Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

Fascism in History was classified as a '3rd way' but it is a bastardisation of extreme right wing views. Totalitarian systems don't fit the scale well as they demonstrate a fixation and extreme on right wing politics by having an elite far above everyone else whilst aiming to promote a symbolic unity such as nationalism to entrench and support the elite from those wading in mud. This is why it is called the 'extreme right' or 'far right'. This allows no ambition and fosters great disparity.

As an off-note, whilst different groups can be classified as on the left or the right, it does not mean they are compatible in working together. In fact, there are examples where those on the opposite sides are more alike than their peers. This demonstrates a lot of the fundamental issues which causes problem in clarification.

Example: tea-party libertarian can find a lot more in common with an anarchist than a royalist. Anarchists tend to believe in individualism to the point there is no one above them, rejecting all authority and free to live in their own at patch and communities, thus creating a parity, whilst Tea-party liberatarian generally against regulation and control of the political sphere authority, granting extra freedoms but removes any restrictions to these which tend to cause economical corporate powers to exploit and fill this vacuum unopposed. Anarchist is on the left due to the parity being enforced including rejecting economical supremacy, whilst tea-party liberatarian is on the right as it promotes economical supremacy. This again is more akin to the royalist who values the supremacy being encouraged but by different actors.

(Yes, I am aware this is simplified.)
I am not sure that our current models of political thought are correct. At the moment both terminate in totalitarian states. A better reflection would be the amount of control vested in government.

Anarchy vs Authoritarianism or the individual vs Statism would be more apt.

Currently most governments are functioning more on the Progressive model, where they state has an interest in everything for the supposed welding of its subject peoples.

I would agree that presently, the so-called right places emphasis on the individual but this is more a modern development which only a few decades ago was the provence of the left. It was classic liberalism that promoted the rights of the individual over those of the state.

As politics today are sorted thus, however, I will let the statement stand, with reservations.

But in doing so it also points of the fallacy of the original assertion, that rightwing politics are only a product of fear.

If we dissect individualism opposed to collectivism we would see that collectivism is more based on security and fear than the opposite extreme. It must base its self on self reliance and the ability to succeed personally than does the idea that the state is there to care for you and keep you safe.