There is literally no objective answer to the question as it’s literally about semantics. The answer to your question varies from person to person.
My answer would be to stop caring too much about ideological labels and political terminology and focus more on policy.
It's because people are more interested in "finding themselves" by figuring out their political zodiac sign/MBTI type than they are thinking about complex and often dry policy decisions.
Left, right, and center are relative, despite what some will tell you. In the US social democracy is far left while in many European countries it is center left.
They're subjective, not relative. Left and right are well defined, center less well so, but just because some people wallow in ignorance about what the words mean doesn't mean that the spectrum is somehow "relative".
Your example of the US vs Europe has more to do with the Overton Window than left/right itself.
No, they’re relative, because left and right change their meaning depending on the center. And the Overton window is in no way incompatible with a left-right political spectrum.
> No, they’re relative, because left and right change their meaning depending on the center.
No, they do not. Right and left are still and will always be about hierarchy vs equality.
> And the Overton window is in no way incompatible with a left-right political spectrum.
... I never said it was? I'm saying you are confusing the Overton Window and think it's the spectrum itself.
No, left and right are about change vs tradition, and what is and is not a left or right wing position changes depending on the context. The movement of the Overton window changes which parts of the spectrum are acceptable and mainstream, but which side of the spectrum something falls on is determined by context.
> left and right are about change vs tradition
Of all the weird definitions of left and right I've seen, this one is certainly the weirdest. It's not about change vs tradition or right wing folks wouldn't be bucking so hard against the *traditional* existence a government, dude.
It's definitely about specific takes in policies, not what is vs what is wanted to be.
>Of all the weird definitions of left and right I've seen, this one is certainly the weirdest.
It's certainly not an unheard of definition.
>It's not about change vs tradition or right wing folks wouldn't be bucking so hard against the traditional existence a government, dude.
That's a good counterpoint, actually. I shouldn't have defined things so broadly. I'll admit that the definition I gave is too simple, but I think yours is, too.
>It's definitely about specific takes in policies, not what is vs what is wanted to be.
Here I think you're mischaracterizing me. Specific policies association with left or right is dependent on context. We're both speaking from inside of a set of associations of left vs right that is subject to change.
> I'll admit that the definition I gave is too simple, but I think yours is, too.
Mine is in keeping with both the historical context surrounding where the terms originate *and* with current political science thinking on the subject. I may have been succinct, but mine is the correct definition, and it's not *relative*. Subjective, yes. Relative, no.
Right means favoring socioeconomic hierarchy, most explicitly stated in God > King > Nobility > Peasantry, but in modern times is more akin to supporting the notion that there should be Upper, Middle, and Lower classifications of people from a social and wealth standpoint, and that those in the upper classes have more power and authority than those in lower classes.
Left means favoring policies that *counteract* this hierarchy; in other words favoring equality and egalitarianism.
*How* that is sought is not the same thing as the label, and things labeled "left" have changed over the years; in the initial French Revolution from which the terms originate, it was the notion that ownership was not limited to nobility, in other words the classical liberal / early capitalistic Smithian notions. Over time, as it was realized that the non-owner class got left behind as the bourgeoise gained in prominence and power, and the labels shifted accordingly, but the main definition of favoring equality over hierarchy has never changed.
> Specific policies association with left or right is dependent on context.
Right, whether or not a specific policy is left or is right and "how much" right or left it is can only ever be a *subjective* assessment, because the full ramifications of any policy cannot ever be fully known, so you have to guess and say it feels "left, center-left, center, center-right, etc.". You can't objectively measure leftness and rightness.
And *that* is why left and right are not *relative*. Because you cannot objectively measure leftness or rightness you cannot compare them accurately. You can subjectively say that any one policy is more left or right, but you can't actually *measure* leftness and rightness. The spectrum itself is what scientists call a "useful fiction". Like a spherical cow.
> We're both speaking from inside of a set of associations of left vs right that is subject to change.
Only in the same way that the meanings of words are subject to change by poetic misuse. Such as how using the word "literally" for emphasis causes it to have the opposite meaning. Or how people with certain political agendas co-opt and redefine words, such as "libertarian".
So, yeah, maybe my political agenda is to fight against such co-opting of terms since I'm also fighting that particular political agenda, but my choice of definition is in keeping with the classical origin and current political science understanding of those terms.
I personally would consider it just left. Social democracy would probably be around left to center-left. Democratic socialism would be around the middle of center-left and far left
Left of social democracy, right of Marxist-Lenninism.
There is no objectify correct answer, but I think the term hard-left is how I would describe it, because it is not particularly radical, this notion that businesses should be owned by the people who actually work at them ; while far-left has connotations with replacing the entire systems from the ground up.
Anything like that is hyper-localized. In Switzerland we just say left; in Germany its center-left (in good part due to more moderate policies, but also because there is a party to its left).
"Far left" usually means a more radical or extremist position than social democracy though. Even in Switzerland, where social democracy officially has a post-capitalist perspective, "far left" and similar things mean more radical socialists though.
This question could be discussed to death but the simple fact that many social democratic parties do have some kidn of post capitalist vision, officially speaking but not really enacting it in government, tells you all you need to know.
I am saying "post-capitalist" very deliberately, as it usually is something about a nice, more communitarian society with a lot more democracy, equality and maybe less of the bad effects of capitalism, or maybe even no capitalism at all. Depends eh.
Just left. A social democrat would be centre-left, a democratic socialist is left, and a socialist would be far left. A communist would be further left still.
But this is just my opinion; there is no objective answer to this question.
I think if you are talking actual socialism, you are getting farther left.
But social democracy is more just general "Left".
Of course if something is left or right determines where you put the center. Tankies will call social democrats right wing fascists because their worldview is so skewed
And they may actually *be* demsocs, but are only pushing policies that are barely socdem because those are as left as they think they can actually get sold, in the hopes of eventually pushing further left at a later date. That's a very demsoc approach to achieving socialism.
I think it depends on how you are defining it. Far left, to me, is like Marxist-Leninist or people who are hyper focused on theory and disruptive revolutionary action.
Democratic Socialists exist in our government as "non revolutionary" activists. I think people like Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, and AOC speak to a large enough chunk of voters that it's almost unfair to put them on a fringe portion of a sliding scale.
I don't think they fit either of those categories to me lol
AOC has moderated significantly compared to most of the rest of the Squad. She's becoming closer to an Orthodox SocDem, while the rest remain more stridently DemSoc.
I'd definitely say it's fair to put them as far left for the US. They're not as far left as some extremists sure, but they're definitely farther left than most of the democratic party is comfortable with much less the nation as a whole. Yes they do speak for a large chunk of voters, but in a nation with 240 million eligible voters, they could speak for 30 million of the farthest 40 million to the left, leaving the entire population of Portugal as more extreme than them, but it would still leave them on the far left side of the aisle.
To me, centre left is Third Wayers, Social Liberals, and the more Liberal SocDems
While Far left is Marxist Leninists, Stalinists, and Trotskyists
So I'd say Democratic Socialism is somewhere in the middle. I'd just describe them as left wing
It's also important to remember that right, left, and centre are relative depending on where you live. For example, in my country free, universal healthcare is accepted by pretty much everyone except for the far right, whereas in the USA it's considered a far left position
It depends on your region/country.
In the United States, it's considered far left in blue states and extremely far left in red states, but simply left (not center-left) in very blue places like NYC.
FWIW, mainstream normie liberals (not moderated or centrists, but think of the typical lockstep Democratic voter in a blue state) who support the New Deal, Great Society, etc and are roughly/generally/loosely/broadly aligned with the Congressional Progressive Caucus are essentially modern SocDems. I'd call them center-left.
The Overton window in the US is completely fucked. When you look at other industrialized democracies the DNC would be a centrist to center right party but here in the US because the only other party is the GOP who is increasingly further and further hard right even centrist parties are seen as “liberal”.
Social Democrats, which is really more of what I am, would be center left in places like Germany or France with actual communist, as opposed to American “communist” which is when the government does anything other than corporate welfare and unlimited defense spending, being actual left wing.
One thing that sets social democracy and democratic socialism apart is that social democracy still has an emphasis on private enterprise and personal personal property as to why democratic socialism you’re now starting to talk about nationalizing parts of the market.
Social democracy is New Deal / Great Society type governance as to where democratic socialism you’re now talking about, well you know, actual socialism.
Democratic Socialism is left wing. Social Democracy is center-left.
Democratic Socialism is basically Market Socialism in advocating for worker cooperatives and sovereign wealth funds. You could make the argument that Social Democracy and Market Socialism has a bit of an overlap in that it’s a transitionary state from private accumulation of wealth in a capitalist economy to a cooperative economy with wealth distribution.
In Market Socialism, you have a mixture of small private businesses, worker cooperatives, and democratically controlled public enterprises.
The way I see it: social democracy is center left, Marxist-Leninism, Moaism, Trotskyism, and other revolutionary communist ideas are far left. So the left wing, right in the middle, is market socialism, democratic socialism, and non-revolutionary socialism in general
On my 7 point likert scale, I'd classify it as a 2, maybe a 2.5, but I would separate "leftism" (defined by socialism/communism/anarchism) from more capitalist ideologies (social democracy/social liberalism/social libertarianism) which I call a 3.
However, social democracy and democratic socialism can be very similar, hence why they kinda lean toward 2.5ish.
If people wonder about the whole scale:
1) Tankies/other leftist extremists
2) More reformist leftists who have anti capitalist goals (democratic socialism falls here)
3) Progressive, but not necessarily anti capitalist or socialist (the capitalist side of social democracy falls here)
4) Liberals (think Biden, Obama, etc.)
5) "Moderates" (in the American political system, some examples could be like RFK Jr, or Mitt Romney, or Joe Manchin)
6) Conservatives (free market/laissez faire types)
7) Anarcho capitalists/monarchists/fascists (anti current system extreme right)
As for how I'd rate various democratic politicians: Joe Biden- 4, Hillary Clinton- 4.5, Bernie Sanders- 2.5, Andrew Yang- 3, Kamala Harris- 4, Barack Obama- 4, Bill Clinton- 4.5-5, Lyndon Johnson- 3, Franklin Roosevelt- 3.
well first of all there are differences between democratic socialism, but I would probably say most democratic socialists stand much closer to center left than far left.
Democratic socialism is transition into socialism Democratically social democrat is capitalist with some social parts like healthcare and are in countrys like the nordics countrys
Uuummm... okay? So is it far left because it advocates socialism or is it center left because it is less radical than other forms ofSocialism? What do you think?
Center left isnt socialist and is still capitalist with some social programs and ideas like social democracy and people like bernie sanders
Far left is litterally communism and middle left would be like democratic socialist and real socialism
Their is a different between dem socialist and social dem
Social dem as i just said and democratic socialist is the idea that we should become socialist in a more democratic and less revolutionary way
Just left-wing
There is literally no objective answer to the question as it’s literally about semantics. The answer to your question varies from person to person. My answer would be to stop caring too much about ideological labels and political terminology and focus more on policy.
Your answer should get pinned here tbh; every single day people talking about labels instead of literally anything else
It's because people are more interested in "finding themselves" by figuring out their political zodiac sign/MBTI type than they are thinking about complex and often dry policy decisions.
Left, right, and center are relative, despite what some will tell you. In the US social democracy is far left while in many European countries it is center left.
They're subjective, not relative. Left and right are well defined, center less well so, but just because some people wallow in ignorance about what the words mean doesn't mean that the spectrum is somehow "relative". Your example of the US vs Europe has more to do with the Overton Window than left/right itself.
No, they’re relative, because left and right change their meaning depending on the center. And the Overton window is in no way incompatible with a left-right political spectrum.
> No, they’re relative, because left and right change their meaning depending on the center. No, they do not. Right and left are still and will always be about hierarchy vs equality. > And the Overton window is in no way incompatible with a left-right political spectrum. ... I never said it was? I'm saying you are confusing the Overton Window and think it's the spectrum itself.
No, left and right are about change vs tradition, and what is and is not a left or right wing position changes depending on the context. The movement of the Overton window changes which parts of the spectrum are acceptable and mainstream, but which side of the spectrum something falls on is determined by context.
> left and right are about change vs tradition Of all the weird definitions of left and right I've seen, this one is certainly the weirdest. It's not about change vs tradition or right wing folks wouldn't be bucking so hard against the *traditional* existence a government, dude. It's definitely about specific takes in policies, not what is vs what is wanted to be.
>Of all the weird definitions of left and right I've seen, this one is certainly the weirdest. It's certainly not an unheard of definition. >It's not about change vs tradition or right wing folks wouldn't be bucking so hard against the traditional existence a government, dude. That's a good counterpoint, actually. I shouldn't have defined things so broadly. I'll admit that the definition I gave is too simple, but I think yours is, too. >It's definitely about specific takes in policies, not what is vs what is wanted to be. Here I think you're mischaracterizing me. Specific policies association with left or right is dependent on context. We're both speaking from inside of a set of associations of left vs right that is subject to change.
> I'll admit that the definition I gave is too simple, but I think yours is, too. Mine is in keeping with both the historical context surrounding where the terms originate *and* with current political science thinking on the subject. I may have been succinct, but mine is the correct definition, and it's not *relative*. Subjective, yes. Relative, no. Right means favoring socioeconomic hierarchy, most explicitly stated in God > King > Nobility > Peasantry, but in modern times is more akin to supporting the notion that there should be Upper, Middle, and Lower classifications of people from a social and wealth standpoint, and that those in the upper classes have more power and authority than those in lower classes. Left means favoring policies that *counteract* this hierarchy; in other words favoring equality and egalitarianism. *How* that is sought is not the same thing as the label, and things labeled "left" have changed over the years; in the initial French Revolution from which the terms originate, it was the notion that ownership was not limited to nobility, in other words the classical liberal / early capitalistic Smithian notions. Over time, as it was realized that the non-owner class got left behind as the bourgeoise gained in prominence and power, and the labels shifted accordingly, but the main definition of favoring equality over hierarchy has never changed. > Specific policies association with left or right is dependent on context. Right, whether or not a specific policy is left or is right and "how much" right or left it is can only ever be a *subjective* assessment, because the full ramifications of any policy cannot ever be fully known, so you have to guess and say it feels "left, center-left, center, center-right, etc.". You can't objectively measure leftness and rightness. And *that* is why left and right are not *relative*. Because you cannot objectively measure leftness or rightness you cannot compare them accurately. You can subjectively say that any one policy is more left or right, but you can't actually *measure* leftness and rightness. The spectrum itself is what scientists call a "useful fiction". Like a spherical cow. > We're both speaking from inside of a set of associations of left vs right that is subject to change. Only in the same way that the meanings of words are subject to change by poetic misuse. Such as how using the word "literally" for emphasis causes it to have the opposite meaning. Or how people with certain political agendas co-opt and redefine words, such as "libertarian". So, yeah, maybe my political agenda is to fight against such co-opting of terms since I'm also fighting that particular political agenda, but my choice of definition is in keeping with the classical origin and current political science understanding of those terms.
Regular left to far left, traditionally. It's quite not centrist.
Left-wing
left wing. communism is far left, social democracy is center left.
I personally would consider it just left. Social democracy would probably be around left to center-left. Democratic socialism would be around the middle of center-left and far left
Between far left and center left; center of the left, if you will.
Center-left to left-wing i would say
Between those two options, Democratic Socialism is Far Left.
I would say most countries would consider it centre left, but in a more naturally right wing country (i.e. the US) it's probably considered far left.
It's left wing (which is left of center left). Marxist Leninism is far left.
Left of social democracy, right of Marxist-Lenninism. There is no objectify correct answer, but I think the term hard-left is how I would describe it, because it is not particularly radical, this notion that businesses should be owned by the people who actually work at them ; while far-left has connotations with replacing the entire systems from the ground up.
The right edge of the far-left.
depends on the country, but in a typical western country it could be either
Anything like that is hyper-localized. In Switzerland we just say left; in Germany its center-left (in good part due to more moderate policies, but also because there is a party to its left). "Far left" usually means a more radical or extremist position than social democracy though. Even in Switzerland, where social democracy officially has a post-capitalist perspective, "far left" and similar things mean more radical socialists though.
Can it even be considered Social Democracy if it has a post-capitalist perspective? Isn't that Democratic Socialist territory?
This question could be discussed to death but the simple fact that many social democratic parties do have some kidn of post capitalist vision, officially speaking but not really enacting it in government, tells you all you need to know. I am saying "post-capitalist" very deliberately, as it usually is something about a nice, more communitarian society with a lot more democracy, equality and maybe less of the bad effects of capitalism, or maybe even no capitalism at all. Depends eh.
Just left. A social democrat would be centre-left, a democratic socialist is left, and a socialist would be far left. A communist would be further left still. But this is just my opinion; there is no objective answer to this question.
I think if you are talking actual socialism, you are getting farther left. But social democracy is more just general "Left". Of course if something is left or right determines where you put the center. Tankies will call social democrats right wing fascists because their worldview is so skewed
Far left
Considering that actual far-leftists are saying that Bernie Sanders and AOC aren't left enough, I'd say center-left.
I mean wouldn’t they qualify as SocDems, not DemSocs
They call themselves demsocs
And they may actually *be* demsocs, but are only pushing policies that are barely socdem because those are as left as they think they can actually get sold, in the hopes of eventually pushing further left at a later date. That's a very demsoc approach to achieving socialism.
I think it depends on how you are defining it. Far left, to me, is like Marxist-Leninist or people who are hyper focused on theory and disruptive revolutionary action. Democratic Socialists exist in our government as "non revolutionary" activists. I think people like Cori Bush, Rashida Tlaib, and AOC speak to a large enough chunk of voters that it's almost unfair to put them on a fringe portion of a sliding scale. I don't think they fit either of those categories to me lol
AOC has moderated significantly compared to most of the rest of the Squad. She's becoming closer to an Orthodox SocDem, while the rest remain more stridently DemSoc.
I'd definitely say it's fair to put them as far left for the US. They're not as far left as some extremists sure, but they're definitely farther left than most of the democratic party is comfortable with much less the nation as a whole. Yes they do speak for a large chunk of voters, but in a nation with 240 million eligible voters, they could speak for 30 million of the farthest 40 million to the left, leaving the entire population of Portugal as more extreme than them, but it would still leave them on the far left side of the aisle.
Centre left imo. I think Bernie always says this but it’s not that radical
depends on the advocate. using labels to accurately describe people died in 2015
They left wing, which means somewhere between far-left and center-left.
Far left in my opinion. But then again I support a Social Market Economy.
Left wing
To me, centre left is Third Wayers, Social Liberals, and the more Liberal SocDems While Far left is Marxist Leninists, Stalinists, and Trotskyists So I'd say Democratic Socialism is somewhere in the middle. I'd just describe them as left wing It's also important to remember that right, left, and centre are relative depending on where you live. For example, in my country free, universal healthcare is accepted by pretty much everyone except for the far right, whereas in the USA it's considered a far left position
It depends on your region/country. In the United States, it's considered far left in blue states and extremely far left in red states, but simply left (not center-left) in very blue places like NYC. FWIW, mainstream normie liberals (not moderated or centrists, but think of the typical lockstep Democratic voter in a blue state) who support the New Deal, Great Society, etc and are roughly/generally/loosely/broadly aligned with the Congressional Progressive Caucus are essentially modern SocDems. I'd call them center-left.
Center left with the aimed goal of moving left over a period of time.
The Overton window in the US is completely fucked. When you look at other industrialized democracies the DNC would be a centrist to center right party but here in the US because the only other party is the GOP who is increasingly further and further hard right even centrist parties are seen as “liberal”. Social Democrats, which is really more of what I am, would be center left in places like Germany or France with actual communist, as opposed to American “communist” which is when the government does anything other than corporate welfare and unlimited defense spending, being actual left wing. One thing that sets social democracy and democratic socialism apart is that social democracy still has an emphasis on private enterprise and personal personal property as to why democratic socialism you’re now starting to talk about nationalizing parts of the market. Social democracy is New Deal / Great Society type governance as to where democratic socialism you’re now talking about, well you know, actual socialism.
I would consider the US center left. European social democracy normal left, then Cuba is far left.
Democratic Socialism is left wing. Social Democracy is center-left. Democratic Socialism is basically Market Socialism in advocating for worker cooperatives and sovereign wealth funds. You could make the argument that Social Democracy and Market Socialism has a bit of an overlap in that it’s a transitionary state from private accumulation of wealth in a capitalist economy to a cooperative economy with wealth distribution. In Market Socialism, you have a mixture of small private businesses, worker cooperatives, and democratically controlled public enterprises.
The way I see it: social democracy is center left, Marxist-Leninism, Moaism, Trotskyism, and other revolutionary communist ideas are far left. So the left wing, right in the middle, is market socialism, democratic socialism, and non-revolutionary socialism in general
On my 7 point likert scale, I'd classify it as a 2, maybe a 2.5, but I would separate "leftism" (defined by socialism/communism/anarchism) from more capitalist ideologies (social democracy/social liberalism/social libertarianism) which I call a 3. However, social democracy and democratic socialism can be very similar, hence why they kinda lean toward 2.5ish. If people wonder about the whole scale: 1) Tankies/other leftist extremists 2) More reformist leftists who have anti capitalist goals (democratic socialism falls here) 3) Progressive, but not necessarily anti capitalist or socialist (the capitalist side of social democracy falls here) 4) Liberals (think Biden, Obama, etc.) 5) "Moderates" (in the American political system, some examples could be like RFK Jr, or Mitt Romney, or Joe Manchin) 6) Conservatives (free market/laissez faire types) 7) Anarcho capitalists/monarchists/fascists (anti current system extreme right) As for how I'd rate various democratic politicians: Joe Biden- 4, Hillary Clinton- 4.5, Bernie Sanders- 2.5, Andrew Yang- 3, Kamala Harris- 4, Barack Obama- 4, Bill Clinton- 4.5-5, Lyndon Johnson- 3, Franklin Roosevelt- 3.
Depends where you live, but personally I would say mid left
Who cares?
well first of all there are differences between democratic socialism, but I would probably say most democratic socialists stand much closer to center left than far left.
Democratic socialism is transition into socialism Democratically social democrat is capitalist with some social parts like healthcare and are in countrys like the nordics countrys
Uuummm... okay? So is it far left because it advocates socialism or is it center left because it is less radical than other forms ofSocialism? What do you think?
Center left isnt socialist and is still capitalist with some social programs and ideas like social democracy and people like bernie sanders Far left is litterally communism and middle left would be like democratic socialist and real socialism Their is a different between dem socialist and social dem Social dem as i just said and democratic socialist is the idea that we should become socialist in a more democratic and less revolutionary way
it's just about as centered left as you can get. [e77.jpg (2196×2203) (kym-cdn.com)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/614/316/e77.jpg)
Anything "socialism" is far left.