Far-right leaders are winning across the globe. Blaming ‘the economy’ or ‘the left-behinds’ won’t cut it | Richard Seymour
www.theguardian.com
The economy matters, but the likes of Trump succeed by offering voters revenge for problems both real and imagined, says author and Salvage founder Richard Seymour

Summary

Far-right leaders are gaining globally, with Trump’s victory in the US presidential election echoing trends in Hungary, India, and other countries.

Donald Trump’s 2024 victory marks a historic first where he won the U.S. popular vote, supported by diverse groups including young, Black, and Latino voters, as well as the working class—a reversal from previous elections.

This win aligns with global far-right gains, reflecting voter frustration with economic hardships and liberal policies.

Analysts argue that the far right’s appeal lies in its “politics of existential revenge,” which vilifies minority groups and offers imaginary disasters as scapegoats.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    3 days ago

    I love that you’ve tried so hard to lead a veneer of intellectualism to the contradictory and reactionary thought processes of the far right.

    To sum up your post, you’re describing “anything mush-brained right wingers don’t like” but with fancy bullet points.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        3 days ago

        Do u have an alternative word u would prefer me to use instead of woke to describe the outlined definition i provided?

        You didn’t provide a definition, for instance “The importance of group identity over individual identity”. You might as well be talking about communism, or the military, or a sports team.

        • 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖@lemm.eeEnglish
          13·
          3 days ago

          Thats how words work u use combine multiple concepts together to create a new things that encapsules the whole. For instance if u where to define a table as having legs a table top etc then some moron claimed well i have legs ur definition sucks that wouldnt be a good faith interpretation would it?

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            3 days ago

            Thats how words work u use combine multiple concepts together to create a new things that encapsules the whole.

            Sure, you didn’t do that though. Let’s take the second item, “The existence of systemic oppression and power imbalances”

            That’s the original definition, not what right wingers use to deflect away from the original. You’re all over the place.

            For instance if u where to define a table as having legs a table top etc then some moron claimed well i have legs ur definition sucks that wouldnt be a good faith interpretation would it?

            I’m interpreting in good faith, the problem is on your side. You’re trying (and failing) to assign a definition to something that doesn’t have one other than “anything mush-brained right wingers don’t like”. Just accept it instead of tying your brain in knots.