NationStates Jolt Archive

Here’s something I put a lot of thought into before actually sitting down to type it up. There is a lot of confusion as to what certain political labels mean, partially due to ignorance, partially due to political demonizing of opposing parties. This is meant to be an attempt at a comprehensive analysis of what would be the traditional values of certain labels, in a global perspective.

This is in part a reaction to the continued misconception that liberal = socialist = social democrat prominent among Americans. Apart from being stupid and annoying, it makes Americans look stupid, and it’s really annoying. ;)

The list is going to follow the Left-Center-Right classification and will feature a few values traditionally held by parties of the ideology. Right implies that the party is more liberal where economics are concerned (remember, liberal means free), and restrictive when it comes to social issues. Left means the party is more in favor of regulating the economy and more liberal when it comes to social issues. Economic issues refer to a party’s stance on economic matters, particularly the amount of regulation, what type of economy is best, and so on. Social issues refers to a party’s stance on personal liberty matters, such as infringements of the state on them and what rights individuals should receive.

The categories for the descriptions are:
What are they? A quick description and what side of the spectrum such a party is on.
Coalitions. What other parties get along well with said party and what political constellations are likely.
Core Values. What matters most to a party and how they act towards other nations if part of a government.

So, without further ado:

Political Right:
#Conservative Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221400&postcount=1)#
#Nationalist Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221402&postcount=3)#
#Theocratic Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221404&postcount=4)#

Variable:
#Liberal Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221405&postcount=5)#
#Populist Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221412&postcount=6)#

Political Left:
#Social Democrat Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221414&postcount=7)#
#Socialist Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221416&postcount=8)#
#Green Parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221417&postcount=9)#


I may go on to add examples of parties that fit the different categories, particularly because I want to combat the infantile notions about how the US Democratic Party is communist or socialist (they are not). But for now, I welcome criticism on my list.

Well, I really only have one major criticism: socialist parties, at least in this modern age, are often the most pro-democratic parties in parliament. The Socialist Party USA, for example, is committed to direct democracy. The Marxist-Leninist parties have long since given up on the idea of the party dictatorship.

I'm not so sure about the idea that green parties are generally opposed to stem cell research. You really generally only get that opposition from the extremely socially conservative folks - the ones who want to outlaw abortion as well.

I'm not so sure about the idea that green parties are generally opposed to stem cell research. You really generally only get that opposition from the extremely socially conservative folks - the ones who want to outlaw abortion as well.
That's actually a point where the US and Europe (well, at least Germany, where Laerod also hails from) diverge, once again. Here, criticism of stem cell research has traditionally been strongest from the Green Party. It's mostly about the specter of human cloning and a technology dominated, de-humanized world.
Maybe it's because we don't really have that strong religiously conservative contingent that has usurped the debate.

So yeah - your classic Green voter here would typically be against stem cell research. And find themselves very unexpectedly on the same side as the dreaded American religious right. And scolded for being so backwards and non-liberal-like, even though here it's seen as the right thing to do.

That's actually a point where the US and Europe (well, at least Germany, where Laerod also hails from) diverge, once again. Here, criticism of stem cell research has traditionally been strongest from the Green Party. It's mostly about the specter of human cloning and a technology dominated, de-humanized world.
Maybe it's because we don't really have that strong religiously conservative contingent that has usurped the debate.

So yeah - your classic Green voter here would typically be against stem cell research. And find themselves very unexpectedly on the same side as the dreaded American religious right.

Are they also opposed to other types of research and medical advances?

I can understand opposition to genetic modification, given the fact that we can't reliably keep such modifications out of the wild. I just can't figure out how stem cell research will lead to a "technology dominated, de-humanized world" any more than any other biological research or attempt at medical advances. And reproductive cloning can (and should) be another debate altogether.

Are they also opposed to other types of research and medical advances?
No.

Are they also opposed to other types of research and medical advances?

I can understand opposition to genetic modification, given the fact that we can't reliably keep such modifications out of the wild. I just can't figure out how stem cell research will lead to a "technology dominated, de-humanized world" any more than any other biological research or attempt at medical advances. And reproductive cloning can (and should) be another debate altogether.
Well, the "technology dominated, de-humanized world" is just a phrase by me, it's not in the party platform or anything. :p I was just trying to show the thinking behind it because obviously it would be very strange for liberal or green voters from the US (I don't actually know where Green parties in other countries stand on the issue) to wrap their head around that fundamental difference.

To my shame, I have to admit that I've been meaning to read up on the detailed stance of our Green Party on this as well on the historical development of their stance for about as long as I've been on NS but I never did. So I'm certainly not the most competent person to talk to, sorry.

I think/would imagine that the stance on stem cell research really came out of the stance on human cloning (you know, many years ago when Dolly came along and people got scared by the possibilities). The reason why, to my knowledge, it hasn't been refined very much to this day is very likely because stem cell research just hasn't been that big a topic here - not at all as prominently discussed as in the US. So it might well be that they'd revise their stance if a case/law/public debate came up, but it hasn't yet really.

Alright, alright, I'll go read up on it now...

Well, I really only have one major criticism: socialist parties, at least in this modern age, are often the most pro-democratic parties in parliament. The Socialist Party USA, for example, is committed to direct democracy. The Marxist-Leninist parties have long since given up on the idea of the party dictatorship.
You're revisionist Trotskyism is showing comrade, if the communist party is not entirely in power then the class struggle cannot go on. Do you really think capitalist parties can be allowed to exist after a communist takeover?

But for now, I welcome criticism on my list.

Your diagram is too one-dimensional. Last year, in the Netherlands the leader of the "Green" Party won the 'Liberal of the Year' trophy, a price handed out by the Young Liberals, for her plan of action regarding social welfare. That same green party (Groen Links) is actually the result of a merger between several other left-wing parties, among which the Evangelical Party, a rather fundamentalist-Christian left-wing party.

If you want to give a comprehensive overview of the political labels you'll need to include more axes.

You're revisionist Trotskyism is showing comrade, if the communist party is not entirely in power then the class struggle cannot go on. Do you really think capitalist parties can be allowed to exist after a communist takeover?


What do you mean???Ofcourse the other parties,capitalist or not will be allowed to exist and elect representatives in the councils which will have the political and economical power(AND NOT A PARTY!)

I've talked about political labels before too, see here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541436

Here’s something I put a lot of thought into before actually sitting down to type it up. There is a lot of confusion as to what certain political labels mean, partially due to ignorance, partially due to political demonizing of opposing parties.
I think the whole idea OF political labels is either due to politicians looking FOR a way to demonize rivals and/or due to ignorance (apparently among non-politicans who use those labels, about the potential for individuality in opinions) but whatever.

The list is going to follow the Left-Center-Right classification and will feature a few values traditionally held by parties of the ideology. Right implies that the party is more liberal where economics are concerned (remember, liberal means free), and restrictive when it comes to social issues. Left means the party is more in favor of regulating the economy and more liberal when it comes to social issues.
I think that's pretty much the same approach as the "political compass" has already taken.

But for now, I welcome criticism on my list.
Well, for someone who's trying to define labels that I doubt have much legitimate meaning, you've done a fairly good job. However, nonetheless, I think "left" and "right" are just juxtaposing labels that associate unreasonably many separate opinions on separate issues with each other at the same time, not taking into account individual differences in reasons for stances, or how many stances there are on an issue; why else is it that people who tend to use these labels tend to have the misconceptions you speak of other than perhaps those people not really being that logical to begin with?

I'm not so sure about the idea that green parties are generally opposed to stem cell research. You really generally only get that opposition from the extremely socially conservative folks - the ones who want to outlaw abortion as well.
:headbang: Why the hell would someone who was opposed to embryonic stem cell research NOT want to outlaw abortion? Any arguments used against embryonic stem cell research apply just as much so to abortion, if not more so, since ESCR only includes embryos just a few days old and abortion can include fetuses that are months along...

"Conservatism is about keeping things the way they are (or were), as well as a strong support of individual responsibility."

That sums it up pretty well, I think.

There are generally two kinds of conservatives that I've met. The nostalgic traditional values types and the pragmatic constitutional values types. There's some overlap between the two, obviously.

I tend to be more on the pragmatic constitutional values side of the conservative movement, which often puts me at odds with other conservatives in the US and Europe.

I'm not so sure about the idea that green parties are generally opposed to stem cell research. You really generally only get that opposition from the extremely socially conservative folks - the ones who want to outlaw abortion as well.

:headbang: Why the hell would someone who was opposed to embryonic stem cell research NOT want to outlaw abortion? Any arguments used against embryonic stem cell research apply just as much so to abortion, if not more so, since ESCR only includes embryos just a few days old and abortion can include fetuses that are months along...
Actually...

So I went and read up on the German Green Party and stem cell research.
Their objections are only against research on embryonic stem cells. Research on adult stem cells is fine.
This is actually very close to the stance of German law, which doesn't allow the use of "spare" embryos or the cloning of embryonic stem cells. There are a few ways around that but mainly it means that stem cell research in Germany is limited mostly to adult stem cells (which apparently do quite a good job in treating diseases, too). Parts of the research community as well as free market liberals (in the European sense) think it's a competitive disadvantage for the country, so it still comes up in debates once in a while (one apparently this summer, which I obviously missed). Others say it's better to focus on the adult cells anyway so it'd actually be an advantage. I wouldn't know.
In all of this, from what I gathered, the specter of human cloning is indeed looming large, as I had correctly guessed above.

Anyway, yes, the Greens find themselves on the same side of the stem cell debate with the Christian conservatives (note that "Christian conservative" here is equivalent to the tamest, most benevolent, goes-to-church-once-a-week-maybe-but-that's-it Republican in the US) - even though the latter are also not so very fond of abortion (not to the point of wanting to outlaw it, just, well, disapproving from a "morally superior standpoint" :rolleyes:) while the Greens are absolutely and unequivocally pro-choice.
The difference is the reasoning behind it: for the Greens neither abortion nor the stem cell debate are about the sanctity of life as such. Abortion is about confirming the right of the woman to "defend" herself against the unwanted pregnancy, stem cell research is about questioning the right of researchers, the pharma industry and patients to use the embryo.

I see their point, if only because I sorta grew up with supporting abortion rights and with being iffy about stem cell research. I'm neither passionate enough about the latter nor do I know enough about the medical side to discuss it, though, so this is just about the extent of my contribution to the topic.

Also, it would totally derail Laerod's thread. ><

*snip*

*sigh*

Why is it that there isn't a single argument against ESC research that actually makes sense? They're all based in either moralistic BS or uninformed BS.

/end off-topic

Generally good descriptions, with little mud-slinging (LG would be sad).

However, this should quite clearly reveal that putting them left to right is quite arbitrary.

You're revisionist Trotskyism is showing comrade, if the communist party is not entirely in power then the class struggle cannot go on. Do you really think capitalist parties can be allowed to exist after a communist takeover?

Oy, make a joke with your nation name, and then live to regret 4 ever.

I'm not a Trotskyist. You're new here, so I guess you wouldn't know any better. In any case, the revisionist Trotskyists, despite their historical revisionism to justify their stance, are more correct.

The dictatorship of the party is the equivalent of shooting the revolution in the head. When Marx talked of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he spoke of the working class organized in an association converting the state "from an organ superimposed on society to one wholly subordinated to it".

The revolution will be the revolution of the vast majority organized in association, or it will not be at all. At any rate, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, so I'd much rather smash the state than attempt to wield it's profane powers. The armed mass of the whole people united in revolution needs no state to guard it.

You're new here

He isn't, actually.

Well, I really only have one major criticism: socialist parties, at least in this modern age, are often the most pro-democratic parties in parliament. The Socialist Party USA, for example, is committed to direct democracy. The Marxist-Leninist parties have long since given up on the idea of the party dictatorship.The Socialist and Nationalist labels are meant to describe democratic or semi-democratic parties that have the corresponding values. The US Socialist Party still believes in a rule by the proletariat, only that it's no longer a dictatorship, but a democracy.

I'm not so sure about the idea that green parties are generally opposed to stem cell research. You really generally only get that opposition from the extremely socially conservative folks - the ones who want to outlaw abortion as well.Well, as WYTYG elaborated, German Greens are deeply opposed to genetic manipulation, which to some extent includes stem-cell research.

Your diagram is too one-dimensional. Last year, in the Netherlands the leader of the "Green" Party won the 'Liberal of the Year' trophy, a price handed out by the Young Liberals, for her plan of action regarding social welfare. That same green party (Groen Links) is actually the result of a merger between several other left-wing parties, among which the Evangelical Party, a rather fundamentalist-Christian left-wing party.

If you want to give a comprehensive overview of the political labels you'll need to include more axes.The list is meant to be show the traditional values held by such parties. Due to the fact that the world isn't homogenous, many individual parties will diverge or combine one or more of the labeled parties, particularly when the parties are large. It's more of a guide than a definitive listing.

I've talked about political labels before too, see here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541436Yeah, but you're only going into the difference between Liberal and Conservative here :p
I think the whole idea OF political labels is either due to politicians looking FOR a way to demonize rivals and/or due to ignorance (apparently among non-politicans who use those labels, about the potential for individuality in opinions) but whatever.To a degree. However, parties also label themselves. I don't, however, think that every party that adheres to a certain label actually fits said ideology's traditional values. Try to use the guide to determine how much of a liberal/conservative/other party a certain party is, and what else fits in.

I think that's pretty much the same approach as the "political compass" has already taken.

Well, for someone who's trying to define labels that I doubt have much legitimate meaning, you've done a fairly good job. However, nonetheless, I think "left" and "right" are just juxtaposing labels that associate unreasonably many separate opinions on separate issues with each other at the same time, not taking into account individual differences in reasons for stances, or how many stances there are on an issue; why else is it that people who tend to use these labels tend to have the misconceptions you speak of other than perhaps those people not really being that logical to begin with?Thanks. The labelling in this case is meant to be rather general. What do most Liberal parties have in common? What do most Conservative parties have in common? What do most Green parties have in common? Individual examples will vary from "the norm."

For instance, I consider myself a Green, but I reject the traditional Green pacifism. But I still have more in common with the Green party than any other.

Generally good descriptions, with little mud-slinging (LG would be sad).Thanks. I don't want to insult anyone with the guide, despite my strong distaste for certain parties I described. I have some cartoon characters in the works for the different labels, though now that the other thread has been locked, I won't be able to add them to the descriptions.

However, this should quite clearly reveal that putting them left to right is quite arbitrary.Yes and no. "Left" to me describes a more "pro-worker" and "pro civil liberties" attitude while "Right" describes a more "pro-business" and "pro security" point of view.

"Conservatism is about keeping things the way they are (or were), as well as a strong support of individual responsibility."

That sums it up pretty well, I think.

There are generally two kinds of conservatives that I've met. The nostalgic traditional values types and the pragmatic constitutional values types. There's some overlap between the two, obviously.

I tend to be more on the pragmatic constitutional values side of the conservative movement, which often puts me at odds with other conservatives in the US and Europe.To be honest, I would have probably classified you as a classic liberal by my list. There's plenty of overlap between a lot of the different labels and American political camps, due to being so large, easily span several labels, so someone who considers themselves Republican or conservative could in fact be anything between liberal and conservative down to nationalist or theocrat.

EDIT: Never mind, I guess it is derailing Laerod's topic, I'll stick to talking about ideology labels.

Yeah, but you're only going into the difference between Liberal and Conservative here :p
No I'm not. See again my analogy about two people disagreeing on two issues, it applies not just to the one-dimensional spectrum but to each of the axes on the two-dimensional compass. Ask me if you don't see how.

EDIT: Oh and for a more specific example, the "socially authoritarian axis" associates interventialist foreign policy with traditionalism; what about Pope John Paul, who was considered a religious traditionalist and was opposed to the Iraq war, whereas Chrisopher Hitchens says that religion poisons everything and was in favour of the Iraq war, should these two be labelled as being closer together on a political grid than someone who's against both religion and the Iraq war would be to either of them?

To a degree. However, parties also label themselves.
I think that's more so for image, or at least for a path in which to label their rivals. See the "whereas it's us [insert opposite ideology label here]" part of my thread you linked.

For instance, I consider myself a Green, but I reject the traditional Green pacifism.
So why call it green? Why not just call it your own personal ideology? If you're going label yourself a green, people might try to extrapolate from your views on environmental issues to your views on pacifism, giving people the wrong impression... oh and by the way, what do you mean about "traditional Green pacifism" anyway?

To be honest, I would have probably classified you as a classic liberal by my list. There's plenty of overlap between a lot of the different labels and American political camps, due to being so large, easily span several labels, so someone who considers themselves Republican or conservative could in fact be anything between liberal and conservative down to nationalist or theocrat.

This is true. And it doesn't help that America has a political tradition that turns everything upside-down and inside-out. A conservative in the US can draw their core values from the Constitution and Founding Fathers (classic liberal), the KKK and Jim Crow (nationalistic), religion and cultural custom (theocratic), feminism and environmentalism (progressive and conservative), etc. So we often end up conservative about rather different matters.

I tend to go with a conservative label for myself within the US because I advocate holding fast to the values of the Constitution, personal responsibility, and to a much larger degree than most (though in different ways than Ron Paul), state's rights. Add to that the fact that I'm very pragmatic and deeply religious.

For example, I work towards and am in favor of ending the systemic unfair discrimination against homosexuals, women, and racial minorities in the political and public spheres primarily because I think it is at odds with Constitutional values. I am in favor of ending unfair discrimination against them in the private realm as well, but primarily because of my Christian moral values, and I generally don't desire government interference in the private realm to help achieve that goal. (Ironic, I know).

Economically, my pragmatism tends to shine through. I'm in favor of a slightly freer market than currently exists in the US, but a socialistic system could work well and I'd be fine with that if the populace generally wanted it enough to make it work. I don't personally want to be wealthy, and frankly I think most people would be better off if they stopped being greedy for both pragmatic and moral reasons, but I don't see it as being the government's job to enforce that. It's generally each person's responsibility to see to their own personal and moral fitness, to my mind, and forced charity just makes a mockery of the whole concept of charity, IMO.

So like most conservatives, I'm strongly influenced by my religion, a sense of personal responsibility, and traditional national values (in my case, Constitutional values).

On the international political scene, without the US heritage, I'm not sure where I'd end up. Perhaps classic liberal, as you say. That seems more likely than most other options.

On the liberal party post, yellow on white background = baaaad. Oh and you seem to have missed libertarian parties.

That's actually a point where the US and Europe (well, at least Germany, where Laerod also hails from) diverge, once again. Here, criticism of stem cell research has traditionally been strongest from the Green Party. It's mostly about the specter of human cloning and a technology dominated, de-humanized world.
Maybe it's because we don't really have that strong religiously conservative contingent that has usurped the debate.

So yeah - your classic Green voter here would typically be against stem cell research. And find themselves very unexpectedly on the same side as the dreaded American religious right. And scolded for being so backwards and non-liberal-like, even though here it's seen as the right thing to do.

I didn't see something about stem cell research in our Green party's manifesto. They do say something about using embryo's, but don't oppose it as long as:
as there are no other options
the "parents" have given informed consent
the embryo's are younger than 14 days
they can't be placed back
no commercialization (no monetary profit for the parties involved)

So I don't think they oppose ESCR, but it could be that I've read over it.

No I'm not. See again my analogy about two people disagreeing on two issues, it applies not just to the one-dimensional spectrum but to each of the axes on the two-dimensional compass. Ask me if you don't see how.

EDIT: Oh and for a more specific example, the "socially authoritarian axis" associates interventialist foreign policy with traditionalism; what about Pope John Paul, who was considered a religious traditionalist and was opposed to the Iraq war, whereas Chrisopher Hitchens says that religion poisons everything and was in favour of the Iraq war, should these two be labelled as being closer together on a political grid than someone who's against both religion and the Iraq war would be to either of them?My labels aren't cure all, describe all solutions. They're meant to be representative of the most common traits of parties adhering to certain ideologies across the globe.
So why call it green? Why not just call it your own personal ideology? If you're going label yourself a green, people might try to extrapolate from your views on environmental issues to your views on pacifism, giving people the wrong impression... oh and by the way, what do you mean about "traditional Green pacifism" anyway?Why not call it Green? No democratic party has membership that is completely conform in their political views. I'm Green, but I don't always agree with other Greens. And yet I have more in common with them than any others. Someone extrapolating my opinions due to my party adherence makes a mistake. Particularly with large parties, affiliation means preciously little about someone.

Most Green parties I know of have a strong opposition to militarism and strongly favor pacifism. That's what I mean about traditional Green pacifism.

This is true. And it doesn't help that America has a political tradition that turns everything upside-down and inside-out. A conservative in the US can draw their core values from the Constitution and Founding Fathers (classic liberal), the KKK and Jim Crow (nationalistic), religion and cultural custom (theocratic), feminism and environmentalism (progressive and conservative), etc. So we often end up conservative about rather different matters.True. The Republican and Democratic Parties are usually used as synonyms for Conservative and Liberal in the US, although they easily span two or more categories of parties each, simply because the US has a relatively large voting population (compared to other Western democracies and republics) and only has two parties to choose from during most elections.
For example, I work towards and am in favor of ending the systemic unfair discrimination against homosexuals, women, and racial minorities in the political and public spheres primarily because I think it is at odds with Constitutional values. I am in favor of ending unfair discrimination against them in the private realm as well, but primarily because of my Christian moral values, and I generally don't desire government interference in the private realm to help achieve that goal. (Ironic, I know).Not really. Over here in Europe, religion is still a major influence behind conservative parties, but being religious says little about party affilitation. Many people vote left because of the Christian values of tolerance, love thy neighbor, and do unto others as you would have done unto you.

It's generally each person's responsibility to see to their own personal and moral fitness, to my mind, and forced charity just makes a mockery of the whole concept of charity, IMO. I have less of an optimistic view of my fellow human beings to share that opinion. "Tragedy of the Commons" spells out my reservations about letting people be too free in choosing how to handle things, particularly economics. It would be nice if people were more pragmatic and less greedy, but I doubt it would happen anytime soon. I think that too little regulation of how human beings interact will end up in disaster.

I wouldn't consider it "charity" in that sense. To me, the state is there to help people, and everyone should be expected to contribute, much like everyone should be allowed to expect the state to be there for you when you need it.

On the liberal party post, yellow on white background = baaaad. Oh and you seem to have missed libertarian parties.I picked the colors primarily according to the colors the German parties here have (the conservatives are currently trying to switch from black to orange, but the political chart creators in the media haven't caught on yet). It's hard to read, yes, but the title is obvious, and the categories are listed in the others too, so it's not too bad ;)

As for the libertarians, I don't consider them worthy of their own label. They're more of a subcategory of liberals; in fact they have a lot in common with the liberal parties of Europe. The deep devotion to state's rights is something more or less unique to the US, much like gun rights are typically conservative issues in the US and Switzerland, while they are not in the rest of the world. So, that's why I'd put Libertarians perhaps under Liberal Parties, albeit as a more extreme offshoot.

Well, actually the Liberal parties here in the EU are economically right-wing (free trade), small-government, and socially libertarians, so they are generally part of the right-wing (see Die Liberalen (?) - Germany).

You also forgot the Religious Conservatives (they're centre, usually), like Italy's old Democrazia Cristiana or Germany's CDU.


And, of course, Social Nationalists (neo-fascists, neo-nazis etc) who are economically centre (free trade with social dampers), big-government and socially authoritarian.

Well, actually the Liberal parties here in the EU are economically right-wing (free trade), small-government, and socially libertarians, so they are generally part of the right-wing (see Die Liberalen (?) - Germany).Right-wing, yeah. Center-right in case of the FDP (Die Liberalen). They're still very pro-gay rights and strongly oppose surveillance measures, so they're not entirely right-wing. The former is mainly a non-issue at the moment and the latter gets less attention because they're in political opposition at the moment and ALL the opposition parties oppose the current surveillance measures implemented or suggested by the conservatives in the Government.

You also forgot the Religious Conservatives (they're centre, usually), like Italy's old Democrazia Cristiana or Germany's CDU. Lumped under the conservative label. As I've said before, very few parties will match the description exactly; they'll match enough to be put into a group.

Consider the labels like Venn-diagrams that overlap in a lot of instances.


And, of course, Social Nationalists (neo-fascists, neo-nazis etc) who are economically centre (free trade with social dampers), big-government and socially authoritarian.I'd rank them under Nationalist. That label is meant to encompass Hard-right and far-right parties. Neo-nazis would be an extremist example of Nationalist parties.

He isn't, actually.

AP always loved to jab at my anarcho-syndicalism or my tendency to "berate your comrades more harshly than your opponents". Either EA is a new guy, or AP is smart enough to remember that I'd remember how he dealt with me.