So it seems like there's a part of the right wing (some people say they're radicalize-able, I don't know) that talks somewhat like us lefties (or libs, like me)...i.e. "both parties are corrupt, that's why I voted trump". But I feel like I don't hear the same terms to describe the duopoly that we use, terms like "duopoly", "oligarchy", "kleptocrary", etc. Why does it seem like they don't characterize the system using those terms, given that it seems like they agree with the basic premise that both parties/the whole system is corrupt/rotten?
Why do they believe this? Like the whole standing up for the pledge in second grade or whatever just, "stuck" or something?
Yeah. For sure. Nothing is appealing about it. I guess I do buy into the idea that government policy is an expression of values, and that there is a patriotic duty (maybe this is the "appeal"?) to get us out of a situation where we, like, bankrupt people for getting sick. Or tether people hopelessly to jobs that will kill them. Ire goes. . .I don't even know where. Ugh, I'm such a baby lefty.
They don't have a material (therefore economic) basis for their arguments. It's mostly identity. We frame the corruption around capitalism, they don't. Corrupt just means being a satanic pedophile and not being conservative enough.
So you think they're just defining "corrupt" differently? I don't know, I feel like I know plenty of right wingers who are concerned (obsessed) with the economic aspects. They talk about clinton's, and they're not talking about epstein, they're talking about arkansas land deals, for example. But I don't hear them talking about oligarchy, I hear them talking about "democracy". Like do they just have misplaced optimism in the system or something, even though they acknowledge that the whole thing is corrupt?
I think they don't have class analysis like we do. By definition they don't have class analysis. They don't have a problem with Arkansas land deals. Their guys have land deals too. It's not about wealthy people doing corrupt land deals. It's about Democrats doing corrupt land deals. Because Democrats hate white males and want to take away your hamburgers and are beholden to the (((globalists))). Where as a leftist will see that corrupt land deals are bad for everyone. We have a fundamental disagreement on the idea of private property to begin with.
Yes they think the system works it's just ran by the wrong people. They share this with liberals. They are liberals. They're all liberals.
Ooooohhhhh...this makes sense. So they supplanted the globalists mythology for the "bad guys" (Dems), but give a pass to the "right guys" because they're going to do good things like stop abortion or whatever. So, what's the easiest way to undermine their faith in the system? (Again, I don't know if I'm actually on board with the idea that these people can be radicalized, but let's say they can).
You just point out how their side acts against their class interests and you hope that gets through to them. You convince them that class based analysis is better than the neolib/neocon/fascist analysis of simple narratives involving good and evil.
Fascists have been appropriating left rhetoric since day one. It's appeal lies in being able to diagnose the contradictions, while providing a justification for the state hierarchy to remain intact.
In my view, the thing about chuds is they are missing a rigorous material analysis of overarching conditions under capitalism BUT they do have a bit of an inkling because of their own experience with exploitation under capitalism. It’s a “I’ve never read marx’s capital but I have the marks of capital” kind if thing (just obv not to the extent that they become critical of capitalism, more on that in a sec). Which is why theory and listening to comrades from different walks of life is important because we only have a piece of the puzzle when we’re going by intuition.
If you talk to right wingers long enough in good faith you’ll find agreeances. They’re perfectly capable of noting shortcomings of the dems that we may point out.
In fact look at tucker Carlson, he brings out rhetoric that is almost left wing in nature all the time and it speaks to the alienated right wing masses for a reason.
This is particular insidious for two reasons, it appropriates and steals our messaging and also makes it hard to criticize libs bc theyll hear it even in good faith and you’ll see them respond like “you sound like a right winger” or something.
The real road block for right wing people comes down to ideology, they have the idea of being “on the right”, being fans of capital, being pro military, pro cop, boot licker mentality all wrapped up in their sense of self.
The state propagandizes them through media to hold these views that are also supportive to capitals control, and they become an identity. Furthermore it’s the identity of their loved ones, of their country, so when you attack these ideas you’re attacking them personally.
It keeps them from criticizing their own political side because they have so much invested in being republican. It takes a lot to walk people back from that.
So you can find right wingers intuitively understand leftist thought that makes sense to their material conditions but you have a big wall to break through of ideology that’s counter to their interest.
