"Right" and "Left" in politics

concepts that in their totality show the range of possible political directions and have a certain meaning in political thought.

Adequate identification of existing disagreements between political directions is hampered by the fact that in political life"Right" and "Left" are often interchanged.

The terms "right" and "left" appeared in the post-revolutionary (1789) French parliament, in which three directions arose, choosing (which happened by chance) their own seating order: in the right wing there were feuillants - deputies who wanted to preserve the monarchical system and regulate him through the Constitution; in the center sat the Girondins, the wavering republicans; on the left wing, the Jacobins settled down - supporters of radical revolutionary actions, striving for fundamental changes.

Thus, there was an initial division into "rights" and "lefts" in politics: the right are those who wish to preserve the existing situation, the "status quo"; left - those who advocate the need for change, the transformation of the social order. The concepts of conservative and reactionary have become synonymous with the "right", while the radicals and progressives have become synonymous with the "left".

As the practical activities of the right and left unfolded, the contours of various interpretations of socio-economic and political problems began to emerge. They offered their own interpretation of a person as a sovereign personality, which cannot be imposed by certain rules from outside. The right demanded security for man and property, as well as the rule of law. The right adhered to liberal economic theory, which meant limiting the role of the state in both political and economic life, since state intervention destroys the economy and robs freedom.

The left emphasized the principle of economic egalitarianism (equality). Demands for equality were accompanied by attempts to ensure it with the help of the state.

In the European tradition, it is generally accepted that the "right" emphasize the priority of the individual, and the "left" - the priority of society and the state. However, such an understanding of "right" and "left" was not accepted in Russian social and political thought for a long time. The Russian philosopher S.A. Frank wrote about this emotionally in his article “Beyond the “Right” and “Left”, written in 1930, outside the Motherland. Until 1917, for any politically literate person, “right” meant “reaction, oppression of the people, Arkcheevism, suppression of freedom of thought and speech; the left - the liberation movement, consecrated by the names of the Decembrists, Belinsky, Herzen. "Left" is sympathy for all "humiliated and offended", etc. However, according to Frank, after the October Revolution there was a reversal of concepts. "Left" has become synonymous with arbitrariness, despotism, and the humiliation of man; the right one is a symbol of striving for a worthy human existence..."

Such a reversal has led to uncertainty in the use of these concepts. Interestingly, the situation repeated itself at the turn of the 80-90s. 20th century in Russia.

The same Frank explains the reasons for the terminological confusion in the following way. Under the prevailing political order (before 1917) it was customary to regard the "right" in power as guarding the existing order. And the "leftists", striving for a revolution, for the establishment of a new "just" society. “But when this revolution,” writes Frank, “has already taken place, when the dominance belongs to the ‘lefts’, then the roles obviously change: the ‘lefts’ become the guardians of the existing – and, with the duration of the established order, even adherents – of the old and ‘traditional’, then as “rightists” under these conditions are forced to assume the role of reformers and even revolutionaries.

The process of formation in Russia of a civil society, a rule of law state will reproduce the corresponding political system, in which the political scale will reflect the division into "right" and "left" traditional for Western countries in politics.

The bicentennial history of the political scale of Europe has undergone many changes. Today's conservatives bear little resemblance to the former "rights", just as the radicals no longer represent the descendants of the Jacobins. Radical political forces were pushed back from the left flank to the center at the end of the 19th century, when the Social Democrats settled on the left.

Political directions are universal, in whatever state they may be observed; they differ only in name and the forces behind them. The division into "rights" and "lefts" in politics, apparently, will not lose its relevance for a long time and will exist, at least as long as the state continues to function, i.e. there will be a redistributive mechanism in society.

Konovalov V.N.

Political science. Dictionary. - M: RSU. V.N. Konovalov. 2010 .

Political science. Dictionary. - RGU. V.N. Konovalov. 2010 .

See what "Right" and "Left" in politics are in other dictionaries:

This term has other meanings, see Left. In politics, many directions and ideologies are traditionally called the left, the purpose of which is (in particular) social equality and the improvement of living conditions for the least ... ... Wikipedia

This article should be wikified. Please, format it according to the rules for formatting articles. In politics, the right (the most extreme forms are called ultra-right or right-wing ... Wikipedia

In politics, right-wing (the most extreme forms are called ultra-right or right-wing radicals) are traditionally called many directions and ideologies that are opposite to the left, in particular, putting economic, national or religious goals higher ... ... Wikipedia

Right/Left- Right/Left ♦ Droit/Gauche As a child, I once asked my father what it means for a politician to be right or left. “To be right,” he replied, “is to dream of the greatness of France. To be left is to dream of happiness for the French.” I don't know if he... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville

RIGHT (Right)- a general designation of conservative organizations, groups, parties, unions and their members who defended the traditional religious, political, socio-economic and everyday way of society. The term "right" originated in Western Europe initially as... Black Hundred. Historical Encyclopedia 1900–1917

LEFT AND RIGHT IN POLITICS- characteristics of the ideological and political orientation of political parties, leaders and other active participants in political life. The terms appeared during the French Revolution (1789 1794), when the deputies of the States General, who supported the king and ... Political Science: Dictionary-Reference

Rights- (in politics) (Right), a term referring to ideas, movements and parties of a conservative or reactionary direction. Following the example of the titled aristocracy during the French Revolution (1789), members of the legislature. meetings with authoritarian, ... ... Peoples and cultures

News and Society

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

The right-wing radical forces held a rally... The center-left did not support the bill... These words are constantly heard from TV screens, they can be seen on newspapers. Who are the right and left that are constantly being talked about? And why are they called that?

Origin of terms

These definitions of political currents are quite old. They appeared in France during the bourgeois revolution. And they were absolutely literal.

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

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

Turn right around

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

Related videos

Such a right left

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

Of course, the National Socialist Workers' Party! But this trend is now referred to only as fascism. This trend had nothing in common with the French supporters of the monarchy or the Russian adherents of the doctrine of the bourgeois republic.

In the 60s in France, the right was understood as a political trend that denied the possibility of equal rights and opportunities for all members of society.

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

conservatives and innovators

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

Modern right-wing parties generally respect private property, consider a certain level of class inequality to be natural and inevitable, and advocate a strong vertical of power.

This rather conservative course is followed by parties that have religion or principles of national self-consciousness as the basis of their ideology.

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

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

Criticism of terms

At present, such a bipolarity of party systems exists only in the headlines of newspapers and in the conversations of the townsfolk. Political scientists prefer to use more precise definitions.

Yet the political picture of the world, consisting of left, right and centrists, is oversimplified. Many ideologies have lost clear boundaries, become less radical, so it is already difficult to say whether they are conservatives or, on the contrary, supporters of change. A political current may simultaneously believe that the state owes social life and the economy, as is typical of right-wing currents. But if this influence will be used by the authorities for typically "left" goals - ensuring equality and guaranteeing social protection.

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

Practical difficulties of classification

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

It is also difficult to understand who the right-wing radicals in Ukraine are. Because there is nothing left of traditional conservatism. "Right Sector" is not so much a definition of a position as a name. This nationally oriented party took an active part in changing the political system in 2013, although, by definition, this is the lot of left-wing parties.

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

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

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

The life of the state and democratic society in the countries of the West is now built on liberal principles, which presuppose the presence of many points of view on various issues facing the country and society itself (the plurality of opinions is called the term "pluralism"). It was this difference in views that provoked the division into left and right, as well as centrists. These directions are generally accepted in the world. How do they differ from each other? And how is the relationship 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 the reforms. Such parties advocate the preservation of the existing economic and At different times, the preferences of such groups may differ, which also depends on culture and region. For example, in the early 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. Left Political Views is the collective name of ideologies and movements that advocate reform and large-scale change in the existing political and economic regime. These areas include socialism, communism, anarchy and social democracy. The left is demanding equality and justice for all.

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

In the seventeenth century, there was a split in France between the aristocracy, which then had virtually 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 so happened by chance that in the right wing of the Parliament there were the so-called Feuillants, who wished to preserve and strengthen the monarchy and to regulate the monarch by means of a constitution. In the center were the Girondins - that is, the "wavering". On the left side sat the 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 former became synonymous with the terms "reactionary" and "conservative", while the latter were often called radicals and progressives.

How vague are these concepts?

Left and right political views are actually very conditional. At various times in different countries practically identical political ideas were assigned to one or another position. For example, after its appearance, liberalism was unambiguously considered a leftist trend. Then it was defined as political center in terms of compromise and alternatives between the 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 are even inclined to speak of neoliberalism as a new kind of fascism. Even such a strange point of view takes place, 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 difficult to separate, but also mixed with each other. A striking example of such contradictions is communism. The vast majority of the Bolshevik and Communist parties entered the big arena after disengaging from the social democracy that gave birth to them.

The Social Democrats were typical leftists who demanded the expansion of political rights and freedoms for the population, the improvement of the economic and social situation of workers by means of reforms and gradual peaceful transformations. All this was actively opposed by the right-wing parties of that time. The Communists accused the Social Democrats of cowardice and headed for more rapid changes in society, which is clearly seen in the history of Russia.

Objectively speaking, the material situation of the working class has nevertheless improved. However, the political regime established in the Soviet Union finally 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, in general, there was a flourishing of the totalitarian right-wing regime. Hence, 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, in fact, do not have property. It was them that Karl Marx called proletarians, and today they are called hired 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 for production (shop, enterprise, workshop, and so on), that is, they force others to work or work for themselves.

Naturally, nothing prevents the right-wing parties from contacting the aforementioned proletariat, but by no means in the first place. This difference is the first and fundamental line of division: on the one hand are the bourgeois, the leading cadres, the representatives of the liberal professions, the 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 frequent overflow of frames from one side to the other. Also, one should not forget about the notorious middle class, which is an intermediate state. In our time, this border has become even more conditional.

Historical and philosophical difference

Ever since the French Revolution, the political left has been directed towards radical politics and reforms. The present state of affairs has never satisfied politicians of this kind, they have always advocated change and revolution. In this way, the left showed commitment and desire for rapid progress. Right-wing views are not opposed to development, they demonstrate the need to protect and restore old values.

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

Tellingly, one can also discern certain differences in attitudes toward reality in general. The left often demonstrates a clear inclination towards all kinds 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 politicians have long proclaimed themselves the defenders of the people's interests and the only representatives of trade unions, parties and associations of workers and peasants. The right, although they do not explicitly express their contempt for the people, are adherents of the cult of their native land, the head of state, devotion to the idea of ​​the nation. Ultimately, it is not for nothing that they are called spokesmen for national ideas (often they are prone to nationalism, authoritarianism and xenophobia), and their political opponents are called the ideas of the 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 frenzied anarchism, which seeks to destroy any power in general.

Economic difference

Left political views are characterized by the rejection of capitalism. Their carriers are forced to put up with it, because they still trust the state more than the market. They welcome nationalization with enthusiasm, but look at privatization with the deepest regret.

Those politicians who have right-wing views believe that it is the market that 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 privatization - with sharp criticism and rejection. This does not prevent a nationalist from being a supporter of a strong state and strengthening the public sector in various sectors of the economy, and a person with leftist views from being a libertarian (adherent to the maximum free 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, while competition and competition are on the right.

Differences in ethical views

Left and right political views also differ in their view of the First advocating anthropocentrism and traditional humanism. The latter proclaim the ideas of a common ideal that would dominate a single individual. It is here that the roots of the inherent religiosity and atheism of the left lie in the majority of the right. Another difference is the importance of nationalism for the former, and the need for internationalism and cosmopolitanism for the latter.

In recent decades, after the “blue screen” has been lit up in every home, international news is not complete without mentioning the left wing of the Bundestag or the right in the French parliament. Which one is pursuing which policy? AT Soviet times everything was clear: the left are adherents 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 petty shopkeepers and bourgeois. Today, everything has changed, and both appeared in almost all 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 the parliament, sometimes they clash, and sometimes they vote quite in solidarity, and there are also centrists.

Why "right" and "left"?

Thundered more than two centuries ago French revolution, overthrowing the monarchy and establishing the Marseillaise, which became national anthem, there are the words "aristocrats on a lantern" - in the sense of a noose around his neck. But democracy is democracy, and the parliamentarians with hostile positions were seated in one spacious hall of the People's Assembly, and in order to avoid skirmishes between them, they grouped. It just so happened that the Jacobins chose places for themselves on the left (Gauche), and their opponents - the Girondins - on the contrary (Droit). Since then, it has become customary that political forces advocating radical transformations public life, became left. It is clear that the Communists reckoned themselves among them, it is enough to recall the "Left March" by V. Mayakovsky. The rightists take the opposite positions, they are, as it were, conservatives.

A bit of 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 peoples. Suffice it to recall German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, who proclaimed National Socialism. During the period of the struggle for the post of head of state, he promised voters many benefits, including high prosperity and justice, the annulment of shameful work for the Germans for everyone, and social guarantees. Having achieved his goal, Hitler first dealt with his political opponents - the 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 leftist” 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 scolded, corrected, and given friendly advice.

But that's all history, and now it's an old one. And what happens 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 "rightness" in politics has become a bit tight. The Social Democrats, traditionally considered leftist, in European parliaments easily carry out decisions that quite 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 elections), to the detriment of traditional platforms.

The left political parties, namely the liberals, voted for providing financial assistance to Greece, which is not at all consistent with the declared position on improving the social policy of their own people. There is, however, continuity in relation to anti-fascism. Left Party Germany has repeatedly, through the mouths of its deputies, opposed Merkel's policy of supporting Ukrainian nationalist forces, arguing her 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 greatly complicated the situation. At present, the parties of Europe's left and right have switched roles in many ways, while maintaining visible unity in everything that concerns promises to improve the living standards of their countries' citizens.

"Right" positions in the former USSR

In the post-Soviet space, the interpretation of political orientation along the “cardinal points” has generally remained the same as in Soviet times. The right-wing parties of Russia and other countries-the former "republics of the free" indicate in their program documents the goals that, in the opinion of their leaders, the society should strive for, namely:

Building a truly capitalist society;

Complete freedom of enterprise;

Reducing the tax burden;

Fully professional armed forces;

Lack of censorship;

Personal freedoms, including the removal of a whole range of restrictions with which the “non-democratic regime” “entangled” the country. The most courageous representatives of the right wing declare "European values" on the verge of permissiveness propaganda.

The variety of forms of "rightness"

Nevertheless, the ruling party in the Russian Federation " United Russia” also refers 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, the Union of Right Forces, Yabloko, the Party of Economic Freedom, Russia's Choice, and many others that stand in the position of liberalizing all forms of relations.

Thus, in the camp of political parties of the same direction, there can also be contradictions, sometimes very serious ones.

What do the left stand for?

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

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

Prohibition of the sale of land to foreign citizens;

State planning and control over all vital programs;

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

Equality, brotherhood, etc.

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

Ukrainian right

If in Europe it is difficult to figure out the 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 feel sorry for practically nothing: neither the remnants of industrially cooperative industries, nor their own population. The apotheosis of the development of this direction in domestic politics became the notorious "Maidan", quite possibly not the last. The so-called "Right Sector", along with other ultra-nationalist structures, has turned into a paramilitary organization, ready to carry out the tasks of ethnic cleansing.

Leftists in Ukraine

Ukrainian left and right parties constantly oppose each other. Throughout the existence of an independent state, only supporters of market reforms have been in power, which, however, was interpreted in a very peculiar way. However, the "Left Bloc", consisting of the socialists, their own, but progressive, the All-Ukrainian Party of Workers, and, of course, the 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, on the other hand, it indicates that the ideals of Marxism are not very popular among the people. In fact, in Russia, the Communists have a similar situation. The difference is one, but significant. In today's Ukrainian parliament, the left is the only opposition association that opposes the aggressive nationalist government.

Who is right and who is left

So, the understanding of “leftism” and “rightism” in the Western world and post-Soviet countries differs significantly. At present, the Ukrainian “Right Sectors” have the opportunity to punish fellow citizens who dared to tie the St. George ribbon on their sleeves on Victory Day, declaring such “separatists” and “Colorados”, and if the matter ends with verbal obstruction, then this is not the worst option.

Accordingly, each of those is automatically classified as a left, regardless of its relationship to the ideas of the universal. At the same time, the European left and right parties differ only in the colors of the party flags, some program items and names.