The far right only have to organise around a handful of simplistic ideas. They talk in tabloid headlines. Smear shit and hope the millionaire fash send money your way. It’s as easy as flipping hamburgers.

The left have to deal with the complexities of reality. They need to talk with stakeholders and learn from specialists in a given subject at a given time. They are limited by language that can express the complexity of our societies and what makes them run well.

I’m not saying that’s the full explanation, but it’s inherently harder to organise something more complex and creative. It’s easier to organise a dirty protest.

Right-wing people embrace hierarchy. Left-wing people don't.

Is it really more disorganized? Ive seen and heard of far right groups tearing each other apart over minor differences of values or infidelity. Maybe its simply a matter of complexity of goals. The left is trying to build a new and fair world, all while preserving as much of humanity and the planet as possible. The far right on the other hand seems to concern itself almost entirely with destroying progress the left makes, they seem to not care at all about the what comes after or the harm that is caused by their changes. So they only need to agree on what needs to go, and don't need to agree on what comes next because they haven't thought about it and don't care who has to live in the squalor they leave behind.

It doesn't help that the right infiltrates and murders left wing movements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

I'm not a historian so I'm struggling to remember specific details. "People's History of the United States" by Zinn includes many examples that went like "People wanted to organize for something better" -> "Capitalists said no, and had the police beat up and arrest people"

The whole principle of right wing thought is strict vertical hierarchies. For their moral flaws, strict vertical hierarchies are a pretty efficient way to organize the average person. The whole principle of left wing thought is flattened, distributed hierarchies. For their moral virtues, decentralized flat hierarchies are pretty slow to organize. It's a lot simpler to fall in behind an authority figure than participate in never ending sub-sub-subcommittees.

It's hard to unify around a course of action when your whole thing is incorporating diverse perspectives and rejecting centralization. I'm not saying it's not the right thing to do, it is, but it presents inherent challenges.

I think the far-left has more diversity in its political positions and its factions usually don't get along with each other simply because their projects are incompatible. That may cause a little bit of "disorganization" but I don't think that's bad per se. It could be seen as a sign of critical thinking.

Organization takes time and money. Two things the far left are generally not conducive to concentrating to the point where they can build effective political and economic campaigns.

It will take moments of political and economic crisis to mobilize against this current. If and when it does, no one will be happy about it regardless of the direction chosen.

Far left has a lot of good ideas and how to go about them is debated, often loudly and messily.

Far right has stupid people, which are happy to go confidently along.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell

It's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves. - Franz Kafka

One reason is that people on the left are more inclined to disagree with each other, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and accepted as part of the political process. You figure things out by voicing differing opinions and reaching some kind of middle ground. There's room for disagreement on the left.

People on the right (fascists in America) are more likely to do what they are told by their "superiors" and fall in line. Differing opinions, or lifestyles, are not readily tolerated and you will be excommunicated if you push the accepted boundaries too much.

You can say a lot of negative things about fascism, and you should, but fascists tend to have a lot of solidarity as long as they toe the line. That is, until the critical breaking point, which is usually everyone that isn't a fascist realizing they actually have to deal with the fascist threat, at which point the fascists start collapsing because you have to be stupid to be fascist so fascism can't really stand up against a united front against it.

The far right is financed by billionaires. Guess who finances the far left?

There was a major effort by the government to dismantle functional far left political groups. The vacuum has been filled by a lot of people who are suspiciously unable to build a big tent and craft messages like they are designed to split communities rather than engage in effective change.

The DSA and Working Families Party seem to be building an effective political strategy to get shit done, but a lot of other groups seem to just want to argue and protest.

Real-world problems are complex. Every solution to one problem affects other systems in unpredictable ways. When a large group of people agree on a solution, it is usually because it is simplistic and wrong.

Classic example: prices are high. The left blames actual scarcity, corporate greed, climate change, institutional problems. Any solution that might address high prices will be complex and will have side effects. This will cause people to disagree.

On the right, some jerkwad like Trump says "prices are high because of immigration - specifically, the immigration of brown people." The solution is ICE! Simple, easy to understand, dead wrong. Everyone on the right cheers!!!!!!

Purity tests.

There's enough holier-than-thou in most leftist groups to power the Catholic church for millennia.

The right is always about clear hierarchy and obedience. The left is more about personal freedom to the point of anarchy. Guess which side organizes better.

At least in the states every time the Left organizes the Feds start executing people, Chairman Fred, MLK Jr, the MOVE bombings…

I've tried to explain concepts to people. People don't kniw they are racist. People don't underatand why the shouldn't use Facebook or Google. People don't understand that trans people are not turning kids gay. I've tried to explain the horrors coming from privacy loss for 15 years.

Nobody listens. I'm tired boss.

Obligatory:

Because we are trying to make sense, not just to be convincing.

On the process divergences may appear.

The right/left divide has a lot of definitions but the one it feels right to apply here is the oldest one. Right wants to maintain and reinforce existent hierachies. Left wants to change them. Now, notice that there is an extremely well defined goal for the right, to maintain and reinforce the thing we all can see right in front if us. The left on the other hand, doesn't have a defined, unified goal state. Someone can be 'left' and want to bring down their current government in favour of an entirely different, maybe even more powerful and centralised state, or they can be 'left' and want to eliminate the idea of any person or group having authority over any other person or group. To use more modern examples, 'tankies' and 'anarcho-primitivists' are both 'leftist' insofar as they both agree the systems of places in the global 'west' should end, despite how little they agree on what should happen after.

The far-left and far-right are compromised of different groups with some common goals and some specific, often incompatible goals.

On the right the common goal is the more important one and groups are able to compromise on their specific goals in order to move the entire right wing agenda forward. Conservative brain is very good at accepting higher power type justifications and are able to sacrifice their own interests in the name of the leader/group.

On the left the group specific goals are based on identity and people can't compromise on them. The common goals become secondary issues that can be sacrificed and the groups specific goals are the main objective. Anyone proposing a compromise is seen as a traitor to their identity and their group.

Because, contrary to what they say, a lot of leftists are intolerant of opinions that differ from their own. A lot of them have a black-white mentality, where either you are 100% with them or otherwise you are against them and might as well be Hitler incarnate. They live in extreme bubbles which just enforces this behaviour. You can see this very well in some subreddits and also here on Lemmy, since Lemmy is very left leaning.

In german we have this saying:

"Treffen sich 2 Linke, bilden sich drei Splittergruppen"

"Two leftists meet, 3 splintergroups are formed".

For the most part it boils down to the right being largely status quo. They want to go back to a state that while in it's own way is anachronistic and a fantasy is still based on something old and familiar and easy to envision. The left, at least in the places where it isn't already the status quo, is always somewhat nebulous due to the desire for progress but there is a host of splits based around individual peoples comforts and privileges or their view of what new things and societies to attempt and what those things should look like. You see similar divisions in art spaces because there's multiple visions and disciplines and means of achieving a similar goal.

A lot of the division on the left exists due to a fairly foundational theory held by some but not others : that minority rights and protections are nessisary in all cases because if you can argue effectively against removing one set of rights then that argument will prove effective in the removal of other civil rights. The most vulnerable need protection not just because it is the right ethical thing to do but because in the game theory of protections it's the only locktight way to ensure safety for everyone's rights.

However many prejudices exist. Many leftists want exceptions to protections because defending all is difficult. When you exist in a democracy one has to appeal to the many and the prejudice against "the undeserving" whatever state that implies is always a hard sell to people who cannot apply empathy. Hierarchy is important to many people even though they might not think of it in those terms. They want to be the "deserving" over the "undeserving" and with that moral authority strip the protection from others. The shattered left is not immune to this desire, it just tends to be more choosy. Some look at incremental change as abhorrent and as a moral and ethical betrayal, others see the sacrifice of the hardest to protect as a temporary means to buy time and power so that change can be made and you can see some of those people make too much peace with the literal blood toll associated with that action by doubling down.

To be leftist is to be aware of a multitude of pains and since we all individually have only so much mental space to triage everyone prioritizes differently.

there's a lot more far right billionaires than far left billionaires

The right is effectively a monolith: half a country rallying around rich white Christian men, to the detriment of everyone else. The left is the "everyone else". Rather than one central idea, the political left is a patchwork coalition of various identities and ideologies. Women's rights, black rights, gay rights, labor rights, immigrant rights, Muslims, pacifists, climate realists, anarchists, unionists, as well as a huge chunk that's also rich white Christian men who just happen to not be Republican. Everyone is trying to fly their own flag, but the one mostly-unifying ideal they all share is that Republicans are the enemy.

The blind believe in 1 strong man at the top and a clear strict hierarchy are key ideas within far right ideology. It's easier to organise the right, but it's also easier for the right to en masse follow the crazy dumb ideas of that leader. Left organising from grassroots up is a lot harder, but in theory better.