Why the socialist Left and the populist Right are talking past each other

And why that is not going to change any time soon

This piece works as a follow up to The revival of the Marxist “False Consciousness” thesis, and its shortcomings

X: “Up for a pint after work?”

Y: “No, thanks. I’m on a diet. Cutting back on the alcohol for a while.”

X: “Is this about money? It doesn’t need to be a fancy drink, you know? The cheapest guest ale will do.”

Y: “No, it’s not about money. It’s about calories.”

X: “If it’s about money: we can just go to the Wetherspoons. All the cask ales are £2.99.”

Y: “That’s great, but as I said, it’s not about money. I’m on a diet.”

X: “I wouldn’t worry about money right now anyway. Have you forgotten that it’s payday today?”

Y: “I’m not worried about money. I’m worried about my waistline.”

X: “OK, now I get it. You know what? My treat! I’ll invite you. Two rounds on me.”

Y: “Thanks, very generous. But as I keep saying, it’s not about money. It’s about calories.”

X: [Produces his wallet, pulls out a £20 note] “Look…”

Does this dialogue of two people talking past each other sound made-up, and absurd? Like something that would not happen in real life?

Then try this one instead:

Socialist: “Hello, Mr Working Man. I’m a socialist, and I want to be your voice in politics. What ails you, Working Man? It’s capitalism, isn’t it?”

Worker: “To be perfectly honest with you – it’s immigration. I know you’re not supposed to say it, but I don’t like the way my area has changed due to immigration.”

Socialist: “Oh, I see! You’re blaming migrants for the fact that you’re not adequately paid. But that’s not actually their fault. It’s the fault of greedy capitalists who are exploiting you, while redirecting your anger at migrants. Have you heard about the Misdirected Anger strategy? There’s an interesting book by Ash Sarkar…”

Worker: “I’m not blaming them for my pay situation. I just don’t like the way the area has changed.”

Socialist: “So you’re blaming migrants for the fact that you can’t get a doctors’ appointment? But that’s not their fault either! It’s the fault of the Tories, both blue and red, who have systematically defunded the NHS. You blame migrants, because that’s what the billionaires want you to believe. What we really need is a wealth tax. Have you come across Gary’s Economics? It’s run by a chap called Gary Stevenson, who…”

Worker: “No, I’m not blaming them for the NHS situation either. But the area just doesn’t feel the same anymore.”

Socialist: “You’re blaming them for the closure of youth centres, right? For the closure of libraries and arts centres. For the dilapidated state of the local schools. For cutting disability benefits. But that’s not the migrants’ fault! That’s austerity! And the billionaires, who want you to blame migrants…”

Worker: “No, I’m not blaming them for those things. What I’m saying is…”

Socialist: “You need to read Vulture Capitalism. It explains how Marx was right all along, and how the bourgeoisie are now deliberately stoking hatred and division, misleading people like you…”

In the first dialogue, X fails to convince Y, because he fails to understand Y’s reason for not wanting to go to the pub. He ascribes a completely different motive to Y, and then pointlessly argues against that motive.

Something similar happens in the second dialogue, which, while mildly exaggerated, is not at all plucked out of thin air. I’ve shown several examples in my previous article. Britain’s socialist Left is currently on a mission to win over people who might be susceptible to the arguments of the populist Right. In doing so, they mistake these people’s cultural anxieties for economic anxieties, and then base their entire argument on that misunderstanding.

And it is a misunderstanding. When I say “the socialist Left” and “the populist Right”, I am not necessarily talking about political parties. But there is, of course, a correlation. If you are on the socialist Left, you are more likely to be attracted to the Greens and Your Party, and if you are on the populist Right, you are more likely to be attracted to Reform UK. On which note: a recent YouGov poll asked people on which issues they trust Reform UK, and on which issues they don’t. It turned out, wholly unsurprisingly, that Reform UK did best in the categories “Immigration”, “Crime”, and “Representing people like you”, while struggling in the categories “Running public services”, “NHS”, “Managing the economy”, “Taxation”, “Housing” and “Poverty”. I’m neither criticising nor praising them, I’m just classifying them: they are a culture war party, not an economics party. You cannot win over their supporters with economics, socialist or otherwise.

Why do socialists not get this? Why are they so bad at understanding what motivates their opponents?

Photo by Filip Živaljić on Unsplash

I can think of three (complementary rather than competing) explanations.

Firstly, it is quite plausible that socialists are not actually trying to win over anyone. Rather, they are telling themselves a story about themselves.

The idea that large sections of the population have fallen prey to a devious manipulation machine, to which only you and your comrades are immune, is a very self-flattering one. It means that you get to see yourself as part of an enlightened, moral elite. Apart from the ego boost, this is a great way to build group cohesion, even if it does not enlarge the group.

Secondly, it can be quite difficult to accept that some people hold cultural values which are very different from our own, and which we may even find repulsive. The socialist story is a way to avoid that painful realisation. If you believe that story, you can tell yourself that people don’t actually disagree with you. They just think they do, because they have been brainwashed by the billionaires, and by Nigel Farage. Once the billionaires have been expropriated, and Nigel Farage has been sent to a Gulag, people’s true convictions will finally come out. It will then turn out that everyone actually agrees with you.

Last but not least, it is an easy way to sidestep difficult conversations that socialists would rather not have.

I get it, because some of those conversations are not just difficult for socialists. They are difficult for us classical liberals too. Take immigration. As a liberal individualist, I am naturally sympathetic to the idea of open borders. I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they please, without having to ask government bureaucrats or “the community” for permission. I would like to apply this principle to cross-border movement as well.

But I also accept that large-scale migration of people from very different cultures causes real social friction. I like high-trust, low-crime societies, and I accept that such societies are unlikely to have completely open borders. I am therefore conflicted on this issue, and I don’t like that cognitive dissonance.

If you are a socialist, you can save yourself all that agonising. Issue? What issue? There is no issue. There are just those who foment Hate And Division™ at the behest of The Billionaires. There, job done. That’s all there is to know. Socialism or barbarism.

As a persuasion strategy, it seems utterly ineffectual. You cannot usually win people if you refuse to address their concerns.

And yet, paradoxically, it could work for them, at least up to a point, albeit not in the way they think. The story which socialists tell themselves about themselves is not a true story. But it is a story which gives them self-confidence, promotes group cohesion, and suppresses self-doubt. It is a story which energises them, and gives them that self-righteous rage that is so seductive. This is not a strategy for intellectual honesty, but it can be a winning strategy nonetheless. People want to be on the self-confident, cohesive and energetic team, not on the team that gets things right.