Who are the left and right in politics? Right-wing parties

Provided that we are talking about Russia... in Europe, besides the communist parties, there were others... I said about the one-party system, but about “confusing”, do not confuse us, be so kind.

In politics, the left traditionally refers to many directions and ideologies, the goal
which are (in particular) social
equality and improvement of living conditions
for the least privileged layers
society. These include socialism, social democracy, social liberalism. The opposite is the right. The left, in its classical sense, strives
to establishing equal conditions for all
people, regardless of nationality,
ethnicity, gender and other affiliation
- according to the ideals of the Great French Revolution “Liberty, equality, fraternity” (French liberté, égalité, fraternité). History The terms “right” and “left” for the first time
appeared in the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. Three directions emerged in it:
on the right sat the Feuillants - supporters constitutional monarchy; in the center sat the Girondins - moderate supporters of the republic; on the left sat the Jacobins, who advocated radical reforms.
Thus, initially the rightists were called
those who want to preserve the existing
position (conservatives), and the left - those who advocated change (radicals). Before mid-19th century, liberals who advocated both political freedom and free enterprise were seen as
left. But then, with the development of socialist ideas, they began to be called leftists first of all
supporters who strived for social equality. The left included social democrats, anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists. When in the first half of the 20th century, one of the most
Since the communist parties emerged from the radical wing of Social Democracy, they were also classified as left (“extreme left”).
However, the left has traditionally advocated
expansion of democracy and political freedoms, and the communists, who came to power first in Russia in 1917, and then in a number of other countries, were opponents of bourgeois democracy and political freedoms of capitalist society (at the same time
the establishment of a dictatorship of the working class, in their opinion, makes it possible to significantly expand
democracy because it becomes the democracy of the majority of the people). The views of a number of theoreticians of communism who
recognized the progressive significance of the October Revolution in Russia, but criticized its development, and some
they even rejected the socialist character of Bolshevism, seeing in it state capitalism, and began to call it left-wing communism. The left opposition in the RCP (b) and the All-Union Communist Party (b) in the 1920s advocated internal party democracy, against
“NEPman, kulak and bureaucrat” Criticism of Stalinism at the XX Congress of the CPSU, the new Soviet course towards economic development at
the policy of “peaceful coexistence” with capitalist countries caused
dissatisfaction with the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, and the leader of the Albanian Labor Party, Enver Hoxha. The policy of the leader of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev was called revisionist by them. Many communist parties in Europe and Latin
America following the Soviet-Chinese
the conflict split into groups,
USSR-oriented, and “anti-revisionist” groups,
targeting China and Albania. In the 1960s and 1970s, Maoism enjoyed considerable popularity among the left.
intelligentsia in the West, but lost
popularity after Mao's death and emergence
critical materials about his policies. In the 1960s in Western Europe and the United States, the so-called “new left” appeared, opposing itself to the “old left”. They protested against the lack of spirituality
"consumer society", the impersonality of mass culture, the unification of the human personality and advocated "direct
democracy", freedom of expression, non-conformism. The social base of the “old left” was the industrial proletariat, as well as the peasantry. The New Left considered, among other things, the “Old Left”
outdated and without prospects, according to
at least relative to the countries of the First and Second Worlds, in which the proletariat and peasantry were increasingly losing their
positions, giving way to new types of workers in post-industrial society. During the era of perestroika in last years existence of the USSR concept of “rightism” and
"leftism" was often used in the sense
opposite to what is accepted in the West. So,
liberals and anti-communists were often referred to as "leftists" and traditional orthodox communists as "rightists". Traditional definition criteria
“left” and “right” The traditional [non-authoritative source?] direction from left to right is defined in relation to support for: private property; increasing exploitation of man by man; strengthening power; actual consolidation of inequality: social, sexual, religious,
national and similar inequality; In this case, belonging to the left is determined [not in the source] in relation to: the socialization of social
the essence of the means of production; inadmissibility of exploitation; reduction or limitation of power, state violence; increase in the level of equality and personal freedom, in relation to the increase
degree of social, political,
religious, sexual, national and so on
further equality.



In recent decades, after the “blue screen” lit up in every home, international news has not been complete without mentioning the left wing of the Bundestag or the right wing in the French parliament. Which of them pursues what policy?

IN Soviet times everything was clear: the left are supporters of socialism, and the right, on the contrary, stand for capitalists, and their extreme manifestation is the fascists, they are also National Socialists, the party of small shopkeepers and bourgeoisie. Today everything has changed, and both have appeared in almost all the countries that emerged as a result of the collapse of the USSR. Both left and right parties occupy seats in the same session hall of parliament, sometimes they conflict, and sometimes they vote quite unanimously, and there are also centrists.

Why "right" and "left"?

More than two centuries ago, the French Revolution thundered, overthrowing the monarchy and establishing republican uniform board. In "La Marseillaise", which became the national anthem, there are the words "aristocrats on a lantern" - in the sense of a noose around the neck. But democracy is democracy, and parliamentarians with hostile positions sat in one spacious hall People's Assembly, and so that there would be no squabbles between them, they grouped up.

It just so happened that the Jacobins chose their seats on the left (Gauche), and their opponents, the Girondins, chose the opposite (Droit). Since then, it has become the norm that political forces advocating radical changes in social life have become leftists. It is clear that the communists counted themselves among them; just remember the “Left March” by V. Mayakovsky. Right-wing political parties take opposite positions; they are, as it were, conservatives.

A little modern history, or how the left becomes right.

Under the slogans of improving the situation of workers, leaders came to power many times, bringing many troubles to their people. Suffice it to recall German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, who proclaimed National Socialism. During the struggle for the post of head of state, he promised voters many benefits, including high prosperity and justice, the annulment of the Versailles Treaty, which was shameful for the Germans, work for everyone, and social guarantees. Having achieved his goal, Hitler first dealt with his political opponents - left-wing Social Democrats and Communists, whom he partially destroyed physically, while others were “reforged” in concentration camps. So he became right, following the exiled Albert Einstein, proving that everything in the world is relative.

Another example. L. D. Trotsky was “too left” even for V. I. Lenin. This does not mean at all that the leader of the world proletariat was right. It’s just that the idea of ​​labor armies at that time seemed too inhuman, although quite Marxist. The presumptuous Lev Davidovich was slightly chided, corrected, and given friendly advice. But this is all history, and now it is a long time ago. What is happening to the left and right parties today?

Confusion in modern Europe.

If before 1991 everything was clear, at least for us, then in the last two decades the definition of “right” in politics has become a bit difficult. Social Democrats, traditionally considered leftist, in European parliaments easily carry out decisions that just recently would have been quite natural for their opponents, and vice versa. Huge role in determining political course Today populism plays a role (especially during election periods), to the detriment of traditional platforms.

Left-wing political parties, namely the Liberals, voted to provide financial assistance Greece, which is not at all consistent with the declared position on improvement social policy own people. There is, however, continuity in relation to anti-fascism. The Left Party of Germany has repeatedly, through the mouth of its deputies, spoken out against Merkel’s policy of supporting Ukrainian nationalist forces, arguing its position with numerous anti-Semitic and Russophobic quotes from the speeches of the leaders of the Right Sector and the Svoboda association.

The financial crisis has significantly complicated the situation. Currently, European left and right parties have largely changed roles, while maintaining visible unity in everything related to promises to improve the living standards of the citizens of their countries.

"Right" positions in the former USSR.

In the post-Soviet space, the interpretation of political orientation according to the “cardinal directions” has generally remained the same as in Soviet times. Right-wing parties in Russia and other countries that are former “free republics” indicate in their program documents the goals to which, in the opinion of their leaders, society should strive, namely:

Building a truly capitalist society;

Complete freedom of enterprise;

Reducing the tax burden;

Fully professional armed forces;

No censorship;

Personal freedoms, including the removal of a whole range of restrictions that the “undemocratic regime” has “entangled” the country with. The most courageous representatives of the right wing declare “European values” on the verge of promoting permissiveness.

The variety of forms of “rightness”.

Nevertheless, the ruling party in the Russian Federation “ United Russia“also belongs to this parliamentary wing, as it advocates the development of market relations. In addition to her, the right bloc cannot do without “Unity and Fatherland”, “Union of Right Forces”, “Yabloko”, “Party of Economic Freedom”, “Choice of Russia” and many others public associations, standing in the position of liberalization of all forms of relations.

So in the camp political parties One direction can also have its own contradictions, sometimes very serious.

What do the left stand for?

Traditionally, left-wing parties advocate the revival of the achievements of socialism. These include:

State funding of medicine and education, which should be free for the people;

Ban on the sale of land to foreign citizens;

Government planning and control of all vital programs;

Expansion of the public sector of the economy, ideally a complete ban on private entrepreneurship

Equality, brotherhood, etc.

The left parties of Russia are represented by the vanguard - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (actually two parties, Zyuganov and Anpilov), as well as the affiliated “Patriots of Russia”, “Agrarians”, “National Powers” ​​and several other organizations. In addition to nostalgic projects of bygone socialism, they sometimes put forward quite useful and sensible initiatives.

Ukrainian right.

If in Europe it is difficult to understand the issue of orientation, then in (or in) Ukraine it is almost impossible to do this. We are no longer talking about capitalism, socialism, liberalism or ownership of the main means of production. The main determining criterion in determining political, and at the same time economic goals, is the attitude towards Russia, which the right-wing parties of Ukraine consider an extremely hostile country.

The European choice is something for which they spare almost nothing: neither the remnants of industrial cooperative production, nor their own population. The apotheosis of the development of this direction in domestic policy became the notorious “Maidan”, quite possibly not the last. The so-called “Right Sector,” along with other ultranationalist structures, has turned into a paramilitary organization ready to carry out ethnic cleansing tasks.

Leftists in Ukraine.

Ukrainian left and right parties are constantly confronting each other. Throughout its existence independent state those in power were exclusively supporters of market reforms, which, however, was interpreted in a very unique way.

However, the “Left Bloc”, consisting of socialists, their own, but progressive, All-Ukrainian Workers’ Party, and, of course, communists, was constantly in opposition. This situation, on the one hand, is convenient due to the lack of responsibility for what is happening in the country, but on the other hand, it indicates that the ideals of Marxism are not very popular among the people. Actually, in Russia the communists have a similar situation. There is one difference, but a significant one. In today's Ukrainian parliament, the left is the only opposition group that opposes the aggressive nationalist government.

So, the understanding of “leftism” and “rightism” in the Western world and post-Soviet countries differs significantly. Currently, Ukrainian “pravosek” have the opportunity to punish fellow citizens who dared to wear a shirt on their sleeve on Victory Day. St. George's ribbon, declaring them “separatists” and “Colorados,” and if the matter ends with verbal obstruction, then this is not the worst option.

Accordingly, each of them is automatically classified as a leftist, regardless of his attitude to the ideas of universal social justice. At the same time, European left and right parties differ only in the colors of the party flags, some program items and names.

Traditionally, right-wing ideology is usually defined by the opposite of left-wing ideology - as one that places capitalism, economic or national goals above equality of rights and chances for all segments of the population and other egalitarian values.

It is believed that the division into “right” and “left” in politics is a reference to the famous parable of Jesus Christ: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory, and all will be gathered before Him peoples; and will separate one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left. Then the King will say to those who right side His: Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

Thus, initially the rightists associated themselves with religiously minded people who honor the church, family, state, in short, living according to the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount. The leftists were theomachists, atheists, liberals, and supporters of progress. In short, conservatives of all kinds were on the right, and liberals, socialists and communists were on the left.

However, from the very beginning there was some confusion in this classification, because the parable of Christ continues in the following words(about those who stand by right hand and will enter the Kingdom of God): “For I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you accepted Me; I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me...” It is obvious that themes are being developed here, which in politics are called “ social protection”, the rhetoric of “the hungry and the oppressed” has always been central to socialists and communists who were considered “leftists”. However, the general atheistic and anti-religious position of the communists led to the fact that the label “left” was stuck to them.

According to another version, the terms “right” and “left” appeared in French Constituent Assembly since the revolution (1789–99), whose deputies, representing different political forces, were seated in a certain order. The left wing went to the Jacobins, who sought a radical change in the existing system, the center was “populated” by Girondins - wavering republicans, and the right wing - by supporters of a constitutional monarchy. Since then, “right” began to be called everyone who advocates maintaining the status quo, conservatives, “guardians”, “satisfied” with the existing order, and “left” - on the contrary, radicals, progressives, “reformers”, i.e. “dissatisfied” . This interpretation is still dominant in Western political science (M. Duverger, F. Gogel, etc.).

The range of right-wing political movements is extremely wide: they include liberalism (in the classical sense of the term), conservatism, monarchism, nationalism, traditionalism, and even fascism. Representatives of the two largest camps in the “camp” of the right - liberals and conservatives - have traditionally proceeded from the idea of ​​a person as a sovereign individual and acted from the position of recognizing the inviolability of private property and established laws. However, there were fundamental differences between them.

Conservatives, with all the diversity of their views, ideas and sentiments, are united by a special attitude towards the traditional values ​​of society and a high assessment of the role of the state and religion. As defenders of private property and free enterprise, conservatives advocate strengthening the role of the state both in the economy and in the social life of society.

Liberals, like conservatives, advocate free enterprise in economics. Regarding institutions state power their position is markedly different. Liberals are supporters of minimal government intervention in the economy, social life society, spiritual sphere, personal life citizens.

Similar ideas about the role of the state in a market society developed back in the 17th–18th centuries, when the bourgeois class, struggling with the hierarchical regulations of medieval society, developed the concept of limiting power. In addition, while proclaiming the self-sufficient value of individual freedom in all spheres, liberals often acted from anti-clerical and anarchist positions, which is completely unacceptable for conservatives. At the same time, throughout the 19th–20th centuries. The positions of liberals and conservatives changed depending on the specific historical situation.

It often happened that liberal parties acted from clearly conservative positions, and conservatives, on the contrary, borrowed their main program positions from their opponents. In Russian socio-political thought, the division into “right” and “left” had an even more pronounced value character.

According to the philosopher S. A. Frank (“Beyond the “right” and the “left”, 1931), before the October Revolution for the Russian intelligentsia the concept of “right” meant “reaction, oppression of the people, Arakcheevism, suppression of freedom of thought and speech, arbitrariness authorities,” and the concept of “left” is “a liberation movement, consecrated by the names of the Decembrists, Belinsky, Herzen, demands for legality and the destruction of arbitrariness, the abolition of censorship and persecution of people of other faiths, concern for the needs of the lower classes, sympathy for the zemstvo and the jury, the dream of a constitution... sympathy to all the “humiliated and insulted.”

However, after 1917, a reversal of concepts occurred: “We are accustomed... that the “right” are in power and protect existing order, and the “left” strives for a revolution, for the establishment of a new, not yet existing order. But when this revolution has already taken place, when dominance belongs to the “left”, then the roles obviously change: the “left” become the guardians of the existing... while the “right” under these conditions are forced to take on the role of reformers and even revolutionaries. The ever-increasing terminological confusion was observed in Western countries. In the 20th century There have been significant changes in the views of the right. One of the cornerstones of the Western worldview has undergone a serious rethink - the principle of individualism, which has come into deep conflict with the real needs of society, with the idea public good. Nowadays, many right-wing ideologists advocate the abandonment of absolute individualism in favor of “communitarianism”” (J. Rawls).

In practice, the revision of classical liberalism led to the “leftward movement” of all the leading traditional right-wing parties in the West. In Great Britain conservative party often criticizes the ruling Labor Party from “left” positions. The CDU in Germany puts into practice the programmatic requirements of the SPD.

The transformation of the traditional liberal model in most countries of the world is caused by significant changes in the economy, primarily its globalization.

Classic bourgeois democracy is possible only in a society where the economy is based on the principle of free competition. With the advent of monopoly capitalism, and then TNCs, the role of democratic institutions inevitably decreases. Real power is exercised through non-democratic governance mechanisms. The Western world is increasingly becoming a totalitarian society, and under these conditions, the opposition of right and left ideologies in their classical sense loses its meaning. They are simply used as tools for solving purely applied and local problems by TNCs, the global oligarchy (globarchy).

Thus, if left-wing ideas are gradually dictated to anti-globalists, who are in fact part of the “new world order”, and not its antipode, then right-wing ideology is actively used to attract new regions into the orbit of the Western world. It serves as a tool for eroding the foundations of traditional societies, creating the preconditions for a controlled crisis in countries outside the influence of the West with the goal of their complete subordination to the globarchy. It is not surprising that attempts to impose a liberal model of socio-economic structure in conditions when countries of classical liberalism have already abandoned it, invariably resulted in dramatic social upheavals in the countries where it was introduced. This was especially evident in the countries of the former socialist camp and the republics of the USSR.

The coming of liberals to power in Russia in 1991 aggravated the crisis in the country and brought the state to the brink of disaster. The results of the liberal reforms and in other CIS countries.

Modern liberals can hardly be called right-wing in its own sense this word. To the young reformers of the 1990s. neither a “protective” function nor respect for property was inherent (remember the deposits of the population that “burned” in 1992 and the results of privatization). They, without hesitation, trampled on the foundations of society and deliberately contributed to the collapse of the country.

Modern Russian parties that position themselves as “right” (SPS, Yabloko, etc.) also have little in common with right-wing ideology. They actively use social democratic rhetoric, deny national values ​​traditionally defended by the right, and openly join the radical, revolutionary wing, which is trying to shake social foundations, upset the hard-earned balance in society, and break the existing order (see Kasparov, National Bolsheviks).

The difficulties of unambiguous definitions regarding “right” and “left” indicate that these metaphors, like many other political science categories introduced into circulation 200-300 years ago, have outlived their usefulness and do not capture modern phenomena that require new ones. theoretical concepts.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The division between “right” and “left” persisted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Political function and the role of the author of Reflections on Violence was that he was an ideologist of leftist movements. This is like saying that there are differences between men and women, but none of those differences justify discrimination in voting rights. The two members of this opposition rely on each other: where there is no right, there is no more left, and vice versa.

From the very beginning, the fan movement began to form its own hierarchy. As soon as the first movements appeared, fans immediately began to divide themselves into “right” and “left”. And in the early 1980s, even just appearing on the street or at the stadium with your team’s scarf looked like a challenge to others. At that time the movement was clearly divided into “right” and “left”.

Participation in fights in those days was counted because they were spontaneous. Fans of the early 1980s say that it was not considered shameful to make an “action” against the “leftist” fans of a team with which you seemed to be friends: “leftists” are “leftists.”

It was believed that if the “right” overwhelm the “left”, then it would be no big deal, no one would be charged. But if two “right” brigades, two “backbones” met, it would be scary. We could have waited from CSKA. And I “yawned” - I mistook the “left” for the “right”. And a carriage with “Spartas” arrives - Zhora Dobchinsky and Ryzhiy get out. And our people jump out. The compositions are equal.

Who are the rightists and how can they unite?

And the “Spartacists” ask: why are you standing here? Only the “right” fan could be authoritative, and the “left” ones - who had not yet traveled ten trips or went to the stadium, but did not participate in fights - were called “phantomas”. But it is impossible to say that this was the case in all movements: in each fan group, relationships developed differently.

There was no election - people recognized this man and accepted that he was an authority. Among these people - “outdoorsy”, perhaps someone did not always behave adequately. He could punch someone in the mouth, ask someone for money, or ask someone for something else. And if someone was offended, he went to the forty-seventh sector. About Sofron, I can say that the guys my age and I tried not to end up in the same carriage with him at the exits.

And Rifat, I remember, on one of the trips in Kyiv (in 1989) even hurt his hand - he hit one of those who put shoes on the young people in the face, trying to restore order in this regard. It was very a big problem. And, in my opinion, in 1989, when we were traveling from Odessa, two free carriages were attached to the train - just so that the fans would leave. And people got off at the next station - to get there on their own, just not to go with this company.

See what “Right” and “Left” are in politics” in other dictionaries:

Now we categorically prohibit this, and no one will do this. I remember feeling proud - I came to the first trip. And they told us - well, give us some money. But I don’t. Come on then, hand over your ticket, let's go drink in the dead ends - this is where the sump for the carriages is. It was for these beliefs that right-wing liberals began to be called right-wing in the second half of the 20th century, since the former traditional right-wingers (monarchists, clerics) lost popularity.

RIGHT, LEFT WHERE IS THE SIDE?..

A person may also have beliefs that in one area (for example, political) are considered traditional for the “left”, and in another (for example, economics) are considered “right”.

All rights reserved. In the sphere of politics, right-left is not the only opposition, but it is found everywhere. These terms supposedly no longer have any heuristic or classification value, much less evaluative value. 8. The main reason why the classical dyad has been called into question is the following. Not in every binary opposition both terms have the same strength, and not necessarily one of the two terms is always stronger than the other.

But it is assumed that a person is able to change both

In the history of Italy after the Unification, the predominance of the Right gives way to the predominance of the Left. But predominance does not mean the exclusion of the second member of the opposition. If what was a part turns out to be whole, this means that the opposition has completed its task and it is necessary to start all over again and “move on.” The crisis of the Soviet system did not entail the end of the left, but the end of a certain left movement that existed within a certain historical framework.

Upon closer examination, what unites revolution and counter-revolution does not depend on membership in the two opposing camps traditionally called “right” and “left.” If this were the case, those who believe that it is time to say goodbye to the dyad would be right, since it no longer works as a demarcation between culturally and politically opposed positions.

In the far-right magazine Elementi, neo-fascist Solina wrote: “The drama of today is called moderation. Already from these two quotes it is quite clearly clear that left and right extremists are united by anti-democracy (common hatred, if not common love).

For example, the transition “between the two world wars of a significant number of active politicians from right-wing conservatives to right-wing traditionalists and from there to totalitarianism.” They are often confused with essential ones and are used to give incorrect answers to the question of the nature of a difference and to deny that difference when it does not live up to expectations in a particular situation.

Of the six great ideologies born in the 19th and 20th centuries, three are classical (conservatism, liberalism, scientific socialism), three are romantic (anarchism, fascism and right-wing radicalism, traditionalism). Conversely, the antonym of emancipation should not be tradition or conservatism at all, but an order established from above, by a paternalistic government or the like. That is, we can say that there is different types anti-egalitarianism: everything depends on the type of inequality that is accepted or rejected.

On the other hand, the right-wing movement “embodies one of the modalities of the human”, since it expresses “rootedness in the soil of nature and history”, “protection of the past, tradition, heritage.” Spartak and, as I was told, Dynamo (Minsk) are the clubs that were most susceptible to hazing. And in this case the opposition is not what one would expect. In other words, right and left are not words that denote content fixed once and for all.

News and society

Parties left and right - who are they and what do they want?

Right-wing radical forces held a rally... The center-left did not support the bill... These words are constantly heard from television screens, they can be seen on the pages of newspapers. Who are the right and left that people keep talking about? And why are they called that way?

Origin of terms

These definitions of political movements are quite old. They appeared in France, during the bourgeois revolution. And they had an absolutely literal meaning.

That is, there were really leftists, really rightists and real centrists. Simply because this is how supporters of certain political movements occupied seats in parliament. On the left were the leftists, and on the right were the real rightists. Who were these people? Representatives of three parties: Feuillants, Girondins and Yakboins.

The Feuillants were staunch supporters of the monarchy that existed at that time in France. They were the first “rightists”. Who are the leftists? Their opponents, the Jacobins, are revolutionaries and subverters of foundations. And in the center were the Girondins - a moderate party that supported the idea of ​​​​creating a republic, but not in such a radical form as the Jacobins.

Turn right around

This is how these terms arose. Moreover, if at first they were precisely the supporters of the monarchy and the bourgeois republic, then later these words began to mean simply conservatives advocating the preservation of the previous system, and radicals striving for significant changes. The consequence of this was a funny linguistic incident. During the French Revolution, the Yakboins fought to overthrow the monarchy and create a bourgeois republic. And they were leftists. And then, many years later, bourgeois republics became the political norm. And the revolutionaries already fought for socialism. Out of habit, such fiery fighters against the existing system were called leftists. But who are the rightists? Of course, their opponents are conservatives. That is, they are already supporters of the bourgeois movement. This is how the terms simultaneously retained their previous meaning and lost it. The revolutionaries remained leftists, but now they fought not for the bourgeois republic, but against it.

Video on the topic

Such right left

Later, the terms changed their semantic content several times. In the thirties in Germany, the question: “Who are the rightists?” there could only be one answer.

Of course the National Socialist Workers' Party! But this movement is now called nothing more than fascism. This movement had nothing in common with the French supporters of the monarchy or the Russian adherents of the doctrine of the bourgeois republic.

In the 60s in France, the right meant a political movement that denied the possibility of equal rights and opportunities for all members of society.

It is obvious that it is impossible to give a clear answer to the question of what kind of political movement this is. Because there were different right-wingers everywhere. Who these people are and what they want depends on the country and the historical period.

Conservatives and innovators

The only thing that unites all right-wing parties is that they are, by definition, conservative. The force that advocates for the preservation of the existing system is the right, and for its categorical overthrow is the left. And supporters of consistent change and compromise are centrists.

Modern right-wing parties typically respect private property, believe a certain level of class inequality is natural and inevitable, and advocate a strong vertical of power.

This rather conservative trend is followed by parties that have religion or the principles of national identity at the core of their ideology.

This is what the average right-winger looks like. Who are the left then?

Now such movements adhere to the concept of minimizing the influence of the state on the lives of citizens. It is often proposed to introduce public ownership of the means of production - at least the largest ones. And, of course, they advocate total and universal equality. That is, in some way they are utopians. Left parties usually include socialists, communists, anarchists and movements based on the principles of class equality - workers' associations, labor unions. A curious paradox. If nationalist movements usually adhere to left-wing beliefs, then various liberation movements fighting for independence are, on the contrary, right-wing.

Criticism of terms

Currently, such bipolarity of party systems exists only on the pages of newspapers and in the conversations of ordinary people. Political scientists prefer to use more precise definitions.

Yet the political picture of the world, consisting of left, right and center, is overly simplified. Many ideologies have been lost clear boundaries, have become less radical, so it is difficult to say whether they are conservatives or, conversely, supporters of change. A political movement may simultaneously believe that the state should social life and economics, as is typical of right-wing movements. But if the authorities use this influence for typical “leftist” purposes - ensuring equality and guaranteeing social protection.

A good example is very close. IN this moment It is quite difficult to determine who the right and left are in Ukraine - at least from the point of view of the classical interpretation of the terms.

Practical difficulties of classification

Supporters of the DPR and LPR position themselves as left-wing parties. But at the same time, their ideas lie more in the plane of the right. After all, the main stumbling block is the unconstitutional change of power in the republic, and it is the “separatists” who do not accept these changes. Their political platform is completely conservative.

It is also difficult to understand who the radical right is in Ukraine. Because there is nothing left of traditional conservatism in the current. “Right Sector” is not so much a definition of a position as a name. This nationally oriented party accepted Active participation in changing the political system in 2013, although, by definition, this is the lot of left-wing parties.

It is obvious that in this case the terms are used not in the classical international understanding of “conservatives and innovators”, but in a specific one, formed by local traditions. The left are communists, the right are nationalists. It is unlikely that with such a wide range of interpretations, these terms can be considered correct.