If we stop calling the USSR left-wing, does that mean we can also stop calling Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy right-wing?
Well it depends on the country, time period, and which definitions for right and left you use. I can think of ways to rationalize Nazis and fascists initially being on either end of the spectrum (specifically, do you think they were striving to restore something glorious lost in the past or start afresh with a bold vision for something new for the future of their people?), or defying its metrics altogether as they at times discussed back then (and have amidst some similar movements since). Under more than one reasonable interpretation neither of the political movements you mentioned were right-wing during every stage of their rise and fall from power. Hopefully the wording of this isn't confusing. :<
To use my
preferred method of interpretation as a personal example in the context of the U.S. today:
I am far off on the left (radical) in wanting a new constitution, economic system, and a change in the character of culture in establishing an allegedly better order here. People on the centre-left (progressive/"liberal") are at peace with tempered capitalism and the form of government already in place but would like to explore possibilities for edging toward something better bit by bit as we go. The centre-right (conservative) is comprised of those who support the prevailing order but may have a fair amount of willingness to tinker with it so as to iron out troublesome wrinkles in policy. Those off to their right (reactionary) meanwhile yearn for a return to the way they imagine the U.S. being long, long ago - mostly prior to the ascent of social liberalism back in the 20th century.
If the United States had a well-established, well-liked socialist economy but was otherwise much as it is today in an alternative reality I would be on the centre-left (progressive/"liberal") in wanting to optimize its economic model and loosen up people's communitarian stands on gay marriage, obscenity in the media, restriction of drugs, and so forth. Or if this society took the shape of what TNF would like, to use him as an example, I would be in a similar position but in trying to reform the system with concepts borrowed - and some policies derived from - classical liberal sources of inspiration that would clash somewhat with traditional, tried-and-true Marxist ideas. Capitalists would be further off to my left while some of the social democrats and nearly all democratic socialists would be on varied parts of the (conservative) right.
If the United States was mostly as I want it, in contrast, you would find I would be a conservative on the centre-right willing to make minor changes but mostly digging in my heels to counter those (unpatriotic, deviant, naively idealistic, etc.) capitalist and religious factions going on about how we need to start to moderate or replace our ways with new ones - to experiment with economic liberalization, better introduce the People to benefits of having faith in God help guide their lives and political leaders, or otherwise split much from our centuries' old success story with collectivization of property (among other wholesomely irreligious, red triumphs) the Founders enshrined in our Constitution. If those same advocates for change were to succeed and fundamentally transform society, I would be on the far-right as a nostalgic fellow longing for a return to the values, policies, and ethos that once made the U.S. better in the olden days.
As a tl;dr version: I find the left/right continuum most useful in representing a manual gearbox for the engine of societal change fueled by politics (having reverse, neutral, forward speed one, forward speed two, etc.), not a range of specific ideas assigned to each gear applying to all times and places.
Poll
