sorry about all of these terrible, unhelpful comments.
my form of education is from a first principles perspective, and is thus historical or etymological. so, when we even to even speak of "politics", we must carefully define terms according to their correctness. the term "politics" originally refers to πόλις ("polis"), which was the greek city-state. aristotle (politics, book 1) claims that men are political animals, since the state is the telos (final cause) of social existence. he claims for example, that we begin with families, then extend to villages and finally, we form states. so politics refers to the state. concerning the state, aristotle describes its revenues (oeconomicus, book 2) as various types of taxation which come from different areas of society. so the state is funded by citizens (demos). yet, as aristotle understands it, the state also represents particular classes over others. this occurs by 6 major forms of government (politics, book 3):
>Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all […] Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.htmlthe state therefore, as aristotle understands it, is a form of class rule, either by a minority or majority, with each excluding everyone else. politics may then be said to refer to preference for a particular form of government based on what class will be represented.
the left-right distinction only comes much later, in the context of "political orientation", within the french national assembly, 1789:
>The terms "left" and "right" first appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the Ancien Régime to the president's right side and supporters of the revolution to his left side [.] When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly composed of 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 […] Following the Restoration in 1814–1815, political clubs were again formed. The majority ultra-royalists 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.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrumhere, politics is still based on orientation to class. those loyal to the aristocracy are on "the right", while those opposed to it are on "the left". moreover:
>[Thomas] Jefferson wrote LaFayette on November 4, 1823, where "Côté droit" means "right side" and "côté gauche" means "left side.": "for in truth the parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. they exist in all countries, whether called by these names, or by those of Aristocrats and democrats, coté droite or coté gauche, Ultras or Radicals, Serviles or Liberals"here, the left and right spectrum appears to be a common trend in international politics, consolidating into various parties. the class element persisted:
>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" […] 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.here then, "the left" refers to the republicans of the french revolution, who did not merely oppose the ruling class, but promoted their own class, the "bourgeoisie", or middle class. for this reason, marx identifies the socialists of 1848 as "bourgeois":
>Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto […] Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htmmarx further criticises all forms of rival socialism:
>"Reactionary Socialism", "Feudal Socialism", "Petty-Bourgeois Socialism", "German or True Socialism" and "Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htmin all these cases, marx sees socialism representing a different class than that of the proletariat (working class) and so it is ineffectual to his own aims. politics then is understood as class warfare, or as marx says:
>The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles […] every class struggle is a political struggle.so from aristotle to marx, politics is based around class; of representing minorities or majorities. the left and right similarly refer to class interest - historically, the middle class against the aristocracy, which is why some see the left-right spectrum as anachronistic, since the middle class have won the class war, yet one cannot simply be the left of "the left". the term "socialist" or "communist" thus comes to theorise a new class struggle against "capitalism", or the political rule of capitalists by a "bourgeois dictatorship".
in marx's conception, the propertied oppress the propertyless, which is also adam smith's perspective:
>Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/wealthofnations-reading-guide-book-v-chapter-1various solutions may then be proposed. either (1) the wealthy will oppress the poor, (2) the poor will oppress the wealthy, or (3) all wealth will be shared. this is the ultimate logic of politics. marx is obviously on the side of the poor, but aristotle sees how crime and revolution come from the poor, and so their enfranchisement must be made by a sharing of property:
>Yet the true friend of the people should see that they be not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures therefore should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or husbandry. And if this benevolence cannot be extended to all, money should be distributed in turn according to tribes or other divisions, and in the meantime the rich should pay the fee for the attendance of the poor at the necessary assemblies; and should in return be excused from useless public services. https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.6.six.htmlwhile marx takes a more radical stance:
>In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmin classical terms therefore, marx would be a tyrant while aristotle is a democrat. aristotle wants class harmony while marx wants class dictatorship.
to conclude, there is no "correct" stance on politics, there is only loyalty or antagonism to certain classes, which then accord to different forms of government.