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.
I very much agree that the US nowhere close to having a serious socialist movement. I don’t think I’m conflating libs with the left, as I specifically point out that libs are the dominant ideology, and this is what people are becoming disillusioned with. My argument is that the actual left has to focus on the class struggle. However, people falling out of the political mainstream are going to have liberal beliefs, and need help restructuring their world view.
I don’t mean to say that messaging alone is a silver bullet, but it is an important aspect of building a movement and attracting a critical mass of people towards socialist ideas. There needs to be a clear set of ideas that people can unite around, and work towards a common goal productively. Currently, the left is incredibly fractured with many small groups fighting each other and pulling in different directions. Messaging obviously has to be coupled with material actions, such as mutual aid, to be effective. However, building a movement one person at a time, requires communicating a set of ideas and goals to that person.
Regarding, PSL, I think it’s exactly as you say, they’re fighting upstream against massive indoctrination. That doesn’t mean that what they’re doing is not effective, but rather that society as a whole isn’t at a point where there is a critical mass of people who are ready to pursue meaningful change.
My whole argument is that the narrative on the right is effective precisely because it’s not advocating for change. Instead, the right argues that what’s happening now is not real capitalism, and if we just get back to doing it properly everything will be great again. I strongly suspect we’re going to have to live through a period in the west, where the right tries to put their ideas into practice, and only after it discredits itself the way the liberals have, will there be a possibility of a worker movement forming.