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 āstrongmanā 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? Iāll 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 leftāand I donāt want to hear Marxists bitching about how progressives āarenāt really leftistsā because this kind of in-fighting is part of the fucking problemāneeds to radically rethink its approach. Right now, the priority isnāt pushing our agenda. Itās 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, weāve 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. Germanyās elections are coming up, and Elon Musk has already shown support for the AfDāthe most far-right party in Europe. If we donāt correct course now, weāll soon be living in a world where fascism dominates and equality is a pipe-dream.
I agree with another commenter who said that left influencers and intellectuals are systematically silenced. The right wing, no matter how extreme, has popular venues to reach people and donāt get cancelled for every slip of the tongue like the left wing gets cancelled. I think itās all a concerted effort by liberals/capitalists to weaken the left.
I have found this essay helpful in understanding some of this issue: Exiting the Vampire Castle
A big issue with political influencers, is that they profit off of rage. Not only that, but the right needs to be told who to be mad at. Theyāre kinda dumb, so right winged peopleās rage are often misdirected to something that wonāt hurt the government.
The left is on average (not all of them, mind you) more intellectual. They know who to be mad at, and why. They donāt really need an influencer to tell them.
Moreso, the right wing is so condensed into one mind set, while the left wing, in America atleast, is more just anti right. The left is more diverse and spread out with many conflicting ideologies and motives. Itās hard to be on the same page as a whole. Because of this, when you have someone who is angry and tries to tell you who to be angry at, it usually misfires because of that conflict. Think Hasan. Heās always getting shit because he tries to direct that anger, but so many left wing people donāt directly line up their ideology with his, so they direct their anger at him instead.
I get what youāre saying about the right being more unified, but writing them off as dumb is a mistake. The reason their messaging works isnāt just because their audience is less intelligent, itās because it speaks to their material concerns and fears. The left needs to stop assuming people will just āfigure it outā and start actually meeting them where they are.
Yes, the left has more ideological diversity, but that shouldnāt be an excuse for why we keep failing at mass mobilization. The right has factions too - libertarians, religious fundamentalists, corporate elites, working class conservatives - but they manage to unite under a common goal. We need to do the same instead of endlessly debating who is the āmost correctā leftist.
Also, the idea that leftists donāt need influencers because they already know who to be mad at is exactly why the left struggles with mass outreach. Working-class people arenāt sitting around reading theory; they need someone to break things down in ways that feel relevant to them (and this is one area where Marxists get things right). Right-wing influencers do this effectively, while many left-wing figures get bogged down in purity politics or academic jargon.
If we really want to win, we have to get better at messaging, outreach, and coalition-building, not just hope that people are naturally smart enough to come to the right conclusions on their own.
Just a minor correction, I never meant the entirety of the right wing population isnāt as intelligent. Just the ones who gobble up the slop that certain influencers put out. Its also worth mentioning that a lot of right wing influence also comes from common social media and the news. They have a lot more control, so while they are more diverse than I initially stated, itās easier to herd these people to a common goal.
With all that being said, I do agree with WHY we should have more influencers. But atleast for myself, I donāt need people to break down theory for me. Iāve picked up quite a lot passively from various different places, mostly common places for discussion, such as here on Lemmy and with friends that are smarter than me irl.
Of course, thatās just me, and I should probably be more cognitive of that and use better understandable language in my posts, and recognize that not everyone is the same as I am.
But good points all around.
Yeah I think the mark was missed here. Is everyone on the right dumb? No. Are people who lean right statistically less educated? Yes. But more to the point, on the right horizons are closer (the world is smaller).
You are, I believe, more likely to fall into a majority segment on the right: white, Christian, middle class or lower, average education, not a world traveler, speak one language, etc etc. in that world, what is different is what is scary and so itās easy to influence and rally. You speak to the 70% and you basically hit the mark. Itās easy to influence because obviously what you think quietly is what everyone else thinks and it just isnāt always easy to put into words. Your religion is under attack, your money doesnāt go as far and itās going to people who donāt deserve it instead of to you, you donāt even know any trans people or people with different pronouns so why is the government messing with that instead of fixing the stuff that affects everybody?
On the left we are, in the best possible casting, a diverse group of honestly militant weenies. There is anger and pushback growing, but it is slow to catalyze. Itās a culture of everyone needing to be best and set a good example, which, sure, under ideal circumstances is true. But everyone on the left has an issue that is obviously the most important. We donāt take turns or wait in line on issues, we have no clear leader or group driving prioritization, so we are constantly incapable of producing a majority front. If you try to influence this group you will be shouted down by anyone whose issue you at not actively resolving.
Maybe the most accurate thing to say is that as a bloc the left is more heterogeneous and our interest are not necessarily directly aligned. It sure would be nice if we could just group together, but it has yet to happen.
Systemically silenced.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
Yāknow, Iāve always been dismissive of scare tactics, but maybe thereās some sense in them
In all honesty, itās that it feels like the truth will speak for itself.
It doesnāt. Pointing it out is good.
Conservatives understand that theyāre trying to manufacture agreement with their lies, so given the nature of the task, theyāre really active. People on the left are just normal people, and theyāre making the world a better place with art, science, coffee, anything and everything.
Exactly, so now leftism has been reduced to simply an ideology rather than a working system.
I was looking at podcasts recently and it was the same. I assumed it was because the people with the money will support content that furthers their bottom line.
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 āintellectualā whoās 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 donāt think heās a full-on grifter; but he still has the strong financial incentive as grifters (to sell books and āeducationalā courses).
- Like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate heavily relies on ID politics; but I believe he is a grifter.
- Actual āintellectualā 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 āexplanationsā and āsolutionsā are often easy sells. These arenāt complex systematic issues, migrants and DEI are holding us back. A strong man will take care of everything; you donāt have to do anything.
Iām not sure I agree with your statements on āextremismā and social issues.
What do you mean by āextremism?ā I rarely see anything Iād consider āextremeā on the left (except on Lemmy, lol). However, extremism seems pretty popular. The Republican party is now pretty much mask-off fascist; canāt 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 thatās been demonized as the false pretext).
I agree that economic and social issues are often intertwined. My concern isnāt 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 āextremism,ā Iām 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 donāt 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 Iām referring to. Putting all nuance aside on an issue and going full gung ho.
Link to the thread in question if youāre curious: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/16285500
The (modern) Left is a big tent thatās founded on diversity. It promotes a multitude of voices and viewpoints, with none able to rise to the top.
The (current) Right is the opposite. It aims towards an ideal. Individual voices suppress their own diversity and attempt to speak with one voice. This naturally leads to the elevation of charismatic figures.
I disagree. The modern left is too busy and moralizing consumption, peopleās personal mistakes, and vilifying them before they even get to the table.
If you listen to the lefts big influencers, you would have to cut out your family, a good chunk of your friends, and are expected to maintain exclusively left-leaning relationships.
The left needs a heaping dose of pragmatism.
I say this as a person who identifies as a leftist. I say this as a person whoās tried to spread the word of multiple community actions here in Tucson, only to not get resources because the various progressive organizations donāt deem me progressive enough.
So yeah, I have an entire website, that could advertise crucial community action. But people arenāt willing to send me graphics to upload in the various languages and wonāt forward me to the organizations that initially planned these things. All because I donāt measure up to their moral standards.
All in all. Fuck The Democratic socialists of America. Fuck modern progressivism.
They are all no show pieces of shit.
The moderates in my life all do far more for their community than anybody on the left.
Itās moderates I find running the soup kitchen. Itās moderates that decide to start businesses and grow their local power.
Be the change you want to see, lead them.
I already do some volunteering. Maybe i can pivot that into gaining grassroots support to run for an office?
Do it. People are more hungry for this than you may realize.
Iām pretty young man from France. I like leftist ideas and ideals, but it seems that leftists are searching how to do the right thing instead of doing something.
I think leftists ideas have been vastly successful in France with public transport, welfare state. However Iām at loss as to how to keep it sustainable while retaining the same reach as today.
I have two examples of annoying stuff the French leftist say:
-
They want to tax the rich but fail to see that we need to reform our welfare state, streamline it to make it less complex for citizen to use and the government to maintain (financially and on the administrative side). We can tax the rich but have to use this money rightā¦
-
They are against nuclear energy while it drives down cost for everyone and is in retrospective quite carbon-neutralā¦ If we innovate in this direction like we used it might just be part of the solution to solve the energy crisis
-
Moreover, they insist on respecting Europeās policy that index the price of electricity on gas which drives price higher for everyone and doesnāt help France. [[Citation needed tbh]]
They have ideals, but donāt think to much about how the means. If Iām being honest itās the same with the right in France, they have their own agenda but conveniently avoid saying how they will solve the āimmigration crisisā, āloss of cultureā & ābarbarization of societyāā¦
I mean, both party are saying lots of bullshit but I guess I resonate more with the leftist ideas because I donāt like old rich white dudes ruling the world with old ideas.
I can understand why people are voting for the right tho seeing the decade of terrorist attacks on the country Islamist extremists: while I was in high school, a terrorist attack killed a philosophy teacher in my city (was scary) & the year before a history teacherās head was cut off near Paris. Recently was the commemoration of Charlie Hebdo 2015 attacksā¦
I can understand the anxiety and the rage because I felt it after those events, but I can distinguish between islamist terrorists and normal peopleā¦
I also can understand that consent for fascist is easy to manufacture given what my country has gone through in recent years.
Pretty difficult times :(
-
I do community organizing and host reading groups with others.
Most terminally online people donāt talk to their neighbors so online communities give the illusion everyone is shut in and lonely.
I wish. Not gonna happen though
Stay optimistic friend. If the right can do it, we sure can!
It would require an extraordinary culture shiftā¦
Fuck it, itās necessary. Iām in!
Now fucking progressives arenāt left wing? What the hell is the point of calling it a āwingā if Liberals and Progresives arenāt a part of it, ffs?
Progressive as a label really doesnāt have to mean left wing at all. See: self professed progressive Angela Merkel, the progressive conservatives in Canada, and the Ur-Progressive of America Teddy Roosevelt who was far from a leftist, especially compared to his early political rival(and the true father of the progressive label from his book āProgress and Povertyā) Henry George.
Elitist fucks gatekeeping to prevent ideological poisoning.
The left had influencers.
Their names were Joe Rogan and Bernie Sanders, and you all smeared them online and, in Bernieās case, cheated him out of a presidential nomination. The alt opinions available now on the left are people who, for whatever reason, arenāt willing to walk on eggshells and follow SJW orthodoxy, so they too get treated badly.
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, weāve lost the plot. We need to refocus on the economic needs of the people and stop alienating those who would otherwise support us.
I am trying to get UBI (Universal Basic Income) implemented, and i am against migration. (Read that carefully: I am against migration, not against migrants)
So ā¦ the left constantly shits on me for being āa racistā, while the right are ā¦ idiots.
What do i do?
against migration
Hard disagree on that. We should encourage migration for anyone with the grit to go for it.
I was born in a small town in the US. My family moved twice in my childhood, and I moved again for college ā and several times as an adult.
Maybe you donāt count that as āmigrationā, but if not ā whatās the dividing line between simply āmovingā and āmigrationā?
Maybe you donāt count that as āmigrationā, but if not ā whatās the dividing line between simply āmovingā and āmigrationā?
See my other response in this thread.
Do what the right wing influencers do. Ignore everyoneās criticism and keep fleecing the idiots.
The modern left has a problem with knee jerk moralizing instead of engaging with economic concerns in good faith. As Iāve previously mentioned, you will be castigated for not being āpureā enough. But Iām curious; whatās your specific reasoning for opposing migration? If itās an economic concern, then shouldnāt the left be working to fix the economic conditions that make migration a divisive issue in the first place?
I think i have good and rational reasoning to be against migration. My main concern is that wealth in the population is only possible as long as the population is too small. Let me explain:
The labor market is a free market. As such, it is regulated by supply and demand. Supply goes up --> prices go down. Supply goes down --> prices go up. In this case, Supply is the supply of labor force, and demand is the demand for labor force. My hypothesis is that demand for labor force is mainly driven by economic growth, which is caused by technological progress, and is independent of the size of the population.
However, supply in labor force can vary. If the population is small, supply is smaller, and that leads to higher prices. Prices for labor are also called wages; that means, lower number of workers implies higher wages. I think that is an economically sound explanation.
Simply moving within the country is not so much a problem, because it creates a decrease in supply of labor somewhere else in the country, so average wages stay constant. However, if borders are open, my concern is that we will āfillā that shortage in labor force, and therefore increase supply in labor force, which lowers wages.
Tell me if you have any comments to that reasoning, iād genuinely like to hear it!
While i see the logic, i think you have simplified the economics too much. Now Iām no economist, but i think the first mistake you made is assuming that economic growth (which drives labor demand) is independent of population size. More people means more consumers, more businesses, and more economic activity, which increases demand for labor.
Also, in advanced economies, high wages arenāt just about fewer workers, theyāre about high productivity, education, and technological development. If fewer workers alone led to wealth, countries with aging and shrinking populations (like Japan) would be thriving economically, but they arenāt.
Lastly, even if labour supply is tight, companies either automate jobs, outsource work, or relocate rather than just raising wages indefinitely. If migration is restricted too much, businesses would just move instead of paying higher wages.
I think if we really care about wages, the focus should be on stronger unions, better worker protections, and policies that ensure migrants donāt get exploited as cheap labor (avoid the Canada situation).
Is the labor market a free market? That looks like a faulty premise to me. I think the ālabor marketā is an abstraction that obscures a much more complicated reality; thereās actually a bunch of different labor markets with varying regulations, and competitive dynamics, and geographies.
I suspect that the right played up a lot of culture-war issues into major parts of the leftās identity, and was carefully and conspicuously silent about a lot of the economic and regulational core that used to form the backbone of the left. And, the left bought it, and obediently tried to set a counterpoint to particular ignorant stuff the right was saying, and spent all their time talking about trans issues and the value of inclusion and safe language. Is that important? Absolutely, we need to fight for it. Does it win elections? Is it important enough to justify stepping away from working peopleās issues and environmental issues that used to be the core, and translated into concrete governmental action that would make a compelling argument for why this particular person is better suited to run the country in ways that 99% of the country can understand and agree with? Wellā¦
And so the left āinfluencerā space is talking about things that, outside the people who want to make politics a particular and strong element of their identity, people generally donāt give a shit about. Whereas, Jordan Petersen and Joe Rogan are talking about how to actualize yourself as a person, the tension between āfree speechā and corporate overreach and government censorship, and other things that a lot of people care about. Even if their solutions and framings are bullshit, itās what people like to hear. Itās not a lecture, addressed to someone who is being defined as ābadā if they donāt agree with the message.
Thereās also a significant factor that malicious people invest tons of money into promoting the right-wing thought leaders, whereas any particular influencer on the left is more or less on their own to promote themselves, painstakingly building a small audience year by year, without huge boosters attached to anything and everything they want to do.
Exactly. The right dictates the battlefield, and the left obediently marches onto it. We follow like their lapdogs and push back against their own agendas instead of forging ours. This always happens. Instead of setting our own agenda - focusing on worker issues, wages, housing, and healthcare - we keep reacting to right-wing provocations. Now left-wing politics is all about what itās against than what itās for. The core of our platform should be based on our economic and environmental prospects and policies rather than playing up culture wars that are secondary to the issues at hand.
Whereas, Jordan Petersen and Joe Rogan are talking about how to actualize yourself as a person, the tension between āfree speechā and corporate overreach and government censorship, and other things that a lot of people care about
This is a crucial failure on our part. Right-wing influencers make their followers feel empowered - like theyāre unlocking hidden truths about the world. Meanwhile, too many left-wing influencers have taken the approach of āmy morals are better than yoursā rather than educators or motivators. If we want to win, we have to stop lecturing and start leading.
Thereās also a significant factor that malicious people invest tons of money into promoting the right-wing thought leaders
I agree, but that doesnāt mean left-wing populism is doomed. Leftist movements have thrived without major funding because they connected with peopleās material concerns. Instead of relying on corporate funding, we should be building mass grassroots networks, leveraging crowdfunding, and focusing on organizing rather than just content creation. There are already people like Bernie Sanders who represent our sentiments on the grander stage, however where are his supporters? Theyāre mute in comparison to the right-wing supporters.
There are already quite a few left-wing content creators and influencers, but theyāre responsible for the same moral gatekeeping i criticized earlier. We need the Ben Shapiros and the Charlie Kirks of leftism.
Yeah. Although I wouldnāt discount the significant of having wealthy backers, or not, in setting the landscape. The only leftist influencer I can think of thatās really talking about these issues is Jon Stewart, with this as a shining example of what the conversation should be looking like on the left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeheoxWzf2o
Why is that relegated to an oddball Youtube channel, which is obviously nowhere in my recommendations because of course it isnāt, such that I almost would have missed it if not for seeing it on Lemmy? Because Apple told Jon Stewart to stop pissing off China, and he told them to go fuck themselves, and so he had to switch platforms.
Also itās significant that for a lot of Democratic politicians, itās a hell of a lot easier to talk about performative issues of social justice, in ways that are only ever pretty indirectly connected to specific policies, than it is to talk about issues of economic justice and get angry phone calls from the super-wealthy people who finance all their campaigns and operations.
Jon Stewart is one of the few left-wing figures actually making the right arguments (although i havenāt seen that specific video), and the fact that he got pushed to the margins for it proves that media conglomerates donāt want real leftist messaging getting mainstream traction. This is why we need independent platforms, community organizing, and alternative funding sources. The right didnāt build their media empire overnight, and neither will we, but we have to start.
get angry phone calls from the super-wealthy people who finance all their campaigns and operations.
This is exactly why corporate-backed liberals love identity politics. It lets them appear progressive without challenging the structures that keep the wealthy in power. A perfect example is how corporations slap rainbow flags on everything in June but continue union-busting, exploiting workers, and funding right-wing politicians behind the scenes. This shit is right in our faces but weāre blindsided to see that weāre only dancing to the tune of conservatives.
