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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.