this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
81 points (90.1% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

293 readers
61 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

• Politics

• Science

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
laverabe@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.zip
81
Where the HELL are left-wing influentials and intellectuals!? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 days ago by GrammarPolice@sh.itjust.works to c/politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A new study on Gen Z men revealed that Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are among the most trusted influencers.

It also found that 52% of UK men believe a "strongman" leader is needed to improve the country. Meanwhile, this article highlights how the right has been incredibly successful at indoctrinating young men into their ideology.

Why the hell is right-wing content so much more effective at gaining support? And why do left-wing influencers consistently fail to do the same? I’ll tell you why: we decided that social issues should take precedence over everything else, and by so doing have thrown all nuance out the window in the process.

The left—and I don’t want to hear Marxists bitching about how progressives “aren’t really leftists” because this kind of in-fighting is part of the fucking problem—needs to radically rethink its approach. Right now, the priority isn’t pushing our agenda. It’s stopping the worldwide fascist takeover.

And yes, this might mean abandoning identity politics entirely, as it is largely responsible for driving people away from the left and toward right-wing populism.

We need left-wing influencers who can effectively use populist tactics. We need less extremism from the progressive left, because in our obsession with social issues, we’ve lost the plot. We need to refocus on the economic needs of the people and stop alienating those who would otherwise support us.

The clock is ticking. Germany's elections are coming up, and Elon Musk has already shown support for the AfD—the most far-right party in Europe. If we don’t correct course now, we’ll soon be living in a world where fascism dominates and equality is a pipe-dream.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Not an answer, but some observations:

  • Most right-wing influencers appear to be grifters who have a strong financial incentive to attract and keep an audience (to sell supplements, overpriced gold, crypto, pillows, etc). They obviously think right-wingers are easy marks (I remember watching a Trump speech on OANN or NewsMax or something, and the ads were insane).
  • I believe many right-wing influencers are funded by wealthy ideologues and state actors (as has been confirmed for at least Tim Pool and Dave Ruben)
  • Platform algorithms intentionally or unintentionally boost right-wing content.
  • Jordan Peterson is an "intellectual" who's appeal first came from his self-help books and talks that are targeted toward disillusioned boys and young men (i.e. he does focus on ID politics; just on the identities with the larger numbers, wealth, and power). I actually don't think he's a full-on grifter; but he still has the strong financial incentive as grifters (to sell books and "educational" courses).
  • Like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate heavily relies on ID politics; but I believe he is a grifter.
  • Actual "intellectual" discussion is boring to the majority and none of the very popular influencers on the left or the right do much of it; and when they do, their view numbers are much less.
  • Right-wing "explanations" and "solutions" are often easy sells. These aren't complex systematic issues, migrants and DEI are holding us back. A strong man will take care of everything; you don't have to do anything.

I'm not sure I agree with your statements on "extremism" and social issues.

What do you mean by "extremism?" I rarely see anything I'd consider "extreme" on the left (except on Lemmy, lol). However, extremism seems pretty popular. The Republican party is now pretty much mask-off fascist; can't get much more extreme than that.

I may agree with you on not focusing on social issues too much. However, they are strongly intertwined with economic issues. The disadvantaged and demonized are more easily exploitable, which drives down wages and conditions for everybody. If rights can be taken away from one group, they can, and will be taken away from another (often rights are taken away from the whole using a group that's been demonized as the false pretext).

[–] GrammarPolice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I agree that economic and social issues are often intertwined. My concern isn’t with addressing social issues, but with the way they are sometimes prioritized or framed in a way that alienates potential allies.

Also, when I say 'extremism,' I’m not talking about advocating for justice, I mean tactics or rhetoric that make it harder to build broad coalitions. For example, i recently got into an argument here on Lemmy about the effectiveness of roadblocks on drawing attention to climate change and its adverse effects. I said that I don't want to be prevented from getting to school or work because people are protesting on climate change - none of these protests of which have been successful at swaying policy-making. I suggested that we rethink the way we go about activism instead of inconveniencing everyone (supporters and non-supporters). The result was i got mass downvoted and received multiple comments from car haters insulting me and calling me a fascist. This is the kind of extremism I'm referring to. Putting all nuance aside on an issue and going full gung ho.

Link to the thread in question if you're curious: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/16285500