I have recently been enlightened on a fairly basic dichotomy of political intuitions: the Conflict vs Mistake axis.
Do you believe that political events and social evils are mainly about people or groups fighting each other to maintain or accrue power, or do you believe that they are the result of bad thinking, inadequate norms, wasteful institutions that could be improved?
Conflict (e.g. Hegel) makes for a cyclical worldview of powers arising and declining -- at best, some people are the Just (the woke, the democratic, the Proletariat) and could win for a while.
Mistake (e.g. Pinker) makes for a linear worldview of progress toward better solutions, aided by communication, science, the Market and other Lights of Civilization.
I feel that this axis makes even more sense when tensored with the individualist vs collectivist dichotomy.
What I perceive as cartoon political oppositions tend to fall on one diagonal:
Collectivism + conflict = La Révolution, class warfare, identity politics
Individualism + mistake = Rational self-interest, technocracy, the invisible hand
Both are options that I have a hard time empathizing with. I do not identify well with the lynch-mob behaviors of some peers to my left, nor with what they call the capitalist worldview.
I am far more sensitive to arguments from the other diagonal:
Collectivism + mistake = "carebear" socialism, most issues in society come from collective action problems
Individualism + conflict = libertarianism, most issues in society come from coercion
A basic intuition for libertarians is that any kind of control smothers the ability of individuals to do good. Under a collectivist government with bad intentions (pick one), all it takes is one bad agent to send you to the gulag. In a libertarian society, all it takes is one good person to shelter you. So pockets of good will always remain, because the only collective rules are there to prevent individuals from being controlled (by individuals or groups). The underlying assumption is that the main problems faced in a society have to do with coercion and aggression, so it is a conflict-based worldview.
Hippie socialists intuitively perceive social issues as what game theory calls "collective action" problems - bad things happen not because of conflict, but because of uncertainty or indifference, people being stuck doing the wrong thing because they cannot or will not trust others to do the right thing. From this perspective, letting people exist in little bubbles of private property will lead to a deeply unjust world because of easily-avoided mistakes.
My feeling is that it is Right to be libertarian in an oppressive situation, where conflict is the main engine for your problems, and you can bear a little indifference.
And it is Right to be socialist in a situation of dialogue, where a minimum of coercion (norms, politeness) allows the conversation to go on, but indifference simply ruins the connective tissue of society.