The political life of a democratic society and state is built on the principles of liberalism, which presupposes the presence of different points of view on key issues facing the country and the world. The difference in views manifests itself both in the economy and in other areas of life. The division of political movements into “right”, “left” and “centrist” is generally accepted throughout the world. How do the polar sides of these relationships differ from each other and how do their views manifest themselves?
"Rights"(in politics) – socio-political movements and ideologies that advocate the preservation of the existing regime, against drastic reforms and revision of property issues. The specific preferences of such groups will vary depending on region and culture, as well as time. Thus, at the beginning of the 19th century, American “right-wing” politicians advocated for the preservation of slavery, and at the beginning of the 21st century, they opposed the implementation of “medical reform”, which would make services available to the poorest segments of the population.
"Left"(in politics) is the antipode of the “right”, a collective name for ideologies advocating a change in the political regime, carrying out large-scale reforms and the establishment of social equality. These include communism, socialism, anarchy, social democracy, as well as other political doctrines. At all times, “left” politicians demand justice in its literal sense, that is, not so much the provision of equal opportunities as the provision of equal results.
Difference
Traditional names of political camps appeared during the French bourgeois revolution. This was due to the location of party representatives in Parliament. However, the division of political ideologies into “right” and “left” is rather conditional and relative, since it does not provide a comprehensive idea of the structure of society and the state. It is very important to take into account the spatio-temporal context and specific culture.
For example, the idea of removing the church from government in the 15th and 16th centuries was considered seditious. Those who actively advocated it and supported market values could be considered leftists. Several centuries passed, and this ideology became dominant. Today, ardent proponents of market values who advocate natural inequality are considered “right-wing” and are forced to compete with numerous “left-wing” parties.
The most important issue dividing the two political camps is the attitude towards property. If the “right” very actively advocate maintaining the status quo, then the “left” is always ready to “take away and divide.” The second issue is power and its concentration. For the “left,” the centralization of the state and the concentration of powers in one hand looks like a bad scenario for the development of the state, while for the “right” this is quite natural. The third issue is the hierarchy of society. For the “left” inequality looks unacceptable, while for the “right” it looks natural and normal.
Conclusions website
- Social structure. The “right” stands for hierarchy, the division of society into certain groups and classes, the “left” stands for universal equality, where each subject is endowed with equal rights.
- Attitude to property. The “right” idolizes private property and ardently advocates its protection; the “left” is close to another position: nationalization and socialization.
- Attitude to power. The “right” likes strong power and hierarchy, the “left” needs pluralism, respect for all points of view.
- Human rights and freedoms. Many far-right ideologies are demonstratively against democracy, and for all “left” movements its postulates are natural and necessary.
RIGHT/LEFT (DROIT/GAUCHE). As a child, I once asked my father what it meant for a politician to be right or left. “To be right,” he replied, “means to dream of the greatness of France. To be left is to dream of happiness for the French.” I don’t know if he came up with this wording himself. He did not have any special love for the French, as well as for the rest of humanity, and often repeated that we do not live on this earth in order to be happy. Therefore, in his mouth, the definition clearly sounded like the credo of right-wing forces - that’s why he liked it. However, a supporter of the left could just as easily adopt it, focusing not on the first, but on the second part of it - and I personally like this definition. “France, greatness! All these are dangerous abstractions, our leftist politician would say. “The happiness of the French is another matter - this is a truly worthy goal.” Still, the above definition cannot be considered complete. Moreover, this is not a definition at all, since neither greatness nor happiness can belong to someone.
A lot of time passed, and now my own children began, in turn, to ask me the same question. I tried my best to answer them, trying to emphasize the fundamental differences, in my opinion. It seems to me that the deliberate division into “white and black” in this case helps to more clearly recognize the essence of the phenomenon, although such “binary” logic, imposed on us by the majoritarian principle itself, of course, does not correspond either to the complexity of the concept or to the real fluctuations in the political position of existing forces. It may be that the same idea enjoys support in each of the opposing camps (for example, the idea of a federal Europe, shared by both today's right and left), or even migrates from one camp to another (for example, the national idea, in the 19th century) century, proclaimed by the left, in the 20th century it noticeably “corrected”). But does this mean that it is time for us to abandon the principle of division into right and left, deeply rooted in the democratic tradition since 1789 (everyone knows that it was based on a purely spatial factor: deputies of the Constituent Assembly, representing opposing parties, were seated on the right or to the left of the chairman of the meeting) and still leaves such a vivid imprint on all political debates of a democratic society? Maybe this principle is really outdated and it’s time to replace it with something else? Such attempts have already been made. In 1948, Charles de Gaulle declared that the opposition was not between right and left, but between those at the top with an overview and those “hanging around below, wallowing in the swamp.” In my opinion, this is a typically right-wing approach, like any other, reflecting the same attempt to dilute the substantive meaning of the opposition between right and left, an opposition that is undoubtedly schematic, but useful as an effective tool for structuring and clarifying the concept. Is there today at least one political scientist, at least one politician who can do without him? However, Alain gave an answer to this question back in 1930: “When people ask me whether it makes sense these days to divide parties and individual politicians into right and left, the first thought that comes to my mind is this: the person who asks this question certainly does not belong to the left” (Speech dated December 1930). Personally, I react to such questions in the same way, and this forces me to search for differences between right and left, no matter how vague and relative they may seem.
First the difference lies in the field of sociology. The left represents those layers of the population that in sociology are usually called popular, in other words, the poorest (or least rich) people who have no (or almost no) property; those whom Marx called proletarians, and today we prefer to call hired workers, that is, people living on wages. It is much easier for the right, which by necessity draws some resources from these strata (which is not surprising, since the latter represent the overwhelming majority of the population), to find a common language with independent individuals, no matter living in the city or in the countryside, but owning land or means of production (own store , workshop, enterprise, etc.), with those who force others to work for themselves or work themselves, but not for the owner, but for themselves. This gives us the first dividing line, passing, as it were, between two peoples, or two poles, on one of which the poor peasants and hired workers are concentrated, and on the other - the bourgeoisie, landowners, management cadres, representatives of the liberal professions, owners of industrial and commercial enterprises , including small ones. Between these two worlds there are countless intermediate states (the notorious “middle classes”) and there is a constant flow from camp to camp (defectors and doubters). The border between them is by no means impenetrable, and the further we go, the more fluid it becomes, but it does not completely disappear. Neither of the two camps has a monopoly on the expression of the interests of a particular class, which is obvious (we all remember well that the National Front in its ominous heyday was on the way to becoming the largest workers' party in France), but nevertheless ignore the sociological aspect of the problem is completely impossible. Even though the right regularly wins over some of the poorest votes, it has never been able, at least in France, to really penetrate deeply into the labor trade union movement. On the other hand, no more than 20% of landowners and business owners vote for the left. In both the first and second cases, it is quite difficult for me to see this as a simple coincidence.
Second the difference is rather historical. Since the French Revolution, the left has consistently advocated the most radical changes and proposed the most far-reaching plans. The present never fully satisfies them, not to mention the past; they are always for revolution or reform (of course, there is more leftism in revolution than in reforms). This is how the left expresses its commitment to progress. As for the right, while never opposing progress (who is against progress?), they rather demonstrate a tendency to defend what exists, and even, as history shows, to restore what was. So, on the one hand, the party of movement, on the other, the party of order, conservatism and reaction. Again, let’s not forget about the shades and nuances between one and the other, which is especially characteristic of the last period (the desire of the left to protect achieved achievements often takes precedence over reformism, just as the desire of the right for liberal reforms sometimes prevails over their conservatism ). At the same time, no shades or transitions can blur the direction of the main vector. The left stands mainly for progress. The present bores them, the past weighs them down, they, as they say in the Internationale, are ready to destroy the whole world “to the ground.” The right is more conservative. The past seems to them primarily as a heritage that must be preserved, but not as a heavy burden. The present, in their opinion, is quite acceptable, and if the future resembles it, then this is more good than bad. In politics, the left sees primarily a means of possible change, while the right sees it as a way to maintain the necessary continuity. The difference between the left and the right lies in their attitude to time, which reveals a fundamentally different attitude towards real and imaginary reality. The left demonstrates a clear, sometimes dangerous, penchant for utopia. The right has a penchant for realism. On the left there is more idealism, on the right there is more concern for practical benefits. This does not prevent a supporter of the left from showing common sense, or a representative of the right from having lofty ideals. But it will be very, very difficult for both to convince their camp comrades that they are right.
Third the difference has a lot to do with politics. The left proclaims itself to be spokesmen for popular interests and representatives of popular institutions (parties, trade unions, associations), the main one of which is parliament. The right, without openly expressing contempt for the people, is still more committed to the concept of the Nation with a capital letter, the Fatherland, the cult of the native land or the head of state. The left can be considered the exponents of the idea of a republic, the right - the exponents of the national idea. The left easily falls into demagoguery, the right into nationalism, xenophobia or authoritarianism. This does not prevent either of them from speaking in practice from clearly democratic positions, and sometimes from leaning towards totalitarianism. However, each of the movements has its own dreams, and each of them is haunted by its own demons.
The fourth difference lies in the economic sphere. The left rejects capitalism and tolerates it only because it is forced to do so. They trust the state more than the market. They greet nationalization with delight, privatization with regret. With the right, the situation is exactly the opposite (at least these days): they rely not on the state, but on the market, and it is for this reason that they welcome capitalism. They agree to nationalization only under strong pressure and strive for privatization at the first opportunity. Again, this does not prevent a person of left-wing views from being a liberal, even in matters of economics (for example, such was Alain), and a person of right-wing views from being a statist and advocating for strengthening the public sector in the economy (such was de Gaulle). But in general this difference, which concerns fundamental principles, remains unshakable. A strong state is located on the left, the market is on the right. Economic planning is on the left, competition and free competition is on the right.
It is not difficult to notice that over the past few years in the field of economics the right has won a convincing victory over the left, at least in theory. Jospin's government privatized more enterprises than the governments of Juppé and Balladur (though, to its credit, it boasted much less of its successes), and today only the ultra-left still dares to propose the nationalization of any enterprise. In these circumstances, one can only be surprised that in the sphere of politics the left manages to quite successfully resist the right, and even gain the upper hand on many issues. Here it must be said that sociology itself plays into the hands of the left (among the population there are more and more of those who live on wages, and fewer and fewer of those who have independent sources of livelihood). The gains of the left provided them with a solid “capital of sympathy” from the broad masses of the population. Freedom of association, income tax, paid vacations - all these are “inventions” of the left, which no one even thinks of challenging today. Another innovation, the wealth tax, also came about through the efforts of the left; the right, for their part, made an attempt to abolish it, and when it failed, they had no choice but to bite their fingers in frustration. Today there is no longer a single entrepreneur who would dare to encroach on a 35-hour work week. The left has indeed achieved a lot, and its defeat in theory (needs reflection: leftist beliefs, as Coluche rightly noted (201) , do not free one from the need to be smart) is compensated by a kind of moral or spiritual victory over the right. I would like to write that all our values today are of a leftist nature, since they are based on independence from wealth, the market, national interests and despise borders and traditions, bowing before humanity and progress. But this, of course, would be an exaggeration. Nevertheless, many people, especially among intellectuals, remain leftists and do so primarily for moral reasons. Belonging to the right is explained more by self-interest or economic interests. “What makes you think that you have a monopoly on human feelings!” - a certain right-wing politician exclaimed during one of the sensational debates, addressing his socialist opponent. The very fact that he started talking about feelings speaks volumes. Not a single figure in the leftist movement would ever appeal to this argument, since the “leftist” nature of human feelings, including those manifested in politics, seems obvious and self-evident to everyone without exception. Hence the strange asymmetry observed in political debate, at least in France. You will never find, no matter how hard you try, a single left-wing politician who will deny his leftism or question the fairness of the division into left and right. Conversely, there are countless right-wingers who foam at the mouth and convince us that this division has long lost its meaning, and France, as one of them recently said, needs centrist leadership. The thing is that being on the left is perceived as a virtue: the left usually has a reputation as a noble, compassionate, selfless party. Belonging to the right, while falling short of a vice, is nevertheless regarded as something base: the right is by default selfish, heartless towards the weak, possessed by a thirst for profit, etc. From a political point of view, this, of course, sounds naive, but it cannot be denied that such an asymmetry exists. A person declares his leftism with pride. He admits to being “right-wing.”
All of the above brings us to the last of the differences I would like to highlight. They are rather of a philosophical, psychological or cultural nature, clashing not so much social forces as mentalities, and manifesting themselves not so much in programs as in behavior, not so much in plans of action as in values. The left's arsenal includes such ideals as equality, freedom of morals, secular character of society, protection of the weak, even if they have done something wrong, internationalism, the right to free time and rest (paid holidays, minimum retirement age of 60 years, 35-hour working week), compassion for others and solidarity. The trump cards of the right are personal success, freedom of enterprise, religiosity, hierarchy, security, love of the Motherland and family, hard work, perseverance, competition and a sense of responsibility. What about justice? Both declare themselves fighters for justice, but the concept of justice for both is diametrically opposed. From a leftist perspective, justice is primarily equality; they dream that people are equal not only legally, but also in fact. This is why the left so easily gravitates toward equalization. Their credo is to each according to his needs. If a person is lucky enough to be born smarter than others, to receive a better education, to have a more interesting or more prestigious job, why on earth, one might ask, should he also claim greater material well-being? However, in almost all countries today only the extreme left adheres to this position. The rest are reconciled with the existing state of affairs, although this is difficult for them. Any inequality in the eyes of a leftist appears suspicious or reprehensible; he tolerates it due to the impossibility of intervening; if it were his will, not a trace of inequality would remain. According to the right, justice is based on punishment and reward. Equality of rights is necessary, but it cannot eliminate inequalities of talent or personal achievement. Why shouldn't the most capable or the most industrious be richer than the rest? Why don't they make a fortune? And why shouldn’t their children have the right to take advantage of what their parents have accumulated? From a right-wing perspective, justice is less about equality and more about proportion. This is why the right so ardently supports elitism and the principle of selection. Their credo is to each according to his merits. Should the weak be protected? Perhaps, but not to such an extent as to encourage weakness and, on the contrary, to deprive the most enterprising, the most talented and the richest of incentives.
All of these are just tendencies that can coexist not only in the same person, but also in the same current of thought (for example, the Gospel parable about the rich young man reflects the left-wing worldview, and the parable about the talents reflects the right-wing worldview). At the same time, these trends seem clear enough to me for everyone to be able to identify with them. Such polarization is driven by the very need for democracy among the majority, and instead of pretending that it does not exist, it is much wiser to accept it as a given. This, of course, does not mean that this or that party, this or that political figure who considers himself to be left or right, is obliged to share all, without exception, the views characteristic of one of the movements. Each of us chooses our own path between these two poles, takes our own position, accepts certain compromises, and establishes our own balance of power. You can profess leftist beliefs while remaining a supporter of a strong family, security and hard work. It is possible to adhere to right-wing views without at all rejecting the need for reforms and defending the secular nature of society. Right and left, we repeat, are two poles, but life does not happen only at the poles. They exist in the form of two trends, but following one does not at all exclude the influence of the other. What is better - to be able to use both hands with equal dexterity or to be a one-armed disabled person? The answer is obvious.
And finally, the last thing. Whether defending left or right views, one must do so wisely. And this is the most difficult thing. But also the most important thing. The mind does not belong to any one of the two camps. That's why we need both - with all the differences that separate them.
Notes
201 . Coluche (1944-1986) - real name Michel Coluchi; French comedian. Since 1973, he hosted the TV show “Farewell to Music Hall.”
Comte-Sponville Andre. Philosophical Dictionary / Transl. from fr. E.V. Golovina. – M., 2012, p. 422-428.
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 the terminology and category of political science, political practice, political vocabulary. We'll look into this. Vardan Ernestovich Bagdasaryan begins.
Vardan Baghdasaryan: If we say “right” and “left,” then the question naturally 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.
Socially there is indeed 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 the traditional polarization is dispersed at opposite poles, and, despite the fact that all political science textbooks describe the model of the 18th century, when divided into right and left, the humanities need a certain methodological visa, and this visa should consist of rethinking 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 appeared first, then much later the 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 confirmed by the events of the October Revolution, to which he seems to be appealing, and in general by all the historical events that occurred over 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-wingers have a slightly different attitude towards all this - this is the nationalization of 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 introduced to the State Duma another bill on social justice, leveling to a large extent the economic situation of people, that is, sort of 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 now right and left are part of political doctrines, political slogans, political statements of parties, which very easily change their appearance and become from right to left not when they seize power, because we have had power for a long time captured by one party, and then when the political situation changes, or when you need 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 know of only one famous person who remained a 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 want to bring some logic to the methodology for finding an answer to the question of 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 a descriptive one - sticking labels, but an opportunity to obtain 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.
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, the French Revolution thundered, overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republican form of government. In “Marseillaise,” which became the national anthem, there are the words “aristocrats on a lantern” - in the sense of a noose around their neck. But democracy is democracy, and parliamentarians with hostile They sat down in one spacious hall of the People's Assembly, and in order to avoid any altercations 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 a tradition that political forces advocating radical changes in social life have become left-wing. 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 the 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 a social liberal economy - combining contains both elements of a planned economy and social security of 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 swapped places at the next elections... Only some time ago, roughly from the beginning of the 90s, the system began to fail, 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 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... A good example is Austria, where, not for the first time, two centrist parties together barely gained half the votes in parliament in the last elections, and immediately concluded a coalition with each other once again. 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...
As a person who considers himself to be on the moderate right, I completely disagree with the answers given above.
To begin with, it should immediately be said that the division into “right” and “left” is very arbitrary. Some don't recognize it at all. Therefore, it is impossible to draw a clear line between ideologies. Now let's move on to the comparison:
Main ideologies of the left:
-Socialism
-Communism
-Social Democrats
The left also includes greens, feminists, and anarchists.
Main ideologies of the right:
-Liberals
-Conservatives
-Monarchists
-Nationalists
Left Economics:
-Negative attitude towards capitalism and market economies (mostly)
-Many ideologies do not recognize private property or allow its restrictions
Right-wing economics:
-Capitalism, market economy
-Acceptance of private property as one of the foundations of a free society
Main views of the left:
-Collectivism
-Equality
-Internationalism
-Progressivism (often utopian. Example - communism or anarchy)
-Acceptable attitude towards interference in personal life and property
-Protection of minorities
Main views of the right:
-Individualism
-Freedom
-Orientation towards your culture and people
-Caution towards sudden changes
-Unacceptability of interference in personal life
-Non-interference in minority politics
In the end, I will repeat once again that this division is not unambiguous. Different political scientists identify different criteria. At the same time, a person who considers himself to be one of the parties does not necessarily have to accept all the postulates.
P.S. And I would like to draw your attention separately to the phrase given above. “Left-wing views are mainly held by wealthy and educated people, while right-wing views are held on the contrary.” This is a completely one-sided, primitive and even stupid statement. It is absolutely unacceptable to judge a person by his sympathy for the right or left forces. This one phrase offends millions of people, including such famous figures of their time as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke (who made enormous contributions to the understanding of state and law), Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle, Otto von Bismarck and hundreds of other great people . At the same time, history shows that the same communists or anarchists for the most part came from poor, poorly educated layers of the population, which in no way agrees with the above phrase.
P.P.S. The problem is that many people incorrectly perceive the division into right and left. They don’t understand which ideology belongs to one side or the other. Therefore, the “right” is often mistakenly reduced to purely Nazis or aggressive nationalists, which is fundamentally wrong. In relation to the ultra-right and ultra-left, one can say one thing: “something is shit, what is this shit” (c) Escobar.