[davrosthedalek]

For the more central block parties, this is correct. But for many ultra-left and ultra-right parties, this is not necessarily true. There are true Marxist or Stalinist blocks in many of the ultra-left. There are straight-up fascists in the right wing "national socialist" parties.

[_19qg]

ultra-right parties may have "socialist" in their name, but they are typically not in a sense connected to Marx&Hegel. Example: the "National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (Hitler's NSDAP) was not marxist.

[davrosthedalek]

Yes, and I never said so. But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic. And neither the marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party) nor the fascists in the far-right parties are social democratic.

(Of course there is no such thing as a "social democracy", in the sense that the government structure is modified from a "non-social" democracy. But there can be democrats who push for a socially oriented governance. For example: Let's have affordable healthcare. Yes, that means that it cost more for rich people..

Democrats here means "people who want to take part in a democracy". not the US party. Not that they are liberal in the European sense either.) )

[_19qg]

> But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic

That's actually largely the case in Western/Middle Europe.

> marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party)

Which are often not seen as socialist. Social/socialist typically signals that the party is inside the system supporting political spectrum. "communist/marxist" usually signals that the party is at least partly outside the system supporting political spectrum.

[tcfhgj]

what is ultra-left?