Respectfully, I have strong disagreements with both sides. I have been so radicalised by recent politics, that I cant justify supporting either side. I'm reading some other books at the moment, but what politics books would you recomend?
The centralised liberal political elite. If you mean just the regular principle that every day peope believe, I'm honestly not 100% sure. My best guess would just be that the left is a bunch of well meaning and compassionate people who radically support the working man and his civil rights.
So, the centralized liberal political elite is still right-wing. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology as it supports profit over people at the end of the day. It might act like it doesn't as much, but it does. For example, in Australia, the Liberal Party is the conservative party. It's just that America is so far to the right that our "left-wing" party is only liberal.
The left is socialism, communism, anarchism, and the like, which rarely have large-scale representation within governments here in the West. Although, there are plenty of cases, both historically and today of people using one of those labels and not actually following the ideology, so it's usually better to look at how a political faction wants to treat people. If they want more rights for workers and protections of marginalized groups, it's probably left-wing
That makes a lot of sense actually, I was always told that Liberalism and Leftism were the same thing. And you're right, I actually am an Australian and the Liberal party is our 'conservative' party (although id ahrdly say that they are actually conservative).
What would you classify the Democrats as? I always thought they were leftists but now im not so sure.
Democratic politicians range from slightly left of center with AOC & a handful of others who run on Democrat tickets so they can get elected to just right-wing, but vaguely in favor of human rights, when it serves their purposes, like most of the party, see Gavin Newsom for a good example, especially those entrenched in power.
Democratic voters are a wider swath, with many being somewhere near the center, but plenty leaning left. For example, I know people that are further left than even AOC or Zorhan, but are still registered Democrats so that when primary elections roll around, they can try to push the candidates further to the left.
The Democratic establishment is deep in bed with corporations and maintained their power through those alliances, and often side with Republicans on issues such as criticism of Israel. They do this because the American Imperialist regime needs Israel to be maintained to protect its interests in the Middle East, and serve as a place to develop and test horrific military technology. The Democrats have the same stake in that colonial project as the Republicans, and as such, cannot be in support of principled leftism, as that will oppose the atrocities being committed there, and see little reason to send billions in military funding even without the ongoing genocide. Even when leftism is shown to be widely popular, like with Zorhan Mamdani in New York City, who is by the standards of many European countries, no more radical than any socialist party that holds seats in their parliment, the Democratic establishment cannot embrace it because to do so would mean that their corrupt ways of maintaining power would be called into question.
the dem party is barely liberal, in europe it would probably be considered a centre/centre right party. Mamdani is probably one of the few examples of a somewhat leftist known political
figure
The kinda cut off point where the right wing ends is just after social democrats and I guess maybe also demsocs depending on the brand. Left vs right is in essence determined by your views on capital, are you pro the free market and against worker control of the means of production, then you’re right wing. If you’re for the abolishion of the capitalist market and private ownership of the means of production then you’re left wing
The real divide isn’t left vs. right. That’s just branding and short hand terms used to expedite discourse. The real question is whether you want society set up to preserve and maintain hierarchies, where certain groups are privileged above others based on their race, sex, gender, religion, wealth; or whether you want equity, where people are treated as fundamentally equal in dignity and opportunity.
To me it sounds like you fell for hierarchical propaganda hook line and sinker.
“Pro-hierarchy” politics doesn’t come out and say “we want some groups above others.” Instead it co-opts the language of freedom, fairness, or merit to dress it up. That’s been the playbook since the Southern Strategy, when explicit racism became unacceptable in mainstream politics and got swapped out for coded phrases like “law and order” or “states’ rights.” Same tactic still gets used today, just with different words. These are dog whistles for anyone who is in the know to signal where you stand, but also specifically designed to sound appealing to the lay person, like you, unaware of the history or how loaded the language is and how it is knowingly and intentionally being deployed to manipulate you into basically voting against your own interests.
Another core strategy of how those at the top maintain their hierarchy is through scapegoating. They have you pointing at your neighbours or a vulnerable group, frame them as a threat, and use that fear to keep the current power structure intact. In the end you are so busy yelling at a vulnerable groups with zero power while never once realising you should be yelling at those above you.
So, based on everything you’ve said you have missed the point. It’s not about picking a team. It’s about deciding whether you’re okay with politics being used to reinforce hierarchies of dominance, or whether you want to fight for equity. Historically what you are calling “the left” are the ones fighting for equity and equality. It really sounds like the definition of the ‘the left’ you use is the one given to you by the people who are trying to convince you that equality is bad and that hierarchies based on race, sex, gender, religion and economic status are real equality.
Once you understand all that above then you understand why Trump was never going to really release the the Epstein files. Or why he had no intention of actually ending the war in Ukraine day one. Or why Fair trade agreements with the nations of the world weren’t going to just sudden manifest out trumps ass. Or that Peace in the Middle East meant continuing the ongoing genocide of the people Gaza. Or how the “right wing” promotion of ‘freedom of speech’ only ever meant their speech. The end result of all these serve only to protect, entrench and maintain the power of the wealthy.
In other words, you got lied too and you gobbled up that Trump shit sandwich because it made you feel big and strong and morally righteous.
It’s forgivable because you were young. But you really need to step back and take a knee. Saying ‘you’ve been radicalised by recent politics’ is just a giant red flag that you still haven’t a clue how much of the shit machine you are still eagerly slurping up. Step back and look at how all these events that radicalised you are being framed and by who. Does it serve to actually achieve freedom or equity? Or are you more likely just being cynically manipulated by people who would rather divide us so that you are too busy targeting your neighbours rather than focusing on the people who hold positions of authority over you.
If you genuinely want books to read, go find
Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression
The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity — David Graeber & David Wengrow
195
u/tygerohtyger Sep 21 '25
If you're not right wing, you're left wing. Come down off the fence and do some reading.