Ask Lemmygrad

1. The right ultimately collaborate around the brutalising force of capital
2. The left could "infight" within a vanguard party and show a united front to the outside guided by the mass line with a scientific approach (ie ML). Enlightened infighting is good for both development of theory and praxis. A false unity is undialectic and idealistic.

One thing the far-right is really good at is accepting the scale of moderation and of dog-whistling.

Guys with swastika face tattoos like and approve of guys like Nigel Farage, and they're able to build a coalition across that spectrum of extremity.

in my country: it's the left because of the external forces that are intended to drive the disunity. the right also has similar disunity, but they're mostly left alone since their platforms mostly align with our ruling classes.

The left argues relentlessly and sabotages each other, but the far right tend to kill each other when the infighting starts.

The west had historically used the 'divide and conquer' strategy on leftist organisations. Of course that's not the only reason, but it definitely has exacerbated left wing infighting.

The right wing has never really had that. I assume it's because they lack any real theoretical framework which could be fought over. Right wing ideologies are just 'vibes', basically

When the far right infights it's usually between old school antisemitic nazis who think that jews control the world vs more generic anti-communists whose racist and classist hatred stems more from deeply rooted chauvinism rather then batshit theories. Sometimes Libertarians make a loud ruckus but they are usually impotent in the same way ultras are.

Far Right infighting usually comes down to a lack of self awareness over evil bullshit while Leftist Infighting is usually disagreements over what to back

The right also has more money to pay people to be full time organisers and propagandists (and support staff thereof). A lot of the spats and things I see people say are "left" things are small volunteer organisation things.

I'm not sure it can really be universalized. It's probably going to be relative to a specific country's conditions and the history of those groups. In the US, for example, democrat and republican at each other's throats is arguably a kind of rightist infighting, but the mass public perception of what left and right is, is so confined and erasing of anything anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist/anti-colonial that you have people genuinely thinking democrats are left and republicans are right. In the spheres of like, actual "left" in the US, there's clearly some infighting, but I don't think it tends to get all that visceral beyond debating and group splitting because there's no real political power of violence to exercise in the first place.

But then like, the "two parties" don't seem to (so far) get violent with each other either, probably because the actual institutions at the highest levels are more or less on the same side. It's more the voter level of things where people view it as a huge ideological divide.

And that's just one country example in a rough analysis, which could probably be gotten into in a lot more detail over the history of it, like if we include FDR-era reformists and that sort of thing.