4 ms·

There are many issues with the one-dimensional left-right scale, but it is undeniable that they are right-wing in their strong social conservatism and nationali

by ninjin 10y ago

There are many issues with the one-dimensional left-right scale, but it is undeniable that they are right-wing in their strong social conservatism and nationalism. Note that there are also differences within these parties. An excellent example would be the Sweden Democrats, where a portion of the party is very much like what you describe, somewhat social democrat. While their youth organisation recently had a hard split due to its leader ship being essentially neo-fascist, which proved to be anathema for the main party.

coldtea 10y ago
>There are many issues with the one-dimensional left-right scale, but it is undeniable that they are right-wing in their strong social conservatism and nationalism. The USSR was conservative socially and nationalistic. Those are by no means a sign of being "right wing".
- AimHere 10y ago
  Stalin was considered right-wing by other communists, and the mainstream Communist Party would often be described as such by those who lived in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if Orwell actually used the term for the Stalinist Communist Party but he definitely had a problem with their anti-revolutionary stance in, for example, the Spanish Civil War.
- andybak 10y ago
  > There are many issues with the one-dimensional left-right scale I think you've rather reinforced this point. A common 'improvement' is to have a two-axis system: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ http://www.politicalcompass.org/ But even this is problematic. In some cases it's purely a historical accident that certain views have been bundled together. There's no innate coherent ideology at work - despite attempts to construct one.
- varjag 10y ago
  USSR was not nationalistic, it was trying to stomp out any signs of nationalism in fact. Up to 1940s the party viewed its population as mere expendable material to jump start world revolution; only after WW2 Stalin wound Komintern movement down. Social conservative is questionable too. The churches were burnt down and the old elites massacred. At the earliest period abolishment of family was seriously discussed (per the tenets of the Manifesto). The shakedowns arguably settled only after 1960s.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    >USSR was not nationalistic It sure was. It tried to play down internal factions of course, but it used to the full such terms as Вели́кая Оте́чественная война́ "Great Patriotic War" or РОДИНА "Rodina", and if you look at the propaganda posters, they look remarkably similar to those of the Nazis. http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/24934238.html http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/24934238.html Soviet leadership destroyed churches as the church was a competing power base. But otherwise the Stalinist system was in many ways socially conservative. Look at its attitudes towards homosexualism, or ethos of work morale.
    - varjag 10y ago
      Zeitgeist, my dear friend. It wasn't Stalin who castrated Alan Turing, and work ethos was very much prevalent in all industrialized world. Great Patriotic War and other reversals of Tzarist times (rank system in the army, the concept of motherland etc) did not appear until months into the conflict. Before 1940s you could be hard pressed to find even a mention of "Soviet state", it wasn't really on conceptual radar. After WW2 there were no celebrations of GPW. Not until 1970s when Brezhnev had to create lore for himself: V day wasn't even a holiday. Propaganda posters had more to do that both were totalitarian, socialist regimes, so there's little wonder. When my father had his 3 year tour to Afghanistan it was called "serving the internationalist duty". In my pretty average school education there was definite accent on nationalism as an awful thing. So I respectfully disagree.
- lgieron 10y ago
  > The USSR was conservative socially and nationalistic. The USSR was the opposite of conservative - they were extremely progressive. In the attempt to make a new man, they tried to crush all conservative values such as religion, family (with children encouraged to denuonce their parents) or sexual restraint (free love, contraception and abortion were allowed in USSR decades before the West's sexual revolution). As for it being nationalistic - the USSR was itself a conglomerate of 15 nation states, where any nationalistic claims about for example freedom for Ukraine or Georgia were obviously not welcome.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The USSR was the opposite of conservative - they were extremely progressive. In the attempt to make a new man, they tried to crush all conservative values such as religion, family (with children encouraged to denuonce their parents) or sexual restraint (free love, contraception and abortion were allowed in USSR decades before the West's sexual revolution). That was also in the revolution's early 1-2 decades. The USSR turned much more conservative in the 30s and onwards -- including in surprising fields like science. Even arts, which were playing with new forms early one, were afterwards heavily regulated and directed to be towards more classical and petit-bourgeois aesthetic ideals (heroic/lyrical music as opposed to experiments like Stravinsky etc, same for painting etc). Same for other areas of life -- e.g. homosexuality was soon again an issue, abortion was made illegal again in 1936 (and legal again, but much less touted in the mid-fifties), etc. And of course social norms were encouraged to be conservative and held back, with extra emphasis on hard work, the duty of the citizen, etc. (e.g. Stakhanovites). Most early progressive or anti-family laws were again repealed in the thirties and onwards. Of course such a regime change also brought some new social conventions and broke some old, like the break with religion. >As for it being nationalistic - the USSR was itself a conglomerate of 15 nation states, where any nationalistic claims about for example freedom for Ukraine or Georgia were obviously not welcome. The nationalism was for "mother USSR", which was not much different from the great Russia (before and after). Hence the strained relationships with Ukraine or Georgia (still nationalistic under that context).

by ninjin 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>There are many issues with the one-dimensional left-right scale, but it is undeniable that they are right-wing in their strong social conservatism and nationalism. The USSR was conservative socially and nationalistic. Those are by no means a sign of being "right wing".

AimHere 10y ago
Stalin was considered right-wing by other communists, and the mainstream Communist Party would often be described as such by those who lived in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if Orwell actually used the term for the Stalinist Communist Party but he definitely had a problem with their anti-revolutionary stance in, for example, the Spanish Civil War.
andybak 10y ago
> There are many issues with the one-dimensional left-right scale I think you've rather reinforced this point. A common 'improvement' is to have a two-axis system: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ http://www.politicalcompass.org/ But even this is problematic. In some cases it's purely a historical accident that certain views have been bundled together. There's no innate coherent ideology at work - despite attempts to construct one.
varjag 10y ago
USSR was not nationalistic, it was trying to stomp out any signs of nationalism in fact. Up to 1940s the party viewed its population as mere expendable material to jump start world revolution; only after WW2 Stalin wound Komintern movement down. Social conservative is questionable too. The churches were burnt down and the old elites massacred. At the earliest period abolishment of family was seriously discussed (per the tenets of the Manifesto). The shakedowns arguably settled only after 1960s.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  >USSR was not nationalistic It sure was. It tried to play down internal factions of course, but it used to the full such terms as Вели́кая Оте́чественная война́ "Great Patriotic War" or РОДИНА "Rodina", and if you look at the propaganda posters, they look remarkably similar to those of the Nazis. http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/24934238.html http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/24934238.html Soviet leadership destroyed churches as the church was a competing power base. But otherwise the Stalinist system was in many ways socially conservative. Look at its attitudes towards homosexualism, or ethos of work morale.
  - varjag 10y ago
    Zeitgeist, my dear friend. It wasn't Stalin who castrated Alan Turing, and work ethos was very much prevalent in all industrialized world. Great Patriotic War and other reversals of Tzarist times (rank system in the army, the concept of motherland etc) did not appear until months into the conflict. Before 1940s you could be hard pressed to find even a mention of "Soviet state", it wasn't really on conceptual radar. After WW2 there were no celebrations of GPW. Not until 1970s when Brezhnev had to create lore for himself: V day wasn't even a holiday. Propaganda posters had more to do that both were totalitarian, socialist regimes, so there's little wonder. When my father had his 3 year tour to Afghanistan it was called "serving the internationalist duty". In my pretty average school education there was definite accent on nationalism as an awful thing. So I respectfully disagree.
lgieron 10y ago
> The USSR was conservative socially and nationalistic. The USSR was the opposite of conservative - they were extremely progressive. In the attempt to make a new man, they tried to crush all conservative values such as religion, family (with children encouraged to denuonce their parents) or sexual restraint (free love, contraception and abortion were allowed in USSR decades before the West's sexual revolution). As for it being nationalistic - the USSR was itself a conglomerate of 15 nation states, where any nationalistic claims about for example freedom for Ukraine or Georgia were obviously not welcome.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The USSR was the opposite of conservative - they were extremely progressive. In the attempt to make a new man, they tried to crush all conservative values such as religion, family (with children encouraged to denuonce their parents) or sexual restraint (free love, contraception and abortion were allowed in USSR decades before the West's sexual revolution). That was also in the revolution's early 1-2 decades. The USSR turned much more conservative in the 30s and onwards -- including in surprising fields like science. Even arts, which were playing with new forms early one, were afterwards heavily regulated and directed to be towards more classical and petit-bourgeois aesthetic ideals (heroic/lyrical music as opposed to experiments like Stravinsky etc, same for painting etc). Same for other areas of life -- e.g. homosexuality was soon again an issue, abortion was made illegal again in 1936 (and legal again, but much less touted in the mid-fifties), etc. And of course social norms were encouraged to be conservative and held back, with extra emphasis on hard work, the duty of the citizen, etc. (e.g. Stakhanovites). Most early progressive or anti-family laws were again repealed in the thirties and onwards. Of course such a regime change also brought some new social conventions and broke some old, like the break with religion. >As for it being nationalistic - the USSR was itself a conglomerate of 15 nation states, where any nationalistic claims about for example freedom for Ukraine or Georgia were obviously not welcome. The nationalism was for "mother USSR", which was not much different from the great Russia (before and after). Hence the strained relationships with Ukraine or Georgia (still nationalistic under that context).