Can someone please explain "right", "left", "far-left", "far-right" etc whatnot?

[digaran]

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. 😂

[1714695283]

1714695283

[1714695283]

1714695283

[Marvelman]

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. 

[digaran]

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.

[legiteum]

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.

[paxmao]

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. 😂

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.

...

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.

...

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.

[Marvelman]

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.

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.

[legiteum]

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.

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.

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...

[DeathAngel]

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.

[aoluain]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Airdrop Imperial]

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.

[paxmao]

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.

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.

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...

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.

[legiteum]

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.

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".

Look for violence or vilification of the opponents, that is usually a must.

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"...

[paxmao]

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.

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".

Look for violence or vilification of the opponents, that is usually a must.

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"...

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.

[btc78]

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

[paxmao]

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

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.

[Natsuu]

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.

[paxmao]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[bluebit25]

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.

[DireWolfM14]

Define it for yourself:

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