Topic: Can someone please explain "right", "left", "far-left", "far-right" etc whatnot? (Read 226 times)

Um, no? If you define "conservative" as being in favor of a stronger national defense and a stable, law-abiding government, these days the Democratic party in the US is the one that's mostly in favor of that, and the Republican party is mostly against that.

What got "mixed up" is that the parties just reversed themselves in the last 15 years. Republicans are now calling for the regulation of industries that make their voters angry, along with all sorts of things that are not traditionally "conservative". The term might have meaning academically, but it doesn't relate to anything in the real world anymore, at least in the US.


What the Nazis, the Soviets, Chinese Communists, and a bunch of other regimes showed the world is that the ideology was just window dressing for a dictatorship. And once you have a dictatorship, what "the people" think is meaningless. And the new versions of those regimes in Russia and China shows that the dictators there don't really care about any coherent ideology outside of remaining dictators.

Now, if you want to talk about democracies, that's a different story. But I would argue that here in the US our two political parties have mostly or entirely abandoned their traditional ideology in favor of promoting whatever it is that gets them elected.

According to my own definition? This doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you got those terms mixed up?

This sounds like a Qanon dog whistle or something. It's too ambiguous to try to deconstruct as apparently you are hinting that only "know" what's really going on.
Left and Right are perfectly suitable terms for most first world governments.

And what does "not driven by any sort of ideology, or ideological spectrum" means?
What are every tax that's used to build for common good, or worker's rights a result of then? Why do they even exist if not because of ideology? Even if a country would be ran by companies without any any restricting laws, it would be considered as ideology. And parties are supposed to be representations of ideologies.

The slogan "left" and "right" in politics is as confusing to me as it is to the OP, I've never really understood the concepts, I even get more confused when I try to learn about them, this should be because we don't use those terms in my county's political parties, neither have I heard it used in any other African countries. Perhaps the terms are no longer popular and that is why many countries don't adopt it, instead the names of political parties in many countries signifies what they stand for. In my country we have LP labour party, PDP people's democratic party and APC action progressive congress, this names are self explanatory, just like Democrats and Republicans, in the US.

Sure, based on certain attributes, you can create any sort of grouping. But under your definition here, in the USA, the Republican party is mostly "leftist" these days. And Democrats are often "conservative" (viz. their support of Ukraine or opposing Trump's corruption).

In the US at least (I don't know much about other countries), I tell people to just use the terms, "Democrat" and "Republican" because that's what drives the politics here, not some ideological made up in France in the 1800s.

And it's also worth understanding the history after they made up those terms in France: the "leftist" regimes of Europe and Asia (Russia, China, etc.) basically became... corrupt dictatorships that had nothing to do with ideology. Today, Putin is neither "left" nor "right", he's just... Putin. Same with China, North Korea, and so on. None of these dictators care anything about any ideology, they just do what they do each day to stay in power.

Most modern governments are not driven by any sort of ideology, or ideological spectrum, so if you want to understand what is really going on, it's best not to use big buckets like "left" and "right" because it will give you invalid results.

While it is a spectrum, those words still hold meaning in any country that has a working democratic government, because they basically still are grouping same values as they did in france where it started.

From the values standpoint, Right is still heading for the monarchy in terms of finances and conservatism in terms of values. And left for distributed power and progressivism. These ideologies affect economy and how taxes are spent.

There's an authoritarian-democratic axel as well and higher we get on authoritarian with that axel, more left and right start to lose meaning, as democratic government itself loses meaning. But when we still operate in democratic country, left and right have meaning. Constitution and other laws are there to keep any radical changes somewhat moderate, and countries more stable so that no one party or one man can corrupt everything.

There are people who are technically outside of this spectrum, because they only serve themselves, not the political parties or countries. But if we had to choose, serving yourself is far closer to far right, as it's closer to monarchy. And if outcome is what far right wants, their policies are often called far right, even if these people themselves wouldn't be far right or far left.

And you were oversimplifying it. Fascist right wants state surveillance and censor opposition as well, like they have done it in the past. Current far right is very much echoing same arguments from the past.

But here you underscore the futility of using the "left right spectrum" to understanding politics. It simply doesn't work these days. Trump has shown he will support absolutely anything if it means getting elected, even if it's an anathema to so-called "conservatives" or those on the political "right".

As I said in my original reply to this question: do not use "left" and "right". These terms are old and outdated, and will only confuse people.

Hold on, putin isn't left or right, he is outside of political spectrum. Even if he once was part of a country that called itself communist, there's nothing left of that expect corruption.

He only wants power, and total control just like trump, that's why trump praises him, because he wants to be him. More handsome with total control and power and more people praising him. Less regulations or opposition. That's why he has praising most authoritarians.

Putin is also a dictator who is mostly praised by far right and conservatives, as he has "traditional" values that appeals more to right wing with conservative values then left, with progressive values. He also wants to use political extremists and trolls for his gains, which ever would suite him, but mostly he aligns with values of right wingers. This confuses people to think that he is either left or right. He is outside of it, and nothing but a dictator who has personal interests in mind, not the citizens.

The most left possible is Communismus, total State control
The most right possible is Natural Law, everyone governs him/herself (Contract law)

There is something I do not fully understand about the political compass and its application to know where one stands in terms of politics. For some time I had taken that test in a serious manner and used it to define where I fit the best and where others also fit the best. But it came a time where people started to treat that test as a meme and lacking of any actual utility for people who are interested in politics, I do not know why.
You may even recall seeking people mocking the political compass test on YouTube or on Twitter/X, while others used their political compass result on their profile pictures, not sure whether ironically or without irony, though.
Perhaps some people believe it is not possible to define the political ideas or personality of one based simply on an internet test...

Define it for yourself:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/en

It makes me think of this image



Distinguishing right - left, is similar to seeing white - black, and inside the white part there is black part. So no matter which side, the element of balance always exists and maintains everything in life.

Inherently, the nuances in life are expressed as themselves, and the distinction is imposed by choice (the object here is people). Anyway, if OP, no matter which side you choose, there will be an opposite balance, I see the truth in life of distinguishing between dualities as a way of complicating perspectives.

Left is socialism. It's government like many European countries, where you pay a lot of taxes, and government supports a lot of what you want in life - medical, dental, hospitalization, whatever.

Right is less socialism, where you get to keep a lot of your money - fewer taxes - but you buy a lot of your own 'stuff' - if you want it.

A decent summary. Far-anything tend also to be totalitarian.

The problem on this is that is very unlikely that a party can reflect well all your points of view - so you may be in favour of a stronger immigration policy, while not really wanting to cut on subsidies, would like to support Ukraine but not necessarily keep a big government... And to make it more complex, you may not be religious and would rather be socially liberal... or the opposite, but be socially progressist.

So, "left" is like more progressive and into social equality, while "right" is more about limited government and traditional stuff. "Far-left" goes really extreme on change, often with socialist ideas, and "far-right" is super conservative and might be into nationalism.
Learning these political terms can give you a handle on different views, but what really matters is what you personally believe in. You don't have to squeeze into one box. People use labels to talk about politics, but keep in mind, these tags are like big stickers that don't show all the details of what someone really thinks. What's important is you are doing your research and youre not into fake news.

I think that would be a vision from a very narrow perspective (US I am guessing). No, the further you are either right or left, the more likely you are not happy with the form of government, unless your country is a dictatorship of the sign you prefer. The ends touch in this matter - radicalism is about imposition.

Usually, moderate left likes a strong, powerful and controlling government that can support wide social programmes and policies.

Not a problem! this is actually quite interesting for me

Imagine there is a straight line or a spectrum, let us say that liberalism would be in the middle this signifies balance between the left and the right as we know liberalism values equality of power for both the government and the people hence why it would be the balanced part of our spectrum 50/50 in a way

Now in our right would be the pro-government most of the power is held by the government like i said this is the spectrum so you could be in the right spectrum but this does not mean that all power is held by the government or just one entity however being far-right there would probably be totalitarianism wherein one person just decides everything that is to decide in a country

Now in the left of course would be the complete opposite this would be the anti-government the farther in the left you are, the radical you can consider yourself to be this spectrum holds political theories or values so if one says they are an extreme leftist then they are most likely talking about political ideology that does not really believe in the government’s power

That is correct, the state keeps the monopoly of violence as it is imposing a decision or law created by a majority (in participative regimes). You need to see if there are other tell-tale signs of the ones mentioned before: no discussion, imposition, vilification,... Otherwise is simply a society making sure they live by the rules they have choosen, not a minority trying to impose their monolithic views by means of violence.

If most people in your country wanted a dictator and you take arms... well, I guess you are defending the right to discuss things... not really extremist.

Well, nothing is perfect, but as said, something discussed and voted and applied legally is rarely extremist in my view.

The police "violently impose" when they enforce the law. I vote for their being the police to enforce laws, so indirectly I am "violently imposing" my viewpoint here.

I would also go to war to violently to impose my country's commitment to democracy, for instance, so we can all vote whether to have Obamacare or make abortion illegal or whatever.

My point is simply that "violently imposing your viewpoint" is something everybody does, so it's not very useful to call that "extremism"...

You would then be surprised to know that most thieves actually do go unpunished in most of their doings

I think the example would be right if you would be willing to violently impose your views on others on that topic. You do not need to as probably most people in your country are ok with private property. You are probably "open to discussion" in the sense that you can provide a social rationale to prevent theft.

Obamacare was not violently imposed nor opponents were classed (not name-called, but classed) as enemies , it is a decision of a democratic majority. If there is a massive abortion ban "imposed" by a majority, you may disagree, but it is not extremism. Note that is imposed on "God's word" - one of the tell tale signs of "not open to discussion", but it is not violently imposed and the enemies are not "to be killed" or sent to "ghettos".

In this case, extremists would go to abortion clinics and attack the doctors. That is extremism.

Look for violence or vilification of the opponents, that is usually a must. A simple disagreement is not enough.

Defining "right", "left", "far-left", "far-right" is quite simple on an overview level.

"far-left" and "far-right" are trying to destroy our society and want to install communism or fascism, reject democracy where people can vote.
"right", "left" are normal political views, where society is organised and democracy is held up, where people can vote.
"right" is more conservative values, like "we want to go back how we lived 20 years ago". .
"left" is more liberal values, like progress and more modern.

"Far right" likes killing Jews.
"Far left" like surveillance state.

Next, it is also important to know, "far-left" and "far-right" have also common ground. Both are waiting to destroy our society and it might be possible for a "far-left" dictator to join a "far-right" dictator to join forces to destroy a normal country, where no dictator is ruling just for both dictators to turn against after the normal country is destroyed.
When "far-left" and "far-right" join forces, it is called "horseshoe theory".

Not all points might apply every time.

An example:
Trump is far right because he attempted a coup on January 6 but luckily it failed.
Trump's hardcore supporters are a large part fan of fascism.
Trump is a good example of horseshoe theory because Trump likes Putin, who's a Russian communist, surveillance state fan and "far-left" dictator.

This probably suggests you are a 'centre' politics supporter. Like the majority of people
if its available in your country.

The centre is where a political party will appeal to most people because most people
are not extremist, a centre party will have policies which are taken from left and right
without the extreme elements.


Peoples views are very diverse, there has to be some form of political leadership otherwise
there would be chaos and because we are diverse in our outlooks and ideals there will be
political groups willing to feed these for better or worse


you have a view about racism, discrimination etc. which is very much like most of us around here
and in the majority but as about some people dont share those views and truth is one thing to
us and something different to others.

I think sometimes publications, journalists & media channels think it’s easy to discredit other people, whose views differ to theirs by branding them far-right/left. To be extreme left or extreme right is fairly rare & I think as a supposed insult or slur to target those who have a differing political stance is quite common. Most people lean slightly one way or the other. Left political views generally advocate for social equality, government intervention & progressive policies. Right political views often prioritise individual freedom, limited government intervention & traditional values. These ideological differences shape the approaches to various issues such as economic policies, social justice & the role of government in society.

But that definition of "extreme" doesn't tell you what you need to do.

And as far as that definition goes, I'll plug in one of my "extreme" beliefs: that we should punish stealing.

a) I'm not open to discuss this. If we let thieves go unpunished, we'll have rampant crime, and I don't want that.

b) If the majority of Americans suddenly thought stealing was okay, then I would do everything I could to stop that, so..

c) Yes, I call people who think stealing is okay... all kinds of mean things  .

Obviously I'm inventing a simplified example here, but I think you get the idea.

So for me, "extreme" doesn't actually tell you anything useful, except to point out where somebody sits in the current political spectrum within their political party.

You can also try to point at "extreme" policies, which wouldn't be defined on any kind of spectrum, but rather as a measurement of the aggregate change to all Americans (in our case). For instance, Obamacare was "extreme" because it changed pretty much everybody's health care insurance in the US, and just about all Americans have heath care--and the change to people's lives was significant in many cases. On the other side are the Republican crackdowns on abortion, which is a very big change to people's lifestyles and health. You can call both of these policies "extreme" in that sense.

With that definition you can grade the two political parties, overall, by the amount of change they each will make to the country, and you can call the one that will pass bigger changes for more people a more "extreme" party. But obviously that gets into a deep partisan discussion...

If you care more about whether something works rather than if it fits some ideology, you'd be called a pragmatist in political science.  Pragmatists make choices by looking at the potential results instead of worrying about sticking to strict rules or principles.

Pragmatic voters are often seen as being more centrist or moderate than ideological voters.  So, "left" and "right" does not apply to you.

You will most likely find you do not fit exactly in any of these.

As far as right and left:

- "Right" tends to focus on individual rights, social stability understood as immobility of classes (conservatives) and usually free markets and small states (liberal).
- "Left" tends to focus in the social rights, the collective progress and distributing wealth (even if not necessarily by merit).

This is the simplest explanation I can come up with.


This is an interesting point. You define what is extreme in relation to the current state of  opinion, so Trump will effectively be a mainstream republican.

I like working this in a different manner: for me extremism happens when two or three of these are there:

a) You are not open for a discussion on the ideas - e.g. they are God given or they are the only truth and anyone saying anything slightly different is wrong "by definition".
b) You are willing to impose those ideas, even if it means breaking the consensus, passing over large numbers of people's rights, demoting a rightful government,...
c) People opposing are no longer opponents, worthy of respect, but rather "enemies" or "infidels" or "traitors" or ...

Under this definition, Trump is not mainstream, is he?

You will notice that "extreme right" and "extreme left" are not that different, which is actually what happens in the real world out there.

These terms have lost their meaning. So has "liberal" and "conservative". Don't use them unless you want to be confused.

In the US at least, just stick with "Democrat" and "Republican". Both of those groupings are a hodgepodge of ideological leanings that change almost hourly sometimes, but at least that means something in the real world in terms of the laws we're all going to have to follow.

And be careful when people use the term, "extreme". Trump is not an "extreme Republican", he's the consummate mainstream Republican since he is the leader of the party and almost his entire party supports him. Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are the "extreme Republicans" today.

You can Ilhan Omar an "extreme Democrat" in some of her stances because she actually is way out of tune with the rest of her party, who have proven this with their votes. Biden, on the other hand, is a mainstream Democrat, and so on.

In other words, disregard the partisan name-calling and just look at the actual outcomes.

Ok thanks, now I'm more confused about my stance in politics, because other than promoting violence against any particular type of people, and promoting racism, I have supported all the rest one way or the other at some point in time. I just can't decide on which side to stand, because if I see a side is doing something wrong, I'd abandon supporting them, which makes me a no side kind of person.

And all of these political terms, are just some political BS to categorize people into smaller groups in order to have a much more effective brainwashing influence over the masses.

Racism, discrimination is bad, period. IMO we should always stay on the side of truth, meaning even if our child does something wrong, we should not try to hide it, because God already knows everything, and if we try to cheat him like that, then there will be nobody saving us from him, but as long as we have him on our side, not even the whole world could harm us.

The political spectrum is often simplified into left and right, but there's a ton of diversity in there.  The left usually wants progress and to shake things up while the right is conservative and likes traditional values.   

The far left gets pretty extreme.  I'm talking socialism, communism, and anarchism - radically changing how we live.  The far right gets scary too though being into fascism, neo Nazism, white nationalism, and often believe in authoritarianism.  Some even promote violence against minorities or immigrants.   

But it's not always so black and white, theres lots of left and right viewpoints between the extremes. and  politicians can support different mixes of policies across the board.  These are slippery labels anyway that never quite capture where someone stands. 

Ok, I seriously don't know what any of them actually mean, can anyone explain in simple english? I would love to know which side I'm on. 😉
Thanks for the time, unless of course it could be considered a waste of your time and therefore constituting a ban for me trying to waste your time and other biased BS. 😂