Is left/right wing dichotomy obsolete?

Is left/right wing dichotomy obsolete?

It always has been a spectrum.

No, it was just obscured by leftists.

It's still a valid way of sorting political elements according to their tactics and prospects in respect to the standing elements of society.

It never was a dichotomy. Americans just think it is

>It's still a valid way of sorting political elements according to their tactics and prospects in respect to the standing elements of society.

In what way?

This was my immediate thought, obviously there are vague and shifting policies, principles that tend to be assorted right and left but it is the Americans who constantly seem to be saying "The Right, The Left, The Right, The Left, The Right thinks this, The Left thinks that, you have to sort yourself into some neat box".

It never actually existed, it just helped simpletons comprehend politics. Oh also Americans. Simpletons and Americans.

To put it briefly, the division between radicals and moderates. You could think of it as the relationship between republicans and monarchists generalized across all forms of government.

That's silly. There's moderate leftists and moderate rightists. I'm not even sure where you are going with republicans and monarchists, which one are you saying is left and which is right?

>"right wing"
>don't actually want monarchy

>not wanting monarchy

I'm not going to bother explaining it since you seem content in dismissing it out-of-hand and burying your head in the sand. Enjoy your anti-American circlejerk.

> The ones I don't like obscured it.
> My kind, however, call a spade a spade.

.

What?

Obsolete? Far from it! It is still effectively fooling the masses into thinking their vote counts!

>My kind, however, call a spade a spade.
And who are my kind, dumbass?

Is there something confusing about those two sentences?

That'd still be a free choice

Right! One side might have a better view or decor. We're all headed to the slaughterhouse in the long-term anyway. Let's just choose the scenic route.

>Is there something confusing about those two sentences?

I'm not remotely clear why I am being called anti-American or what I have done to upset you.

So quite a lot yeah, given that I am fairly pro-American and trying to have a reasonable discussion.

>And who are my kind, dumbass?

It should be obvious.
1) You implied the left-right-wing dichotomy wasn't obsolete, just obscured.
2) You implied it was obscured by leftists.

1 means you believe in the dichotomy.

2 means you're not a leftist.

Therefore you're a right-winger, and your kind calls a spade a spade, according to you, since the other side "obscures" things.

Geez, and I'm supposed to be the dumbass.

Americans ruin a lot of things.

Half the posts in the opening of the thread are vapid moans about Americans.
I've already explained it as briefly as I can.
>I'm not even sure where you are going with republicans and monarchists
Do you know about the (generally-accepted) roots of the left-right political distinction in the French Revolution?

>1 means you believe in the dichotomy.
It's a method of distinguishing between political groups. It's not something you "believe in".

>Therefore you're a right-winger
That's pretty vague.
Who are my kind?
I'm all ears. Tell me about my political stances.

>Do you know about the (generally-accepted) roots of the left-right political distinction in the French Revolution?

A vague knowledge. I have a solidish knowledge of the French Revolution but I'm not an expert nor would I consider it to be some defining event that forever consolidates what left and right mean.

I don't know anything about your political stances other than you're right of left, as you directly implied earlier.

And that you *subscribe* to the left-wing right-wing dichotomy, as you directly implied earlier.

Don't be dense.

Freedom isn't the freedom to make a choice between options, it's the freedom to not make a choice or exist outside the choices. t. Arendt

>nor would I consider it to be some defining event that forever consolidates what left and right mean
It gives a much more useful meaning to the left-right spectrum than self-serving ham-fisted ideological bullshit.
I'd need some time to come up with a more lucid explanation due to the politicized nature of the terms.

>Don't be dense.
Don't fling shit if you're not willing to follow through. Who are my kind?

>It gives a much more useful meaning to the left-right spectrum than self-serving ham-fisted ideological bullshit.
>I'd need some time to come up with a more lucid explanation due to the politicized nature of the terms.

It doesn't strike me that using a specific historical event is remotely a solid way of forever consolidating your terms of what you mean by left and right.

Just to come back to one of the things I said "wtf" about. I live in a country that has a monarchy i.e. a country where monarchism vs republicanism is an actual issue. Actual republicanism is very much associated with the left.

I don't want to stoke more fuel into the "you're just being anti-American" fire because I really like the USA and a lot of the things it stands for but were you mistaking being a supporter of the Republican Party with republicanism? I'm guessing most Democrats are in favour of a republic (i.e. in favour of republicanism) and most Republicans are in favour or representative democracy.

>were you mistaking being a supporter of the Republican Party with republicanism?
Do you really think I was saying supporting monarchy was a leftist position?

I had no idea what you were saying, which is why I asked for clarity and have received none.

There are choices, of course
But you're forgetting the majority is too retarded to think outside of a left-right spectrum

I had no way of knowing exactly how you had misunderstood it. It was meant to be taken at face value.
What I'm getting at is that the left is adversarial to the current political/institutional state, while the right is supportive to it. It's a relationship that describes a political environment at a specific point in time. For example, there were factions within the party in the USSR which were considered radical and conservative, even though the idea of a conservative Communist seems absurd to the western layman.

Considering the right as those that represent the owners of the means of production, and the left as the ones that represent the workers interests, this dichotomy is becoming obsolete because the economy has been shifting from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy, you can see this with things like Uber or Airbnb, those companies are not the owners of the means of production, they don't own the cars or the apartments. Nike and other apparel brands in a similar way subcontract factories in Asia to make their products but they don't actually own any factory.

So in this new scenario who are the owners of the means of production, are the owners of the Mcdonalds restaurant or is the Mcdonalds board and shareholders?

The radical left wanted to socialize the means of production, which means?

You sound autistic.

But I would agree that conservative Communism existed and still exists in Russia and that to a certain extent that would blow the minds of the 'right' in the most developed countries.

>The pendulum swings right
>The pendulum swings left
I look at a world that has swung left
>war
>slaughter
I look at a world that has swung right
>war
>slaughter
The momentum is always too great to stop society where it needs to be.