Left and right wing in politics. Why are parties divided into “right” and “left”

Internet program “Finding Meaning”
Topic: "Left and Right"
Issue #156

Stepan Sulakshin: Good afternoon friends! For today we have planned the category “left and right” in relation to a certain gradation of the political spectrum. Can the left be right and the right be left? In general, this is a half-joking question, but in fact it is terminology and category political science, political practice, political vocabulary. We'll look into this. Vardan Ernestovich Bagdasaryan begins.

Vardan Baghdasaryan: If we say “right” and “left,” then naturally the question arises regarding whom they are on the right and left. Some kind of coordinate system is needed here. Historically, it was genetically clear that they were to the right and left of royal power.

The origin of the concept of “right and left,” like many other things, transferred to the general European and then world context, was associated with France, with the French Revolution, when in the National French Parliament supporters of the king were located to his right, and opponents of royal power were located left. This is where, in fact, the concept of “right and left” came from.

The differentiation of right and left was associated with a certain historical era, with a certain historical context. Let's try to figure out what was originally here, and how the right and left were classified. The fact is that there are different criteria for this classification. We will talk about economics, social relations, culture. So let's begin.

If we consider economic differentiation, then the rightists were understood as those who were initially supporters of private property, the market, and market private property relations. The left advocated for a regulated economy, for the curtailment of private, private property relations, and for a collective form of management.

As for social relations, the right is committed to the idea of ​​fundamental inequality, when the aristocracy dominates and occupies a preferential position in society. The left stands for fundamental equality, which is exactly the opposite of the idea of ​​the right.

In terms of political criteria, the right stands for monarchism, autocratism, hierarchism, the left stands for democracy. The ultra-left generally advocated the abolition of the state, and in this spectrum anarchism is a polar point of view.

On the issue of identities, the right is for strict nationalism, strict particularistic national identity, the left is for internationalism, when the national is leveled out and disappears in the left perspective. In matters of religion, the right adheres to religious fundamentalism, focusing on religious values ​​and faith in God, while the left is atheist.

If we look at specific parties, it is difficult to name in any specific country, specific political situation a party-political group that, according to all criteria, would be clearly linked to the pole of the left or the pole of the right. In reality, the actual combination arises from the different ratios of these multiple spectra. These spectra can be continued and can be combined in different combinations for the same batch.

For example, in a regulated economy, a regulated economy, there may be a strong autocratic government, which in traditional differentiation would belong to the right pole. That is, in reality, a clear gradation between left and right is disappearing, and it is clear that in methodological terms we need to reach a new level of understanding, we need to move away from this rigid, simplified polarization of left and right and introduce a multiple, multi-criteria approach with a distinction between parties and specific ideologies for each of the components of this spectrum. This spectrum has traditionally been represented as a kind of straight line, where there is one pole and there is another pole.

But then capitalist monopolization occurs, capitalism turns into imperialism, and ultimately one monopoly subjugates others, creating a large-scale super-monopoly covering the entire world. Since maximum concentration is ensured, a leap is made, and a transition to socialism occurs, since this entire system is already prepared for it, because within the framework of this single monopoly everything is socialized.

If there is the power of one person - a super-monarch, an autocrat, when he subjugates, levels and suppresses the entire elite, then when this elite is suppressed, absolute virtual equality appears under him, and the next step is that this system with the absolute power of the autocrat can be transformed into democracy. Therefore, these poles can converge.

Today, in the formation of a new ideology, the ultimate task of combining elements characteristic of the traditional division for different poles is possible. What can the new ideology offer in economic terms? On the one hand, collective management or collectivism, on the other hand, a person’s private interest, his interest in work must also be taken into account, that is, there is a connection between the beginning traditionally associated with the left pole and the beginning associated with the right pole.

IN socially there really is fundamental equality. People are equal in origin, they are equal, as they said before, in Christ, in God, but there must be not only an oligarchic aristocracy, but also a spiritual one. This society must be led by the best, and they must lead this society to achievements.

In political relations, democracy is on the left pole, but there must also be a leader, there must be political elites, and the elites are not in the modern, substituted sense, that is, oligarchic elites, but elites consisting of the best who lead this society, and again a connection occurs right and left poles.

As for national identity, then, of course, the national ethnic factor is fundamentally important. Through the disclosure of ethnicity, the enrichment of humanity occurs, but the common value package for humanity - humanity with a capital H - must also be present. Again, here there is a combination of the left and right poles in a new ideological, religious construction.
Of course, there are some transcendental ideas, but at the same time they must be based not only on faith, but also on a scientific foundation. Again, the combination of what was in traditional polarization is dispersed at opposite poles, and, despite the fact that all political science textbooks describe the 18th century model, when dividing into right and left humanities needs a certain methodological visa, and that visa must be to rethink the phenomenology of the political spectrum.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vardan Ernestovich. Vladimir Nikolaevich Leksin.

Vladimir Leksin: The concept of "right and left" as a concept that characterizes something opposite, is much older than the times of the French Revolution. In the French parliament, the Girondins - moderate republicans - sat in the center, the Feuillants - or supporters of maintaining the monarchy with certain constitutional and other improvements - sat on the right, and the Jacobins - supporters of radical revolutionary actions - sat on the left.

Much earlier, at least for 3 millennia, since the Old Testament first appeared, then much later New Testament, there was the concept of “right and left.” The word “at the right hand” meant the place where the right, righteous people are, and “at the left” - the place of unrepentant sinners, good-for-nothing people.

Thus, using the concept of “right and left” very serious assessments are made. They have been historically, semantically, and culturally rooted in our consciousness since the time of the French Revolution as the political image of right and left. With all their confusion, with the incredible confusion, mixing one into another, this concept still really exists.

At one time, the left was very well characterized in the famous “Left March” by Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky. I remember how we taught it at school and told it with pathos. In this poem, the aggressively liberating pressure of leftism was revealed in a way that, probably, nowhere else in world literature and history.

Turn around and march!
There is no place for verbal slander.
Quiet, speakers!
Your word, Comrade Mauser.
Enough to live by law
Given by Adam and Eve.
We'll kill the story.
Left! Left! Left!

Here there is a very clear rejection of everything that happened before; there is a shift in emphasis, a transfer of everything, as it were, to a completely different plane.

All of us who have studied history know very well that the concepts of “left” and “right” began to change very clearly. The famous Russian philosopher Semyon Frank wrote an article in 1930 about the change of right and left. There are the following words: “Before 1917, for every politically literate person, “right” meant reaction, oppression of the people, Arkcheevism, suppression of freedom of thought and speech, “left” meant a liberation movement, consecrated by the names of the Decembrists, Belinsky, Herzen. “Left” is sympathy for all the humiliated and offended.”

However, according to Frank, this was also confirmed by the events of the October Revolution, to which he seems to be appealing, and in general by everything historical events, occurred during the last 3 centuries, the situation has completely changed. Frank says that if under the prevailing political order before 1917 it was customary to view the right as people in power and protecting this power, then as soon as the left, the revolutionaries, those very descendants of the Decembrists and others took power into their own hands, they became guardians, conservatives, those who begin to defend this power.

Those who were on the right, and those who were defeated at this time, were forced, willy-nilly, to take on the role of reformers and, to some extent, even revolutionaries. This change in the seizure of power by the right and left is very significant, and it largely determines all the confusion and vagueness in the definition of these concepts. It is impossible to give a clear definition of who you are now, at this very moment, right or left, because it is unknown who you will become after power falls into your hands, or your position changes.

How is all this implemented now in the practices of relationships to life? What exactly do those who are commonly called leftists stand for now? Surprisingly, to a large extent, the left is now associated with those who are commonly called people of the liberal camp.
They advocate for a reduction in the tax burden, complete freedom of entrepreneurship, the construction of a truly capitalist society, a fully professional armed forces, the absence of censorship and the integration of a power, country, society into the world, read - into the Western economic system, which is currently itself experiencing an acute systemic crisis.

The current right has a slightly different attitude towards all this - this is nationalization natural resources. By the way, the leader of the party, which for some reason is still considered right-wing, although in theory it should be left-wing, citizen Zyuganov, recently spoke about this. Representatives of this party contributed to State Duma another bill on social justice, leveling to a large extent economic situation people, that is, as if equalizing everyone’s income and so on.

Why is there such turmoil in our time? Why is there no clear concept of right and left now, and can there even be one? Now the concepts of leftism and rightism are associated with the activities of certain parties, and it makes no sense to consider left and right outside the context of the real political alignment, the political spectrum, and the political parties that currently exist.

Parties take slogans of right and left when they are either fighting for power or positioning themselves in this regard, and so on. Therefore, it is not surprising that now not only the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, but also the Justice party are beginning to be classified as leftists, and half of the people from the Right Cause party are also included there, and God knows who else.

In any case, it is extremely important to understand that right and left are now part political doctrines, political slogans, political statements of parties, which very easily change their appearance and become from the right to the left, not when they seize power, because one party seized power from us long ago, but when the political situation changes, or when it is necessary to to join someone.
Leftism itself is a very curious historical phenomenon. It certainly presupposes energy, an impulse to change what now exists, and therefore leftism cannot remain in the same guise for long. The cause of the left is, as a rule, the cause of young people, people of the middle generation, and then, as the poet wrote, “before 30 it’s an honor to be a poet, and it’s a shame after 30.”

That is why almost all figures of the extreme left very rarely survive in this state to political maturity. I only know one famous person, who remained leftist until the end of his days. This is the famous French philosopher Michel Foucault, who influenced both Western and our philosophy. He simultaneously supported both the Red Guards and the New Left in France. He supported everything that, from his point of view, was in the spirit of Che Guevara, was revolutionary, aimed at changing the existing situation.
But the situation must be changed, and therefore leftism is probably now the enzyme that allows society to move in the right direction, despite the fact that this phenomenon in itself is temporary. Thank you.

Stepan Sulakshin: Thank you, Vladimir Nikolaevich. I would like to thank my colleagues for giving quite a lot of historical and country-specific examples, from which it follows who the left is and who the right is. Sometimes this is difficult to understand because they change places depending on specific historical conditions, and therefore I would like to introduce some logic into the methodology for finding an answer to the question, what is the meaning of this positioning.

The concept of “left and right” indicates that there is a certain one-dimensional space - left and right, but it is included in the concept of a certain metric of space. Space is not always one-dimensional; it can be two-dimensional, three-dimensional, and multidimensional. Space is a quantitative metric. Therefore, when saying “left and right,” they often begin to clarify almost immediately: centrists are somewhere between left and right, and there is a left center and a right center.

There is a feeling that left and right are a concept in the space of political positioning of actors or political forces, which can be characterized in dimensional space - more left, more right. Here we are most often talking about parties or government policies.

How can it be characterized? Everything seems very simple - left or right. But how can we introduce a quantitative measure here? Sociologists know how to do this. The question is asked: how leftist are you? Absolutely left-wing, largely left-wing, predominantly left-wing, left-wing, not very left-wing, slightly left-wing, leaning towards left-wing. A sort of comb of positions arises, we call them political frequencies.

There is the same gradation to the right - right-wing, right-wing, very right-wing, significantly right-wing, absolutely right-wing. This is how a quantitative scale arises. Why is this important? Because the concept of political positioning refers to a variety of substantive topics. Vardan Ernestovich said that left and right are, first of all, the attitude towards labor and capital, towards private or socialized property.
There are many other signs, but there are also many other issues, not just property issues. For example, issues of national or even racial relations, the issue of abortion, the issue of attitudes towards religions, the issue of war and peace. In the discourse of society, in the political space, in the space of exercising power, that is, following certain value preferences and political positions, there are a lot of such questions, which means there can also be many dimensional axes.

These axes also need to be somehow designated in terms of left and right. This has developed historically, and this is evidenced by the main conflict between labor and capital. But along this axis we can name the orange, blue, Kyiv events, Yushchenko, Yanukovych. And then the question arises - why is all this needed at all, and where does it lead? As always, there is a descriptive approach that allows you to simply indicate that these are this and those are that. What follows from this? Never mind. It's just a name, sticky labels.

We have done very important and interesting work on the fact that political positioning, quantitative and dimensional, provides an important methodology for working with the political spectrum, and not just descriptive - putting on labels, but the opportunity to receive new information, a new characteristic of the state of society, the space “society - power”.

This idea was born when, in physical and mathematical analogies, the radio frequency spectrum or frequency spectrum of the waves that the TV receives became obvious - low frequencies, high frequencies. Why is it needed? There is the so-called Fourier transform - a transformation that compares functions of a certain real variable, and there is a static characteristic - a spectrum, the positioning of political preferences. How is the picture built for today, for this second? And so - so many leftists, so many rightists, so many centrists. This distribution is called the political spectrum.

So, from the static characteristic by means of a special Fourier transform, one can obtain a temporary implementation. That is, an instantaneous characteristic of political preferences makes it possible to predict how the situation will develop, whether it will lead to revolution, whether it will lead to stagnation of development, whether a conservative or revolutionary-transformative paradigm will prevail.

And this is very important - to obtain a tool that connects the static states of the political space, preferences, political forces, society with predictions, forecasting how the situation in the country will develop. Therefore, the concept of a multidimensional political spectrum is modern; it is located at the synthetic junction of humanitarian and mathematical concepts. It's not very common yet, but I'm sure it will be common because it works very effectively.

Now I can go back and give my definition of what left and right (the political spectrum) represent as a formula in methodological cognitive terms. It goes like this. Left and right are a figurative display of opposing political positions and political actors on a conditional axis that quantitatively characterizes these political positions and preferences.

It follows that politicians, parties, and social groups can be left and right. This formula allows us to gain an expanded understanding of the political spectrum and political stratification of a complex political space and society. If we use such a characteristic - the formula of definition - then all other resulting semantic spaces will become organized, understandable and self-developing according to this logic, which is based on semantic axiomatics. It seems to me that this has been found, it is very interesting and important.

Friends, next time we propose to take a category that is very relevant, it is reflected in the recently adopted Russian law, this is the category of “extremism”. Let's find out what it is. All the best.

The life of the state and democratic society in Western countries is now built on liberal principles, which presuppose the presence of multiple points of view on various issues facing the country and society itself (the plurality of opinions is called “pluralism”). It was this difference in views that provoked the division into left and right, as well as centrists. The indicated directions are generally accepted in the world. How do they differ from each other? And how are the relations between those who have right-wing views and those who call themselves “left” characterized?

Right political direction

First of all, it must be said that such terms refer to socio-political movements and ideology. Right-wing views are characterized by sharp criticism of reforms. Such parties advocate the preservation of the existing economic and different time the preferences of such groups may differ, which also depends on culture and region. For example, at the beginning of the nineteenth century in America, politicians who had right-wing views advocated the preservation of the slave system, and already in the twenty-first century they opposed medical reform for the poor.

Left political direction

We can say that this is a kind of antipode of the right. Leftist political views are a collective name for ideologies and movements that advocate reforms and large-scale changes in the existing political and economic regime. These directions include socialism, communism, anarchy and social democracy. The left demands equality and justice for all.

The history of the division of political views and the emergence of parties

In the seventeenth century, a split occurred in France between the aristocracy, which then actually had sole power, and the bourgeoisie, content with the modest role of creditor. Left and right political views were formed after the revolution in parliament. It happened by chance that in the right wing of parliament there were the so-called Feuillants, who wanted to preserve and strengthen the monarchy and regulate the monarch with the help of a constitution. In the center were the Girondins - that is, the “vacillating”. On the left side sat Jacobin deputies who were supporters of radical and fundamental changes, as well as all kinds of revolutionary movements and actions. Thus, there was a division into right and left views. The concepts of “reactionary” and “conservative” became synonymous with the former, while the latter were often called radicals and progressives.

How vague are these concepts?

Left and right political views are actually very relative. At different times in different countries virtually identical political ideas were assigned to one position or another. For example, after its emergence, liberalism was clearly considered a leftist movement. It then began to be defined as the political center in terms of compromise and alternative between two extremes.

Today, liberalism (more precisely, neoliberalism) is one of the most conservative trends, and liberal organizations can be classified as right-wing parties. Some publicists even tend to talk about neoliberalism as a new kind of fascism. Even such a strange point of view exists, because one can recall the Chilean liberal Pinochet with his concentration camps.

Communists and Bolsheviks - who are they?

Left and right political views are often not only complexly separated, but also mixed together. A striking example of such contradictions is communism. The vast majority of Bolshevik and communist parties entered the big arena after disengaging with the Social Democracy, which gave birth to them.

The Social Democrats were typical leftists who demanded the expansion of political rights and freedoms for the population, improvement of the economic and social situation of workers through the methods of reforms and gradual peaceful transformations. The then right-wing parties actively fought against all this. The communists accused the Social Democrats of cowardice and set a course for faster changes in society, which is clearly evident in the history of Russia.

Objectively speaking, the financial situation of the working class has improved. However, the political regime established in the Soviet Union completely destroyed all the democratic rights and freedoms of the people instead of expanding them, as the same left-wing Social Democrats would have demanded. Under Stalin, the totalitarian right-wing regime generally flourished. This is where a persistent problem arises in the classification of certain parties.

Sociological differences

It is in the field of sociology that the first difference can be found. The left represents the so-called popular strata of the population - the poorest, who actually have no property. It was them who Karl Marx called proletarians, and today they are called wage workers, that is, people who live only on wages.

Right-wing views have always been directed more towards independent individuals who can live both in the city and in the countryside, but own land or any means of production (shop, enterprise, workshop, etc.), that is, force others to work or work for themselves.

Naturally, nothing prevents right-wing parties from contacting the aforementioned proletariat, but not in the first place. This difference is the first and fundamental line of division: on the one hand there are the bourgeoisie, management cadres, representatives of the liberal professions, owners of trade and industrial enterprises; on the other hand, poor peasant farmers and hired workers. Naturally, the border between these two camps is blurred and unstable, which is characterized by the frequent flow of personnel from one side to the other. We also must not forget about the notorious middle class, which is an intermediate state. In our time, this border has become even more arbitrary.

Historical-philosophical difference

Ever since the French Revolution, the political left has been focused on radical politics and reform. The current state of affairs has never satisfied politicians of this kind; they have always advocated change and revolution. Thus, the left showed a commitment and desire for rapid progress. Right-wing views are not anti-development; they demonstrate the need to protect and restore ancient values.

As a result, one can observe a conflict between two opposing directions - supporters of the movement and supporters of order and conservatism. Naturally, we must not forget about the mass of transitions and shades. In politics, representatives of left-wing parties see a means to trigger change, an opportunity to move away from the past, to change everything that is possible. The right looks at power as a way to maintain the necessary continuity.

Typically, one can also discern certain differences in attitude towards reality in general. The left often demonstrates a clear inclination towards all sorts of utopia and idealism, while their opponents are unambiguous realists and pragmatists. However, notorious right-wing fans can also be enthusiastic fanatics, albeit very dangerous ones.

Political difference

Left-wing politicians have long proclaimed themselves the defenders of people's interests and the sole representatives of trade unions, parties and associations of workers and peasants. The right, although they do not clearly express their contempt for the people, are adherents of the cult of their native land, the head of state, and devotion to the idea of ​​the nation. Ultimately, it is not for nothing that they are called exponents of national ideas (often they are prone to nationalism, authoritarianism and xenophobia), and their political opponents - the ideas of a republic. In practice, both sides can act both from democratic positions and use obvious totalitarian methods of influence.

The extreme form of rightism can be called rigidly centralized (for example, and leftism is rabid anarchism, which strives to destroy any power in general.

Economic difference

Left-wing political views are characterized by a rejection of capitalism. Their bearers are forced to put up with it, since they still trust the state more than the market. They welcome nationalization with delight, but look at privatization with deepest regret.

Those politicians with right-wing views believe that the market is the fundamental factor in the development of the state and the economy in general throughout the world. Naturally, capitalism is met with enthusiasm in this environment, and all kinds of privatizations are met with harsh criticism and rejection. This does not prevent a nationalist from being a supporter of a strong state and strengthening the public sector in various spheres of the economy, and a person with leftist views from being a libertarian (a supporter of the freest possible market). However, the main theses remain generally unshakable: the idea of ​​a strong state is on the left, and free market relations are on the right; the planned economy is on the left, and competition and competition is on the right.

Differences in ethical views

Left and right political views also differ in their views on the former, who advocate anthropocentrism and traditional humanism. The latter proclaim the ideas of a common ideal that would dominate an individual person. This is where the roots of the inherent religiosity of the majority of the right and the atheism of the left lie. Another difference is the importance of nationalism for the former and the need for internationalism and cosmopolitanism for the latter.

I received a request for clarification of details:

Today in politics it is customary to divide all political forces into right, left and center, but it will be useful to know what is called, where the legs grow, and also who they are. There are two versions of history:

According to one of them, the German one - the historical division of parties into right, left and center began in the mid-nineteenth century, from 1848, when another wave of revolutions swept Europe, and in particular Germany, in which revolutionaries gathered in the large German trading city of Frankfurt, where They chose the all-German Frankfurt Parliament, which met in the gigantic Cathedral of Peter and Pal, in which a variety of parties gathered. Since there were hundreds of deputies, it was necessary to seat them according to some principle. And this problem was solved - by placing supporters of similar political programs next to each other - on the right, traditionalist conservatives, monarchists, - on the left, more progressive and modernist-minded people, democrats, etc... The then liberals, the main new political opposition to the government at that time, settled down in the center strength... At least the Germans think so about the emergence of a division between right and left...

True, there is another, more realistic point of view on this, that this dates back to the French Revolution:

"More than two centuries ago thundered French revolution, which overthrew the monarchy and established a republican form of government. 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 of the People's Assembly, and in order to avoid squabbles between them, they grouped together. It just so happened that the Jacobins chose their seats on the left (Gauche), and their opponents - the Girondins - on the contrary (Droit). Since then, it has become the custom that political forces advocating radical changes public life, became left. 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."

And so it went - the right - traditionalist-conservatives, the left - more progressive reformists-innovators... And at the end of the 19th century, the social and even socialist aspect was added to the progressive ones - for the rights of the working class - working people.... Now in brief in each of the directions:

Historically the left is more pro-interest ordinary people - for example, they demand an increase in taxes on the rich, and vice versa, greater social support by the state for the poor... For example, in Germany, the Left Party demands an increase in the minimum wage for people...
And also for limiting the rights of entrepreneurs, introducing certain state rules for doing business and entrepreneurial activities in the country in order to avoid the exploitation of workers and speculation, which in the worst cases leads to economic collapse and crises..
On the other hand, today's European "new left" also advocates for the rights of not only people, but also children, sexual minorities and even animals. In what ways do they quite merge with the liberals...
Previously, the most important “radical left” were communists - who dreamed of building communism - heaven on earth for all people... The left is traditionally a big supporter of all reforms and transformations... And also the left usually advocates internationalism, does not support wars, and tries to limit military -industrial lobby.

Right-wing parties are traditionally considered more conservative, defending national and religious traditions and interests, and providing support to the family and pursuing family policy... On the other hand, the right is more aligned with big capital, international corporations and oligarchs, and therefore, for example, they traditionally try to raise taxes on the middle class and ordinary citizens, while lowering taxation for high-income earners and large firms and corporations... In general, one of the basic policies of the right is making it easier to do business in the country, removing various bureaucratic restrictions - in short, a liberal approach to the economy. The ultra-right, for example, in the 20th century were fascists and national socialists, who in their defense of traditions went so far as to destroy their political opponents and even other states... Also, the right traditionally more easily participates in wars and military conflicts, sending contingents of their troops, especially if you take colonial, say in Africa ..

Other classifications
It is clear that these are only very conditional definitions, and within each direction there are many other divisions - for example, on the right into monarchists, conservatives, and the same economic liberals, as well as nationalists. The left also has “classics” - social democrats and radical left communists, but there is also a “liberal wing” - greens, environmentalists, and also anarchists in general who do not recognize any state at all...

Centrists, or centrist parties, try to combine in themselves all those elements of right and left parties, which I already mentioned earlier. But at the same time, centrist parties are still divided into right and left centrists.
A good example of such a centrist policy is the German social system and the model of social liberal economy - combining contains both elements of a planned economy and social security for citizens according to the Soviet model, and elements capitalist liberal model, albeit with obvious restrictions on the capabilities of firms by the state...
Usually in European countries there are two basic centrist parties, although it is true that one is slightly more left-wing - social, and the other is slightly more right-wing - conservative. In Germany, for example, these are Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, and in France, they are Socialists and Republicans.
Previously, such dualism gave democratic systems a certain stability - either one big party was in power, and the other was in opposition, then they next elections swapped places... Only some time ago, roughly from the beginning of the 90s, the system began to malfunction, about which later

Despite the fact that on both flanks in every conventionally democratic country there are also radicals- In Russia, we will say this: the Communists and Udaltsov’s “Left Front” and the right-wing banned party DPNI (movement against illegal immigration), and various neo-Nazi parties and movements like the “Russians” of Dmitry Dyomushkin. In Germany, for example, this is the Left Party, and on the other hand, the Alternative for Germany, as well as the neo-Nazis of their NPD, the National Democratic Party. Radicals' programs are usually less realistic and more populist in nature, and under normal conditions in the country they have no chance of coming to power by winning elections. But during major state crises, of course, there were precedents when one or another political radical right or left force broke through to the levers of power...
For example, Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 took place precisely against the backdrop of economic depression and crisis, and a couple of years ago the party of left socialists in Greece, Syriza, won the last elections and strengthened the position of its head of government, Alexis Tsipras, again against the backdrop of terrible impoverishment and economic disasters in the homeland of the Hellenes...

No clear boundaries
With all this, the truth is that today in the world of parties and ideologies there are no longer such clear boundaries of division, they are now very blurred, and let’s say Hollande’s French socialists may well start a war in Mali for uranium, and the right-wing Christian Democrats under Merkel, on the contrary, are refraining from operations in Libya. Or let's say the German Chancellor Merkel, as the leader of the right, advocates for increasing the welfare of citizens and adopts a law on the minimum wage, while the left in France is the opposite. There is an obvious paradox - the right behaves like the left, the left behaves like the right, there is a strong shift in positions...
Moreover, on the one hand, the programs of all the centrist conditional right and left parties begin to resemble each other more and more - the differences are erased, and the people no longer understand how one actually differs from the other - as a result, both parties begin to greatly lose votes to other parties, and The political system is becoming more and more unstable... Good example- Austria, where, not for the first time, two centrist parties together barely gained half the votes in parliament at the last elections, and then once again concluded a coalition with each other. Which people are already tired of.. And now their rating has fallen further, and most likely right-wing radicals will rule in the next elections...

Appeared during the Great French Revolution. Then in the National on the left sat the Jacobins, who were for radical changes, in the center were the Girdonists, who were republics, and on the right were the Feuillants, supporters of a constitutional monarchy. Thus, radicals and reformers were initially considered to be on the left, and conservatives were considered to be on the right.

Today, the concepts of left and right in politics are interpreted differently.

Which directions in politics are classified as left and which ones are classified as right?

The left today includes ideologies and movements that advocate social equality and bridging the gap between the rich and... These include socialists, social democrats, communists, as well as such extreme manifestations as anarchists. The basic values ​​for the left since the time of the French Revolution have been “Liberty, equality, fraternity.”

The right advocates ideas that are directly opposed to the left. They advocate the supremacy of the individual, which gives rise to natural inequality. Their core values ​​include freedom of enterprise and political freedom. Today, there is a wide variety of political views that fall under the right wing. These are conservatives, libertarians, totalitarians, ultra-rightists, etc.

According to another approach, the rightists include supporters of the current political system and supporters of the current elites. The leftist movement is based on the ideology of opposing power.

Of course, the division of society into right and left in the face of diversity of political ideas and views is no longer suitable for describing modern realities. Thus, a person may have beliefs that in one particular industry will be on the side of the left (for example, in terms of views on the structure), and in relation to the current elite - on the right.

Difference between left and right movement

The difference between right and left movement is manifested in the following parameters. This is an attitude towards the structure of society - if the right believes that the division of society into classes is a normal phenomenon, while the left advocates for universal equality and does not accept social stratification and exploitation.

The attitude towards property, which underlies these movements, is also different. Thus, the left advocates nationalization and collective ownership. While for the right, private property is one of the basic values, they advocate maintaining the status quo of the current economic system.

For the left, the strengthening and centralization of the state is unacceptable, while for the right this is completely acceptable and acceptable.

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 the 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 “La Marseillaise,” which became the national anthem, contains 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 of the People's Assembly, and in order to avoid squabbles between them, they grouped together. 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. The right takes the opposite position; 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 abolition of what 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. Populism plays a huge role in determining the political course today (especially during election periods), to the detriment of traditional platforms.

Left-wing political parties, namely liberals, voted in favor of providing financial assistance to 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 that concerns 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 it, the right bloc cannot do without “Unity and Fatherland”, “Union of Right Forces”, “Yabloko”, “Party of Economic Freedom”, “Choice of Russia” and many others who stand for the liberalization of all forms of relations.

Thus, the camp of political parties of the same orientation may also have their 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 - complete ban private enterprise

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.

Left in Ukraine

Ukrainian left and right parties are constantly confronting each other. During the entire existence of the independent state, only supporters of market reforms were in power, 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 opposing the aggressive nationalist government.

Who is considered right and who is left

So, the understanding of “leftism” and “rightism” in the Western world and post-Soviet countries differs significantly. Currently, Ukrainian “right-wingers” have the opportunity to punish fellow citizens who dared to tie a St. George’s ribbon on their sleeve on Victory Day, 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 the general At the same time, European left and right parties differ only in the colors of the party flags, some program items and names.