Left, right, populism - a coming unholy alliance?

[innonimatu]

I guess that apart from "left" the other political inclination I always had was for "democracy". Both have made me extremely hostile towards the kind of The Is no Alternative ("TINA") politics that the center parties" in many countries have deployed over the past 30 years. They were used to push neoliberalism, which I regard as toxic, and they undermined democratic participation, pushing people into a belief that they have no possible agency to change the way the society they live in is structured. These, or some of these, are not exclusive "left-wing" views. There are "conservatives" who despise neoliberalism, and who are passionate against concentrated political or economic power.

That is something I noticed years ago but does not get much public discussion. Today I noticed one piece about it and though about bringing it up here.

There was always a vocal resistance on the "left" to TINA, noticeable even if it was effectively without political influence in almost every country. There is also now a noticable "conservative", or "right" grassroots resistance against it. Many of the reasons people on one or the other side have are different, but in common they share an assessment that TINA is an oppression, a form of tyranny, that must be removed from power. This got movements that oppose it classified as "populists" whether they fit economically/socially more with the traditional "left" or the "right".

What, do you see, are the possibilities for an understanding towards this common goal, based on reinstating the "old" way of politics that the "political centre" displaced? The hegemony of the forces presently in power and playing the TINA card has been enshrined into national and, crucially, international "rules". Unmaking these, creating a new international order, might see the cooperation of "right-wing" governments in some countries with "left-wing" governments in other countries? Could it go even as far as temporary alliances within countries?
What is your guess?

 

[Zardnaar]

Both tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics for different ends. No h are hostile to inconvenient facts and will justify violence.

The old conservative parties got highjacked by neo liberalism in the 70s and 80s around the same time the traditional left collapsed to come back in the 90s as a more left of center.

Since neo liberalism doesn't really work both sides are blaming someone else/scapegoating.

Problem being the world's changed in the last 40 years so the policies and full employment of the 60s isn't coming back.

 

[Traitorfish]

Right-wing populism is anti-left in its fundamental orientation. Most often, their hostility to neo-liberalism is tied directly to their confused identification of neo-liberalism with the left, of gobalisation with internationalism. I can't imagine that any such alliance would be anything more than pragmatic, short-term, and narrowly orientated towards very specific political outcomes.

The prospect of enduring co-operation between socialists and people who think that socialism is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race (or whatever equally-deranged local equivalent) is not a realistic one, no matter how strong their mutual antipathy towards the neo-liberal consensus.

stop trying to make national bolshevism happen. it's not going to happen!

 

[innonimatu]

I agree that such an alliance will be temporary. But there are precedents for "unholy alliances" between ideologically opposed political groups. Most notable is the (recurrent) example of alliances between nationalist groups in different countries against an empire that oppresses them all. Austria-Hungary's capital Vienna was a hub for nationalist of every nation of that empire that helped each other fight it and topple it. And went on to take power in the new countries and then oppose the ones in the other new countries.

I think that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one, to characterize right-wingers as fools embroiled in conspiracy theories, whether anti-jewish or others. There are all kings, as there are among the "felt" field. Dangerous, among other reasons, because of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" effect: attack people saying they're rabid right wingers who believe in x and y, and they just may decide they will be proud right-wingers who believe in x and y out of spite against you. Much of "the left" has been defeating itself for a long time now. As was argued in a different thread a while ago, you don't win over supporters by pushing away and alienating people.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I do not think that the people will simply return to past politics in many countries.
Someone said that "The past is another country that we may not visit".

What is possible is that a collapse in financial capitalism may, in the context
of climate change, global warming, resource shortages, trade disputes etc,
result in a very different landscape emerging whereby those rightists in
power may, to prevent a widespread collapse, introduce aspects of command
economies initially as temporary measures that may to their surprise
develop their own momentum as those involved become politicised.

It may start with them intervening in specific busineses in crisis or with non
functional markets with the intention of saving the current capitalism, but then
finding that there is no way back out to international corporatism structures, and
thereby acquiescing in businesses being run as state supported cooperatives.

I could give possible examples in the UK, but anticipate that I would get mobbed on
CF on the basis that it is all due to Brexit or the current conservative government.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I agree that such an alliance will be temporary. But there are precedents for "unholy alliances" between ideologically opposed political groups. Most notable is the (recurrent) example of alliances between nationalist groups in different countries against an empire that oppresses them all. Austria-Hungary's capital Vienna was a hub for nationalist of every nation of that empire that helped each other fight it and topple it. And went on to take power in the new countries and then oppose the ones in the other new countries.

I think that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one, to characterize right-wingers as fools embroiled in conspiracy theories, whether anti-jewish or others. There are all kings, as there are among the "felt" field. Dangerous, among other reasons, because of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" effect: attack people saying they're rabid right wingers who believe in x and y, and they just may decide they will be proud right-wingers who believe in x and y out of spite against you. Much of "the left" has been defeating itself for a long time now. As was argued in a different thread a while ago, you don't win over supporters by pushing away and alienating people.

The nearest to this type of alliance that has occurred so far seems to be that between 5 Star (who are all over the place in terms of where they sit on the political spectrum) and the Northern Alliance and 5 Star got screwed over badly by Salvini.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree that such an alliance will be temporary. But there are precedents for "unholy alliances" between ideologically opposed political groups. Most notable is the (recurrent) example of alliances between nationalist groups in different countries against an empire that oppresses them all. Austria-Hungary's capital Vienna was a hub for nationalist of every nation of that empire that helped each other fight it and topple it. And went on to take power in the new countries and then oppose the ones in the other new countries.

It's not simply that left- and right-wing populists are in competition for popular loyalties, though. Right-wing politics, above all in its populist variant, is fundamentally constituted in terms of hostility to "the left". Hostility to the left is what constitutes the right as the right, as a distinct political position, it constitutes the central thread of their entire program. Meaningful co-operation is not possible when part of the alliance the other as an existential threat to the natural order of society.

I think that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one, to characterize right-wingers as fools embroiled in conspiracy theories, whether anti-jewish or others. There are all kings, as there are among the "felt" field. Dangerous, among other reasons, because of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" effect: attack people saying they're rabid right wingers who believe in x and y, and they just may decide they will be proud right-wingers who believe in x and y out of spite against you.

Has this ever actually happened in real life?

 

[Ironsided]

There are for sure many unholy alliances that can be forged on populism. The one in the UK this last election cycle is a good example (red wall jumped conservative on populism issues) and we see the same in the US and I see the same in Sweden where our most populist social conservative nationalist party is winning over masses of primarily men in the countryside that used to vote social democratic in times when social democrats were more populist.

I think populism is as useful a dimension as any other value-based dimension for a political/reference compass-like analysis. Say you add it as a z-axis on the conventional 2D political compass to make it 3D. I see no objection to that. We know there are shared values between right-wing and left-wing libertarians, and I can easily see shared values between all four directions with high- or low-level populism.

Also, populism is a value I started to appreciate more very recently. I used to be more inclined to think we would be better off to listening to scientists, experts and intellectuals than I do now. (If these established forces were zen-monk-like beacons of enlightenment I still would)

I do however think the need or want for more populism is much driven by the need of a counterweight the complex, competitive and capitalist systems we take for granted. Should we value and focus more on building a simpler, more fair and compassionate society instead of mainly optimised capital upon capital I think my and many others want for more populism would ebb off significantly. It’s a balance based on the use of power.

Also, I totally stopped dreaming of an ideal society long ago – for me it’s about doing what I can nudging it in a direction corresponding to my values with the opportunities given. Today it would be in a populist, left and liberal direction in an expanded pol-compass.

 

[innonimatu]

It's not simply that left- and right-wing populists are in competition for popular loyalties, though. Right-wing politics, above all in its populist variant, is fundamentally constituted in terms of hostility to "the left". Hostility to the left is what constitutes the right as the right, as a distinct political position, it constitutes the central thread of their entire program. Meaningful co-operation is not possible when part of the alliance the other as an existential threat to the natural order of society.

The "hostility to the left" thing is mostly irrelevant. It is not that "fight the left" thing which makes it successful, it's the real populist aspects of the agenda (goiving material benefits to people, making them feel empowered by having something their way. If more on the "left" were populists, did what the mass of the population wants, we'd not have much of a "right" now.

The leaders of the "right-wing populists" may know they need that distinctive feature indeed, that "hostility to the left". But if they're opportunists they won't have much of a problem with crossing over, dropping that distinction. Of course, you'd not want to trust opportunists. But what I'm talking here is not approaching the leaders for an alliance, but the supporters. People do have the ability to think for themselves... and change is not just driven top down, but also the other way. Another common mistake of some of many left-wing political groups, not considering that.
In short, co-opt the current supports of the right, those whose motives are not hostility to "the left". That as a motive is empty, what motivates people is perhaps hostility to some group they regard as excessively entitled: in some countries the alleged left was taken over by the professional-managerial class. Or hostility to certain ideas that are important to marginal groups but put forth as central to politics (this alienates people, at the very least).

Has this ever actually happened in real life?

It's happening a lot right now. Have you not noticed it? I have.

 

[Senethro]

The "hostility to the left" thing is mostly irrelevant. It is not that which makes it successful, it's the real populist aspects of the agenda. If more on the left were populists, did what the mass of the population wants, we'd not have much of a right now.

The leaders of the "right-wing populists" may know they need that distinctive feature. But if they're opportunists they won't have much of a problem with crossing over, dropping that distinction. Of course, you'd not want to trust opportunists. But what I'm talking here is not approaching the leaders for an alliance, but the supporters. People do have the ability to think for themselves... and change is not just driven top down, but also the other way. Another common mistake of some of the left, not considering that.
In short, co-opt the current supports of the right, those whose motives are not hostility to "the left". That as a motive is empty.

I couldn't comprehend this. Too many of the "that"s in your sentences referred to things I couldn't infer. Sorry

 

[innonimatu]

I couldn't comprehend this. Too many of the "that"s in your sentences referred to things I couldn't infer. Sorry

Edited for clarity. Hopefully. I haven't spent much time thinking about this really. It's more of an observation about how things seem to be going, and I'm curious whether other people noticed the same way.

 

[Robo-Star]

The "hostility to the left" thing is mostly irrelevant. It is not that which makes it successful, it's the real populist aspects of the agenda. If more on the left were populists, did what the mass of the population wants, we'd not have much of a right now

That, or the demagoguery; if more on the left did what the mass of the population wants, the right would still promise to do more if only the mass'd be more discriminating of their minorities.

 

[Ironsided]

I wish for more populism on the left but certainly not from left leaders. I think a lot of the left supporters needs to take a step back, take a chill pill and get over ourselves and be more accepting of populist ideas within our space. I think anyone leader, left or right that starts building political support on populism is almost by definition a demagogue or risks to very soon be forced into that role.

The reason I so like Corbyn and Bernie is that they provide room for more populist ideas on the left without veering too much from the ideology and actual issues. But they also feel forced to provide plans and cost assessments on a level we never see for right wing tax-cuts or defence spending. Maybe they can populistically ease up on the specifics and use more metaphors instead of constantly feeding into the asinine “how are you going to pay for that” soundbite. Then allow the people to think and be themselves within the notion that recent tax cuts for the rich would have covered for free college tuitions. I want to allow for more populism and a higher ceiling in the movement, online, in protests, strikes etc not necessarily in the party leadership, which I think indeed would be a very perilous path.

 

[Traitorfish]

The "hostility to the left" thing is mostly irrelevant. It is not that "fight the left" thing which makes it successful, it's the real populist aspects of the agenda (goiving material benefits to people, making them feel empowered by having something their way. If more on the "left" were populists, did what the mass of the population wants, we'd not have much of a "right" now.

I don't mean that the right succeeds when it runs on a platform of hostility to the left. I mean that right-wing politics are fundamentally constituted by hostility to the left.

Right-wing politics are not fundamentally motivated by specific, compartmentalised grievances, even when right-wing politicians are adept at exploiting those grievances. They're motivated by a conviction that there is a natural order to the world, a natural hierarchy, and that the left represents a challenge to that order. They don't string together anxieties about immigration and homosexuality and feminism simply because they have calculated that there is an overlap in the voters concerned by these things, but because these all form, in the right-wing imagination, a coherent narrative of societal decline.

Right-wing populists aren't just populists who happen to carry some less-nuanced views on immigrants and gay people. They are fundamentally committed to the right-wing program of defending the natural order of society, of defending the principle of social inequality, but either believe or have discovered that populist politics are the most effective means to that end. If they ally with socialists against neo-liberals, it is for the sole reason that they regard the neo-liberals as the more immediate obstacle to their end-goal of crushing the socialists.

 

[innonimatu]

Right-wing populists aren't just populists who happen to carry some less-nuanced views on immigrants and gay people. They are fundamentally committed to the right-wing program of defending the natural order of society, of defending the principle of social inequality, but either believe or have discovered that populist politics are the most effective means to that end. If they ally with socialists against neo-liberals, it is for the sole reason that they regard the neo-liberals as the more immediate obstacle to their end-goal of crushing the socialists.

You are thinking of the theoreticians being the right-wing movements, and and you are right. But on the ground those are but a small fraction of any "movement". And even within that small fraction many are also opportunists who bend to whatever policies bring them influence: they believe on an unequal society with themselves on top. Can't be trusted of course, and in the long run no such alliance would endure. But on the long run everyone is dead, as one famous right-winger whom many right-wing theoreticians regarded as a class traitor observed almost a century ago.

 

[Berzerker]

a few years ago Bernie Sanders (and Donald Trump) was railing against the Koch Bros and open borders

a few years ago Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump opposed invading Iraq

a few years ago Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump opposed Nafta

 

[Zardnaar]

It's more like when you have idiotic populists promising the moon you will find over lap here and there.

 

[Hrothbern]

Describing root mechanisms of populism with tools from politics and politicising ?
Left-Right etc ?
hm
The danger of politicising everything is that the aspects of our society where that approach has value is overwhelmed with the shortcomings of politics as approach to deeper layers of our being like individual psychological and collective cultural characteristics.


Another angle often overlooked is the difference in energy levels between people.

Intuition and faith do not cost much energy.
The default auto-pilot is humming in your world where your predictions and expectations fit the unfolding realities.
Any change you initiate yourself is already energy-intensive.
Improving our understanding of the ever-changing situation around us in order achieve a better predictive being is high energy intensive and you get no break for breath

From Alice in Wonderland, the Red Queens Race:
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"


The faster the change around us, the bigger the gaps become between high and lower energy people.... the bigger the simplfications needed trending to more faith constructs at odds with realities.
In a change process not everybody is in the same stage, the same phase of the change processing.

As I see it one of the main functions of religions and philosophies has been to deliver all the people a high level approach to live with change by offering a "good enough" faith system, that does not crumble when intellectuals go in the detailed complexities with their theological discussions.

The traditional programs or faith systems of political parties are currently overwhelmed and fragmented by politics and "theological" disputes.

Many people hook off to extreme simple faiths without basic cohesions, without basic semi-concistencies.
What else can they do ?
What choice do they have when the people they entrust leadership have no empathy, interest in their basic needs.
That most basic need not money etc, but a faith system that fits the current realities worded in their language.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Personally I find it endlessly amusing that in democracies, a political system designed explicitly to allow people to have power over the state, we tend to malign populists, politicians whose explicit platform is to give the people what they want. If that does not tell you how bankrupt the western political class is nothing does.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Personally I find it endlessly amusing that in democracies, a political system designed explicitly to allow people to have power over the state, we tend to malign populists, politicians whose explicit platform is to give the people what they want. If that does not tell you how bankrupt the western political class is nothing does.

Except right-wing populists don't deliver what people want, they scapegoat a group and blame them as why people aren't getting what they want.