[catheter]

It doesn't seem that complicated to be honest with you. That is how they self identify but none of their policies seem particularly left wing. At least not from that Wikipedia page. Extremely left wing dental care is the best I will give them.

[flohofwoe]

> Extremely left wing dental care is the best I will give them.

Free dental care is considered "extemely left wing" now? That's just bizarre tbh.

If a country would decide to use tax money to provide health care services for free to everybody that's not much different than using tax money to maintain an infrastructure network that's free to use (like roads), or free police and firefighting services - and I think none of those examples are considered particularly 'left-wing'.

[catheter]

I was being facetious. Unfortunately enlightened horseshoe centrists didn't want to hear.

[bluescrn]

> Free dental care is considered "extemely left wing" now? That's just bizarre tbh.

No more bizarre than the idea of free speech being ceded to the right.

Apparently even air conditioning is now a left vs right culture war issue...

[microgpt]

They're all left-wing

[flohofwoe]

Lol, so Hitler was 'left wing' because he built the Reichsautobahn, got it...

[calgoo]

Just like Franco in Spain created the social healthcare system, but they still executed "reds" in the street.

[graemep]

What about more social housing, reductions in working hours, and opposition to privatisation? Sounds left wing to me.

They have been called Marxist-Lenninist by more mainstream politicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party#2021_bus_rap...

[dodslaser]

Maybe we could meet in the middle and call them a nationalist socialist workers party.

[hagbard_c]

You could, just as long as you keep it at that. The term actually does describe a valid political ideology: socialism combined with nationalism instead of the more common socialism combined with globalism, i.e. internationalist socialism ('workers of the world, unite' etc.). The association with Nazism makes it close to impossible to use the term in a 'neutral' way but in itself it just describes a nationalist movement which espouses socialist ideas.

[dodslaser]

Yeah, and their leader just happens to be a man disgruntled with the inefficiency and bureaucracy of democracy, mostly famous for his intense emotional political speeches, who blames most if not all of society's problems on his political opponents and/or ethnic minorities.

[hagbard_c]

You're talking about the leader of the NSDAP while I was talking about a political ideology which aims to implement socialism at a national scale. These are not the same things and the concept I describe does not have 'a leader' just like e.g. market capitalism does not have 'a leader'.

[dodslaser]

I'm talking about the leader of the Örebro party.

[int_19h]

It's impossible to use in a neutral way because all such parties are inevitably authoritarian brand of socialist, and any time you have authoritarian nationalism, crimes against humanity follow.

The point you're trying to make here is the difference between Hitler and the Strasser brothers, which is valid, but irrelevant in this context - if the latter had won, the pile of bodies they'd produce would still be immense.

[hagbard_c]

Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in glove so that is not the difficulty here. It is also not the combination of authoritarianism and nationalism which leads to crimes against humanity, for that any form of authoritarianism - nationalist, internationalist, religious, secular - is sufficient. Nor am I in any way relating to Hitler or Strasser, what I am referring to is an ideology which aims at implementing socialism at a national level, within the context of a nation state, without the aim of implementing socialism outside of the national borders. For that you do not need to refer to Hitler or Strasser or anyone related to the German party which ended up under the control of Hitler.

This is what I meant when I said it is close to impossible to use the term in a 'neutral' way, the nearly inevitable association with what happened in and around Germany when the NSDAP came into power.

[int_19h]

> Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in glove so that is not the difficulty here

FYI early socialists invented the word libertarian to describe themselves.

Authoritarian socialism is definitely a thing, but no, they don't automatically go hand in glove.