Appeared during the Great French Revolution. Then in the National on the left sat the Jacobins, who were in favor of radical changes, in the center - the Zhirdonists, who were republics, and on the right - the Feuillants, supporters of a constitutional monarchy. Thus, radicals and reformers were originally considered leftists, while conservatives were considered rightists.

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

Which directions in politics are considered to be left, and which - to the right?

The left today includes ideologies and movements that advocate social equality and bridge the gap between the rich and the rich. They include socialists, social democrats, communists, as well as such extreme manifestations as anarchists. The basic values ​​for the left since the days of the French Revolution are "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

The right advocates ideas that are directly opposed to the left. They stand for the supremacy of the individual, which gives rise to natural inequality. Their core values ​​include freedom of enterprise and political freedom. Today there is a wide variety political views, which are on the right. These are conservatives, libertarians, totalitarians, far right, etc.

According to another approach, supporters of the current political system and supporters of the current elites. At the heart of the left movement lies the ideology of opposing the authorities.

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

Difference between left and right movement

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

The attitude to property that underlies these movements is also different. Thus, the left advocates nationalization and collective property. While for the right private property is one of the basic values, they are in favor of maintaining the status quo of the current economic system.

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

Who are the leftists? Who are the right?

The expression among young people he is left; means that a person from outside their social circle and does not understand the topic. A stranger who is unlikely to become his own. And the expression he is rightquot ;, denoting his youth does not, only the left person.

There are two definitions of left and right in politics.

The left political parties stand up for social equality, although the concept arose due to the location on the left side of the Jacobin radicals who fought for equalization of rights, but fate itself took them to the left position, because it is not possible to be equal to everyone on earth, only underground .

And right-wing political parties are called those citizens who unite on the principle of "capitalism rules" ;, that is, they soberly assess the situation in society.

Usually when they mean left and right, they mean politics. Political forces that use radical methods in their politics are usually called right-wing forces. And the left sticks to democratic and classical ways.

If you mean politics, then the left is:

• communists,
• socialists,
• social democrats,
• social liberals,
• anarchists.

And the right forces are:

• democrats,
• capitalists,
• conservatives,
• liberals,
• Republicans.

Of course, not all of the parties listed are in every state. If we take the left and right on the example of Russia, then not everything is now in the Duma, but in last years they took place.

Left parties of Russia:

• communist party Russian Federation(headed by Gennady Zyuganov),
• Just Russia (headed by Sergey Mironov),
• Patriots of Russia (headed by Gennady Semigin),
• Russian United Democratic Party Yablokoquot ;, but they are left-centrists (heads: Grigory Yavlinsky and Sergey Mitrokhin),
• Social Democratic Party of Russia (headed by Sirazhdin Ramazanov),
• Communist Party of Social Justice (headed by Yuri Morozov),
• New Russia (head Vyacheslav Grishin),
• Party of the Renaissance of Russia (headed by Gennady Seleznv).

Right-wing parties in Russia:

• United Russia (heads Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev),
• Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (headed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky),
• Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (head Andrey Dunaev),
• Republican Party of Russia Party of People's Freedom, center-right (heads Mikhail Kasyanov and Boris Nemtsov),
• Democratic Party of Russia, centre-right (head Andrey Bogdanov)
• Western choice (headed by Konstantin Borovoy).

• The thing is, it's much easier. There are centrists in politics, and it is with respect to them that the division into left and right is taking place.

  First of all, this concept was in the era of Lenin. So Lenin even has a work on the problems of leftism in communism. So even the communists can be divided into left and right. Simply put, the division into left and right is relative. And now the centrists are in power in Russia. And interestingly, they just stood out from the left and right movements. So those who stand on the positions of the communist path are considered leftists. And those who speak more about freedom and adhere to the capitalist path of development are naturally right. And the Parnassus party is an example of the right in Russia. Well, the left is naturally the communist party. And now in between them are all the others. So, starting to answer the question posed, we can come to the conclusion that many parties in Russia give up artificially and adhere to centrist positions. And what is most unpleasant is that the centrist parties, sooner or later, will come to a monarchy or some similarity to a monarchy.

  Speaking of concepts such as and right political themes immediately come to mind.

  The left in politics is characterized by the ideological idea of ​​equality, of improving the life of the common people. But the right ones are the complete opposite in thought.

  Usually these concepts are used in politics, for example, in the Duma there are right-wing parties and left-wing ones. The right-wing parties include such parties as the LDPR, which is headed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the United Russia party (United Russia), the president of Russia from there.

  To the left can be attributed such parties as the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Communist Party led by Zyuganov.

  We can say that the right is the democrats, and the left is the commies.

  Political division into right and takes a countdown from the time of the Great French bourgeois revolution of 1792, when the absolute monarchy was replaced by the first French republic with its famous motto Liberty, Equality and Fraternityquot ;.

  In the Convention of the New Republic, on the benches of the left wing of the meeting room, there were supporters of cardinal revolutionary changes, up to the use of violence for this. On the right, those who stood up for moderation and the preservation of the old order and traditions are conservatives.

  Today in Russia everything is turned upside down. And the communists who represent the left faction are, in fact, essentially conservatives who advocate a return to the communist past. And United Russia is building its policy on social conservatism.

  Such a division of political forces arose in France about two hundred years ago. The disputes between the right and the left lie in their attitude to the slogan of the revolution Freedom, Fraternity, Equalityquot ;.

  The rightists emphasize that equality is generally not achievable by people who are unequal by nature. They emphasize the word Freedomquot ;, but do not profess individualism at all, on the contrary, the rightists believe that a person has value and can be free only as part of society.

  The left, on the other hand, believes that it is necessary to emphasize equality, even if it means restricting freedom.

  For the first time sorted out politicians on left and right Great French Revolution (1789...1794). Then the deputies of the States General were divided into supporters of the king (sitting on the right in the meeting room) and his opponents (sitting on the left).

  The extreme manifestation of leftism in politics is the so-called leftismquot ;, which takes a political course for revolutionary changes, which does not exclude the use of violent means to achieve social goals.

  Over time, many leftists have lost their radicalism and moved into the "new left" category, and among them the idea of ​​broad democratic control that opposes elitist structures prevails.

The question posed in the title of the article is now heard quite often, from people of different social status and level of material wealth. This speaks of the growing interest among citizens in such a traditionally elite occupation in our area as politics.

Which, of course, cannot but rejoice. After all, not only fools with roads are on the list of the eternal "ills of the Russian people," but also something that, in a smart way, should be called a lack of political passionarity. To put it simply, our man is accustomed to relying on bosses and other "professional managers" in all matters that go beyond the boundaries of his native yard. Like, they are ordered to do this, so let them do it. With a similar attitude to power, we lived under the Soviet Union (there, however, somehow it didn’t work out otherwise), and with a similar attitude, we entered the era of market democracy. As a result, we have what we have, if we literally translate a popular saying from Ukrainian. Therefore, now, when more and more dissatisfied with the status quo come to understand the need for direct participation in political action (the rapid growth in the number of radical youth organizations illustrates this well), it is important to clarify what the main differences between right and left socio-political ideas are.

Due to the complexity and ambiguity of the problem, no one has yet given a universal political answer, although many have tried. We will simply try to highlight a certain minimum of characteristic ideological attitudes that allow us to identify this or that political movement as left or, accordingly, right. But to start - history reference; without it, alas, can not do.

The occurrence of division into left and right side political spectrum associated with the events of the French Revolution. In the hall of the National Assembly - the main legislative institution of France at that time - the royalists, conservative supporters of the Bourbon monarchy, sat on the right, and the Jacobins, who defended the ideals of the republic and democracy, on the left.

Since then, as they say, and it happened. The difficulty here is that at different times and in different countries the same political ideas turned out to be either left or right. Thus, after its appearance, liberalism was for a long time considered a leftist trend; later it was given the status of a political "center" (in the sense of a compromise alternative to the then left and right). Today's version of liberalism is the so-called. neoliberalism leaves no doubts about its "rightness" and conservatism. Some publicists even tend to define neoliberalism as a kind of fascism. (It must be said that this point of view has a right to exist. Suffice it to recall the Chilean grandfather Pinochet, whose main argument in favor of introducing a neoliberal economic model was the concentration camps.)

Another vivid example of the inconsistency of the classification we are considering is communism. Most of the communist parties, as is known, entered the political arena after an organizational disengagement from the social democracy that gave birth to them. The last one at the beginning of the 20th century. was a left-wing movement that demanded the expansion of the political freedoms of the population, the improvement of the socio-economic situation of workers, etc. The way to achieve all this, the Social Democrats considered reforms, peaceful and gradual transformations. The Communists, having accused the Social Democrats of cowardice and "betrayal of the proletariat", headed for the speedy violent overthrow of the ancien régime. In Russia, the communist revolution has won. The material situation of the workers has indeed improved, which cannot be objectively contested. However, the regime that eventually established itself on “one-sixth of the land” not only failed to expand the political rights and democratic freedoms of the people, but completely destroyed them. Tsarism, as a rule, sent the old Russian revolutionaries to temporary Siberian exile (and even then, if it was painfully annoyed). What often happened under Stalin to those who disapproved of party policies is well known to all of us. So the problem arises: how, without going beyond the political science dichotomy of "left and right", to classify the same Bolshevism? ..

However, let's finally move on to identifying the basic differences in the positions of the modern left and right. I think that for this it would be best to compare their traditional views in economics, politics, and the moral and ethical sphere.

In economics the rightists propose to preserve the current property relations (capitalism) and the income distribution model (the profit is received by the minority at the expense of the exploitation of the labor of the majority). The left calls for the construction of a more just system of socio-economic relations (socialism), where the income received by the labor of the majority should be distributed in the interests of this majority.

In politics the right asserts the primacy of national goals over the freedoms and privileges of the citizen, while the left speaks of the need to expand the rights of citizens and civil associations as opposed to state power.

The extreme form of "rightism" implies the construction of a rigidly centralized, totalitarian state(which was, for example, Hitler's Third Reich); in turn, the ultra-lefts, or anarchists, demand the one-time destruction of all statehood. Also, for the right, nationalism is always important (however, it varies: from the moderate nationalism of the "orange" to the overt racism of Tyagnibok), and for the left - internationalism, that is, the recognition of the equality of all nationalities.

Ethical Attitudes the right proclaim the unconditional dominance of a common ideal (state, nation, god) over the individual; in the center of the worldview of the left is a person, and in this respect they act as the successors of the traditions of humanism. Here lie the roots of the atheistic worldview inherent in most consistent leftists, and the religiosity inherent in most consistent rightists.

These features are the most stable "signs" that make it possible to expose the essence of any political idea. Although, of course, their specific expressions and forms are very dependent on the carrier - the party, organization, ordinary activist.

P.S. In conclusion, I would like to say that in our strange time (postmodern, after all!) It is not worth judging a political movement only by the labels that it hangs on itself and that others hang on it. The current official left and official right are only formally left and formally right. The CPU calls itself a communist party, having very little to do with the theory and practice of socialism; the notorious “Ukrainianism” of our right-wingers ends exactly where it comes into conflict with the business interests of a wealthy sponsor. In a word, don't let the parliamentary talkers fool you. They don't care about ideas and theories; their interest is money and more money!

Maxim Voevodin



In recent decades, after the “blue screen” has lit up in every home, international news cannot do without mentioning the left wing of the Bundestag or the right wing 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"?

More than two centuries ago, the French Revolution thundered, overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republican form of government. In the "Marseillaise", which has become the national anthem, there are the words "aristocrats to the 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. Right-wing political parties take opposite positions, they are, as it were, conservatives.

A little modern history, or how the left becomes right.

Under the slogans of improving the situation of workers, leaders came to power many times, bringing many troubles to their peoples. Suffice it to recall German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, who proclaimed National Socialism. During the struggle for the post of head of state, he promised voters many benefits, including high prosperity and justice, the annulment of the Versailles Treaty, shameful for the Germans, work 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-wing 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 European left and right parties have switched roles in many ways, while maintaining visible unity in everything related to 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.

Variety of forms of "rightness".

Nevertheless, the ruling United Russia party in the Russian Federation also belongs to this parliamentary wing, as it advocates the development of market relations. In addition to it, the right bloc cannot do without Unity and Fatherland, the Union of Right Forces, Yabloko, the Party of Economic Freedom, Russia's Choice, and many other public associations that advocate liberalization of 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.

Nevertheless, the “Left Bloc”, consisting of socialists, their own, but progressive, All-Ukrainian Party of Workers, and, of course, communists, was constantly in opposition. This situation, on the one hand, is convenient, due to the lack of responsibility for what is happening in the country, 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.

So, the understanding of “leftism” and “rightism” in the Western world and post-Soviet countries differs significantly. At present, the Ukrainian “Pravoseki” 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 case is managed with verbal obstruction, then this is not the worst option.

Accordingly, each of those is automatically ranked among the left, regardless of his attitude to the ideas of universal social justice. At the same time, the European left and right parties differ only in the colors of the party flags, some program items and names.

Internet program "Finding Meanings"
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 semi-joking question, but in fact it is terminology and a category of political science, political practice, political vocabulary. We will deal with this. Vardan Ernestovich Baghdasaryan starts.

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

The origin of the concept of "right and left", like many other things transferred to the general European, and then the world context, was associated with France, with the French Revolution, when in the National French Parliament the supporters of the king were located to his right, and the opponents of royal power were located left. From there, 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 specific historical context. Let's try to figure out what was originally here, and how right and left were classified. The fact is that there are various criteria for this classification. We will talk about the economy, social relations, culture. So let's start.

If we consider economic differentiation, then the right ones were understood as those who were originally supporters of private property, the market, market private property relations. The left, on the other hand, advocated a regulated economy, for the curtailment of private, private-property relations, for a collective form of management.

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

In terms of political criteria, the rightists are in favor of monarchism, autocracy, hierarchism, while the left is in favor of democracy. The ultra-left generally advocated the abolition of the state, and in this spectrum anarchism is the polar opposite of this point of view.

On the issue of identities, the right is for hard nationalism, hard particular national identity, the left is for internationalism, when the national is leveled and disappears in the leftist perspective. In matters of religion, the right adheres to religious fundamentalism, emphasizes religious values, faith in God, while the left is atheists.

If we look at specific parties, it is difficult to name in any particular country, in a particular 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 fact, the real combination arises from the various ratios of these multiple spectra. These spectra can be extended and in the same batch can be combined in different combinations.

For example, in a regulated economy, a regulated economy, there may be strong autocratic power, which in traditional differentiation would refer to the right pole. That is, in reality, a clear gradation into left and right disappears, and it is clear that, methodologically, 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 takes place, capitalism turns into imperialism, and in the end one monopoly subjugates others, a large-scale supermonopoly is created that covers the whole world. As far as maximum concentration is ensured, a leap is made, and a transition to socialism takes place, since this entire system is already prepared for it, because everything is socialized within the framework of this single monopoly.

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 equality appears under him, and the next step 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 super-task of combining elements characteristic of the traditional division for different poles. What can offer new ideology in economic terms? On the one hand, collective management or collectivism, on the other hand, the private interest of a person, 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 really is fundamental equality. People are equal in their 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 accomplishments.

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

As for national identity, then, of course, the national ethnic factor is fundamentally important. Through the disclosure of ethnicity, humanity is enriched, but the common value package for humanity - humanity with a capital letter - 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 transcendent ideas, but at the same time they must be based not only on faith, but also on a scientific foundation. Again, the connection 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 XVIII century, when dividing into right and left, the humanities need a certain methodological visa, and this visa should be to rethink the phenomenology of the political spectrum.

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

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

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

Thus, with the help of the concept of "right and left" very serious assessments are given. They are historically, semantically, culturally rooted in our minds since the time of the French Revolution as the political image of the right and the left. With all their confusion, with incredible confusion, mixing one into another, this concept still really exists.

At one time, the leftists were very well described in the famous "Left March" by Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky. I remember how we taught him at school and told him 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 on the march!
Verbal is not a place for slander.
Quiet speakers!
Your word, Comrade Mauser.
Enough to live by the law
given by Adam and Eve.
Let's chase history.
Left! Left! Left!

Here there is a very clear rejection of everything that was before, there is a shift in emphasis, the 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 in 1930 wrote an article about the change of right and left. There are the following words: “Until 1917, for any politically literate person, “right” meant reaction, oppression of the people, Arkcheevism, suppression of freedom of thought and speech, “left” - the 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 October revolution, to which he seems to be appealing, and in general all historical events occurred during the last 3 centuries, the situation has completely changed. Frank says that if under the prevailing political order before 1917 it was customary to regard the right as people in power and guarding this power, then as soon as the left, the revolutionaries, those same 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, willy-nilly were forced to take on the role of reformers and, to some extent, even revolutionaries. This change during the seizure of power by the right and the 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, right at this moment - right or left, because it is not known who you will become after the power falls into your hands, or your position will change.

How is all this implemented now in the practices of attitudes towards life? What, in fact, are those who are commonly called leftists now advocating? Surprisingly, to a large extent, the left is now associated with those who are commonly called people of the liberal camp.
They advocate a reduction in the tax burden, complete freedom of enterprise, 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 in this moment itself is experiencing an acute systemic crisis.

The current right has a slightly different attitude to all this - it 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, was recently talking about this, citizen Zyuganov. Representatives of this party submitted 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 in terms of income, and so on.

Why is there such confusion these days? Why is there no clear concept of right and left now, and can there be one at all? Now the concepts of leftism and rightism are associated with the activities of certain parties, and it is pointless to consider the left and right outside the context of the real political alignment, the political spectrum, the political parties that now exist.

Parties take the slogans of right and left when they either fight for power or position 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 being attributed to the left, and half of the people from the “Just Cause” party are also included there, and God knows who else.

In any case, it is extremely important to understand that right and left are now part of political doctrines, political slogans, political statements of parties that very easily change their appearance and become from right to left not when they seize power, because we have been in power for a long time. captured by one party, but 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 be in the same guise for a long time. 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 is an honor to be a poet, and shameful after 30”.

That is why almost all figures of the extreme left very rarely live in this state to political maturity. I only know one famous person, who remained left 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 ferment that allows society to move in the right direction, despite the fact that this phenomenon in itself is temporary. Thank you.

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

The concept of "left and right" indicates that there is a certain one-dimensional space - to the left and to the 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: the centrists are somewhere between the left and the right, and there is a left center and a right center.

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

How can it be characterized? Everything seems very simple - left or right. But how to introduce a quantitative measure here? Sociologists know how to do it. The question is: how far are you on the left? Absolutely left, largely left, predominantly left, left, not very left, leftish, tending to the left. There is a sort of comb of positions, we call them political frequencies.

There is the same gradation to the right - right, right, very right, significantly right, absolutely right. This is how the scale comes into being. Why is this important? Because the concept of political positioning refers to a variety of substantive topics. Vardan Ernestovich said that the 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 so many other issues, not just property issues. For example, questions of national or even racial relations, the question of abortion, the question of attitudes towards religions, the question 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 that 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 of labor and capital. But along this axis, you 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 and those are. What follows from this? Never mind. It's just a name, sticky labels.

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

This idea was born when, in physical and mathematical analogies, the radio frequency spectrum or the frequency spectrum of the waves that the TV receives - low frequencies, high frequencies - became obvious. Why is it needed? There is the so-called Fourier transform - a transformation that compares the functions of a certain real variable, and there is a static characteristic - the 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 a static characteristic, by means of a special Fourier transform, you can get a temporary implementation. That is, the instantaneous characterization of political preferences makes it possible to predict how the situation will develop, whether it will lead to revolution, whether it will go to development stagnation, whether the conservative or revolutionary-transformative paradigm will prevail.

And this is very important - to get 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 intersection of humanitarian and mathematical concepts. It's not very common yet, but I'm sure it will be because it works very effectively.

Now I can go back and give my definition of what the left and right (the political spectrum) are as a formula in a methodological cognitive way. It sounds in the following way. Left and right is a figurative display of opposing political positions and political actors on a conditional axis that quantitatively characterizes the indicated political positions and preferences.

It follows from this that politicians, parties, and social groups can be left and right. This formula allows you to get into an expanded view of the political spectrum and political stratification of a complex political space and society. If we use such a characteristic - a definition formula - then all the 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 category is "extremism". What is it, we will understand. All the best.