What are right and left parties? The difference between "right" and "left" in politics

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 himself... ... Philosophical Dictionary Sponville

In politics, the right (the most extreme forms are called ultra-right or radical right) traditionally refers to many directions and ideologies that are opposite to the left, in particular those that place economic, national or religious goals above... ... Wikipedia

- “Party of Socialist Revolutionaries” Date of foundation: January 1902 Date of dissolution: 1922 Ideology: Socialism Party press: “Revolutionary Russia”, “People’s Messenger”, “Thought”, “Conscious Russia” ... Wikipedia

Like most countries in the Latin American region, Argentina is a presidential republic. This article lacks links to sources of information. Information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and deleted. In... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Left. In politics, the left traditionally refers to many trends and ideologies, the goal of which is (in particular) social equality and improving living conditions for the least... ... Wikipedia

In politics, the left traditionally refers to many trends and ideologies whose goals are (in particular) social equality and improving living conditions for the least privileged sections of society. These include socialism, social... ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Politics of Ukraine. Politics Portal:Politics Ukraine ... Wikipedia

State of Israel This article is from a series of articles: Politics and government of Israel ... Wikipedia

- (new right) Theorists who emphasize the beneficial effects of free markets on economic and political freedoms. The main principles of the philosophy of the new right are contained in the works of Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman.... ... Political science. Dictionary.

Economic policy- (Economic policy) Determination of economic policy, history of economic policy Information on the determination of economic policy, history of economic policy Contents Contents History of economic New economic policy NEP in ... ... Investor Encyclopedia

Books

• Philosophy and Event, Badiou Alain. Politics, love, art and science are the four sources of truth that Alain Badiou and Fabien Tarbi discuss in their dialogues, gradually approaching philosophy. Who is left today and who...
• Philosophy and event. Conversations with a brief introduction to philosophy Alain Badiou, Badiou A., Tarbi F.. Politics, love, art and science are four sources of truths that Alain Badiou and Fabien Tarbi discuss in their dialogues, gradually approaching philosophy. Who is left today and who...

Traditionally, right-wing ideology is usually defined by its opposition to left-wing ideology - as one that puts capitalism, economic or national goals higher than equality of rights and chances for all segments of the population and other egalitarian values.

It is believed that the division into “right” and “left” in politics is a reference to the famous parable of Jesus Christ: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory, and all will be gathered before Him peoples; and will separate one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand: Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

Thus, initially the rightists associated themselves with religiously minded people who honor the church, family, state, in short, living according to the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount. The leftists were atheists, atheists, liberals, and supporters of progress. In short, conservatives of all kinds were on the right, and liberals, socialists and communists were on the left.

However, from the very beginning there was some confusion built into this classification, because the parable of Christ continues with the following words (about those who stand on right hand and will enter the Kingdom of God): “For I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you accepted Me; I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me...” It is obvious that themes are being developed here, which in politics are called “ social protection”, the rhetoric of “the hungry and the oppressed” has always been central to socialists and communists who were considered “leftists”. However, the general atheistic and anti-religious position of the communists led to the fact that the label “left” was stuck to them.

According to another version, the terms “right” and “left” appeared in the French Constituent Assembly during the Revolution (1789–99), whose deputies, representing different political forces, were seated in a certain order. The left wing went to the Jacobins, who sought a radical change in the existing system, the center was “populated” by Girondins - wavering republicans, and the right wing - by supporters of a constitutional monarchy. Since then, “right” began to be called everyone who advocates maintaining the status quo, conservatives, “guardians”, “satisfied” with the existing order, and “left” - on the contrary, radicals, progressives, “reformers”, i.e. “dissatisfied” . This interpretation is still dominant in Western political science (M. Duverger, F. Gogel, etc.).

The range of right-wing political movements is extremely wide: they include liberalism (in classical understanding this term), and conservatism, and monarchism, and nationalism, and traditionalism, and even fascism. Representatives of the two largest camps in the “camp” of the right - liberals and conservatives - have traditionally proceeded from the idea of ​​a person as a sovereign individual and acted from the position of recognizing the inviolability of private property and established laws. However, there were fundamental differences between them.

Conservatives, with all the diversity of their views, ideas and sentiments, are united by a special attitude towards the traditional values ​​of society and a high assessment of the role of the state and religion. As defenders of private property and free enterprise, conservatives advocate strengthening the role of the state both in the economy and in the social life of society.

Liberals, like conservatives, advocate free enterprise in economics. With regard to the institutions of state power, their position is noticeably different. Liberals are supporters of minimal government intervention in the economy, social life society, the spiritual sphere, the personal life of citizens.

Similar ideas about the role of the state in a market society developed back in the 17th–18th centuries, when the bourgeois class, struggling with the hierarchical regulations of medieval society, developed the concept of limiting power. In addition, while proclaiming the self-sufficient value of individual freedom in all spheres, liberals often acted from anti-clerical and anarchist positions, which is completely unacceptable for conservatives. At the same time, throughout the 19th–20th centuries. The positions of liberals and conservatives changed depending on the specific historical situation.

It often happened that liberal parties acted from clearly conservative positions, and conservatives, on the contrary, borrowed their main program positions from their opponents. In Russian socio-political thought, the division into “right” and “left” had an even more pronounced value character.

According to the philosopher S. A. Frank (“Beyond the “right” and the “left”, 1931), before the October Revolution, for the Russian intelligentsia the concept of “right” meant “reaction, oppression of the people, Arakcheevism, suppression of freedom of thought and speech, arbitrariness authorities,” and the concept of “left” is “a liberation movement, consecrated by the names of the Decembrists, Belinsky, Herzen, demands for legality and the destruction of arbitrariness, the abolition of censorship and persecution of people of other faiths, concern for the needs of the lower classes, sympathy for the zemstvo and the jury, the dream of a constitution... sympathy to all the “humiliated and insulted.”

However, after 1917, a reversal of concepts occurred: “We are accustomed... to the fact that the “right” are in power and protect the existing order, and the “left” strives for a revolution, for the establishment of a new, not yet existing order. But when this revolution has already taken place, when dominance belongs to the “left”, then the roles obviously change: the “left” become the guardians of the existing... while the “right” under these conditions are forced to take on the role of reformers and even revolutionaries. The ever-increasing terminological confusion was observed in Western countries. In the 20th century happened significant changes in the views of the right. One of the cornerstones of the Western worldview has undergone a serious rethink - the principle of individualism, which has come into deep conflict with the real needs of society, with the idea of ​​the public good. Nowadays, many right-wing ideologists advocate the abandonment of absolute individualism in favor of “communitarianism”” (J. Rawls).

In practice, audit classical liberalism led to the “leftward movement” of all the leading traditional right-wing parties in the West. In Great Britain, the Conservative Party often criticizes the ruling Labor Party from “leftist” positions. The CDU in Germany puts into practice the programmatic requirements of the SPD.

The transformation of the traditional liberal model in most countries of the world is caused by significant changes in the economy, primarily its globalization.

Classic bourgeois democracy is possible only in a society where the economy is based on the principle of free competition. With the advent of monopoly capitalism, and then TNCs, the role of democratic institutions inevitably decreases. Real power is exercised through non-democratic governance mechanisms. The Western world is increasingly becoming a totalitarian society, and under these conditions, the opposition of right and left ideologies in their classical sense loses its meaning. They are simply used as tools for solving purely applied and local problems by TNCs, the global oligarchy (globarchy).

Thus, if left-wing ideas are gradually dictated to anti-globalists, who are in fact part of the “new world order”, and not its antipode, then right-wing ideology is actively used to attract new regions into the orbit of the Western world. It serves as a tool for eroding the foundations of traditional societies, creating the preconditions for a controlled crisis in countries outside the influence of the West with the goal of their complete subordination to the globarchy. It is not surprising that attempts to impose liberal model socio-economic structure in conditions when the countries of classical liberalism had already abandoned it, invariably turned into dramatic social upheavals in the countries where it was introduced. This was especially evident in the countries of the former socialist camp and the republics of the USSR.

The coming of liberals to power in Russia in 1991 aggravated the crisis in the country and brought the state to the brink of disaster. The results of liberal reforms in other CIS countries were equally disastrous.

Modern liberals can hardly be called right-wing in the proper sense of the word. To the young reformers of the 1990s. neither a “protective” function nor respect for property was inherent (remember the deposits of the population that “burned” in 1992 and the results of privatization). They, without hesitation, trampled on the foundations of society and deliberately contributed to the collapse of the country.

Modern Russian parties that position themselves as “right” (SPS, Yabloko, etc.) also have little in common with right-wing ideology. They actively use social democratic rhetoric, deny national values ​​traditionally defended by the right, and openly join the radical, revolutionary wing, which is trying to shake social foundations, upset the hard-earned balance in society, and break the existing order (see Kasparov, National Bolsheviks).

The difficulties of unambiguous definitions regarding “right” and “left” indicate that these metaphors, like many other political science categories introduced into circulation 200-300 years ago, have outlived their usefulness and do not capture modern phenomena, which require new theoretical concepts.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

In recent decades, after the “blue screen” lit up in every home, international news has not been complete without mentioning the left wing of the Bundestag or the right wing 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, are 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 the Marseillaise, which became national anthem, there are 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 of the People's Assembly, and in order to avoid squabbles between them, they grouped together. 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 political parties, namely the liberals, voted for providing financial assistance to Greece, which is not at all consistent with the declared position on improving 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 that concerns 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 United Russia party in the Russian Federation 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.

Thus, the camp of political parties of the same orientation may also have their 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 “right-wingers” have the opportunity to punish fellow citizens who dared to tie a St. George’s ribbon on their sleeve on Victory Day, 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-wing ideology is a system of views based on certain ideas about human nature, about a person’s place in society, his rights and responsibilities in relation to society, as well as the rights and responsibilities of society in relation to its members.

Right-wing ideology is not an expression of anyone's "interests", whatever they may be - "progressive", "reactionary", "class", "national" or any other. It is based on morality, understood and shared by all people everywhere and at all times, and is, in essence, the application of moral norms to the realities of economic and political life. In this sense, we can say that the development of right-wing ideas consists in the application of moral maxims to present reality, in considering modernity from the point of view of the eternal foundations of human existence.

The right proceeds from the existence of unchanging moral principles that cannot be rejected in the name of anything other than themselves. The right proceeds from the fact that no considerations of profit, convenience, ideological fashion, economic expediency, or political success are a sufficient reason for rejecting these moral principles, since they are an integral part of the human essence.

The rightists are adherents of traditional ethics, which is based on the concept of a person’s responsibility for himself and his actions. The right considers all people to be free, sane and capable beings, therefore bearing full responsibility for any actions they perform.

From the point of view of the right, there are no external circumstances that would justify people's immoral actions towards each other or towards society as a whole. In particular, no one has the right to interfere with or harm another's life, freedom or welfare. No one has the right to lie or mislead other people with impunity. A person must be responsible for his obligations, obliged to fulfill his promises or bear responsibility for their failure to fulfill them. No one has the right to demand that he be supported at the expense of someone else, whatever his financial situation, etc.

On the contrary, any leftist ideology always, in one way or another, comes down to an affirmation of human irresponsibility and incapacity, its dependence on the environment and circumstances.

The right applies the same criteria to both the individual and society as a whole. Right-wing ideology considers any social order not from the point of view of their economic, political or other success, but only from the point of view of whether they allow the realization of moral values ​​or not. Only those social institutions, those laws, that ideology or religion that recognize, affirm and support these values ​​are acceptable, morally approved and worthy of existence. According to the right, a society that systematically ignores these principles or outright denies them will either collapse (sooner or later) or cease to be a human society.

The right rejects any social system in which there are no rules and criteria that allow one to make moral judgments about all spheres of human life or social institutions that implement these criteria. Therefore, in particular, the right rejects all attempts to build a “welfare state” that arrogates to itself the right to redistribute public income, even if this is done with the best intentions. For such a practice blurs the boundaries between honest earnings and dependency, makes it possible for lazy and incapable people to receive unearned income, and also puts citizens in the false position of dependents, existing at the expense and mercy of the state, although in fact this is not the case.

Among the social institutions that implement moral principles, the right includes the state, private property, and the free market. These social institutions are interdependent and determine each other's existence. The right believes that outside the state one cannot talk about legal private property, and without private property there is no free market. On the other hand, the protection of private property is an irrevocable duty of the state, and the free market is needed only as a legal means of its redistribution. Therefore, all attempts to deny the benefit or rationale for the existence of any of these institutions are, from the point of view of the right, an undermining of them all. For example, socialist statists who insist on the right of the state to arbitrarily interfere in property relations and appropriate the property of citizens are not “right.”

For the right, the state is, first of all, the moral unity of its citizens, a form of practical implementation of their moral principles embodied in state institutions. The essence of the state is law based on morality, and the state itself is a set of institutions that affirm and implement law, nothing more and nothing less. The right may have different opinions O the best system government, but in all cases they understand the state as Res Publica, a public affair.

The right recognizes and affirms in practice civic virtues that go back to the beginning of the formation of European civilization - to Ancient Rome. This is patriotism, loyalty to one’s people and government, loyalty to the legitimate authorities, feasible participation in civil cases etc.

In particular, the right believes that the laws of the state are enforceable to the same extent that they themselves are legal, that is, they express and formulate moral principles. If the left tends to understand laws as a set of arbitrary rules of the game adopted in the interests of a part of society, and believes that establishing and changing laws is the prerogative of specialists (and ultimately the left has always been inclined to view things this way), then the right has always argued that questions of the structure of society are a general civil matter. An immoral, immoral or criminal law cannot and should not be enforced, and the government that approved it does not deserve the respect of citizens. Moreover, it is the right that teaches that citizens have a duty to judge their state if it directly violates basic moral norms.

The right insists that private property is a sacred right, and the deprivation of private property from any person by any person is theft.

This does not mean that the right does not recognize any restrictions on the exercise of this right. The right also recognizes that some goods can and should be publicly owned. However, they insist that any violation of private property rights must be morally justified, and considerations of one's private (or even public) convenience, benefit or benefit cannot be taken into account. Thus, the right will never agree that a society of citizens can deprive its fellow citizen of his legally acquired property, even if all citizens want this. Also, citizens do not have the right to pass laws that deny private property, even if they all agree with it. This is why the right insists on the limitations of democracy, while the left, on the contrary, often defends the unlimited power of the majority and worships democratic procedures, no matter what decisions are made as a result of their application.

The right considers the free market to be the only legitimate institution for the redistribution of property between citizens, which they view as an integral feature of civil society. The free market is an institution that allows citizens to transfer property rights to each other by establishing voluntary agreements among themselves in the presence of government agencies that guarantee the voluntariness of these agreements, their legality, and their implementation. The right believes that a market in which transactions are made involuntarily, in violation of the law or without guarantee of concluded obligations, is not free, and that illegal and immoral types of property or types of transactions (for example, trafficking in people, state secrets, low-quality or dangerous goods) cannot be allowed, and the market, which allows this, inevitably becomes a means of deception and an instrument of violence.

The right has a positive attitude towards material well-being and considers its growth a good thing. This is not due to their “base materialism,” but primarily to what they see in material wealth necessary condition moral health of society. In their opinion, poverty is the cause of crime, savagery, unfreedom and violence, firstly, because hunger and poverty are usually considered by people as a sufficient reason for evading moral duties, and secondly, because the poor (since poverty is weakness) are natural victims of various kinds of scoundrels, and poverty is a breeding ground for vice in any society.

As you know, the right is not a champion of property equality and considers differences in people’s incomes to be a morally acceptable phenomenon. However, this is not at all because they worship inequality as such (or power as such), but only because they do not see any morally permissible means of equalizing the property status of people.

The right is confident that all known methods of direct redistribution of wealth in favor of the poor, in addition to voluntary charity, ranging from expropriation of property to bans on highly profitable businesses, are immoral and destructive for society as a whole.

The right argues that it is impossible to achieve justice (including “social”) using unjust means, and that the state, which begins by taking away a millionaire’s fortune for the needs of the poor, will sooner or later end up taking away the last penny from a beggar for the needs of the state.

However, right-wing ideology presupposes a search for ways to social partnership, which is the basis of class peace. According to the right, successful people should recognize that they have special duties and responsibilities to society in general and to their less successful fellow citizens in particular.

The social ideal of the right is a society in which abject poverty does not exist, since able-bodied people work and receive compensation for this, and those who are unable to work can count on private charity. At the same time, this is a society in which there are rich people, and their wealth is respected because it came to them legally (that is, earned or inherited).

The right considers the main cause of social conflicts to be a violation of this last condition: a situation where the rich class consists of people who have achieved wealth in ways unacceptable to society encourages the lower classes to disrespect property rights in general, that is, it corrupts them. Another cause of these conflicts is the spread of false teachings that claim that all means of achieving wealth are immoral and incite the masses to “plunder the loot.” However, such incitement can only be successful if there are some grounds for it.

M.Yu. Alekseev, K.A. Krylov “PECULIARITIES OF NATIONAL BEHAVIOR”

Formation of a multi-party system in modern Russia

A multi-party system in modern Russia began to take shape in 1989. Today, about 10 political parties are officially registered in Russia. Despite their diversity, all political parties according to their ideological and political orientation can be divided into two main groups: rights And left.

Right-wing parties include parties of liberal (pro-Western) orientation. This is, first of all, the “Union of Right Forces”. According to right liberals, the only way out of the crisis is a quick, radical transition to capitalism through “shock therapy.” Today's impoverishment of the population is inevitable during the transition to market capitalism. The market itself will determine who is the strongest, he will swim out, adapt to the market and live as he has never lived. And the weak must drown, but these are his personal problems. Right-wing liberals are against government social programs and against government interference in private business affairs. Their slogan: “The smaller the state, the better.”

The social base of right-wing parties is representatives of private business and a significant part of the ruling elite, who have truly adapted to the market and live as they never lived under socialism. These parties strive to find support among other segments of the population who believed Boris Yeltsin and Yeltsin Gaidar that during the transition to capitalism they would immediately live like in prosperous America or Denmark. And there were a significant number of such people, especially in the early 90s. However, after Gaidar's shock therapy, the euphoria about the capitalist paradise became less. And as a result, the influence and number of right-wing parties for last years decreased noticeably. So, if in 1993 in the parliamentary elections 15% of voters voted for right-wing liberals, then in 2007 the Union of Right Forces received only 1% of the votes and did not even get into the State Duma.

Among right-wing liberals there are those who openly criticize E. Gaidar for his shock therapy. This is first of all
G. Yavlinsky with his by the Yabloko party. Yavlinsky believes that the course of liberal market reforms is correct, correct, and all current troubles are caused by the personal shortcomings of such reformers as E. Gaidar, A. Chubais, B. Yeltsin. And if he had carried out reforms, the result would have been much better. But G. Yavlinsky did not want to take responsibility for the course of liberal reforms, although B. Yeltsin repeatedly invited him to join the government.

Right-wing parties include "Liberal Democratic Party" V. Zhirinovsky. This is also a right-wing liberal party with a nationalist bent, which is why V. Zhirinovsky is called a national liberal.

The rightists should also include party in power, representing the interests of Russian officials. And this is a serious political force, because in Russia during the years of Boris Yeltsin’s rule, the so-called "bureaucratic capitalism", in the hands of the official today not only government, but also a significant part of the former state property. Today's party in power is “ United Russia"(V. Putin's party).

Despite the differences, all right-wing parties, in fact, are the political support of the current ruling regime. The real opposition to the current regime is the left parties.