>“left” isn’t a thing academically because there isn’t some line that actually captures the wide variety of political positions.

Well, for Europeans (and I'd guess Canadians, Latin Americans, etc.) there is a line, and the Dems never cut it. A fuzzy line (a spectrum if you will on the left) doesn't mean there isn't one, and one can be of either side. Dems are not, and have never been, even close to the fuzzy "border" part of that line, always to the right of it.

Centrist is the more accurate term for Dems (and even that's charitable).

It's basically center-right (Dems), and right-to-far-right (GOP).

Sure, for some Americans, Democrats might be called "left", but then again other Americans also considered Swedish style social democracy as "communism".

>This meme of “there is no left in America” is just a childish way of saying, “I don’t like the current majority opinion of the Democratic Party”.

No, it's more like saying "America never has had a left party, just a party more to the left than the other".

Not in any historical sense of the term as developed and still currently used in Europe, at any rate.

Giving how hard it is to find affordable housing in Stockholm, I have to wonder if Swedish style social democracy is so great after all, if it can't even solve the fundamental human need of housing by building enough for everyone.

That feels to me like a straw man.

Poverty rate in Sweden is, like in most of Western Europe, low. [1] whilst the cost of living is lower than in the USA as an example. [2] At the same time schools, university, healthcare, social services, is accessible to everyone. There is a shortage of housing, only 0.8% of rental properties are availbe for rent[3] but it isn’t necessarily only a failure of government as the housing market is largely commercial, only 19% of housing is owned by the government [4].

[1] https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm

[2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.js...

[3] https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje...

[4] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11...

No I mention housing supply because it is an issue that cuts orthogonally across the popular left-right dimension.

Japan is very capitalist but builds lots of housing because landowners can build up with little zoning restrictions.

The USSR was very communist and they also built a lot of housing because the government just went in and did it.

But the USA and Europe seem to easily get stuck in NIMBY traps where nothing gets built, and then when prices go up due to lack of supply people will reach for solutions like rent control, which almost 100% of economists will tell you is bad for longterm housing supply because it discourages new construction.

I've heard Stockholm's rent control is especially stupid because while the landlord is forced to rent to the primary tenant at a low, below market rate, that primary tenant can turn around and sublet their entire unit at a much higher, market rate to a secondary tenant. So the primary lease is basically a capital asset with perpetual returns. The unit ends up renting for market rate anyway to the secondary tenant, while the primary tenant collects free money.

> Well, for Europeans (and I'd guess Canadians, Latin Americans, etc.) there is a line, and the Dems never cut it.

This is overly simplistic. For instance, the US (left?) has been ahead of Europe on issues like accessibility for the disabled or same-sex marriage.

Those are plain old shared with bourgeois / social democracy concerns, not specifically left concerns (left is about class issues, and focuses on the economic substrate and equality, which is sees as more fundamental and where all others are mere derivatory or pale in importnace. Marx even considered these kind of things "bourgeois rights" and somewhat dismissed them.

In any case, it's not like the right is against "accessibility for the disabled".

Similarly, same-sex marriage is not about left vs right but about progressive/liberal (in the in favor of invididual rights sense) vs concervative.

An anarcho-capitalist can be all about same-sex marriage without being left (the opposite), where even communists were known to be socially conservative in several cases, or pioneering such rights in others.

There is no line, stop burying your head in the sand by pretending there is.

It’s so incredibly stupid to think that there is just one dimension driving all political views and it’s stemming from the lens of the US two-party system sucking the oxygen out of the room.

Pick all of the policies you think defines a “left” party and we can go through one-by-one and find parties in some country that are considered right-wing that will share some of the same views.

Political science is an actual subject. I would suggest everyone to take look just to learn bit. Why do u think I don't like Dems? The only thing I said is that they r not left. Which is true. I stated it like I say cold or hot. Did I ever mention I prefer which?

Political science doesn’t place everything onto a left-right single dimensional line. If you think it does you need to spend some more time actually reading.

Additionally, political science has many subfields and the ones that are closely related to political beliefs are subject to the same replication crisis as the other fields of social psychology (i.e. lots of junk science). So any of that stuff that generalizes 1 dimensional outcomes to entire lifestyles and views is likely complete trash.

I'll emphasize what kortilla said, please read about actual political science, not stuff you encounter online about this. Open a book. This online mudslinging nonsense is meaningless.

In quantitative political science, candidates and parties tend to be placed in "n-dimensional political spaces" where each issue occupies a different dimension. For example, if an election contains candidates who have publicly stated their positions on LGBT rights, free trade, and public healthcare, then you can call this a 3-dimensional political space where candidates place their attitudes on these issues on these axes.

In qualitative political science, there's many distinctions. There's "liberal rights vs substantive rights" political systems (e.g. whether the government guarantees individuals rights against their government or whether the government guarantees individuals substantive (standard of living e.g. basic healthcare) claims. There's "authoritarian vs democratic systems" (e.g. both fascist systems and Democratic Centralist ("politburo-style") socialist systems are authoritarin systems; liberal democratic, social democratic, and participatory economic systems are all democratic systems).

Even then, Europe has social democratic and communist parties that are anti-immigration. Japan has pro-labor pro-immigration parties. Politics cannot be boiled down to a "left" and a "right". When discussing "the Left" in the context of political philosophy, I've largely seen it as a reference to Hegelian Marxist thought at its strongest and a general orientation around the disenfranchisement of labor at its weakest.

No, it means when compared on the international stage the American left is no more like the global center-right.

Also, the majority of American citizens don't like the opinions of the democratic party. They works for the corps, not the people.

Ugh, stop digging in on this lame 1 dimensional spectrum. It doesn’t adequately capture anything meaningful in the real world.

There is no “global center-right”.

What is considered a “right wing extremist” in France could still be extremely nationalistic, anti-immigration, pro state entitlements, anti free speech, and anti gun rights. That has zero overlap with any of the political parties in the US no matter where you plop the dumb pin on the 1d line.