T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
One of the main issues the assembly debated was how much power the king should have, says David A. Bell, a professor of early modern France at Princeton University. Would he have the right to an absolute veto? As the debate continued, those who thought the king should have an absolute veto sat on the right of the president of the assembly, and those who thought he should not — the more radical view — sat on the left of the president of the assembly. In other words, those who wanted to hew closer to tradition were on the right, and those who wanted more change were on the left.
“So these groupings became known as the left and the right, and that’s where we trace the origins,” Bell tells TIME.
https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/
The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions characteristic of left-right politics, ideologies and parties with emphasis placed on issues of social equality and social hierarchy. In addition to positions on the left and on the right, there are centrists or moderates who are not strongly aligned with either extreme. There are those who view the left-right political spectrum as overly simplistic, and who reject this method of classifying political stands, suggesting instead some other system, such as a two-dimensional rather than a one-dimensional description.
On this type of political spectrum, left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another; and some stances may overlap and be considered either left-wing or right-wing depending on the ideology.[1] In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order".[2][3][4][5]
Contents
History Edit
Origins in the French Revolution Edit
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.[6] One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp".[7]
When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered.[clarification needed] When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793 and the arrest of the Girondins the right side of the assembly was deserted and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 the members of the far-left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups".[8] However, following the Restoration in 1814–1815 political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left as well as centre-right and centre-left came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[9]
The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation.[10] With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.[11]
Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", which at the time meant favoring a republic over a monarchy, while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives".[10] By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs.[12] There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left."[13] In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.[14] The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):
The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.[15]
Ideological groupings Edit
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[16]
Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[17] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality[21] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[22] Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries and traditionalists.[citation needed]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum
So, long story short, they're just making it up as they go along. There is no empirical system to any of it. For example,
from your source.Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,
What kind of "anarchists?" I could agree that Communist Anarchists are on the Left. They want a totalitarian state with a command economy. They're only "anarchists" in the sense that they want revolution to bring about a different system of government. On the other hand, Individualist anarchists are clearly on the extreme Right and are best exemplified by the Sovreign Citizen movement. These are true anarchists. They want no government ruling them whatsoever.
So, the definitions you are using are crude labels slapped on groups at random. There is no systematic classification to them.
The way I see it, political "science" is anything but. It's a fabrication of ill-logic where academics are making it up as they go along.
Hum... Maybe I should sign up for a class or two in political science at a university. Bet I could bitch slap a professor or three on this sort of thing. I have both the money and lawyers to force them to defend their positions if they try to give me a shitty grade for not just regurgitating what they claim.

