Maybe I should’ve said, ‘The left and right use collectivism and individualism respectively’. I didn’t mean to say that the right also uses collectivism. To me the left-right spectrum is defined by varying advocacy of coercion. The extreme left are in favor of totalitarian coercion while the extreme right want no coercion. Collectivism at a certain scale usually requires coercion to force the people together, so collectivism is somewhat antithetical to the right. Religious tyrannies such as those in the muslim world aren’t really right wing. The left, who want coercion conducted by the state instead of by the mosque, try optically to distance themselves from their co-coercionists by trying to recast the tyrannical muslims as being non-leftists. It’s just crap.

An example of a collectivistic exception on the right would be an aspect of geolibertarianism. It’s the idea that political consensus should be reached for the management of natural resources. We have all been collected together here on earth, after all, and we all use natural resources even though none of us created them. The collectivism would be limited to natural resources decision-making, though, and maybe law & order if you think of it that way. Almost everything else; labor, innovation, risk-taking, service industry competition, and free association; would be individualistic.

My point in the earlier comment is that it’s almost ironic that a right winger seeking individual success helps make the whole nation better. The leftist uses collectivism to coerce other people and then uses the plunder for individual social position at the expense of the nation’s health.