That means right-wing parties. History, right-wing parties

"Right" and "Left"

From the very beginning, the fan movement began to form its own hierarchy. As soon as the first movements appeared, fans immediately began to divide themselves into “right” and “left”. The criteria by which a fan was considered “right” or “left”, in different movements may have differed slightly, but only the “right” fan enjoyed real respect and authority among everyone. And this authority had to be earned only by specific actions - at the stadium, in a fight and on the road. And in the early 1980s, even just appearing on the street or at the stadium with your team’s scarf looked like a challenge to others.

At that time the movement was clearly divided into “right” and “left”. There were “right-wingers” who, due to some kind of courage, a challenge to society, wore scarves, despite persecution, went on trips, despite persecution. Participation in fights in those days [could not always] be counted because they were spontaneous. Yes, they came to each other, they came straight to the stadium, but there were no “packings” as such. Dynamo had a famous pillar in front of the western stand - it still stands - and in the eighties, even we little ones knew that they would approach this pillar after the match. Someone was going home, took off his scarf on the subway and hid it, but someone stayed and went to the post.

The division into “right” and “left” also played a role in fights. Moreover, sometimes it turned out to be even more important than “club affiliation.” Fans of the early 1980s say that it was not considered shameful to make an “action” against the “leftist” fans of a team with which you seemed to be friends: “leftists” are “leftists.” At the same time, the “right” fans treated the “right” fans of the enemy team with some respect: they did not take off their scarves, although they fought, of course.

Victor "Batya", "Dynamo" (Moscow):

There was even a saying - the “right” will not remove the scarf from the “right”, but will break his face. In general, they tried to beat the “leftists”. It was believed that if the “right” overwhelm the “left”, then it would be no big deal, no one would be charged. But if two “right” brigades, two “backbones” met, it would be scary. And one time I was standing [in the metro] waiting for the cars with the “right-wing” Spartacists to pass, I knew them by sight. They usually sat in the first carriage to immediately survey the entire station - who was standing there. They didn’t expect threats from us - from Dynamo, because they seemed to be friends in those days. We could have expected from CSKA. And I “yawned” - I mistook the “left” for the “right”. I say that’s it, they’ve passed. And a carriage with “Spartas” arrives - Zhora Dobchinsky and Ryzhiy get out. And our people jump out. The compositions are equal. And everyone knows each other and understands what happened. And the “Spartacists” ask: why are you standing here? Yes, we just got up. Why did you go out? Word after word, it leads to an altercation, and then to a one-on-one fight.

The division between “right” and “left” persisted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Only the “right” fan could be authoritative, and the “left” ones - who had not yet traveled ten trips or went to the stadium, but did not participate in fights - were called “phantomas”.

Within one movement, the division into “right” and “left” often led to hazing: authoritative – “right” – fans demanded money from the “left” for vodka and mocked them. Hazing was especially rampant during field trips - it got to the point that young fans, who had not yet made the required ten trips, tried not to end up in the same car with the “right-wingers.” But it is impossible to say that this was the case in all movements: in each fan group, relationships developed differently. This situation continued for quite a long time - at least until the early 1990s.

"Hat", "Zenit" (St. Petersburg):

In our “garden” there was collective leadership at the level of authority. There was no election - people recognized this man and accepted that he was an authority. Among these people - “outdoorsy”, perhaps someone did not always behave adequately. He could punch someone in the teeth, ask someone for money, or ask someone for money, or something else. And if someone was offended, then he went to the forty-seventh sector.

Igor M., Spartak (Moscow):

About Sofron, I can say that I and guys my age tried not to end up in the same carriage with him on trips. Because a lot of people traveled with him and took things, money, and so on from the young people. But I have never seen him do this himself. And they constantly collected money “for Sofron’s drum.” And Rifat, I remember, on one of the trips in Kyiv (in 1989) even hurt his hand - he hit one of those who put shoes on the young people in the face, trying to restore order in this regard.

“Spartak” and, as I was told, “Dynamo” (Minsk) are the clubs that were most susceptible to hazing. It was very a big problem. And, in my opinion, in 1989, when we were traveling from Odessa, two free carriages were attached to the train - just so that the fans would leave. And people got off at the next station - to get there on their own, just not to go with this company. There the push-up carriage championship was held...

Alexander Shprygin (Kamancha), Dynamo (Moscow):

Hazing was so rampant back then that the old fans didn’t mind putting the young ones on the lave. A young fan comes to visit, and they charge him money. Now we categorically prohibit this, and no one will do this. And then they went straight into their pockets, knocking down the change from their own - for drinks, for something else. I remember feeling proud - I came to the first trip. And they told us - well, give us some money. But I don’t. Come on then, hand over your ticket, let's go drink in the dead ends - this is where the sump for the carriages is.

| |

Political life democratic society and the state is built on the principles of liberalism, which presupposes the presence of different points of view on key issues facing the country and the world. The difference in views manifests itself both in the economy and in other areas of life. The division of political movements into “right”, “left” and “centrist” is generally accepted throughout the world. How do the polar sides of these relationships differ from each other and how do their views manifest themselves?

"Rights"(in politics) - socio-political movements and ideologies that advocate the preservation of the existing regime, against drastic reforms and revision of property issues. The specific preferences of such groups will vary depending on region and culture, as well as time. Thus, at the beginning of the 19th century, American “right-wing” politicians advocated for the preservation of slavery, and at the beginning of the 21st century, they opposed the implementation of “medical reform”, which would make services available to the poorest segments of the population.

"Left"(in politics) is the antipode of the “right”, a collective name for ideologies advocating a change in the political regime, carrying out large-scale reforms and the establishment of social equality. These include communism, socialism, anarchy, social democracy, as well as other political doctrines. At all times, “leftist” politicians demand justice in its literal sense, that is, not so much the provision of equal opportunities as the provision of equal results.

Difference

Traditional names of political camps appeared during the French bourgeois revolution. This was due to the location of party representatives in Parliament. However, division political ideologies into “right” and “left” is rather conditional and relative, since it does not give a comprehensive idea of the structure of society and the state. It is very important to take into account the spatio-temporal context and specific culture.

For example, the idea of removing the church from government in the 15th and 16th centuries was considered seditious. Those who actively advocated for it and supported market values could be considered leftists. Several centuries passed, and this ideology became dominant. Today, ardent proponents of market values who advocate natural inequality are considered “right-wing” and are forced to compete with numerous “left-wing” parties.

The most important issue dividing the two political camps is the attitude towards property. If the “right” very actively advocates maintaining the status quo, then the “left” is always ready to “take away and divide.” The second issue is power and its concentration. For the “left,” the centralization of the state and the concentration of powers in one hand looks like a bad scenario for the development of the state, while for the “right” this is quite natural. The third question is the hierarchy of society. For the “left” inequality looks unacceptable, while for the “right” it looks natural and normal.

Conclusions website

Social structure. The “right” stands for hierarchy, the division of society into certain groups and classes, the “left” stands for universal equality, where each subject is endowed with equal rights.
Attitude to property. The “right” idolizes private property and ardently advocates its protection; the “left” is close to another position: nationalization and socialization.
Attitude to power. The “right” likes strong power and hierarchy, the “left” needs pluralism, respect for all points of view.
Human rights and freedoms. Many far-right ideologies are demonstratively against democracy, and for all “left” movements its postulates are natural and necessary.

I received a request for clarification of details:

Today in politics it is customary to divide all political forces into right, left and center, but it will be useful to know what is called, where the legs grow, and also who they are. There are two versions of history:

According to one of them, the German one - historically, the division of parties into right, left and center began in the mid-nineteenth century, from 1848, when another wave of revolutions swept Europe, and in particular Germany, in which revolutionaries gathered in the large German trading city of Frankfurt, where They chose the all-German Frankfurt Parliament, which met in the gigantic Cathedral of Peter and Pal, in which a variety of parties gathered. Since there were hundreds of deputies, it was necessary to seat them according to some principle. And this problem was solved by placing supporters of similar political programs- on the right are conservative-traditionalists, monarchists, - on the left are more progressive and modernist-minded people, democrats, etc... In the center settled the then liberals, the main new political force in opposition to the government at that time... At least about the emergence of a division between the right and The Germans think so on the left...

True, there is another, more realistic point of view on this, that it started with French Revolution:

“More than two centuries ago, the French Revolution thundered, overthrowing the monarchy and establishing a republican form of government. In “La Marseillaise,” which became the national anthem, there are the words “aristocrats on a lantern” - in the sense of a noose around their neck. But democracy is democracy, and parliamentarians with hostile They sat down in one spacious hall of the People's Assembly, and in order to avoid any altercations between them, they grouped together. It just so happened that the Jacobins chose their seats on the left (.Gauche), and their opponents - the Girondins - on the contrary (Droit). Since then, it has become the custom that political forces advocating radical changes public life, became left. It is clear that the communists counted themselves among them; just remember the “Left March” by V. Mayakovsky. Right-wing political parties take opposite positions; they are, as it were, conservatives."

And so it went - the right - traditionalist-conservatives, the left - more progressive reformists-innovators... And at the end of the 19th century, the social and even socialist aspect was added to the progressive ones - for the rights of the working class - working people.... Now in brief in each of the directions:

Historically the left is more pro-interest ordinary people - for example, they demand an increase in taxes on the rich, and vice versa, greater social support by the state for the poor... For example, in Germany, the Left Party demands an increase in the minimum wage for people...
And also for limiting the rights of entrepreneurs, introducing certain state rules for conducting business and entrepreneurial activities in the country in order to avoid the exploitation of workers and speculation, which in the worst cases leads to economic collapse and crises..
On the other hand, today's European "new left" also advocates for the rights of not only people, but also children, sexual minorities and even animals. In what ways do they quite merge with the liberals...
Previously, the most important “radical left” were communists - who dreamed of building communism - heaven on earth for all people... The left is traditionally a big supporter of all reforms and transformations... And also the left usually advocates internationalism, does not support wars, and tries to limit military -industrial lobby.

Right-wing parties are traditionally considered more conservative, defending national and religious traditions and interests, and providing support to the family and pursuing family policy... On the other hand, the right is more fused with large capital, international corporations and oligarchs, and therefore, for example, they traditionally try to raise taxes on middle class and ordinary citizens, while at the same time lowering taxation for high-income earners and large firms and corporations... In general, one of the basic policies of the right is making it easier to do business in the country, removing various bureaucratic restrictions - in short, a liberal approach to the economy. The ultra-right, for example, in the 20th century were fascists and national socialists, who in their defense of traditions went so far as to destroy their political opponents and even other states... Also, the right traditionally more easily participates in wars and military conflicts, sending contingents of their troops, especially if you take colonial, say in Africa ..

Other classifications
It is clear that these are only very conditional definitions, and within each direction there are many other divisions - for example, on the right into monarchists, conservatives, and the same economic liberals, as well as nationalists. The left also has “classics” - social democrats and radical left communists, but there is also a “liberal wing” - greens, environmentalists, and also anarchists in general who do not recognize any state at all...

Centrists, or centrist parties, try to combine in themselves all those elements of right and left parties, which I already mentioned earlier. But at the same time, centrist parties are still divided into right and left centrists.
A good example of such a centrist policy is the German social system and the model of social liberal economy - combining in themselves as elements of a planned economy and social security citizens according to the Soviet model, and elements capitalist liberal model, although with obvious restrictions on the capabilities of firms by the state...
Usually in European countries There are two basic centrist parties, although it is true that one is a little more to the left - social, and the other is a little more to the right - conservative. In Germany, for example, these are Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, and in France, they are Socialists and Republicans.
Previously, such dualism gave democratic systems a certain stability - either one big party was in power, and the other was in opposition, then they swapped places at the next elections... Only some time ago, roughly from the beginning of the 90s, the system began to fail, about which Later

Despite the fact that on both flanks in every conventionally democratic country there are also radicals- In Russia, we will say this: the Communists and Udaltsov’s “Left Front” and the right-wing banned party DPNI (movement against illegal immigration), and various neo-Nazi parties and movements like the “Russians” of Dmitry Dyomushkin. In Germany, for example, this is the Left Party, and on the other hand, the Alternative for Germany, as well as the neo-Nazis of their NPD, the National Democratic Party. Radicals' programs are usually less realistic and more populist in nature, and under normal conditions in the country they have no chance of coming to power by winning elections. But during major state crises, of course, there were precedents when one or another political radical right or left force broke through to the levers of power...
For example, Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 took place precisely against the backdrop of economic depression and crisis, and a couple of years ago the party of left socialists in Greece, Syriza, won the last elections and strengthened the position of its head of government, Alexis Tsipras, again against the backdrop of terrible impoverishment and economic disasters in the homeland of the Hellenes...

No clear boundaries
With all this, the truth is that today in the world of parties and ideologies there are no longer such clear boundaries of division, they are now very blurred, and let’s say Hollande’s French socialists may well start a war in Mali for uranium, and the right-wing Christian Democrats under Merkel, on the contrary, are refraining from operations in Libya. Or let's say the German Chancellor Merkel, as the leader of the right, advocates for increasing the welfare of citizens, and adopts a law on the minimum wages, and the left in France is the opposite. There is an obvious paradox - the right behaves like the left, the left behaves like the right, there is a strong shift in positions...
Moreover, on the one hand, the programs of all centrist conditional right and left parties begin to resemble each other more and more - the differences are erased, and the people no longer understand how one actually differs from the other - as a result, both parties begin to greatly lose votes to other parties, and The political system is becoming more and more unstable... Good example- Austria, where, not for the first time, two centrist parties together barely gained half the votes in parliament in the last elections, and immediately concluded that Once again coalition with each other. Which people are already tired of.. And now their rating has fallen further, and most likely right-wing radicals will rule in the next elections...

The life of the state and democratic society in Western countries is now built on liberal principles, which presuppose the presence of multiple 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. The indicated directions are generally accepted in the world. How do they differ from each other? And how are the relations 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 reforms. Such parties advocate the preservation of the existing economic and different time the preferences of such groups may differ, which also depends on culture and region. For example, at the beginning of the 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 a collective name for ideologies and movements that advocate reforms and large-scale changes in the existing political and economic regime. These directions include socialism, communism, anarchy and social democracy. The left demands equality and justice for all.

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

In the seventeenth century, a split occurred in France between the aristocracy, which then actually had 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 happened by chance that in the right wing of parliament there were the so-called Feuillants, who wanted to preserve and strengthen the monarchy and regulate the monarch with the help of a constitution. In the center were the Girondins - that is, the “vacillating”. On the left side sat 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 concepts of “reactionary” and “conservative” became synonymous with the former, while the latter were often called radicals and progressives.

How vague are these concepts?

Left and right political views are actually very relative. At different times in different countries virtually identical political ideas were assigned to one position or another. For example, after its emergence, liberalism was clearly considered a leftist movement. It then began to be defined as the political center in terms of compromise and alternative between 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 even tend to talk about neoliberalism as a new kind of fascism. Even such a strange point of view exists, 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 complexly separated, but also mixed together. A striking example such contradictions is communism. The vast majority of Bolshevik and communist parties entered the big arena after disengaging with the Social Democracy, which gave birth to them.

The Social Democrats were typical leftists who demanded expansion of political rights and freedoms for the population, improvement of economic and social status working people through the methods of reforms and gradual peaceful transformations. The then right-wing parties actively fought against all this. The communists accused the Social Democrats of cowardice and set a course for faster changes in society, which is clearly evident in the history of Russia.

Objectively speaking, financial situation the working class still improved. However, the political regime established in the Soviet Union completely 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, the totalitarian right-wing regime generally flourished. This is where 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, who actually have no property. It was them who 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 of production (shop, enterprise, workshop, etc.), that is, force others to work or work for themselves.

Naturally, nothing prevents right-wing parties from contacting the aforementioned proletariat, but not in the first place. This difference is the first and fundamental line of division: on the one hand there are the bourgeoisie, management cadres, representatives of the liberal professions, owners of commercial 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 the frequent flow of personnel from one side to the other. We also must not forget about the notorious middle class, which is an intermediate state. In our time, this border has become even more arbitrary.

Historical-philosophical difference

Ever since the French Revolution, the political left has been focused on radical politics and reform. The current state of affairs has never satisfied politicians of this kind; they have always advocated change and revolution. Thus, the left showed a commitment and desire for rapid progress. Right-wing views are not anti-development; they demonstrate the need to protect and restore long-standing values.

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

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

Economic difference

Left-wing political views are characterized by a rejection of capitalism. Their bearers are forced to put up with it, since they still trust the state more than the market. They welcome nationalization with delight, but look at privatization with deepest regret.

Those politicians with right-wing views believe that the market 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 privatizations are met with harsh criticism and rejection. This does not prevent a nationalist from being a supporter of a strong state and strengthening the public sector in various spheres of the economy, and a person with leftist views from being a libertarian (a supporter of the freest possible 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, and competition and competition is on the right.

Differences in ethical views

Left and right political views also differ in their views on the former, who advocate anthropocentrism and traditional humanism. The latter proclaim the ideas of a common ideal that would dominate an individual person. This is where the roots of the inherent religiosity of the majority of the right and the atheism of the left lie. Another difference is the importance of nationalism for the former and the need for internationalism and cosmopolitanism for the latter.

characteristics of the ideological and political orientation of political parties, leaders and other active participants political life. The terms appeared during the French Revolution (1789-1794), when the concept of “right” was assigned to the deputies of the Estates General who supported the king and (sitting to his right), and “left” to his opponents (sitting to the left).

Traditionally, the main criteria for dividing political subjects into right and left were their attitude to equality, social change, and methods of political action. The left was believed to be supporters of social equality, radical social changes, predominantly violent methods of political struggle, defenders of the most disadvantaged sections of society; the right - accordingly, opponents of equality, drastic social changes, defenders of privileged groups and the hierarchical organization of society.

The actual characteristics of left and right have varied significantly over the course of history and depending on the type of society.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

RIGHT and LEFT in politics

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

Adequate identification of existing disagreements between political directions is made difficult by the fact that in political life the “right” and “left” often change places.

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

Thus, there was an initial division into the “right” and “left” in politics: the right are those who want to maintain the existing situation, the “status quo”; leftists are those who advocate the need for change, the transformation of the social system. The concepts of conservative and reactionary have become synonyms for the “right,” and radicals and progressives for the “left.”

As the practical activities of the right and left unfolded, the contours of different interpretations socio-economic and political problems. They proposed their interpretation of a person as a sovereign person, who cannot be imposed from the outside by certain rules. The right demanded security for people and property, as well as the rule of law. The right was liberal economic theory, which meant limiting the role of the state both in political life and in economic life, since state intervention destroys the economy and deprives 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” emphasizes the priority of the individual, while the “left” emphasizes the priority of society and the state. However, such an understanding of “right” and “left” was not accepted in Russian socio-political thought for a long time. The Russian philosopher S.A. Frank wrote about this emotionally in his article “Beyond the “Right” and the “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; left - liberation movement, consecrated by the names of the Decembrists, Belinsky, Herzen. “Left” is sympathy for all “humiliated and insulted”, etc. However, according to Frank, after the October revolution there was a reversal of concepts. “Left” has become synonymous with arbitrariness, despotism, and humiliation of man; the right one is a symbol of the desire for a decent human existence..."

This inversion has led to uncertainty in the use of these concepts. Interestingly, the situation repeated itself at the turn of the 80s and 90s. XX century in Russia.

The same Frank explains the reasons for the terminological confusion as follows. Under the prevailing political order (before 1917), it was common to see the “right” in power as protecting the existing order. And the “left”, striving for a revolution, to establish a new “fair” society. “But when this revolution,” writes Frank, “has already taken place, when dominance belongs to the “left,” then the roles obviously change: the “left” become the guardians of the existing - and, given the duration of the established order, even adherents - of the old and “traditional”, then how the “right” under these conditions are forced to take on the role of reformers and even revolutionaries.”

The process of formation of civil society in Russia, rule of law will play the corresponding political system, in which the political scale will reflect the traditional Western countries division into “right” and “left” in politics.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓