Give me a reason not to embrace the far-right

[frogwoman]

I dunno. I've sold about as many books in person as I have online tbh. I could have sold more but I'm lazy. I don't think success necessarily depends on the algorithm tbh, not that it's been successful but you know. A lot of it still seems to depend on word of mouth and that's difficult if previous friends are angry with you because of your beliefs tbh.

 

[Happy Tree]

Russell Brand hurriedly closes his laptop

 

[lazythursday]

I struggle to see how anyone with firmly held left wing (or even liberal) convictions could do this. The psychological harm would be considerable, for no particular guarantee of financial success.

What's far more common is a gradual drift into this world,with principles changing - there are plenty of well documented cases - and there are feedback mechanisms especially linked to social media that enable that transition. See Naomi Klein's Doppelganger for a really good analysis of the phenomenon.

 

[mojo pixy]

Depends how you're defining success, surely. It's a tautology to say that success on the algorithm's terms depends on the algorithm, but if you create something you like, that's a success on your terms.

I literally mean a five-figure income just for posting content, plus half a million instaxhitter followers doing nine tenths of the promotion. Not so much the satisfaction of a job well done or a page well written (a much simpler goal IMO )

 

[yield]

What's far more common is a gradual drift into this world,with principles changing - there are plenty of well documented cases - and there are feedback mechanisms especially linked to social media that enable that transition. See Naomi Klein's Doppelganger for a really good analysis of the phenomenon.

Another example Candace Owens

The ugly conversion of Candace Owens

unherd.com

 

[frogwoman]

Another example Candace Owens

The ugly conversion of Candace Owens

unherd.com

Ditum wrote this? She must be having some second thoughts about her own politics.

 

[xenon]

Scenario A:
allowing *your work, that might be ambiguous enough to be used to endorse a political message you politically disagree with.

Scenario B:
Creating content to pander to an audience, through highlighting political talking points and tropes to serve an agenda you're philosophically opposed to.

A:. Grubby, shaming but if you can justify it for the money.

B: As presumably you didn't get into which ever creative endeavour it was for the cash in the first place. What's the point of even espousing a viewpoint through art or even having a stance if you can just change it depending on the remuneration on offer. Unless personal integrity means naught.

* the general you / your.




Yeah, I know many do, see e.g. columnists. But who takes those people seriously.

 

[mojo pixy]

Hence this thread tbh. Quite extreme Left-to-Right travel seems to be happening more and more - or maybe I'm just grown up and noticing, maybe social media / culture wars is inventing and amplifying it like never before, no doubt that's true but while they're promoting conspiracism or actual hate, it's worth attention which is worth money. More so than promoting .. what, exactly?

I think much of the problem is the far Right has Big Emotional Themes, which suit demagoguery and all kinds of epic vibes. Belonging, you-deserve-better, obvious enemies. It preys on disaffection and when left-ish politics push you towards equality and tolerance, if you're angry you might not be in the mood for equality and tolerance. So fuck that, I want someone to tell me that being angry is ok, and give me an obvious enemy I can get my hands on.

For a writer, performer etc that's just ripe for exploitation. You have to get over your conscience, and not care that you might lose more than you gain (or feel you have nothing to lose anyway) - but Right-wing politics is in the ascendant, you can see it everywhere. If you value celebrity above all, why would you not jump on board? You don't even have to swallow the lot all at once, a little at a time keeps the ball rolling longer and outrage is the new crypto or so I hear.

 

[Serge Forward]

It's nothing new. In 1930s Germany, many went from left to right because that's the way the wind was blowing. These included creative types . Plenty didn't jump on the Nazi bandwaon though. I can name a fair few of the ones that didn't go far right. But I'd have to look up the opportunistic fuckers who did go fash as they tended to become not long after obscure artistic nonentities.

 

[Rob Ray]

A good example btw is Nina Power - started left, picked up a "controversialist" crew and is now miserably picking through the ruins declaring herself a free thinker having lost all her old mates and gotten outright bankrupted over a bullying case. Sad stuff at the end of the path.

 

[Nylock]

Imagine a scenario: you're an artist or maybe performer, a comedian or writer or something of that kind. You create fresh 'content' all the time, new bits or pieces or productions that express what's on your mind. You have a small fanbase but not enough to make a living from, so you do some kind of waged work to keep your life the shape you want it to be. But you're unsatisfied; you feel you have the potential to make a living from your own creativity if only you could reach a wider audience.

Then you meet someone who is a member of what they call a 'political social club', asking for some creative work to promote their cause. They talk about built-in audience, algorithms, global reach, they mention numbers.

You salivate. You think about going full-time, giving up the drudge. Interviews, travel, attention. Glory.

But then you think, could I? What about what I believe? Does that matter? Who cares?

To be clear: you're not tempted. But should you be? Are you wasting a huge opportunity?

The thought of providing content to boost the viewpoint of groups that would happily see me and mine shot in front of a lime pit or forced onto the last train I'll ever ride if they were to ever seize power is not one I'd ever entertain. Regardless of the size of conscience-salving wedge on offer.

 

[frogwoman]

Also for as many far right edgelords who enjoy that sort of stuff you will repel a large number of potential customers, including straight white guys who aren't interested in any sort of politics. Then there's the traditional fash who are just as suspicious of political content creators as the left.

 

[hitmouse]

I literally mean a five-figure income just for posting content, plus half a million instaxhitter followers doing nine tenths of the promotion. Not so much the satisfaction of a job well done or a page well written (a much simpler goal IMO )

I mean, worth bearing in mind that all this stuff is basically a pyramid scheme, for every big visible arsehole influencer with half a million followers you have... probably half a million wannabes trying to be in that position but not actually getting anywhere. Remember the original enshittification article being quite good on that point:

If you go down to the midway at your county fair, you'll spot some poor sucker walking around all day with a giant teddy bear that they won by throwing three balls in a peach basket.

The peach-basket is a rigged game. The carny can use a hidden switch to force the balls to bounce out of the basket. No one wins a giant teddy bear unless the carny wants them to win it. Why did the carny let the sucker win the giant teddy bear? So that he'd carry it around all day, convincing other suckers to put down five bucks for their chance to win one.

The carny allocated a giant teddy bear to that poor sucker the way that platforms allocate surpluses to key performers—as a convincer in a "Big Store" con, a way to rope in other suckers who'll make content for the platform, anchoring themselves and their audiences to it...

"Sources told Forbes that TikTok has often used heating to court influencers and brands, enticing them into partnerships by inflating their videos’ view count. This suggests that heating has potentially benefitted some influencers and brands—those with whom TikTok has sought business relationships—at the expense of others with whom it has not."

In other words, TikTok is handing out giant teddy bears.

But TikTok is not in the business of giving away giant teddy bears. TikTok, for all that its origins are in the quasi-capitalist Chinese economy, is just another paperclip-maximizing artificial colony organism that treats human beings as inconvenient gut flora. TikTok is only going to funnel free attention to the people it wants to entrap until they are entrapped, then it will withdraw that attention and begin to monetize it.

Hence this thread tbh. Quite extreme Left-to-Right travel seems to be happening more and more - or maybe I'm just grown up and noticing, maybe social media / culture wars is inventing and amplifying it like never before, no doubt that's true but while they're promoting conspiracism or actual hate, it's worth attention which is worth money. More so than promoting .. what, exactly?

I think much of the problem is the far Right has Big Emotional Themes, which suit demagoguery and all kinds of epic vibes. Belonging, you-deserve-better, obvious enemies. It preys on disaffection and when left-ish politics push you towards equality and tolerance, if you're angry you might not be in the mood for equality and tolerance. So fuck that, I want someone to tell me that being angry is ok, and give me an obvious enemy I can get my hands on.

For a writer, performer etc that's just ripe for exploitation. You have to get over your conscience, and not care that you might lose more than you gain (or feel you have nothing to lose anyway) - but Right-wing politics is in the ascendant, you can see it everywhere. If you value celebrity above all, why would you not jump on board? You don't even have to swallow the lot all at once, a little at a time keeps the ball rolling longer and outrage is the new crypto or so I hear.

And I suppose one of the big interesting questions for the left is how far "being angry is ok and here's an obvious enemy" is a message we can use and how far trying to frame our message in those terms is inherently corrosive to what we're trying to achieve.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah I'd say a lot of left wing leaning people find all the anger and enemies stuff repellent on both sides of politics. Especially because it often just degenerates into a dick waving contest for lack of a better word (or whatever the non gendered equivalent is) and people trying to out edgelord each other and show who is hard enough. That's definitely been a problem with the left in the past, not sure we want to go back to those days.

 

[frogwoman]

Like as fun as it was I'm not sure all the 'Ding Dong the witch is dead' stuff did wonders in terms of attracting people to the left. Saying 'it's OK to be angry and here is an enemy' won't work on everyone. As much as his faults were, Corbyn's attempt to offer a 'kinder gentler politics' rather than the shouting matches at PMQs etc did resonate with a lot of people.

 

[The39thStep]

It's nothing new. In 1930s Germany, many went from left to right because that's the way the wind was blowing. These included creative types . Plenty didn't jump on the Nazi bandwaon though. I can name a fair few of the ones that didn't go far right. But I'd have to look up the opportunistic fuckers who did go fash as they tended to become not long after obscure artistic nonentities.

Whilst its always interesting to identify ex lefties who move to the right , traditionally it's the relationship between centrists, liberals and the far right that has the greatest impact. Plenty might not want overt fascism in their own country but will support coalitions with right wing populists against the left and will easily find no issue with backing fascists abroad if it suits their worldview

 

[kabbes]

Hence this thread tbh. Quite extreme Left-to-Right travel seems to be happening more and more

Is that what has actually happened, though? Or is it that the individual concerned never really had a thorough analytical understanding in the first place defining their left-wing politics, and instead were just emotionally reacting to being part of a tribe? Because then it becomes straightforward to switch tribe with relative little dissonance.

It seems to me that a lot of supposedly left-wing individuals are just as steeped as the right-wing are in the habitus of despising a sector of society. They just disagree which sector to despise. And it’s easy enough to adjust that.

 

[mojo pixy]

Like as fun as it was I'm not sure all the 'Ding Dong the witch is dead' stuff did wonders in terms of attracting people to the left. Saying 'it's OK to be angry and here is an enemy' won't work on everyone. As much as his faults were, Corbyn's attempt to offer a 'kinder gentler politics' rather than the shouting matches at PMQs etc did resonate with a lot of people.

The 'ding dong the witch is dead' moment you may be right, it may not have been good propaganda but as you say, it was fun, spiteful fun, and sometimes that's the point, having fun (maybe at soneone else's expense). Anyway singing and dancing together is bonding on a level that political theory can't reach.

With Corbyn's 'gentler, kinder politics' I liked that message but around me I remember hearing scorn and accusations it was all just weak and unrealistic - 'unelectable', remember that? And of course lost two elections which tells its own story.

 

[kabbes]

The reaction to Brexit lost two elections. Corbyn’s politics were actually very popular

 

[Aladdin]

The point is surely that you get to create what you want, not what someone else/the market/the algorithm is telling you?

That would be utopia

 

[frogwoman]

The 'ding dong the witch is dead' moment you may be right, it may not have been good propaganda but as you say, it was fun, spiteful fun, and sometimes that's the point, having fun (maybe at soneone else's expense). Anyway singing and dancing together is bonding on a level that political theory can't reach.

With Corbyn's 'gentler, kinder politics' I liked that message but around me I remember hearing scorn and accusations it was all just weak and unrealistic - 'unelectable', remember that? And of course lost two elections which tells its own story.

Sure. But a lot of criticisms of parliament and parliament from non political types (and something i hear quite a lot tbh) is that 'they're just hurtling abuse at each other and both as bad as each other'. 'Why can't they sit together and work something out' etc.

 

[mojo pixy]

The reaction to Brexit lost two elections. Corbyn’s politics were actually very popular

Opinion polls did say so, but when the time came to put an X where their mouth was, not enough people did.

 

[kabbes]

Opinion polls did say so, but when the time came to put an X where their mouth was, not enough people did.

That’s because they wanted to Get Brexit Done, not piss about with more prevarication and referenda.

 

[frogwoman]

The 'ding dong the witch is dead' moment you may be right, it may not have been good propaganda but as you say, it was fun, spiteful fun, and sometimes that's the point, having fun (maybe at soneone else's expense). Anyway singing and dancing together is bonding on a level that political theory can't reach.

With Corbyn's 'gentler, kinder politics' I liked that message but around me I remember hearing scorn and accusations it was all just weak and unrealistic - 'unelectable', remember that? And of course lost two elections which tells its own story.

I think where the scorn came in was that Corbyn claimed to be for a kinder politics and that was not always borne out by how his supporters acted.

 

[mojo pixy]

Sure. But a lot of criticisms of parliament and parliament from non political types (and something i hear quite a lot tbh) is that 'they're just hurtling abuse at each other and both as bad as each other'. 'Why can't they sit together and work something out' etc.

Yes, "they're as bad as each other" misses that the far-right not only hurl abuse at the Left who hurl it back, but also at vulnerable people who don't deserve abuse.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, "they're as bad as each other" misses that the far-right not only hurl abuse at the Left who hurl it back, but also at vulnerable people who don't deserve abuse.

Well yeah, but it's probably one of the most common criticisms of politicians. 'Both sides have got so extreme and intolerant of different beliefs' and the like. I know a lot of the time it's disingenuous but...

 

[mojo pixy]

That’s because they wanted to Get Brexit Done, not piss about with more prevarication and referenda.

Brexit was the fruit of a right-wing political project, and wanting to get it done (recalling who was/were loudly and repeatedly saying that) has real political consequences, still resonating and causing consequences of their own. That's what we got instead of kinder, gentler politics - though fwiw I doubt things would have been better with Corbyn's Labour in charge.

I think what I'm looking at though isn't so much specific political impulses, as feelings. It was feelings that won Johnson / lost Corbyn 2019 because of Brexit, and because grifters work with and on feelings they loom very large when How I Feel is what I center in what I call my political outlook.

 

[Serge Forward]

That would be utopia

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing." Oscar Wilde

 

[Serge Forward]

There's also the legacy aspect to this, i.e. what do we want our kids and grandchildren to remember us for? Being someone who was nice, did their bit for everyone's betterment (I'm thinking along the lines of Ewan McColl's Ballad of Accounting here) and who will be remembered fondly by those who knew us? Or being someone who discarded every humanitarian principle and just went for the money, ending up a sad, despised sub-fascist twat?

 

[Jeremiah18.17]

Similar questions were probably posed as hypotheticals when the main way of “getting on” in some parts of art and popular culture was to develop a relationship with the mob/organised crime. In fact, looking at SYL, Tates, Trump etc, the two hypothetical choices are probably not that far apart today.
The problem is, working with/becoming dependent on people who make a career of being “transgressive”, you have little control over the nature of the transgressions you are being associated with/may be dragged towards.
We always need to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, rather than just the marvels of his show…