What do left wing and right parties mean? Parties left and right - who they are and what they want

I decided to deviate from my “no politics” rule in the magazine, and in this regard, I present to you a post that opens a series (presumably of three) essays on the topic of the participation of types in the formation of political ideology. Due to the fact that 99% of conversations about politics with my dear compatriots make me sad, I am forced to devote the first post to explaining basic terms and concepts. So:

Introduction to Ideology
By and large, there are only two and no more political ideologies: left and right. Everything else is either a subspecies, or, in the most advanced versions, a combination of these two trends.
First you need to give brief description these two definitions.

Who are the "right"?

We won’t go into the origins of the term; let’s look at what is included in the range of values ​​defended by the right:

• Economic freedom (minimal government intervention)


• Recognition of natural inequalities of people


• Nationalism (since 18th century)


• Natural law


• Minimal social orientation - the right considers a person to be independent and capable of solving his problems.

Left values:

• Maximum regulation of the economy by the state


• Declaration of Universal Equality


• Cosmopolitanism


• Maximum social orientation and improvement of living conditions for the least privileged sections of society

First of all, we will be interested in differences between equality and inequality, intervention in the economy, as well as social orientation.

Anticipating some questions, I’ll answer them right away:

1. Are liberals left or right?
Answer: in a normal community, this is certainly a nationally oriented moderate-right movement. In post-Soviet society, any “political” party or movement is left by default.

2. Nationalism is when the Nazis burn Jews? HITLER! HITLER!
Answer: no, nationalism is a reasonable ideology that considers the nation as the primary entity in the state-forming process. France is the country of the French, Italy is the country of the Italians.

3. Can leftists be nationalists?
Answer: Maybe, history knows an example of one German artist who built the National Socialist Party.

4. What is a nation?
Answer: A nation is a group of people who identify themselves in a certain way based on a common language and culture. According to the classic of the theory of nationalism B. Anderson, a nation is imagined community. A nation existing within a certain territorial framework usually forms a state. The concepts of ethnos, as a biological community, and nation, as a political community, should not be confused.

To be continued.

P.S. To avoid misunderstandings, prepare proofs for the definitions you are going to use.

The question posed in the title of the article is heard quite often these days, from people of different social status and level of material wealth. This indicates a growing interest among citizens in such a traditionally elitist activity in our area as politics.

Which, of course, cannot but rejoice. After all, not only fools with roads are included in the list of eternal “troubles of the Russian people”, but also what would be wisely 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 in any way extend beyond the boundaries of his home yard. Like, they are prescribed to do this, so let them do it. WITH similar attitude we lived in power under the Union (there, however, it was somehow impossible to do otherwise), and with a similar attitude we entered the era of market democracy. As a result, we have what we have, if literally translated from Ukrainian popular saying. Therefore, now, when more and more dissatisfied with the status quo are coming 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 science answer, although many have tried. We will simply try to identify a certain minimum of characteristic ideological attitudes that will allow us to identify this or that political movement as left or, accordingly, right. But first - historical reference; Unfortunately, we can’t do without it.

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

Since then, as they say, it has happened. The difficulty here is that in different time and in different countries the same political ideas turned out to be either left or right. Thus, liberalism after its appearance for a long time considered to be leftist; 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 doubt about its “right-wingness” and conservatism. Some publicists even tend to define neoliberalism as a type 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 concentration camps.)

Another striking example of the inconsistency of the classification we are examining is communism. Most communist parties, as is known, entered the political arena after an organizational separation from the social democracy that gave birth to them. The last one was at the beginning of the 20th century. was a leftist movement that demanded the expansion of political freedoms of the population, improvement of the socio-economic situation of workers, etc. The Social Democrats considered reforms, peaceful and gradual transformations to be the way to achieve all this. The communists, accusing the Social Democrats of cowardice and “betrayal of the proletariat,” set a course for the speedy violent overthrow of the ancien régime. In Russia, the communist revolution was victorious. The financial situation of the workers has indeed improved, which cannot be objectively disputed. However, the regime that eventually established itself on “one sixth of the land” not only did not expand political rights and democratic freedoms people, but destroyed them completely. Tsarism, as a rule, sent old Russian revolutionaries into temporary Siberian exile (and only if they were really annoying). What often happened under Stalin to those who did not approve of the party’s 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 us finally move on to identifying the basic differences in the positions of the modern left and right. I think for this it would be most correct to compare their traditional views in economics, politics and the moral and ethical sphere.

In economics the right proposes to maintain the current property relations (capitalism) and the income distribution model (profits are received by the minority through the exploitation of the labor of the majority). The left calls for the construction of a more equitable 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 strictly centralized, totalitarian state(what was, for example, Hitler's Third Reich); in turn, the ultra-left, or anarchists, demand the simultaneous destruction of all statehood. Also, for the right, nationalism is always important (it, however, varies: from the moderate nationalism of the “orange” to the overt racism of Tyagnibok), and for the left - internationalism, i.e. recognition of the equality of all nationalities.

Ethical guidelines the right proclaims the unconditional dominance of a common ideal (state, nation, God) over the individual; At the center of the worldview of the left is man, and in this respect they act as continuers of the traditions of humanism. Here lie the roots of the atheistic worldview inherent in the majority of consistent leftists, and the religiosity inherent in the majority of 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.

Maxim Voevodin

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

In politics, the left traditionally refers to many directions and ideologies, the goal
which are (in particular) social
equality and improvement of living conditions
for the least privileged layers
society. These include socialism, social democracy, social liberalism. The opposite is the right. The left, in its classical sense, strives
to establishing equal conditions for all
people, regardless of nationality,
ethnicity, gender and other affiliation
- according to the ideals of the Great French Revolution “Liberty, equality, fraternity” (French liberté, égalité, fraternité). History The terms “right” and “left” for the first time
appeared in the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. Three directions emerged in it:
on the right sat the Feuillants - supporters constitutional monarchy; in the center sat the Girondins - moderate supporters of the republic; on the left sat the Jacobins, who advocated radical reforms.
Thus, initially the rightists were called
those who want to preserve the existing
position (conservatives), and the left - those who advocated change (radicals). Before mid-19th century, liberals who advocated both political freedom and free enterprise were seen as
left. But then, with the development of socialist ideas, they began to be called leftists first of all
supporters who strived for social equality. The left included social democrats, anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists. When in the first half of the 20th century, one of the most
radical wing of social democracy stood out communist parties, then they were also classified as leftists (“extreme left”).
However, the left has traditionally advocated
expansion of democracy and political freedoms, and the communists, who came to power first in Russia in 1917, and then in a number of other countries, were opponents of bourgeois democracy and political freedoms of capitalist society (at the same time
the establishment of a dictatorship of the working class, in their opinion, makes it possible to significantly expand
democracy because it becomes the democracy of the majority of the people). The views of a number of theoreticians of communism who
recognized the progressive significance October revolution in Russia, but criticized its development, and some
they even rejected the socialist character of Bolshevism, seeing in it state capitalism, and began to call it left-wing communism. The left opposition in the RCP (b) and the All-Union Communist Party (b) in the 1920s advocated internal party democracy, against
“NEPman, kulak and bureaucrat” Criticism of Stalinism at the XX Congress of the CPSU, the new Soviet course towards economic development at
the policy of “peaceful coexistence” with capitalist countries caused
dissatisfaction with the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, and the leader of the Albanian Labor Party, Enver Hoxha. The policy of the leader of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev was called revisionist by them. Many communist parties in Europe and Latin
America following the Soviet-Chinese
the conflict split into groups,
USSR-oriented, and “anti-revisionist” groups,
targeting China and Albania. In the 1960s and 1970s, Maoism enjoyed considerable popularity among the left.
intelligentsia in the West, but lost
popularity after Mao's death and emergence
critical materials about his policies. In the 1960s in Western Europe and the United States, the so-called “new left” appeared, opposing itself to the “old left”. They protested against the lack of spirituality
"consumer society", impersonality popular culture, unification human personality and advocated “direct
democracy", freedom of expression, non-conformism. The social base of the “old left” was the industrial proletariat, as well as the peasantry. The New Left considered, among other things, the “Old Left”
outdated and without prospects, according to
at least relative to the countries of the First and Second Worlds, in which the proletariat and peasantry were increasingly losing their
positions, giving way to new types of workers in post-industrial society. During the era of perestroika in the last years of the existence of the USSR, the concepts of “rightism” and
"leftism" was often used in the sense
opposite to what is accepted in the West. So,
liberals and anti-communists were often referred to as "leftists" and traditional orthodox communists as "rightists". Traditional definition criteria
“left” and “right” The traditional [non-authoritative source?] direction from left to right is defined in relation to support: private property; increasing exploitation of man by man; strengthening power; actual consolidation of inequality: social, sexual, religious,
national and similar inequality; In this case, belonging to the left is determined [not in the source] in relation to: the socialization of social
the essence of the means of production; inadmissibility of exploitation; reduction or limitation of power, state violence; increase in the level of equality and personal freedom, in relation to the increase
degree of social, political,
religious, sexual, national and so on
further equality.

IN last decades, after the blue screen lit up in every home, international news is not complete without mentioning the left wing of the Bundestag or the right in the French parliament. Which of them pursues what policy? IN Soviet times everything was clear: the left are supporters 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 small shopkeepers and bourgeoisie. Today everything has changed, and both have appeared in almost all the 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 parliament, sometimes they conflict, and sometimes they vote quite unanimously, and there are also centrists.

Why "right" and "left"?

More than two centuries ago, the French Revolution thundered, overthrowing the monarchy and establishing “La Marseillaise,” which became the national anthem, contains the words “aristocrats on a lantern” - in the sense of a noose around the neck. But democracy is democracy, and parliamentarians with hostile positions sat in one spacious hall People's Assembly, and so that there would be no squabbles between them, they grouped up. It just so happened that the Jacobins chose their seats on the left (Gauche), and their opponents, the Girondins, chose the opposite (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. The right takes the opposite position; 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 people. 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 abolition of what was shameful for the Germans, work for everyone, and social guarantees. Having achieved his goal, Hitler first dealt with his political opponents - 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 left” 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 chided, corrected, and given friendly advice.

But this is all history, and now it is a long time ago. What is happening 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 “right” in politics has become a bit difficult. Social Democrats, traditionally considered leftist, in European parliaments easily carry out decisions that just 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 election periods), to the detriment of traditional platforms.

Left-wing political parties, namely liberals, voted in favor of providing financial assistance to Greece, which is not at all consistent with the declared position on improvement social policy own people. There is, however, continuity in relation to anti-fascism. The Left Party of Germany has repeatedly, through the mouth of its deputies, spoken out against Merkel’s policy of supporting Ukrainian nationalist forces, arguing its 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 significantly complicated the situation. Currently, European left and right parties have largely changed roles, while maintaining visible unity in everything related to promises to improve the living standards of the citizens of their countries.

"Right" positions in the former USSR

In the post-Soviet space, the interpretation of political orientation according to the “cardinal directions” has generally remained the same as in Soviet times. Right-wing parties in Russia and other countries that are former “free republics” indicate in their program documents the goals to which, in the opinion of their leaders, society should strive, namely:

Building a truly capitalist society;

Complete freedom of enterprise;

Reducing the tax burden;

Fully professional armed forces;

No censorship;

Personal freedoms, including the removal of a whole range of restrictions that the “undemocratic regime” has “entangled” the country with. The most courageous representatives of the right wing declare “European values” on the verge of promoting permissiveness.

The variety of forms of “rightness”

Nevertheless, the ruling party in the Russian Federation “ United Russia“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”, “Union of Right Forces”, “Yabloko”, “Party of Economic Freedom”, “Choice of Russia” and many others who stand for the liberalization of all forms of relations.

So in the camp political parties One direction can also have its own contradictions, sometimes very serious.

What do the left stand for?

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

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

Ban on the sale of land to foreign citizens;

Government planning and control of all vital programs;

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

Equality, brotherhood, etc.

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

Ukrainian right

If in Europe it is difficult to understand the issue of 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 spare almost nothing: neither the remnants of industrial cooperative production, nor their own population. The apotheosis of the development of this direction in domestic policy became the notorious “Maidan”, quite possibly not the last. The so-called “Right Sector,” along with other ultranationalist structures, has turned into a paramilitary organization ready to carry out ethnic cleansing tasks.

Left in Ukraine

Ukrainian left and right parties are constantly confronting each other. Throughout its existence independent state those in power were exclusively supporters of market reforms, which, however, was interpreted in a very unique way. However, the “Left Bloc”, consisting of socialists, their own, but progressive, All-Ukrainian Workers’ Party, 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, but on the other hand, it indicates that the ideals of Marxism are not very popular among the people. Actually, in Russia the communists have a similar situation. There is one difference, but a significant one. In today's Ukrainian parliament, the left is the only opposition group opposing the aggressive nationalist government.

Who is considered right and who is left

So, the understanding of “leftism” and “rightism” in Western world and post-Soviet countries differs significantly. Currently, Ukrainian “pravosek” have the opportunity to punish fellow citizens who dared to wear a shirt on their sleeve on Victory Day. St. George's ribbon, declaring them “separatists” and “Colorados,” and if the matter ends with verbal obstruction, then this is not the worst option.

Accordingly, each of them is automatically classified as a leftist, regardless of his attitude to the ideas of the general At the same time, European left and right parties differ only in the colors of the party flags, some program items and names.

RIGHT/LEFT (DROIT/GAUCHE). As a child, I once asked my father what it meant for a politician to be right or left. “To be right,” he replied, “means to dream of the greatness of France. To be left is to dream of happiness for the French.” I don’t know if he came up with this wording himself. He did not have any special love for the French, as well as for the rest of humanity, and often repeated that we do not live on this earth in order to be happy. Therefore, in his mouth, the definition clearly sounded like the credo of right-wing forces - that’s why he liked it. However, a supporter of the left could just as easily adopt it, focusing not on the first, but on the second part of it - and I personally like this definition. “France, greatness! All these are dangerous abstractions, our leftist politician would say. “The happiness of the French is another matter - this is a truly worthy goal.” Still, the above definition cannot be considered complete. Moreover, this is not a definition at all, since neither greatness nor happiness can belong to someone.

A lot of time passed, and now my own children began, in turn, to ask me the same question. I tried my best to answer them, trying to emphasize the fundamental differences, in my opinion. It seems to me that the deliberate division into “white and black” in in this case helps to more clearly recognize the essence of the phenomenon, although such “binary” logic, imposed on us by the majoritarian principle itself, of course, does not correspond either to the complexity of the concept or to real fluctuations political position existing forces. It may be that the same idea enjoys support in each of the opposing camps (for example, the idea of ​​a federal Europe, shared by both today's right and left), or even migrates from one camp to another (for example, the national idea, in the 19th century) century, proclaimed by the left, in the 20th century it noticeably “corrected”). But does this mean that it is time for us to abandon the principle of division into right and left, deeply rooted in the democratic tradition since 1789 (everyone knows that it was based on a purely spatial factor: deputies of the Constituent Assembly, representing opposing parties, were seated on the right or to the left of the chairman of the meeting) and still leaves such a vivid imprint on all political debates of a democratic society? Maybe this principle is really outdated and it’s time to replace it with something else? Such attempts have already been made. In 1948, Charles de Gaulle declared that the opposition was not between right and left, but between those at the top with an overview and those “hanging around below, wallowing in the swamp.” In my opinion, this is a typically right-wing approach, like any other, reflecting the same attempt to dilute the substantive meaning of the opposition between right and left, an opposition that is undoubtedly schematic, but useful as an effective tool for structuring and clarifying the concept. Is there today at least one political scientist, at least one politician who can do without him? However, Alain gave an answer to this question back in 1930: “When I am asked whether it makes sense these days to divide parties and individual politicians into right and left, the first thought that comes to my mind is this: the person who asks this question certainly does not belong to the left” (Speech dated December 1930). Personally, I react to such questions in the same way, and this forces me to search for differences between right and left, no matter how vague and relative they may seem.

First the difference lies in the field of sociology. The left represents those layers of the population that in sociology are usually called popular, in other words, the poorest (or least rich) people who have no (or almost no) property; those whom Marx called proletarians, and today we prefer to call hired workers, i.e. people living on wages. The right, which by necessity draws some resources from these strata (which is not surprising, since the latter represent the overwhelming majority of the population), is much easier to find mutual language with independent individuals, whether living in a city or a village, but owning land or means of production ( own store, workshop, enterprise, etc.), with those who force others to work for themselves or work themselves, but not for the owner, but for themselves. This gives us the first dividing line, passing, as it were, between two peoples, or two poles, on one of which the poor peasants and hired workers are concentrated, and on the other - the bourgeoisie, landowners, management cadres, representatives of the liberal professions, owners of industrial and trading enterprises, including small ones. Between these two worlds there are countless intermediate states (the notorious “middle classes”) and there is a constant flow from camp to camp (defectors and doubters). The border between them is by no means impenetrable, and the further we go, the more fluid it becomes, but it does not completely disappear. Neither of the two camps has a monopoly on the expression of the interests of a particular class, which is obvious (we all remember well that the National Front in its ominous heyday was on the way to becoming the largest workers' party in France), but nevertheless ignore the sociological aspect of the problem is completely impossible. Even though the right regularly wins over some of the poorest votes, it has never been able, at least in France, to really penetrate deeply into the labor trade union movement. On the other hand, no more than 20% of landowners and business owners vote for the left. In both the first and second cases, it is quite difficult for me to see this as a simple coincidence.

Second the difference is rather historical. Since the French Revolution, the left has consistently advocated the most radical changes and proposed the most far-reaching plans. The present never fully satisfies them, not to mention the past; they are always for revolution or reform (of course, there is more leftism in revolution than in reforms). This is how the left expresses its commitment to progress. As for the right, while never opposing progress (who is against progress?), they rather demonstrate a tendency to defend what exists, and even, as history shows, to restore what was. So, on the one hand, the party of movement, on the other, the party of order, conservatism and reaction. Again, let's not forget about the shades and nuances between one and the other, which is especially characteristic of last period(the desire of the left to protect achieved achievements often takes precedence over their reformism, just as the desire of the right for liberal reforms sometimes prevails over their conservatism). At the same time, no shades or transitions can blur the direction of the main vector. The left stands mainly for progress. The present bores them, the past weighs them down, they, as they say in the Internationale, are ready to destroy the whole world “to the ground.” The right is more conservative. The past seems to them primarily as a heritage that must be preserved, but not as a heavy burden. The present, in their opinion, is quite acceptable, and if the future resembles it, then this is more good than bad. In politics, the left sees primarily a means of possible change, while the right sees it as a way to maintain the necessary continuity. The difference between the left and the right lies in their attitude to time, which reveals a fundamentally different attitude towards real and imaginary reality. The left demonstrates a clear, sometimes dangerous, penchant for utopia. The right has a penchant for realism. On the left there is more idealism, on the right there is more concern for practical benefits. This does not prevent a supporter of the left from showing common sense, or a representative of the right from having lofty ideals. But it will be very, very difficult for both to convince their camp comrades that they are right.

Third the difference has a lot to do with politics. The left proclaims itself to be spokesmen for popular interests and representatives of popular institutions (parties, trade unions, associations), the main one of which is parliament. The right, without openly expressing contempt for the people, are still more committed to the concept of Nation with a capital N, Fatherland, cult native land or head of state. The left can be considered the exponents of the idea of ​​a republic, the right - the exponents national idea. The left easily falls into demagoguery, the right into nationalism, xenophobia or authoritarianism. This does not prevent either of them from speaking in practice from clearly democratic positions, and sometimes from leaning towards totalitarianism. However, each of the movements has its own dreams, and each of them is haunted by its own demons.

The fourth difference lies in the economic sphere. The left rejects capitalism and tolerates it only because it is forced to do so. They trust the state more than the market. They greet nationalization with delight, privatization with regret. With the right, the situation is exactly the opposite (at least these days): they rely not on the state, but on the market, and it is for this reason that they welcome capitalism. They agree to nationalization only under strong pressure and strive for privatization at the first opportunity. Again, this does not prevent a person of left-wing views from being a liberal, even in matters of economics (for example, such was Alain), and a person of right-wing views from being a statist and advocating for strengthening the public sector in the economy (such was de Gaulle). But in general this difference, which concerns fundamental principles, remains unshakable. Strong State is located on the left, the market is on the right. Economic planning is on the left, competition and free competition is on the right.

It is not difficult to notice that over the past few years in the field of economics the right has won a convincing victory over the left, at least in theory. Jospin's government privatized more enterprises than the governments of Juppé and Balladur (though, to its credit, it boasted much less of its successes), and today only the ultra-left still dares to propose the nationalization of any enterprise. In these circumstances, one can only be surprised that in the sphere of politics the left manages to quite successfully resist the right, and even gain the upper hand on many issues. Here it must be said that sociology itself plays into the hands of the left (among the population there are more and more of those who live on wages, and fewer and fewer of those who have independent sources of livelihood). The gains of the left provided them with a solid “capital of sympathy” from the broad masses of the population. Freedom of association, income tax, paid vacations - all these are “inventions” of the left, which no one even thinks of challenging today. Another innovation, the wealth tax, also came about through the efforts of the left; the right, for its part, made an attempt to abolish it, and when it failed, they had no choice but to bite their fingers in frustration. Today there is no longer a single entrepreneur who would dare to encroach on a 35-hour work week. The left has indeed achieved a lot, and its defeat in theory (needs reflection: leftist beliefs, as Coluche rightly noted (201) , do not free one from the need to be smart) is compensated by a kind of moral or spiritual victory over the right. I would like to write that all our values ​​today are of a leftist nature, since they are based on independence from wealth, the market, national interests and despise borders and traditions, bowing before humanity and progress. But this, of course, would be an exaggeration. Nevertheless, many people, especially among intellectuals, remain leftists and do so primarily for moral reasons. Belonging to the right is explained more by self-interest or economic interests. “What makes you think that you have a monopoly on human feelings!” - a certain right-wing politician exclaimed during one of the sensational debates, addressing his socialist opponent. The very fact that he started talking about feelings speaks volumes. Not a single figure of the left movement would ever appeal to this argument, such a “leftist” character human feelings, including those manifested in politics, seems obvious and self-evident to everyone without exception. Hence the strange asymmetry observed in political debate, at least in France. You will never find, no matter how hard you try, a single left-wing politician who will deny his leftism or question the fairness of the division into left and right. Conversely, there are countless right-wingers who foam at the mouth and convince us that this division has long lost its meaning, and France, as one of them recently said, needs centrist leadership. The thing is that being on the left is perceived as a virtue: the left usually has a reputation as a noble, compassionate, selfless party. Belonging to the right, while falling short of a vice, is nevertheless regarded as something base: the right is by default selfish, heartless towards the weak, possessed by a thirst for profit, etc. From a political point of view, this, of course, sounds naive, but it cannot be denied that such an asymmetry exists. A person declares his leftism with pride. He admits to being “right-wing.”

All of the above brings us to the last of the differences I would like to highlight. They are more philosophical, psychological or cultural character, confronting not so much social forces as mentalities, and manifesting itself not so much in programs as in behavior, not so much in action plans as in values. The left's arsenal includes such ideals as equality, freedom of morals, secular character of society, protection of the weak, even if they have done something wrong, internationalism, the right to free time and rest (paid holidays, minimum retirement age of 60 years, 35-hour working week), compassion for others and solidarity. The trump cards of the right are personal success, freedom of enterprise, religiosity, hierarchy, security, love of the Motherland and family, hard work, perseverance, competition and a sense of responsibility. What about justice? Both declare themselves fighters for justice, but the concept of justice for both is diametrically opposed. From a leftist perspective, justice is primarily equality; they dream that people are equal not only legally, but also in fact. This is why the left so easily gravitates toward equalization. Their credo is to each according to his needs. If a person is lucky enough to be born smarter than others, get better education, have a more interesting or more prestigious job, why on earth, one might ask, should he also claim greater material well-being? However, in almost all countries today only the extreme left adheres to this position. The rest are reconciled with the existing state of affairs, although this is difficult for them. Any inequality in the eyes of a leftist appears suspicious or reprehensible; he tolerates it due to the impossibility of intervening; if it were his will, not a trace of inequality would remain. According to the right, justice is based on punishment and reward. Equality of rights is necessary, but it cannot eliminate inequalities of talent or personal achievement. Why shouldn't the most capable or the most industrious be richer than the rest? Why don't they make a fortune? And why shouldn’t their children have the right to take advantage of what their parents have accumulated? From a right-wing perspective, justice is less about equality and more about proportion. This is why the right so ardently supports elitism and the principle of selection. Their credo is to each according to his merits. Should the weak be protected? Perhaps, but not to such an extent as to encourage weakness and, on the contrary, to deprive the most enterprising, the most talented and the richest of incentives.

All of these are just tendencies that can coexist not only in the same person, but also in the same current of thought (for example, the Gospel parable about the rich young man reflects the left-wing worldview, and the parable about the talents reflects the right-wing worldview). At the same time, these trends seem clear enough to me for everyone to be able to identify with them. Such polarization is driven by the very need for democracy among the majority, and instead of pretending that it does not exist, it is much wiser to accept it as a given. This, of course, does not mean that this or that party, this or that political figure Those who consider themselves to be left or right must share all, without exception, the views characteristic of one of the movements. Each of us chooses our own path between these two poles, takes our own position, accepts certain compromises, and establishes our own balance of power. You can practice left-wing beliefs while remaining a supporter strong family, safety and hard work. It is possible to adhere to right-wing views without at all rejecting the need for reforms and defending the secular nature of society. Right and left, we repeat, are two poles, but life does not happen only at the poles. They exist in the form of two trends, but following one does not at all exclude the influence of the other. What is better - to be able to use both hands with equal dexterity or to be a one-armed disabled person? The answer is obvious.

And finally, the last thing. Whether defending left or right views, one must do so wisely. And this is the most difficult thing. But also the most important thing. The mind does not belong to any one of the two camps. That's why we need both - with all the differences that separate them.

Notes

201 . Coluche (1944-1986) - real name Michel Coluchi; French comedian. Since 1973, he hosted the TV show “Farewell to Music Hall.”

Comte-Sponville Andre. Philosophical Dictionary / Transl. from fr. E.V. Golovina. – M., 2012, p. 422-428.