![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marjaerwinLately I've been thinking about American politics in terms of a 3-way fight: the left, the ruling class, and the right.
At the height of the counter-globalization movement, this was a clash between (a) the left and (b) the ruling class, while the issues divided the right.
The war led to a clash between (a) the left with a small part of the right and (b) the ruling class with the larger part of the right.
And the rise of the immigrant rights movement required a clash between (a) the left with a small part of the ruling class and (b) the right with the larger part of the ruling class.
That explains the rough break-ups of 2007-2008. The right complains that anarchists turned globalist-- most of us already were!-- while we complain that so many self-described libertarians turned *Nazi*-- some of them probably already were.
The ruling class obviously has the most killing power, followed by the right.
The ruling class retreated from the Washington Consensus during classes with the left in the post-Seattle era. Each side had very different strengths, but overall, they didn't have an overwhelming advantage. They are allying with the right and enabling fascist coups in the Gwot era. e.g. Bolivia, with the massacres now.
The right can't get anywhere without the ruling class. In a shooting war, they tend to have the advantage over the left, but in ideological and culture wars they have been losing ground for centuries. Nationalism was their last big thing, and it's been losing ground since the First World War.
The left-- we're obviously at a disadvantage compared to the ruling class + right combination. In shooting wars, we're still at a massive disadvantage, not least because we don't want to see people die and the world burn. In culture wars, our worst defeats are at each other's hands.
e.g. prohibition, including drug prohibition.
At the height of the counter-globalization movement, this was a clash between (a) the left and (b) the ruling class, while the issues divided the right.
The war led to a clash between (a) the left with a small part of the right and (b) the ruling class with the larger part of the right.
And the rise of the immigrant rights movement required a clash between (a) the left with a small part of the ruling class and (b) the right with the larger part of the ruling class.
That explains the rough break-ups of 2007-2008. The right complains that anarchists turned globalist-- most of us already were!-- while we complain that so many self-described libertarians turned *Nazi*-- some of them probably already were.
The ruling class obviously has the most killing power, followed by the right.
The ruling class retreated from the Washington Consensus during classes with the left in the post-Seattle era. Each side had very different strengths, but overall, they didn't have an overwhelming advantage. They are allying with the right and enabling fascist coups in the Gwot era. e.g. Bolivia, with the massacres now.
The right can't get anywhere without the ruling class. In a shooting war, they tend to have the advantage over the left, but in ideological and culture wars they have been losing ground for centuries. Nationalism was their last big thing, and it's been losing ground since the First World War.
The left-- we're obviously at a disadvantage compared to the ruling class + right combination. In shooting wars, we're still at a massive disadvantage, not least because we don't want to see people die and the world burn. In culture wars, our worst defeats are at each other's hands.
e.g. prohibition, including drug prohibition.
