It’s really quite simple:

Left-wing: shared ownership of the means of production.

Examples: Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Democratic Socialism.

Right-wing: private ownership of the means of production.

Examples: Capitalism, Libertarianism, Anarchocapitalism, Liberalism, Fascism, Social Democracy, Republicans, Democrats.

Irrelevant:
Gun control
Abortion
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
etc.

Common objections:
“The democrats are socialists”
Even Bernie Sanders himself is not a true socialist.

“Fascism is left wing”
No it isn’t. Read a history book by someone who isn’t an ideologue.

“How can the Republicans and Democrats both be right wing?”
Because being “right wing” or “left wing” isn’t a relative thing. Both parties believe in private ownership, therefore both are right wing.

“But the democrats are left wing!”

This only makes sense if you use a relative terminology; if you are going to do that then there is no need to abolish these terms since they aren’t fixed anyway.

“We should adopt individual labels”

1. Economy is the only serious game in town.

2. You can still use labels and retain the left/right economic access.

I like the political compass website, with a left right x axis determined by economic views, and a up down y axis reflecting a tendency towards authoritarian vs libertarianism. Bret Weinstein pointed out that the libertarian left and right often have more in common with one another than the authoritarian end of their own side. If the authoritarians of the left or right get in power, with some countries right and others left, well, they can't get on, so you get almost inevitable wars sooner or later. Whereas those on both sides who respect one another's views can coexist peacefully. He argues that it is up to those at the libertarian end of the spectrum to band together to prevent the crazies getting in power.

take the test. I scored pretty much bang in the middle but perhaps 10% towards the left and 20% towards libertarian [politicalcompass.org]

In these discussions, I refer to this quote from Robert A. Heinlein:
“Political tags, such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth, are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

The ultra-religious conservative (see Dana Carvey as "The Church Lady" ) is no different than the LGBT activist that wants to speech codes to protect feelings. One would be mis-associated with the "Far-Right," and the other with the "Far-Left," when both are controllers. In reality, there's those that are comfortable with ceding greater power to the state, with the idea that the state can fix all social and economic ills (or at least the things they feel are important). As history demonstrates, those that had these great ideals, desiring to "fix" the perceived wrongs, ended up causing great suffering.

I agree with you in principle, mainly because the terms left and right have been contorted.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Peter Townshend

By not having labels or definitions you create gray areas. Gray areas confuse people and make them overthink. It also makes them create more gray like all of the gender nonsense. Keep it simple.

Agree left and right are meaningless. Hitler was a "National Socialist", to contrast with international socialists, i.e. Communists. He believed in central planning. He believed in big government. He created a super union that did for workers what no other union has ever done. He believed in a "worker's paradise". How we ever let him be described as "right wing" and lumped in with small government peace loving individualists, who believe in private enterprise, no state control, minimal necessary military etc., who hate unions and believe the only reason to join a union is you are a crap tradie is beyond me.

You can add gender identity and sexual orientation and gun regulations to your list

Sure there are N dimensions to a person's opinions and beliefs, but when you are talking about one topic, there is typically a pro and a con side, or as it is sometimes convenient to label, a left and a right. I mean how often are you debating the vast gamut of all things social/political in one discussion? And if you do, how do you expect to have a logical and focused discussion when you or the other person is constantly going off on some other tangent? This is high school debating 101 - which unfortunately most people don't even have a solid grasp on at this elementary level. A "left" leaning person typically has similar POV on most topics across the board to other 'leftists", but that doesn't mean each person can't have different ideas which you should at least listen to before you stereotype and pass judgment. Your argument makes about as much sense as the transgender infinite number of genders argument, esp since any one of the above topics you mentioned can be an infinite number of beliefs/POV on the details of the specific topic. So now you have N ^ M, where either or both variables can be infinity.

I really think if your opinions never change you never learn I don’t like putting labels on things but sometimes it clearly needs a title.

There is a clever technique afoot to divide, create chaos and add discourse to society. Confusion and a jumble of ideas and ideals is obviously (IMO) wrecking havoc from the dinner table to legislative seats in the upper echelons of government houses. Here is an interesting look at where you might be placed on the political grid. Just for fun, give it a look. While treading a precarious path of educating myself about the ins and outs of everything, I thank Joe Hazelton

Left or right of what?
It is always assumed that the answer is known when it is in fact not known but only assumed.
This I believe is a flaw in our cognitve makeup.
Our lust for certainty favours assumptions over knowledge

It is true that the details of the various specific topics is complicated with each issue deserving of its own discussion.

However, we can view the overall debate as being individualism versus collectivism. The terms constantly change but that has always been the battle at its core and it will continue to be so.

We are up against Marxist, Alinski loving kind of evil. 2 reasons to support Marxist ideas delusional idoit or/ and dybolical power hungry evil.
Its horrible that conservatives are being called natzis when they are on the same path with slight differences.
Communist and socialist minor differences every dictatorship has been Islamic or Marxists.

The terms left and right in regards to political affiliation came into being as an accident. The French assembly was arranged in a semi circle and as luck would have it, those who were more liberal in outlook sat on the left of center and those of a more conservative outlook sat on the right of center. The ultimate irony is that those assembly members bothers to rank order themselves so as to more quickly identify where they sat. The Parliament was organized by the king so that the loyal party sat on one side, facing the loyal opposition. A sort of choose sides approach. I believe in Congress the seating is assigned but even then we have had our various changes through these many years.

But more to your original point, how do we tell the players without a scorecard? Jonathan Haidt wrote a book on that subject, The Righteous Mind, where he used five personality factors to construct the likelihood of any individual's political thoughts. Of course the Big Five Personality Factors have been the subjects of personality research and are very valid. Dr Haidt adds a sixth personality factor which he claims is verifiable, that being spirituality, or lack thereof. I tend to agree with his thinking but there are a couple of holes in his theory. Well, human behavior is far from being perfectly predictable.

Good point, and it creates assumptions, that certain people will think a certain way based on politics. But there are some of us who think with their heads, not hearts, or skin. My economics is probably politically right, but my health-care more left. My education very left on system, but right on management.

So am i centrist, No, am I right or left... Both. Do I support hate crime laws, NO!!. They never work, Do I support long term state funded care for persons who cannot work for health, or injury reasons, Yes I do, for those who will not work, No I do not ... So If I don't have a label ... what am in in a society obsessed by labels.

I'm a thinker, who sees the evil, and hides himself from it. - so in this way your model looks like a good idea, BUT !!!

So do the metrics work, I have doubts. Take #3 free market v regulation. which way would I lean? ... I want both. If there is a monopoly, then I want regulation, as monopoly, cartels are economically dangerous, and harm society and themselves (lack of innovation, self focused ... etc Microsoft.Kodak, Nokia as examples of self harm) ... eventually. But in a competitive market, I support free open markets for innovative, flexible, responsive products and service, that are based on what consumers want.

I understand that humans like to put things into nicely labeled boxes, But I suspect (OK I am sure) the real world is a lot more messy than that, and will defy your labels too. Especially when you get #6 religious freedom - which I totally support - With Limits as freedom of association also requires freedom of disassociation, and open critique. bit protection from hate, without protection from critique, and freedom from government interference without interfering with government. ... So how does that fit on a scale or Pie chart ???

I appreciate the effort, but the engineering side of me sees much more than just a few simple variables at play here.

However all the best. I suspect you'll need a bigger piece of paper.

Can't tell the players without a scorecard . That's why I wrote the Commercial Identity series . It doesn't matter what label they wear . In motive , people are more the same than they will admit .

"Real History" Group

I am generally opposed to labels but oftentimes the overly simplistic left/right are useful for the sake of brevity when making a point. I'm ok with them in that context. Using them as a cudgel for the sake of branding an opponent, not so much.

My $.02 (sometimes not even worth a penny)

It isn't the duality of "Left"/"Right" that's a problem, it's the level of dimension (hyper-dimension) to which they are applied. To apply it to levels of organization, like the individual, family, community, business, municipality, nation, race, culture, society, ...etc, is to paint too broad a stroke.

The more meaningful application of labels of duality is for the individual within their various contexts, in other words their behaviors or interactions in different systems. For example, for the individual as a consumer they might be "Right", but for the individual as a teacher they might be "Left". After all, it is our interactions as individuals within various greater systems (levels of organization) that define us at any given moment.

I have always opposed the concept of "political parties". All candidates should be independent, and elected on their own merits and viewpoints. The "leaders" and speakers of congress/parliaments/legislatures could then be nominated and elected by those representatives who win the elections.

I know that this is "utopian", and will never happen while the world is run by those who seek power for its own sake.

I'm following your post as I am working on a questionnaire to ask members to measure their agreement/disagreement on a long list of concepts. I agree that the left/right spectrum is FAR too simple for use in building consensus. Thanks!