Elections in various countries

[WeepingElf]

I think the leftists are in part themselves responsible for this because they communicate wrongly. It's almost always dystopias and doomsday sermons. This makes many people think that the future will be worse than the present, and from there it is not a long way to the belief that the past was better. And that's what the reactionaries promise to the people: to bring back that better past when cars had fins, the economy was booming, things like climate change weren't heard of, and everything was clean and smart. Many people feel as if the choice was between a 50s revival and Blade Runner, and facing that choice, they choose the 50s.

[rotting bones]

I think the leftists are in part themselves responsible for this because they communicate wrongly. It's almost always dystopias and doomsday sermons. This makes many people think that the future will be worse than the present, and from there it is not a long way to the belief that the past was better. And that's what the reactionaries promise to the people: to bring back that better past when cars had fins, the economy was booming, things like climate change weren't heard of, and everything was clean and smart. Many people feel as if the choice was between a 50s revival and Blade Runner, and facing that choice, they choose the 50s.

I don't think fiction per se sways elections. Talking about the other side is a tactic perfected by the managerial class. In the preceding centrist decades, they used it to bring politics to a standstill with two more or less similar parties that both said the other side will cause the Armageddon. There are now posts where people are paid to invent arguments as to why this is the case. The voters have stopped believing this will happen even when it's true.

[Ares Land]

It is over in Brazil. The hard Bolsonarist right-wing has won a historic victory unlike anything seen in recent history.

That's a disaster. My commiserations.

The major problem is that contemporary "leftists" have somehow become incapable of accepting correct explanations and changing course accordingly. That's the bigger mystery.

I think the problem can be broken down into at least two issues; one is that a large part of the political spectrum doesn't accept that 'centrism'/(neo-)liberalims, whatever you call it, is unattractive and doesn't work.
The other is that socialists who are a pretty large faction these days can't find a winning strategy yet (though there are signs this is improving) and usually end up shooting themselves in the foot. In their defense, it is a genuinely hard problem.

[rotting bones]

The other is that socialists who are a pretty large faction these days can't find a winning strategy yet (though there are signs this is improving) and usually end up shooting themselves in the foot. In their defense, it is a genuinely hard problem.

I think intellectuals have fundamentally lost touch with what the people want:

3. https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... al-values/

[Ares Land]

The other is that socialists who are a pretty large faction these days can't find a winning strategy yet (though there are signs this is improving) and usually end up shooting themselves in the foot. In their defense, it is a genuinely hard problem.

I think intellectuals have fundamentally lost touch with what the people want:

3. https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... al-values/

There is many, many shortcomings of left-wing intellectuals and politicians, and we could spend quite some time listing these.
But it's also important to note that defending socialism is an uphill battle. To use one of your examples:

To win elections, leftists should expose the hollowness of fascist promises and explain in concrete terms how leftism will make ordinary voters better off. Voters should be made to understand that bad behavior harms them too by the standards they already hold.

This is something that should be done, of course, we entirely agree on that. But it's extremely difficult to do so, you can explain at length how leftism would make people's lives better and people won't believe you.
(Still, of course, it should be done.)

[rotting bones]

you can explain at length how leftism would make people's lives better and people won't believe you.

We should list the reasons and address them. For example, fascist voters are often under the impression that leftist politics is sappy and that economic success requires hardnosed right-wing politics. This is provably false. I don't have a problem allying with sappy leftists, but we should avoid giving the impression that leftist politics is sappy. The voters hate sappiness when they are suffering.

[Ares Land]

you can explain at length how leftism would make people's lives better and people won't believe you.

We should list the reasons and address them. For example, fascist voters are often under the impression that leftist politics is sappy and that economic success requires hardnosed right-wing politics. This is provably false. I don't have a problem allying with sappy leftists, but we should avoid giving the impression that leftist politics is sappy. The voters hate sappiness when they are suffering.

Yes, I think it requires a fairly elaborate strategy. You need both "radical" and "centrist" voters to win an election, while avoiding being captured by either the centre or the very radical fringe, so it's a bit of a complex dance. French socialists or German social-democrats (for instance) were good at this in the 70s/80s or 60s/70s, respectively. One issue right now is relearning that skill.

[malloc]

What really baffles me is the global nature of this reactionary onslaught. If only certain countries were falling to reactionary politics, we could reasonably ascribe this to specific reactionaries having considerable skill at propaganda or the failure of specific liberal and leftist politicians. The fact that it's happening everywhere at the same time suggests that something more systemic is happening than just some cunning fascists or clumsy liberals in any particular country.

[rotting bones]

What really baffles me is the global nature of this reactionary onslaught. If only certain countries were falling to reactionary politics, we could reasonably ascribe this to specific reactionaries having considerable skill at propaganda or the failure of specific liberal and leftist politicians. The fact that it's happening everywhere at the same time suggests that something more systemic is happening than just some cunning fascists or clumsy liberals in any particular country.

Capitalism triggers the effects of Terror Management Theory.

[malloc]

Capitalism triggers the effects of Terror Management Theory.

Sure but capitalism has existed for generations without the far right taking over. What would you say has changed over the past decade to make it suddenly trigger this terror management theory?

[Ares Land]

What really baffles me is the global nature of this reactionary onslaught. If only certain countries were falling to reactionary politics, we could reasonably ascribe this to specific reactionaries having considerable skill at propaganda or the failure of specific liberal and leftist politicians. The fact that it's happening everywhere at the same time suggests that something more systemic is happening than just some cunning fascists or clumsy liberals in any particular country.

Yes, it's surprising. But political trends are often global (remember 1968 or the global popularity of Thatcherites/Reaganians in the 80s), and of course with the Internet the exchange of ideas has reached higher orders of magnitude, for better or for worse.

But you're quite right to point out that it's a global trend, and any country-specific explanation is probably wrong or incomplete.

[rotting bones]

Capitalism triggers the effects of Terror Management Theory.

Sure but capitalism has existed for generations without the far right taking over. What would you say has changed over the past decade to make it suddenly trigger this terror management theory?

The power of the industrial working class was destroyed. That used to be the most "progressive" force in society. Then politics switched from leftism to centrism for a few decades until growth slowed down for the non-rich:

1. https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... apitalism/

The fundies and extremists stepped into this power vacuum with their small, but strong institutions.

[malloc]

The power of the industrial working class was destroyed. That used to be the most "progressive" force in society. Then politics switched from leftism to centrism for a few decades until growth slowed down for the non-rich:

I happen to know many industrial workers and they certainly don't seem particularly left wing. It does not seem obvious that empowering them would move society left. Admittedly pretty much everyone I know is staunchly right wing whatever their employment. Even so, the notion that blue collar workers are especially leftist has never fit my experience and that aspect of socialist thought has always confused me.

[rotting bones]

The power of the industrial working class was destroyed. That used to be the most "progressive" force in society. Then politics switched from leftism to centrism for a few decades until growth slowed down for the non-rich:

I happen to know many industrial workers and they certainly don't seem particularly left wing. It does not seem obvious that empowering them would move society left. Admittedly pretty much everyone I know is staunchly right wing whatever their employment.

Read Rust Belt Union Blues to see why times have changed.

[Ares Land]

The power of the industrial working class was destroyed. That used to be the most "progressive" force in society. Then politics switched from leftism to centrism for a few decades until growth slowed down for the non-rich:

I happen to know many industrial workers and they certainly don't seem particularly left wing. It does not seem obvious that empowering them would move society left. Admittedly pretty much everyone I know is staunchly right wing whatever their employment. Even so, the notion that blue collar workers are especially leftist has never fit my experience and that aspect of socialist thought has always confused me.

The industrial working class was historically very important in left-wing movement... but that's about two generations out of date.
Here in France industrial workers were very left-wing (often, communist) up until the 1980s/1990s.
As I've said elsewhere, the traditional class analysis badly needs an update.

[rotting bones]

The power of the industrial working class was destroyed. That used to be the most "progressive" force in society. Then politics switched from leftism to centrism for a few decades until growth slowed down for the non-rich:

I happen to know many industrial workers and they certainly don't seem particularly left wing. It does not seem obvious that empowering them would move society left. Admittedly pretty much everyone I know is staunchly right wing whatever their employment. Even so, the notion that blue collar workers are especially leftist has never fit my experience and that aspect of socialist thought has always confused me.

The industrial working class was historically very important in left-wing movement... but that's about two generations out of date.
Here in France industrial workers were very left-wing (often, communist) up until the 1980s/1990s.
As I've said elsewhere, the traditional class analysis badly needs an update.

A brief comment I previously posted about the book:

Have you read Rust Belt Union Blues? When the social institutions in America's Rust Belt were unions, it was a hotbed of progressivism. Now that the primary social institutions are gun clubs, it's a reactionary dystopia.

[malloc]

Have you read Rust Belt Union Blues? When the social institutions in America's Rust Belt were unions, it was a hotbed of progressivism. Now that the primary social institutions are gun clubs, it's a reactionary dystopia.

That is an interesting point, although it doesn't feel like my area was ever progressive by any definition, even when unions were stronger.

What does everyone think of the Alberta independence referendum and its chances of passing? I believe someone already expressed their skepticism and said the Alberta independence movement lacks majority support. Nonetheless people once said the same thing about Brexit and Trump and so much else. The fact that they are even trying suggests that they have good reason to expect that it will pass.

[bradrn]

The fact that they are even trying suggests that they have good reason to expect that it will pass.

Don’t underestimate the ability of humans to expend staggering amounts of time and effort in hopeless causes.

[alice]

The fact that they are even trying suggests that they have good reason to expect that it will pass.

Don’t underestimate the ability of humans to expend staggering amounts of time and effort in hopeless causes.

Exactly. If you've ever seen an interview at a parliamentary election where the candidate is bullishly confident of winning the seat when clearly they have no hope - e.g. a Conservative and Onionist in central Glasgow - you'll know exactly what bradrn means.

[bradrn]

The fact that they are even trying suggests that they have good reason to expect that it will pass.

Don’t underestimate the ability of humans to expend staggering amounts of time and effort in hopeless causes.

Exactly. If you've ever seen an interview at a parliamentary election where the candidate is bullishly confident of winning the seat when clearly they have no hope - e.g. a Conservative and Onionist in central Glasgow - you'll know exactly what bradrn means.

‘Onionist’?