it was politically inconvenient to go against their party? What does that say about them as person? Seems shallow to cheer for a war they'd reject if Republican was doing it.

Sadly all this is going to enrage them as they will believe your targeting their core values and that will likely lead to overt rejection. Empathy is key. Living in terror with nowhere to turn is painful. Just keep slowly asking neutral questions with no malicious intent. Take every opportunity to inject critical thinking to disrupt the fear and despair cycles. They will want to retreat back into identity politics to avoid uncomfortable truths or project their identity politics onto anything that twitches. Take away the simple easy answers even if that results in frustration and anger from them having to confront the gray political reality. The iceberg takes decades to chip away and it goes deep underwater. People are not going get disentangled from identity politics overnight.

[–]Orochiwe don't need no water let the mother[honk] burn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, slugging it out with random dishonest loudmouths on Twitter and Reddit is fine and dandy but for friends that aren't that close, too deep into a tribe, or everyday acquaintances I merely scrape away at the edges of the iceberg. For gaming, game chat isn't the best medium for typing up long statements about politics and I try to pick my breaches of narrative carefully so I'm not just battling with them about everything. Most of what I have done involves helping people in more populist directions on topics they're already open and agreeable to, such as healthcare or censorship (i.e. capitalists in countries with national healthcare plans recognize that private insurance is a failed concept, and that's why the public doesn't want it)

Sadly all this is going to enrage them as they will believe your targeting their core values and that will likely lead to overt rejection.

Indeed I've crossed that line before, mainly with friends who were so open and forward about their not-mainstream politics that I thought they'd be open to hearing me out on. As it would turn out, they had TDS and wound up flailing in disarray, one in particular swung between "I don't want to talk about politics anymore", exploding out of the blue a year later in my private messages demanding answers about how Trump was better than Hillary would have been that I was more than ready to give, and flipping back to "don't ever talk to me about politics again" before I could even finish.

Needless to say one has to choose carefully or burn as many bridges as Jimmy has.

[–]InumaGaming Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, that's about where I've been.

I caught hell and hate for criticizing AOC and Bernie because people thought I wouldn't sacrifice a sacred cow.

I had beef for a week.

I find myself keeping distance with the ones that attach themselves to the Democratic Party and at least listen while they go ham on that nonsense.

In regards to international endeavors, I had to cut down some people on Ukraine something fierce and they thought I was going to go crazy to protect Biden.

Suffice to say, they had to learn the hard way that some people just have no patience for nonsense.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Money quote:

If you don't like a faction then see about what they're fighting against and what you're fighting for. You may align more with others who are willing to work with you. Thus, politics can make strange bedfellows.

Another blind spot aside from falling into the left-right trap is the all-or-none trap that keeps us from aligning with people we agree with on one issue or a subset of issues because we disagree with them on everything else. There's huge support across the political spectrum on fundamental issues that are critical for all of us, like a return to the rule of law and safeguarding of Constitutional protections. First, though, we have to be willing to fight for infringements against the other side as hard as we fight against them for ourselves.

[–]ageingrockstar 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'd been thinking of starting a thread along similar lines. I agree with you, Left and Right are not useful descriptors anymore (and I'm now starting to wonder if they ever were, even during the French Revolution, which is their origin, but that is a deeper discussion).

I would pose two question :

  1. Do you still identify, even in your head, as Left or Right ?

  2. Do you use these labels to describe others, in writing or in speech ?

My answer to question 1 is still a weak yes, but my identification continues to grow weaker. My answer to 2 is a definite No, and I haven't for some time now (although I probably am still guilty of applying the labels to others in my head still, particularly when they've self-identified to one of the labels).

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think it best to think about political identity in three dimensions:

X= (social) liberal vs conservative

Y= libertarian vs. authoritarian

Z= temporal vs. spiritual

When you think about political identity in three dimensions. Left or right becomes a completely laughable concept too crude to capture the complexity inherent in each person's political identity.

[–]InumaGaming Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's actually something I've been meaning to point out: How those aligning with the monarchy and those aligning with other groups became left and right.

I finally... FINALLY... Got some time to actually do some research and get that working soon.

What I've come up with are factions and divisions which intensify do I'm getting into that when I write it all out.

[–]ageingrockstar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Many who would call themselves 'monarchists' in the modern-day UK are only constitutional monarchists. I think very few would be absolute monarchists.

Constitutional monarchy is what France moved to after Louis XVI's failed Flight to Varennes. He was forced to sign a new constitution that made France a constitutional monarchy (but still with a royal veto). This constitutional monarchy only lasted a year (from September '91 to September '92) when, because of reaction to the Brunswick Manifesto and the Declaration of Pillnitz issued by France's war opponents, he was removed as monarch (and only months after executed). My point being that with a slightly different history (the Flight to Varennes succeeded, Louis XVI didn't get married to an Austrlan princess, etc), France could have stayed a constitutional monarchy, perhaps even up to the modern day (as the UK has). And so I don't even know if the French Revolution was so much about getting (completely) rid of the monarchy.

[–]InumaGaming Socialist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's part of it and I'll acknowledge that it wasn't about preserving or getting rid of monarchy.

More that different groups found purchase and alignment as the revolution went on.

For example, Marquis de Sade got real popular by trying to get people sexually energized to not think and use sex as a release valve against the Church.

There's certainly more to it but all sorts of things popped up as a result

[–]ageingrockstar 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd certainly be interested in reading your further thoughts