The political landscape in the West has shifted dramatically in recent decades, with increasing numbers of people becoming disillusioned with mainstream liberal politics gravitating toward the right. This trend is not accidental but rooted in systemic, cultural, and psychological factors that make the right a more accessible and appealing alternative for those feeling alienated.
The left’s historical strength lay in its ability to articulate a clear critique of the capitalist system, centered on the exploitative relationship between workers and owners. Class, as a concept, derives its significance from the process of surplus extraction: the transfer of wealth from those who labor to those who own. This dynamic is the engine of inequality, enabling a small elite to extract wealth from the working class majority who toil with little to show for it. Yet, the left in the West has largely moved away from class analysis, instead focusing on social issues and identity politics.
While issues of race, gender, and other forms of identity are undeniably important, the left’s emphasis on these concerns has often come at the expense of addressing the broader economic injustices that affect all working people. By treating these issues as separate from class struggle, the left has fractionalized its base, creating a patchwork of identity groups that often emphasize their distinctiveness rather than their shared interests. As such, the left is unable to present a unified front to the capitalist system and the ruling class.
In contrast, the right has adeptly tapped into the economic anxieties of working-class people. While the solutions they propose are misguided or outright harmful, the right acknowledges the very real frustrations of those who feel left behind by the system. When right-wing figures argue that the economy is rigged against ordinary people, they resonate with the lived experiences of many who see their wages stagnate, their costs of living rise, and their opportunities shrink.
The right’s message is effective because it doesn’t require a radical rethinking of the world. Instead, it builds on the capitalist and nationalist ideologies that people have been steeped in their entire lives. By blaming immigrants, government overreach, or cultural elites, the right offers scapegoats that align with preexisting prejudices and fears. This makes their ideology not only accessible but also emotionally satisfying.
On the other hand, moving to the left requires questioning the very foundations of the system. Socialist thinking runs contrary to the ideas of capitalism, individualism, and the myth of meritocracy that most people have been taught to accept as natural and inevitable. For many, this is a daunting prospect. It involves rejecting deeply held beliefs and confronting uncomfortable truths about the world and their place in it. While some are willing to make this leap, most find it easier to retreat into the familiar narratives offered by the right.
If the left hopes to counter this trend, it must reclaim class analysis as a central pillar of its politics. This doesn’t mean abandoning the fight against racism, sexism, or other forms of oppression but rather recognizing that these struggles are interconnected with the broader fight against economic exploitation. The forces that perpetuate class inequality are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, and ecological devastation. These issues must be framed as part of a unified struggle that unites all working class people.
The left needs to provide a compelling narrative that’s able to compete with the one that the right peddles. It has to be accessible and relatable to those feeling alienated from the political mainstream.
“Democratic Socialism” purely exists as a means to smear AES, all Socialism is democratic. Moreover, decentralization is less democratic, and gives rise to competition and eventually Capitalism. Centralization is necessary for proper public ownership and central planning, even if you have local planners subservient to regional and national planners.
In what sense are you using AES? Are you referring to the soviet republic and unironically?
My initial vibes here is this place is mostly soviet supporting communists pretending to be socialists. Anything other than glowing praise of communism is showered in down votes. That’s cool and all, but it feels a bit too echo chamber for my liking.
I always assumed the goal was to bring people with you, rather than go after any unpure view. Maybe arguing with libs online too long has clouded the goal of furthering class consciousness.
AES includes the former Soviet Union, as well as existing Socialist countries like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. As for this community, it’s for Socialists, Communists are a type of Socialist. Moreover, the Hammer and Sickle imagery making up the icon of this community is explicitly a Marxist symbol first popularized by the USSR.
The goal is certainly to bring people over to Socialism, but that doesn’t mean it stops there. To stop at people merely tacitly supporting vague notions of Socialism would be a mistake, because just supporting the idea of something doesn’t translate into working to build Socialism. It isn’t a question of purity, but of taking a correct stance. The Socialist Revolutionaries, for example, celebrated an “end to theory” prior to the Russian Revolution, and were cast aside by history as failures in developing a correct line like the Bolsheviks did.
The issues I had with your comments were because, frankly, none of what you said made any sense. For Communists, democracy is a priority too, and the idea of decentralization goes against the concept of public ownership and central planning, which make the backbone of a worker owned economy. This doesn’t mean I hate you or anything, but you came out of the gate attacking Marxism on a Marxist aligned community, so it’s important to gently set you straight, which I believe I accomplished.
The importance of developing correct lines cannot be understated, criticism and self-criticism is a core aspect of Marxism-Leninism because it’s only through unity-focused dialogue that correct strategy and tactics can be found and employed. Does that make sense? If you want, I have a beginner Marxist reading list, the first section alone would be great for you to develop common footing.
I don’t think it’s “echo-chambery” for others to correct misconceptions people wandering in may have, rather, leaving such misconceptions unaddressed muddies up the water of discussion. I think it’s fair if you come out attacking Marxists and making false assumptions about the ideology of a large chunk to even majority of users here, that people come in and correct those.