It is the concept of "pluralism", which implies a plurality of opinions in the state and socio-political life of the liberal West, that became the fundamental motive for the emergence of left and right positions, as well as centrists. These parties are generally accepted in the civilized world, and how progressive the ways of development of the world community will be today depends on their implementation of their guidelines.
When considering this topic, it is immediately necessary to clarify that the terminology adopted here refers in a priority order to ideology and socio-political movements. Moreover, the "right-wing" views are determined by the fundamental criticism of the reforms. Their goal is to preserve the existing political and economic regimes. At different times and in different regions with unique cultural values, the preferences of specific representatives of these parties may differ. America can be considered indicative in this sense, where right-wing movements at the beginning of the 19th century advocated the preservation of slaves and masters, and already in the 21st century their emphasis was shifted to the area of resistance to medical reform aimed at supporting the poor.
Naturally, in this context, the left parties are the complete opposite of the right. Representatives of the left political currents in their entirety always advocate the modernization of the state and public organization, which, in their opinion, should be carried out by reforming the existing orders and laws. Vivid examples of such political trends can be considered social democracy, socialism, communism and even anarchy. After all, the principle of universal equality, proclaimed by them, requires global changes in the order existing in the world today.
Historical legacy in party formation
The first clear example of a split in political unity in the country was France in the seventeenth century, in which the aristocracy completely dissociated itself from the bourgeoisie. Thus, the left, with its modest role as executors and creditors after the revolution in parliament, expressed complete distrust of the aristocracy with its sole and fundamental power. At that time of troubles, the right wing of the parliament was represented by the Feuillants, who advocated strengthening the monarchy based on the constitutional rights of citizens. The leftist party bloc consisted of Jacobins who wanted radical change. And the centrists were the Girondins ("hesitant"), taking a wait-and-see attitude.
Thus, the right has come to be traditionally called "conservatives" and "reactionaries", and the left - "radicals" and "progressives".
How conventional are the concepts of "left" and "right"
Despite the seemingly clear political views of opposing right and left political currents, their positions are often very conditional for perception. Indeed, at different times and in different countries, virtually identical political slogans could be ranked as extreme political trends. Thus, at the dawn of its birth, liberalism was unambiguously interpreted as a leftist party bloc. And after a while, due to the manipulations of their representatives, who regularly resort to compromise solutions, they began to be identified with the political center, ready for alternatives between the two extremes.
Currently, neoliberalism (liberalism of a new kind) is a typical conservative trend in politics, which identifies it as an exclusively right-wing sector. Thus, the liberals crossed the entire ocean of world politics from one conventional bank to another. Today there is an opinion in which neoliberalism is classified as a new form of fascism. After all, the world experience of liberalism has in its historical piggy bank the Chilean leader Pinochet, who identified himself with him, who used concentration camps to assert his power.
Often the political views of the left and the right are so intertwined that it is simply not possible to establish clear boundaries between them. For example, communism, which spun off from social democracy (typical left), accusing its ancestors of a cowardly wait-and-see attitude, became its ardent opponent, similar to the right-wing bloc of parties. A quick breakthrough for the modernization of society, taken as a political platform by the communist party, chose our country as its arena for social and political transformations.
The Soviet Union brought enough confusion into the clear separation of right and left political currents by the fact that its political regime in a despotic form cracked down on all democratic rights and freedoms that were proclaimed by the Social Democrats. And Stalin's totalitarian regime generally made the right emphasis critical. Thus, the contribution of the previous political regime of our country to the border established by historical tradition between the right and the left, as they say, "is difficult to overestimate."
Sociological and historical-philosophical differences
The first profound difference between right-wing and left-wing parties lies in the realm of sociology. Left movements traditionally defend the interests of the popular strata of society, which practically have no property. Karl Marx called them "proletarians", and today they are wage laborers whose work is estimated by wages. But the rightist currents have always been focused on the owners of land resources and means of production, who work for themselves and use hired labor to enrich themselves. Moreover, the right can communicate with the proletarians, but the essential difference between them still draws a clear line. Therefore, this distribution of property rights to land and industrial resources has led to the fact that on the one hand there are capitalists, heads of enterprises and organizations, as well as representatives of the free professions, and on the other hand, poor farmers and hired workers. Despite the sufficient blurring of the boundaries, which is very seriously affected by the presence of the so-called middle class, this division still has its own outlines.
Since the time of the French Revolution, a leftist political view has been formed, aimed at reform and radical reconstruction. Left-wing politicians today also advocate change and the pursuit of progress. However, the right-wing movements do not openly oppose pragmatic development, but they are trying with all their might to defend traditional values. From here comes the conflict of interests of the opposing extreme parties, which consists in the struggle between the supporters of the progressive movement and the conservative adherents of the established order. It is the change in foundations within the framework of reforms and the preservation of the continuity of power that constantly accumulate political tension in relations between left and right parties. Moreover, it is the left that is often inclined to slide into utopian idealism, while their opponents are categorical pragmatists and realists, which, in turn, does not prevent them from joining them with enthusiastic fanatics.
Political, economic and ethical differences
Since the left movements traditionally defend the interests of the people, it is they who are the defenders of republican values, as well as organizers of trade unions and various associations of workers and peasants. And the cult of statehood, native land and devotion to the national idea, which are protected by the right, often lead them to nationalism, xenophobia and authoritarianism. Supporters of the totalitarian state can be considered an example of extreme right-wing views. From historical analogs, the example of the Third Reich is very indicative. For their opponents, extreme views can be expressed in fanatical anarchism, which denies any form of power.
Leftist currents are characterized by a denial of capitalist relations. Since their confidence in the state is still greater than in the market, they welcome nationalization and completely reject privatization. Right-wing politicians see market relations as a stimulating basis for the development of the state and the global world economy. In a thesis form, this economic confrontation between the left and the right may look like this: on the left are the ideas of a strong state and planned economy, and on the right are the free market and competition.
From an ethical point of view, the political differences between the left and right currents acquire clear boundaries in their views on the national question. Anthropocentrism, classical humanism and atheism are the first to collide in this opposition with idealistic ideas of the dominance of collective values over the individual and increased religiosity. Moreover, in this context, left-wing nationalism interferes with the dominance of right-wing cosmopolitanism.
