True as well, the different views on things are interconnected. But sometimes in difficult and intricate ways. I said I doubt a number covers it, but yeah, even a vector probably doesn't really cover this spectrum. Political views and even the subset of left-right isn't as easily captured.

But I know these details are often lost. How often the discussion goes there I am critical of capitalism and this instantly elicits the reaction: so you are for communism? This is incredibly tiring. Political views are more multifaceted than this black and white view. So I am really enjoying this discussion of more intricate details. :)

An interesting take on the left-right political definition. I would look at it differently. I'm Dutch and we look at it from the perspective we call 'Maakbare Samenleving'.

It essentially means 'can society be engineered to get an optimum society or not'.

The left-right position is the scale on which how strong the belief is in this engineering and how much of it is wanted. Or the level of social engineering in other words.

Far left in this case is a full belief that everything would need to be socially engineered, whereas far right would be a complete rejection of it. Or in other words how much to curb the inane individual Human instincts versus seeking the optimum from a group perspective.

It is for this reason high population area's tend to be left leaning, where low population area's tend to be right leaning, because obviously the more people need to share a certain space, there is a stronger need to engineer/regulate the group to prevent chaos.

Obviously means the higher the level of social engineering is, the more influence a central authority needs to have to make this possible. Therefore left leaning politics tend to lead to more government/regulation and right leaning politics tend to lead to less of it.

This was visible during the Covid era. The more left leaning people accepting the Government's guidance more willingly , where the 'anti-vaxers' where more right leaning and more prone to protest other Covid measures.

From this perspective anarchy I would call far right, because it's a rejection of centralized authority. Essentially the 'Survival of the Fittest' approach. Where far left is a total subjection to the central authority, because 'the central authority knows best.'

The National Sozialistische Partei, or how the British invented the slang word Nazi for it, was founded in 1920 as a follow up to the German workersparty. It had a strong nationalistic belief system and to propagate it would mean to quell any dissent from its message. Therefore implementing strong censorship, rejection of religion and the centralization of power. Essentially 'the government knows best' approach.

As I said earlier, it's interesting how different a take can be looking at the left-right political spectrum. I guess a lot of that has to do on where people live and what their daily exposure is to their regulatory bodies and how that influences their lives.

There were ways to circumvent these two and do more, I am not mentally equipped to explain this myself now as it's been long time. I will dig up the articles regarding this (or not, I will see how motivated I am later, I am just BLEH about it all now).

This is the dems need to work on, it's almost as if they're too happy to ditch progressive policies. 

An interesting take on the left-right political definition. I would look at it differently. I'm Dutch and we look at it from the perspective we call 'Maakbare Samenleving'.

It essentially means 'can society be engineered to get an optimum society or not'.

The left-right position is the scale on which how strong the belief is in this engineering and how much of it is wanted. Or the level of social engineering in other words.

Far left in this case is a full belief that everything would need to be socially engineered, whereas far right would be a complete rejection of it. Or in other words how much to curb the inane individual Human instincts versus seeking the optimum from a group perspective.

It is for this reason high population area's tend to be left leaning, where low population area's tend to be right leaning, because obviously the more people need to share a certain space, there is a stronger need to engineer/regulate the group to prevent chaos.

Obviously means the higher the level of social engineering is, the more influence a central authority needs to have to make this possible. Therefore left leaning politics tend to lead to more government/regulation and right leaning politics tend to lead to less of it.

This was visible during the Covid era. The more left leaning people accepting the Government's guidance more willingly , where the 'anti-vaxers' where more right leaning and more prone to protest other Covid measures.

From this perspective anarchy I would call far right, because it's a rejection of centralized authority. Essentially the 'Survival of the Fittest' approach. Where far left is a total subjection to the central authority, because 'the central authority knows best.'

The National Sozialistische Partei, or how the British invented the slang word Nazi for it, was founded in 1920 as a follow up to the German workersparty. It had a strong nationalistic belief system and to propagate it would mean to quell any dissent from its message. Therefore implementing strong censorship, rejection of religion and the centralization of power. Essentially 'the government knows best' approach.

As I said earlier, it's interesting how different a take can be looking at the left-right political spectrum. I guess a lot of that has to do on where people live and what their daily exposure is to their regulatory bodies and how that influences their lives.

The quality of discussion was high before?

And I learn stuff like I first time hear about the details of Kropotkins theories and 'Maakbare Samenleving', which is all very interesting to me.

This doesn't fit where the left/right spectrum came from. The distinction came from the French Assembly, where the left wing was generally in opposition to the King. 

Americans similarly frequently use left to mean big government, and right to mean small government. But that's not what the academic definition is. 

I think this definition of "can society be engineered to get an optimum society" is extremely problematic though. 

What is an optimum society? People have wildly different ideas of what that would look like. Is it one where I have the freedom to choose not to have healthcare, or the freedom to have healthcare no matter what? 

Is it more left/right wing to ban a book from a curriculum or to mandate it?

Right wingers are pushing to ban trans people from playing sports, why isn't that considered engineering?

Right wingers frequently believe their government knows best, when they're the ones in government. They're less concerned about government waste, even when they're wasting more. They're less concerned about certain rights being taken away.

And a lot of this is driven by media. If Fox News and others are pushing that the government is being wasteful, it's suddenly a big concern. If Fox News isn't, then it's not. 

Political spectrums are ultimately arbitrary though. I think it's generally problematic to boil down effectively thousands of political positions into a one dimensional number. And you frequently have left wing people and right wing people that believe the same kinds of things. There are left wing people that are in favor of Russia (in opposition to America).

I personally tend to prefer the two dimensional spectrum where you can add in authoritarianism. There are meaningful differences between big central government communism and libertarian socialism. 

The quality of discussion was high before?

And I learn stuff like I first time hear about the details of Kropotkins theories and 'Maakbare Samenleving', which is all very interesting to me.

The left-right paradigm isn't necessarily directly determined by state control. In so much as it makes sense (and yes there are limitations), it a measure of one's orientation towards social hierarchy. Those who support and preserve current social hierarchies, or want to return to past social hierarchies are on the right. Those who want to deconstruct them are on the left. 

This paradigm originated in the French Revolution with the left aiming to deconstruct the Ancien-Regime and the right aiming to protect it. "Left" and "right" coming from where these individuals sat in the National Assembly (on the left side or the right side.) 

When you consider that social hierarchy is the dividing principle, then you can fit it on a single axis. There are cultural hierarchies, economic hierarchies, and organizational hierarchies -- and its hard to be a critic of one without criticizing the others. Anarchists are at the furthest left because they aim to deconstruct all social hierarchies and to have a society where social relationships are horizontal, agglomerative relationships rather than vertical, top-down ones. This is why anarchists didn't just aim to abolish the state, but capitalism and organized hierarchical religion as well. 

Fascists are on the far-right (although not as far right as absolutists/absolute monarchists) because they believed that hierarchies were not just "good" but necessary parts of the social organism manifested in the state. There is an idea of corporatism in politics that the societies can be thought of as "bodies" or "super-organisms" in themselves, and fascist corporatism heavily conflates society and the state. 

Personally I don't think multi-dimensional accounting of politics where axes are orthogonal to each-other are correct. Social hierarchies in human settled society come in packages. The state, patriarchy, religious hierarchy, economic hierarchy, gerontocracy, etc all work together and reinforce each-other. So those who support one tend to support the others, and those who want to deconstruct one tend to want to deconstruct the others as well. Multi-dimensional models can exist, but they shouldn't have orthogonal (perpendicular) axes. 

This isn't to say the left-right paradigm captures all of politics, but it does capture this particular principle of social hierarchy vs. social anarchy. 

Facism (Nazism) is hard to put on a spectrum like that because it has elements more akin to a fanatical religion. Facism also tends to burn itself and society down to the ground, if other political forms at like weed, then facism is crystal meth. 

Fascism isn't hard to put on a spectrum at all. It is quite easy actually. 

It is any modernist-reactionary hyper-nationalism that has a theory of palingenesis.

That easily places it as a right-wing ideology.