I noticed that within much of the conservative or reactionary movement, when people's material conditions worsen, many seem to respond not by supporting efforts to improve those conditions—whether through direct action or by voting for left-wing candidates who promise economic reforms—but by directing their frustration toward immigrants or so-called "welfare queens," believing those groups are receiving unfair advantages. They often end up supporting right-wing candidates whose policies, in my view, make life more difficult for the broader public while primarily benefiting the bourgeoisie. What I struggle to understand is the mindset of wanting to make other people's lives worse simply because your own circumstances have deteriorated. I understand why they see socialism/communism to be the devil because of decades of propaganda against those systems, but wanting to hurt those who are more vulnerable than they are just seems like anti-social behavior.
This is why I don't see MAGA communism or any 'conservative/nationalist' socialism having any potential other than devolving into fascism. The people those movements are trying to appeal to have no class conscious and solidarity. Things that bind the, are class collaborationist in nature rather than built upon class struggle. Communism, be it Marxist or anarchist, is a mass movement that requires the proletariat around the world to work together to throw off their chains. And can't be hung up over conflicts between different ethnicities, nationalities, orientations and ect.
if good things happen, that's treatlerism
if bad things happen, that's reactionary
>seems like anti-social behavior.
I mean I can only speak on burger rightoids since imma monolingual with no time or money for traveling but its really is because the modern american right is anti-social. I haven't met a single american conservative that wasn't a misanthrope who genuinely thought they were inherently better than the vast majority of the population. Everything else flows downstream from that core principle. They don't like society,civilization,science,materialism, there countrymen or medicine since all imply other people are just as human and complex as they are and that they're not the main character of the world. To them the biggest problem with the government doesn't have anything to do with state violence but the potential that it might not give them special treatment and they'll have to stand in line just like everyone else.
>>2858546People think in terms of status rather than absolute terms. Between you getting $100 and me getting $50, or me getting $50 and you getting $0, the latter is "better for me" if I judge my position relative to yours.
More generally there's the Tocqueville paradox. (Revolutions happen not when things are at their worst, but when a period of improvement sets good expectations that then fail to materialise.)
>>2858546A lot of the time it's simply that the other option is an open and honest "there is no alternative" neoliberal. Everyone tends to get a little desperate if they have been trapped in a deteriorating situation for a decade or more. At least right-wingers bother to acknowledge that problems exist and they even say that there is a solution. It's a dynamic that the CIA relies on for their regime change efforts or at least the propagandistic/mass portion of it, Ukraine is a great example.
>but why aren't they following our local trotskyist book club instead of the options presented to them on the level of political institutions???? Why does the left support the suppression of labor power via unfettered immigration?
Does the left actually have any principles besides hating white people?