What are the real political differences between the left and the right?

What are the real political differences between the left and the right?

Fundamentally, the left sees the natural order as something unfair that needs to fixed by humanity, while the right sees it as sacrosanct and to be upheld.

this

How would define the natural order in this case?

I kind of like this reduction

Also: collectivism vs. individualism

"the natural order"

elaborate

This is wrong. "Left" and "right" are purely contextual and can be used to describe political divides across time and place. There is no "inherent" left or right. In Russian Federation, for instance, their "conservatives" (a label we would consider "right wing") are communists.

fascists are extremely collectivists and egoist communists are extremely individualists so you're dead fucking wrong.

By this definition quite a lot of self-entitled right-wing people are actually leftists.

Then maybe you need to reinterpret what's actually "left" and "right"

While fascists may celebrate a "collective" of sorts it champions exceptionalism along exclusive and individual lines

You never hear about "global fascism"

2 groups of people in every system ever.

1. Want to rule over others, have authority over everything they think, do and say, and in the process enrich themselves.

2. People who want to be left the fuck alone.

The strongest/smartest/better connected rule and take what they can, if you put it at an extreme.

Nationalism is at its core a very "leftish" concept, so it's not too surprising. A lot of them are pro-left wing policy within their own group though, which puts them in a grey area.

Conservatism is not inherently "right-wing", it refers to a tendency to veer towards current or past policies and to abhor change. In a world that is progressively more liberalized, that means that this position will often align itself with the right, but as you yourself pointed out with the communists, it's not always the case.

>Conservatism is not inherently "right-wing",
Yeah that's what I just said

Collectivism vs. Individualism is a complete different political axis from the "Left/Right" one.
One that is no less important, but still one that is completely separated from it.

Right v left
Freedom through law v freedom through force/gov redistrub
Individualism v collectivism
Market economy v planned
Small gov, private welfare insutution v public healthcare/school etc
Private investment v gov investment
Strong belief in every individual will find a space in the market equal his skills v disbelief in the individual, gov should intervene

Mate, you claimed that my argument was wrong because conservatives could be either left and right, which is completely irrelevant to the argument in question because nowhere in my answer did I mention conservatism.

>> (a label we would consider "right wing")

This is where you took the argument off-path, it's widely considered "right-wing" but it isn't, hence it's irrelevant to the question at hand when debating the fundamental nature of the left-right axis rather than its popular or historical one.

This has been said already, but that is entirely wrong

Both facists and commies are left wing, how can u say commies are individualists?
The individual only exists inside the collective, every1 is equal therefore no individuals, only bricks

>Both facists and commies are left wing,

retard detected

I don't really think so. Even fascists still find individualist elements to identify by, even if it is not as a singular individual. Individual, tribal, racial, or national superiority and exceptionalism against another, by degrees. The assembly portion of some right wing movements would simply appear to be a defense mechanism.

If they fail to have an element of this I don't see how they are actually right wing, they are simply pretending to be so.

Left-wing is neither collectivist nor individualist.

Anarchists are extreme individualists, yet appear anywhere from extreme left to extreme right.

>the fundamental nature of the left-right axis
My point was that there is no "fundamental nature" beyond the fact that in any system of governance there are going to be competing interpretations of the law, which usually get described in "left/right" terms.

The only reason I brought up conservatives was as an example of a scenario in which the common understanding of left and right in the United States is reversed, because left and right don't have inherent content.

Anarchists shouldn't even be allowed at the table for this argument

they're just chaotic and indefinable, what is the point of trying to find a political axis affiliation for anti-politics

If everyone is made the same "top-down" how can individualism in modern sense exist?
Ofcourse everyone is a individual deep down, but in a political science point of view everyone becomes a part of the collective, hense collectivism, the main goal is to force everyone to the same narrative and achieve peace through collectivism, while individualism is finding strenght through diffrences

Fascists don't have to take the ideology to its extreme. Extreme ideological fascism would make away with any individuality of any kind, as would any collectivist ideology pushed to its theoretical extreme. These ideologies do not exist in practice though.

They are though, the libertarian vs. authoritarian axis allows you to define them as political system. Anarcho-capitalists are right-wing in ideology, while anarcho-collectivists are technically left-wing, though in practice it's really not the case, considering how fickle anarchists are.

Well here's what I'm saying: Collectivist belief begins with the assumption that everyone is equal to begin with and shouldn't be a part of policy, individualist does not.

This goes along with Individualist: everyone is born with and will adapt to the circumstances as they will and the best outcome will result from this competition

Collectivist: circumstances must be rectified by human means and normality must be achieved

You can still embrace nationalism as an individualist as your nation is a macrocosmic extension of yourself.

That's not what collectivism is though, collectivism simply assumes that a system where population works as a collective despite their differences would be optimal.

The idea of everyone in the collective being equals is unique to left-wing collectivism, the right wing kind still strictly adheres to hierarchical beliefs, therein the belief for the adherence to the natural order.

nah, no one believes everyone is equal in anyway, how about retards then?
the handicapped etc?

Order vs chaos
Reason vs feelings
Law vs anarchy
Meaning vs nihilism
Etc.

I don't think anyone models their beliefs around outliers

Same shit different asshole desu.

Here you're describing right-wing individualism and left-wing collectivism, mate, not collectivism and individualism as a whole.

Left-wing individualists don't believe in competition for instance, but they believe that cooperation should arise from man's magnanimous nature. Personally, I think they're mostly idealists.

Right-wing collectivists believe that the creation of government to control the people and move the nation towards prosperity can function while upholding the natural order, while upholding a strict hierarchy where the leader becomes the most important element in everyone's life. Ironically, the majority of left wing collectivist governments throughout history were also corrupted in such a way, it's simply the most efficient way to rule things in an authoritarian system (which collectivist governments without fault end up being).