I totally agree with the comment " food for thinking".
Let's say we are in a cafe-bar and watch a football match. Let's assume that we are supporters of the one or the other team. There are also some guys that are extrovert and "live" the match by commenting and reacting . Some of us will see these guys in a friendly or in a hostile way depending on which is our favorite team.
The match is over and we are ALL start talking about what happened during the game. During conversation we discover that the extrovert guys ARE NOT funs of either team. They just love football very much and don't care about the teams. BUT WE LABELLED THEM because is so natural to react in this way, "saves glucose". During conversation, we might experience a " huge loss " realising that they do know much more about football than we do.
I understand that this example is too much. I just want to say that by labelling other people we play the game of THE BIG ONES. It's convenient for them in order to control us. That is what we want? I don't think so.
Focus on what , for example, a "leftist" say and not on that he is a "leftist". The product of such a conversation perhaps would be more intersting than you might thought. "Anarchist" has to pay for the electricity, a "conservative" also. We are humans after all with problems and dreams and these are our true strength and not every kind of label.
I understand that a person need to somehow"belong" in a group. Ok, but do it using critical thinking, otherwise there is a possibility that the group will "swallow" you.
In short, political parties tell you " save your glucose for me " but we have to tell them " it's my glucose and I'll consume it as I decide. You (political parties) are there for me and not the opposite ".
Thanks for the food for thinking.