Parties like "Dansk Folkeparti" in Denmark is pretty much Social Democrats, except they are harder on immigration. Leaving out the anti-immigration part, I would say that most of these parties are still to the left of both the Republican and Democratic party in the US.
The establishment in both Italy and Germany originally built alliances with these movements only because they were seen as "better than the reds", because of their nationalism and belief in strong hierarchies (whereas socialists and communists were internationalist and against hierarchies back then). They didn't necessarily like a lot of their social programs.
Leaving out the anti-Jewish thing, Hitler and Mussolini were very much on the left of both the Republican and Democratic party in the US (today as well as yesterday).
Its historically interesting though that the capitalists were generally supporters of the nazi party, even before the times of slave labour and war time profits. I guess social darwinism was a good match for the capitalist competition mindset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Origins_and_early_e...
To summarize: they were initially just called the "German Worker's Party" and had a strong basis in the middle-class. They weren't interested in socialism (i.e. social ownership of capital) but merely in profit sharing (i.e. paying workers better). Their leaders were nationalist, anti-Semitic and racist pretty much from day one -- which is also why they were categorically opposed to communists and other (anti-national or non-nationalist) socialists.
The entire party can be explained as a radical reaction to the fallout from WW1 in Germany: economy in ruins, political lack of power, basically Euro-crisis Greece but significantly worse because everybody hated them and there wasn't an international union trying to fix them.
The reason capitalists liked the NSDAP was that there literally wasn't much capitalisting to do in Germany without first re-asserting Germany's political (and military) power in Europe -- and that's one of the main things the NSDAP tried to do. Though I'm sure Jewish or non-anti-Semitic (remember: before WW2 anti-Semitism was socially acceptable) capitalists weren't too thrilled about the rampant anti-Semitism.
Claiming an inherent inferiority of a group of people or advocating for a seperate set of laws to be carved out, that's racism. For instance, police profiling or apartheid are real world, dictionary defined "racist" things.
Using offensive language or mentioning someone by they're physical description is not. It's at best rude, but it's not a "racist" act.
On the contrary, racism often comes on the backs of calm language with charts and graphs.
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.
The USSR was conservative socially and nationalistic.
Those are by no means a sign of being "right wing".
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.
I think you've rather reinforced this point.
A common 'improvement' is to have a two-axis system: 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
On the very far left everything is totally fair and each person does what they can to help everyone else (in theory). Then you have the more reasonable left, where welfare systems help the less fortunate, because it's the moral thing to do.
As you move toward the right you start to see people wanted to keep what they have for themselves, hence low taxes, and no spending state money no helping others (e.g. Obamacare). Finally in the very far right you have people who don't even want to share their country. They were born there thank you very much and fuck you if you weren't.