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.
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.
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.)
)
> 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.
