Theoretically that is a right wing problem.
The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, with emphasis placed upon issues of social equality and social hierarchy Wiki
So if you believe in social inequality as some sort of "natural order", if you believe there is a necessity for "(strong) leadership", if there is a "right" and many "wrong" ways to do things and if your worldview is a clear black and white division between the good and the evil then it makes to form a hierarchy promotes what is good and punishes what is evil (hence policing).
While if you believe in freedom and equality. The lack of social hierarchies, see strong leadership as tyranny and rather aim for self-governance of the people, where the group forms by the free and equal association of the individuals rather than by submitting or being dominated by a despot, then this entails a lot more plurality.
So where in a right wing system an authoritarian ruler could mandate the rules top down, a left wing system would aim for rule creation bottom up. So everyone has a right to participate, every voice and perspective is being heard, no one is supposed to dominate the discourse and set the course for the rest to follow. So bickering, discussing, debating and whatnot is not seen as a malice, but as normal part of the process, without it and with only (en-)forced unity this would constitute a hierarchy.
So rather than a black and white image, with one clear path to follow, an honest look at reality is a lot more gray. So in order to pick a path forward people discuss their priorities, hopes, dreams, fears, problems and whatnot and try together to find compromises and solutions that are acceptable to all in order to sustain their personal freedom, but also the equality among each other, that assures that one person's freedom doesn't negate the freedom of other people.
So policing is a lot less suitable for that philosophy as that constitutes a hierarchy of people with respect to who's ideas and desires matter and who's don't.
So from a theoretical perspective it makes some sense that right winger are drawn towards policing and the military, give up personality and uniqueness, enforce or submit to dogma and try to become uniform or punish people who don't. And if people from the U.S. claim that this isn't what ring wing is about... A) It's what it is about pretty much everywhere except your right wing media networks and B) since when is individuality connected to wearing the same hats and making yourself look like NPCs in a video game?
Practically on the other hand it's a lot more messy.
Like a major problem is the "paradox of tolerance". Like as long as people argue about what's going to be for dinner, how construction should be made more efficient, what problems and benefits should be considered and how one could make the most off the resources and skills available to the benefit of the individual AND the group, that's all fine and dandy.
But what do you do about the folks who still live in yesteryears world and consider society as a zero-sum game where they can increase their own share by reducing that of someone else? So idk if your "opinion" is that your neighbor shouldn't exist, that what is another person should really be yours exclusively, that [insert minority] is the root cause of all even and should be purged, that those less fortunate really deserve their fate or are just better accustomed to poverty than you are to having slightly less etc...
So in other words how do you deal with assholes that not only have no interest in having a free and equal society (and would leave), but who actively make such a society impossible or anyone else.
So usually there's some agreement that the biggest freedom of the individual is not actually in the absence of rules and society (as that creates a lot of surpluses and opportunities for the individual), but in one where you get along well and balance the personal freedoms of the individuals within society by collective governance (democracy, discourse, debate, compromises, etc.).
So while a high standard of living, a lack of envy stemming from massive social hierarchies and rigid or fluid caste systems, a high level of education and social contacts and empathy could potentially reduce actions adverse to a pluralist, free and equal coexistence, there's still a caveat as to whether you could get completely rid of policing or if a silver spoon fed, highly educated Hitler would still be needed to be "put in his place" even if "his place" is just on the same level as anyone else (and not some cruel and unusual punishment.
Also not to make that sound as if an individual stepping out of the line must necessarily always be evil, it's also quite feasible that certain high demands of an individual are not necessarily the result of malevolence but they might also be the result of actual needs. Idk undiagnosed medical conditions, social ills for which there is no awareness yet, work related problems that are only known within a certain domain etc.
Not every demand that sounds excessive and unreasonable actually is. Also if someone acts violently responding with force might become a necessity in order to stop them. But as we see everyday, "self-defense" is as much obvious as it is pandoras box in terms of every aggressor nowadays will have a victim narrative ready for why their acts of aggression are just self-defense and why it's really the recipient is the problem. And whether that's true, bullshit, an exaggeration with a pinch of truth or whatnot is often hard to tell objectively but subjectively people WILL have a strong opinion about it either way.
So life is complicated, you can't root out individual opinions and desires as that is authoritarian and despotic and in clear contradiction with freedom and equality of the individual on the other hand you can't really let excessive egoism run unopposed either as that as well leads to tyranny and oppression. Yet who decides what is "excessive" and what is "normal" or even "healthy" egoism? (That would also be a position of power to decide that...)
So in other words it's actually hard to avoid having a right wing, even in democratic systems, without targeting the freedom of the individual and not just having a right wing but also no democratic systems at all.
Conversely right wing ideologies usually have the opposite problem where they as well can't really root out all the dissenting opinions because they NEED people. Other people are the source of the authoritarians power and dissent and honest access to information are the prerequisite for good decision making (even if by "good" you mean your personal benefit). So if you are king nothing sitting on your thrown of ashes or are surrounded by yeasayers that is an actual problem. So ironically authoritarians, organized crime, terrorists and whatnot might even recruit themselves not by natural order bullshit, but by comradery and pretending of social safety and cohesion, where they present themselves as free and equal.
So in other words the right wing ideal sucks ass for anyone, but the tyrant so the moment they get rid of anything left and actually do as they say, that would probably end in revolt and either death or a new system.
So in reality you'll rarely if ever have pure left or right wing societies, but usually it's a mess with both of them present in degrees fighting each other, but hardly being able to actually "win".
Last but not least: The hammer shapes the hand
Also an often overlooked problem is that it might not be ideology that drives the choice of actions, but that it's actions that drive the choice and description of an ideology.
So if you want to organize a rebellion, you likely form some sort of military or para-military and that usually comes with... a social hierarchy. So no matter how many red flags you wave and how much you talk about people being equal if the general can send soldiers to die as pawns and if you focus your movement on a savior figure, that is the seed of authoritarianism.
On the other hand if you want to rebel against a system, you likely need organization, numbers and material, because usually an individual stands no chance against the system, neither in terms of military strength nor in terms of their ability to make a mark on the political discourse. If it's just one person they can be erased from history and memory and society (censorship, imprisonment, deportation, murder), if it's thousands that becomes much more unlikely.
So conspiracies, military hierarchies, revolutions, info wars and propaganda, symbolisms etc, all those have their own social dynamics that aren't necessarily neutral but can result in a "self-proclaimed" left movement acting pretty far right wing or vice versa.
Now you could draw the moral from that story that you should avoid these institutions and institutions that move in that direction, but then again if situations are dire, it might actually be necessary to organize as that to be effective to make sure you don't fall victim to treason or whatnot.
And conversely radical organization will make a large effort to make you believe that the situation IS dire for that very reason to achieve a legitimacy for means and organization forms that would otherwise run counter to their proclaimed goals.
So yeah, it's difficult and you probably need to look at the specific groups and can't tell that just by labels and descriptions even if in theory you could. Reality, for better or worse is complicated.
