Is it though? At least here in the Netherlands, the far right is not much better. There's constant infighting, egos tripping over each other, new "messiahs" taking over and crashing down. We have JA21 and van Haga who both split off of the FvD when the mask went fully off. We have groep Markuszower who split off of the PVV. And on top of that parties like the BBB and people like Mona Keijzer who try to claim the spotlight. The originally liberal VVD trying to get a piece of the pie.

I'm happy for it though. Much rather this than an organized right.

But yeah, leftists can definitely be a purity contest sometimes.

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.

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

my head-canon tells me the right's goal can be simplified down to whatever makes me the most money/power

the left, on the other hand, can have multiple ways and layers and sensitivities on what can be said is the morally-correct way to handle things.

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.

These anarchists just need a good, strong leader.

Are you familiar with Fred Hampton or any other celebrated leftist organizer's story? Most of them are remarkably similar.

This is a many faceted problem, but I'll throw in a few more that I didn't quite see touched on.

For a lot of people on the left, if you're more left than they are you're a tankie and if you're not as left you're a fascist.

There's a lot of worry about purity. For example, there's people who don't buy Harry Potter stuff because the money goes to JK Rowling who spends money on anti trans groups. That's sensible. But then there's people who think you're a bad person if you've enjoyed it, ever. Or didn't get rid of the books once you found out.

This is part of the same thought process that makes people have to say how someone was bad, no matter who they were. "Oh you like Rob Ross he was in the military you know".

The most extreme examples of this are when they go full horseshoe and support Republicans because they are so concerned with flaws the Democrats have, because they think that'll somehow get people to rise up.

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

The Problem is oportunism vs. idealism.

In Canada, it's because they threw out all the labor rights people and replaced them with people adding letters to LGBTQ+TS+ BLT...

A lot of rightists go "jews suck lmao" or whatever everywhere possible IRL, which leads to people with similar opinions talking with them and leftists staying the fuck away.

The "far-left" is usually not triggered by everyday interactions. Asking people about their politics directly may come off as weird, especially if the ideas that were to follow are not widespread and/or they have not researched politics much. Btw, "I don't speak politics" (I once used to claim this) is often the audience to be targeted with right wing ideas even without realizing.

Oh, and oftentimes, the government is a direct enemy to the far-left. Only rarely not (Ukrainian anarchists are siding with Ukraine, Christiania is making tourism money for Denmark, etc).

Obligatory:

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"

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".

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

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.