It's not what OP was asking but I don't think this discussion is really ever done correctly... and while Wikipedia is an absolute dumpster fire regarding politically contentious subjects because they'll always heavily favor blatantly left-wing sources, the basic pages for "right-wing politics" and "left-wing politics" -- or at least the summaries at the tops of the pages -- are spot on.
That is, what you'll see glancing at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics is that the left v. right dichotomy is a question of how
hierarchy is viewed. Right-wingers think hierarchies are normal, natural, and even useful or beneficial -- like a rich billionaire Elon Musk who's able to buy or start a company is something society
benefits from; left-wingers are going to instead think that hierarchies are detrimental to society, that things would be better if those $billions were given to poor people to improve their lives and maybe start their own businesses or whatever.
Of course, the real analysis isn't just some high-level "all hierarchy is good or bad", it's instead a question of
policy... someone on the left or right is more likely to evaluate a given policy as being good or bad based on their dispositions, but most people hold a variety of values and views that could be considered left or right-wing, and that it really comes down to specific cases in which one decides which value they hold as more important...
that is, most people will understand that both the left-wing and the right-wing are "correct" in their analysis of hierarchies (ie. yes, society would benefit from poors having more resources but
also would benefit from the rich guy having more resources), but the question instead becomes whether or not they think it's more important to lift up the guy at the bottom or to allow more power to the guy who earned it and seems to manage resources better.
It's also worth pointing out that Western society is, and always was, strongly right-wing -- I don't mean
far-right, I just mean devotedly right-wing -- because it's classically dedicated to
meritocratic values, and meritocracy is necessarily right-wing thought.
Oh, it's also worth saying here what
far-right and
far-left would mean here, probably easiest done with examples: the most extreme-right policy probably would be that of slavery, or of a system would be an absolute monarchy; an extreme-left position would be a forceful redistribution of wealth ["eat the rich!"] (very common today with taxes), the most extreme-left system would be one of absolutely-conceived communism, where literally every person gets literally the exact same amount of power and resources as everyone else. More standard right-wing stuff is border control & holding citizens as having higher rights than foreigners; left-wing stuff would include any sort of social welfare system... but also legislation that says that a business must treat all customers equally, and can't discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc.
Worth noting that famously right-wingers are generally
far better at giving to charity, which really can be seen as a clearly left-wing activity.
Of course, those strongly right-wing values have really been getting undermined by commies since WW2... a whole lot of extremely-educated commies had to flee the nazis and such, came over to the US and started running our universities, very subtly, quietly, secretly undermining our culture of right-wing values up until the 90s when they could come right out in the open as proud socialists. Now the last 14 years, for the first time ever, you'll hear people denouncing such obviously-good ideas as meritocracy itself....
[and sorry to what a lot of foolish people online want to insist, just because they called themselves "national
socialists", it doesn't mean that society was anything but far-right -- soon as you say one class deserves fewer rights you're necessarily in right-wing territory -- which ofc we saw from a lot of "leftists" during the covid era... the truth is, left-wing thought struggles with consistency]
Although, all that said, I feel I'm remiss if I don't mention that there are certainly other stances taken by prominent right-wing thinkers... Mencius Moldbug in particular I remember saying that he defines right-wing thought as being a question of
order, which while to him does include considerations of hierarchy, mostly he means order in terms of a "well-ordered society that values law & order first", that it's that aspect that's most important.
...but as far as OP's question, the left just thinks the right is somewhere on a spectrum of "fascist", "capitalist", or simply "stodgy moralist" for the more mainstream normies... I don't think it goes much deeper than that, mostly because we tend to have a failure to
define your damn terms.
And in that sense, right v. left is only one dichotomy; there are at least a few other political spectra that are meaningful, hence the 2-D "political compass" etc.
