system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Most people in the 1st world don't understand what "far right" means.

This one will be short and sweet. I believe the contemporary usage of the term in the 1st world is detached from reality and used to perpetuate false belief about our political ecosystem.

Traditionally, the left included reactionary movements, communists, anarchists and socialists. The right included monarchists, fascists (not nazis!), conservatives, imperialists, and traditionalists (including religious fundamentalists in the original meaning of the word).

Then cold war happens + 30 years and suddenly everyone on the internet is polarized and yelling about far right doing this and that. True ideological warfare. People seem to think that Trump, or the Hungarian/Polish/Romanian governments are "far right" - usually the people who say this live in countries that have never known monarchy or even authoritarian rule in their history.

AFAIK there are no mainstream far right (or far left) movements in the first world at the moment. There is only right-leaning and left-leaning centre calling each other names. Actual far right includes fascists (Mussolini, Franco), absolute monarchies and such. Nazis were not far right! NSDAP was a hybrid movement with clear leftist elements.

Anyway, this new use of "far right" is starting to appear even in the scientific discourse, showing how easy it is for false ideas to go from bottom to the top and be accepted without scrutiny by the so-called intellectuals. The dreaded *reductio ad Hitlerum* appears in every political discussion, which to someone who's learned some history is shocking to say the least. Ok, I'm done venting.

Please CMV or downvote me.

&#x200B;

Edit: Thank you all for thoughtful answers. I have adjusted my views and need no further convincing. Enough new knowledge to chew over. Thank you for participating.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;
gpt
The use of "left" and "right" to define a political spectrum is 100% defined as relative to the politics of whatever polity you're referring to. The only real set definition of the the terms which can be applied in any context is that "left" refers to politics which looks to improve upon existing conditions and institutions with a general view that the past can be improved upon, while "right" refers to politics which looks to support and entrench existing conditions and institutions with a general view that tried-and-true methods should be maintained. There are no sets of policies or ideologies which can consistently be called "left" or "right". What is considered "left" in one country may be center in another, and may even be "right" in yet a third. 

To illustrate this point, let's create two hypothetical countries. (These are very hypothetical and I've exaggerated them a lot to make a point.)

The first country, EcoLand, has strong environmental protections written into its founding documents and enshrined in law. Ever since the country was founded, there have been very strict rules dramatically limiting how much pollution can be emitted. Businesses cannot dump waste of any kind in any water, and cannot release any air pollution. All waste (liquid, solid, gas) must be collected and disposed of under very strict guidelines. As a result, EcoLand has some of the cleanest water and air on the planet, but the enormous costs to businesses to eliminate their waste has caused their economy to lag behind the rest of the world. Their GDP is well below the global average, and unemployment is higher than the global average.

The second country, SmogLand, is very much the opposite. They have always been strongly pro-business, and have never had any environmental protections. Businesses can dump or vent any waste they want virtually anywhere they want. Factories regularly dump into lakes and rivers, and all cities have a constant haze of smog overhead. Since businesses have to spend virtually no money to remediate their pollution, overhead costs are extremely low. Lots of international corporations have set up factories here to take advantage of the cheap conditions. However, people have to wear smog masks outside virtually all the time. The lakes and rivers are poisoned, and all water and most food has to be imported from other countries. Their GDP is very high, though, and unemployment is very low.

In EcoLand, the right side of the political spectrum supports the environmental policies which have been in place for generations to maintain the clean air and water their citizens value. In SmogLand, though, the right wing strongly supports a continue of low regulations to keep up the business investment which supports the economy and keeps unemployment low. Conversely, the left wing in EcoLand supports environmental deregulation as a way to reduce business costs to entice business investment to improve the economy. In SmogLand, though, the left wing supports stronger environmental protections in order to improve the air and water and general public health. With regards to environmental regulations, the left-wing in EcoLand supports the same policies as the right-wing in SmogLand, and vice-versa.

Now, obviously, these are grossly exaggerated hypothetical countries, but it serves to demonstrate how "left" and "right" do not represent a specific set of policies, or even ideologies. Just as how "far right" in EcoLand will be pretty close to the "far left" in SmogLand (at least with regards to environmental regulations), what is "far right" in one IRL country will not necessarily be "far right" in another IRL country. 

The same understanding can be applied to the politics of a single country at different times in history. What may have been thought of as "left-wing" 100 years ago may well be considered "right-wing" today. In fact, this is exactly what happens in most countries. The far left-wing pushes extreme policies. Some are gradually accepted by more and more people, until they become so widely accepted that they are considered "center" policies. As those policies are implemented and entrenched, the far left-wing continues to support extreme policies, but the policies they are supporting now are even more extreme than the ones which have become "center" policies. This process happens again and again, until the point where the earliest set of "extreme left-wing" policies have been in place for so long, and are so far from the modern "extreme left-wing" policies, that they have become "right-wing".

For an IRL example, look at the United States' former military policy towards homosexuals, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Ever since the country's founding, homosexual acts had been grounds for discharge within the military. Ever since WWII, being a homosexual immediately disqualified one for service (regardless of whether they actually committed "homosexual acts"). In the 70s and 80s, the gay and lesbian rights movement drew attention to this issue, and called for change. This was the left-wing of American politics pushing against right-wing policies. Left-wing presidential candidate Bill Clinton, in the 1992 election, campaigned on the then-far left-wing policy of full and total acceptance of all people in the military, regardless of sexual orientation. This was far too extreme for the politics of the day, though, so, as a compromise, Clinton enacted a less extreme, but still moderately left-wing policy: Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The idea was that homosexuals could serve, as long as they did not make their sexuality public, and that the military wasn't allowed to ask people about their orientation. In 1993, when this policy was enacted, this was the most extreme left-wing policy which could get through. Over time, though, the politics of the country shifted left on this issue. Homosexuality became more widely accepted, and more and more homosexuals became comfortable living publicly. Same sex marriage was legalized in several states. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which had been seen as a left-wing policy when it was enacted, became moderately left-wing, then centrist, then moderately right-wing. It was no longer enough to let homosexuals serve closeted. In 2010, a left-wing president (Obama) was able to enact a policy allowing all people to serve openly regardless of sexuality. This same policy had been so extremely left-wing only 17 years earlier as to be impossible to enact. In 2010 it was only moderately left-wing, enough to get through. Now, only 8 years later, this is a pretty centrist policy which would only be opposed by the most extreme right-wing politicians. 

So, when you say that the First Word doesn't understand what "far right" means, you're right in that there is no permanent definition of "far right". The policies and ideologies which one may describe as "far right" are completely different, sometimes to the point of contradiction, depending on what country and time period you mean. People in the first world absolutely understand what "far right" means within the context of their country and at their time. You may be correct in that many people may not fully understand the policies and ideologies which characterize the "far right" in developing countries, or in their own country in previous eras. Conversely, though, people in developing countries, or in first world countries in the past, also don't fully understand what "far right" and "far left" mean in the first world today.