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

[Hispo]

Define it for yourself:

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

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

[montaga]

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

[o48o]

-cut-
Trump is a good example of horseshoe theory because Trump likes Putin, who's a Russian communist, surveillance state fan and "far-left" dictator.

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

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

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

[legiteum]

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

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

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

[o48o]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[legiteum]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelward]

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.

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

[o48o]

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

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

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

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

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

[legiteum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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