Positive freedom is simply the freedom to . . . Freedom to do . . . whatever you want to do. Freedom of action.
Negative freedom is, then simply freedom from . . . Freedom from . . . whatever might negatively impinge on the above positive freedom. So, negative freedoms would include two of Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms:"
Freedom of speech and expression;
Fredom of religion;
Freedom from want;
Freedom from fear.
Taking this view of the two faces of freedom, "The Left" tends to be willing to sacrifice positive freedoms for negative freedoms--especially positive freedoms having to do with economic issues. Paradoxically perhaps, "the left' then turns around and sacrifices negative freedoms in the social sphere--religious and sexual mores, artistic and cultural norms--for positive social and artistic freedoms. "The Right" on the other hand tends to uphold positive economic freedoms over negative ones--the freedom to earn, keep, and use personal property--over negative freedoms such as "freedom from want;" while upholding the negative social freedoms represented by traditional social and cultural institutions and mores over "living on the edge" of expressing positive social/cultural freedoms.
I read through quite a few of the articles I found on the internet regarding positive freedom and negative freedom and quickly found myself wandering into the tall grass of Marxist muddle-headed self-contradictory pseudo-intellectual mush.
It will (I suspect) astonish absolutely no one that the mainstream philosophical definition (i.e. the Marxist definition) of positive and negative freedom is exactly the opposite of what I define above. Thus you discover mind-bending statements like this one earnestly offered up for your consideration:
In hitherto existing Socialist states, like the Soviet Union and China, “negative freedoms” were severely restricted, while “positive freedoms” were advanced.