Before I begin, let me make it clear that this post is likely to anger you, and that is not the intent of the article.

Here are two interesting takes on the anger in politics issue:
Why People Are Irrational about Politics
This Video Will Make You Angry

If you have a long lazy day ahead, it's worth it to dig into these before dipping into the article, but they aren't really relevant to the issue itself.

Why is the Left/Right split so poorly defined?

I can't answer that. I can answer HOW it is defined, and some possible causes, but the main thing to understand is that people use labels to define their opposition...and sometimes themselves...based on secondary characteristics, and not on primary definitions.

The primary characteristic in assigning a label on the Left/Right Continuum is governance, or the mode of rule. The farther one goes to the Left, the more absolute the level of State control, up to the point of determining each subject's economic restrictions. You can not have economic control of a person without State control. Thus Far leftism is socialism, communism, etc. The farther one goes to the Right, the less State control over the individual, up to Pure Anarchy on the extreme Right.

However, supposed "Right-wing" movements are defined by secondary characteristics such as racism, religion, or nationalism.

One of the problems in this is that many of these definitions are disseminated by the Left, which as far too much influence over our educational and cultural systems. Racists are "Right Wing", for example, which is nonsense. Geuevara hated blacks for example, and anti-Semitism has been a long time propaganda tool of the Left as well as some "Right" groups. By defining any movement not in line with leftist thought as "Right-wing", a false dichotomy is established.

Groups such as the Nazis, Christian or Islamic extremists tend to confuse people. However, by applying a clean and honest understanding of the Left/Right Continuum we can see that these political groups should properly be defined as closer to the Left than the center.

The Four Asian Tigers are another example of poor definition on the Left/Right Continuum:high levels of capitalism and high levels of tyranny. These countries should still be defined as being further to the Left than the center due to the absolute nature of their governing systems

Capitalism is a description of the natural laws of economies; it is not a governing system; it is a secondary characteristic.

The problem with Bi's

Political scientists in the 1960's were frustrated by the Left/Right Continuum in defining some dictatorial movements. They did not recognize that economic control necessitates State control.

Indeed, these political scientists took the economic control characteristic out of the one dimensional Left/Right continuum and added a second dimension; resulting in a bi-dimensional chart. Nolan defined this second dimension on the economic basis while Pournelle (whom I regard as a genius - see Chaos Manor ) redefined the second axis on the basis of belief in "rationality" in governance.

Pournelle chart
Nolan Chart
The Pournelle vs. Nolan Chart: Political Throwdown

These attempts to make political movements easier to define had the opposite effect. The reason for this is something that I will repeat , in bold, again: They did not recognize that economic control necessitates State control.

What about the Nazis?

I am not going to simply say "The Nazis were National Socialists". That is too flip. Industry that was not nationalized by the Nazis was subject to central control. Labor was controlled by the Nazi Party via party-controlled unions. These are examples of leftist ideology in Nazi statism.

However, the Nazis are a good example of something that I stress in my writing; there is usually not just one factor in any human situation. the Nazis also employed identity politics (but on a nationalist basis, not as a leftist device), and opposed capitalism more as a "Jewish conspiracy" more than on a "workers united" basis. Hitler's writing is contradictory on some points, and he personally had a bit of contempt for economics. What Hitler did well was to synthesize power by aligning with the positions of power blocs until he could overwhelm them (the idiot Prussian officer class, for example). So you can see not just Straaser's SA as a leftist wing of the Nazis, but the inclusion of the anti-Jewish Freikorps from the "right" as well.

OK then, smartass Steve, then WHY did the Nazis and Soviets fight?

We make the mistake of assuming that leftism is one united, conspiratorial movement. Instead, leftism is comprised by different groups who want their OWN group to be the ones deciding power. Nazism vs. Communism was not an ideological struggle, it was a power struggle.

Adherence to a political belief is one factor out of many in political struggle. Personal alliances, secondary characteristics such as tribalism (see above), and rent-seeking advancement all have their own place.

For a current example, we see the government of Jordan at war with ISIS. While both share the same ideology of Islam, the struggle on Jordan's side is an issue of self-control as opposed to ISIS's goal of restoring the caliphate.

Biased Argument

If you are saying that I have a bias in this definition of the Left/Right Continuum, you are correct. I am a minarchist. Rather than holding the position that "the balance is somewhere in the middle", my position is that the extremes are based on Utopian nonsense, See Utopia ALWAYS leads to Dystopia. For me, the fulcrum is the mechanism of State. I don't see the State as a "necessary evil", I see it as a "dangerous tool", to be bound by rule of law and constant scrutiny. I put that fulcrum FAR to the right on my axis, and am suspicious of everything to the left of it.

George Washington supposedly said that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

On the other hand, I am very often called a statist by people to the Right of me.

Thanks for reading today!