Looking at the dichotomy between "right" and "left", and seeing that the left is truly violent while the "right" is incredibly passive, some thoughts came to mind.
Why is the left violent? Because that is their philosophy, at its core. The world is unjust, and so "we" must do something about that. What can be done? Their answer is to tear down all institutions of power. They think that anyone who is stronger than them is a threat to them. And so they lash out wildly against anyone and everyone, endlessly. Whatever the problem is -- it's not the left, it's everyone else!
Why isn't the right violent? Because that is their philosophy at its core. The world is unjust, and "we" must do something about that. What can be done? Their answer is that by rightly living, they can ease and perhaps even end some of the suffering. They think that they have some power and that they must use that power wisely. Anyone stronger than them isn't necessarily a threat, but a potential partner or ally. And so they seek to reconcile and arbitrate disputes.
I don't see how these two philosophies will ever reconcile. The left is a cancer that the right has created by its passivity and reconciliatory nature. And leftists who take two moments to think seriously will always end up in the right.
At first, society is relatively stable.
Then, a revolutionary movement starts. They progress along simply because the rest of society doesn't want to do anything about it. Eventually, the revolutionaries achieve enough momentum that they force the hand of the rest of society, and there is a civil war.
The outcome of the civil war is one of three cases: Either the revolutionaries win, the others win, or the revolutionaries retreat into the woods. The others might think that this third option is a victory, but it is not. It is simply delayed defeat.