Can Communists be Right-Wing?

Earlier this month, Representative Jamie Raskin referred to the Venezuelan President Maduro and his regime as right-wing. That stirred up a hornet's nest on social media, especially among the MAGA true believers who argue that Maduro is a "communist" and therefore by definition cannot be right-wing. Admittedly, I do not follow Venezuelan politics especially closely, but as far as I am aware, Maduro has never self-identified as a communist. He is the heir to the movement that Hugo Chavez left behind when he died over a decade ago, and Chavez referred to the Bolivarian movement he led as "21st century socialism" (admittedly a very vague term). Maduro certainly has turned his back on any pretense of transparent democracy and has increasingly ruled with an iron fist much like the communist dictators of the Soviet era or the nominally communist dictators who rule roughly 1/5 of the people currently alive. Then again, there are plenty of legitimate right-wing dictators who also rule with an iron fist. 

We can quibble about whether or not Maduro adheres to some form of Marxian ideology or if his ideology is simply about maintaining power and avoiding imprisonment. Even if he did identify as a communist could he be right-wing? Could at least some subset of his followers be right-wing, at least psychologically? The answer, it turns out is yes (or да). Thank a team of psychologists who conducted some research in the USSR in the late 1980s just prior to its collapse. By that point, approximately seven decades had passed since the October Revolution occurred in the aftermath of the collapse of the old Russian Empire. It was safe to say that even if the rhetoric was still very much Marxian, the revolution had long ago ended. But they were communists, right? They must surely have been leftists and would want nothing to do with the sort of authoritarian tendencies that one might find in a fascist dictatorship that at least makes some passing commitment to free markets and trade. Right? Yeah, no. 

Sam McFarland and colleagues had published a series of studies around the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s while the USSR was still intact. The initial paper was published in 1989 in a journal I would have been unaware of. Their 1992 paper (from samples collected in 1991), as the USSR was in the final stages of collapse) showed that there was a strong positive correlation between a Russian-language adaptation of the Altemeyer Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale and support for the communist regime. That relationship was weaker in 1991 than in 1989, but still noticeable. Higher authoritarianism scores were negatively related to any question having to do with serious reforms to the social order of the time. The conclusion was that conventionalism was the primary factor driving that statistical relationship.

That's a lot to lay on you. So, what is authoritarianism? Depending on who you talk to, it is either a personality trait or a social attitude. Regardless, authoritarianism is relatively stable over time. There are three factors that are consistently measured: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression. Think of conventionalism as akin to traditionalism. People who show higher conventionalism scores prefer to conform and stick to familiar social conventions and norms. Authoritarian Submission is akin to obedience. So high scorers are likely to keep their heads down and follow orders. Authoritarian Aggression is support for acts of violence sanctioned by perceived legitimate authority figures. If the ruler calls for pogroms, then pogroms it is. If the ruler calls for cruel treatment of dissidents, authoritarians will nod and agree. 

If you were a Soviet citizen circa 1989, you most likely had lived in that particular social order your entire life. You knew nothing else, at least not personally. You might be aware of other ways of living if you had access to samizdat (underground dissident press) or had sufficient Party standing to have the privilege to travel abroad. But that was likely very much the exception. Still, it's safe to say that people would still vary in terms of the degree to which they identified with the ruling party, identified its party line (no matter how much it might change - and the Politburo's party line was not to be questioned), and would support or even actively engage in acts of violence against perceived enemies of the state if directed to by their leaders. Those who most identified with their party line, who were most willing to submit, and most gung-ho about aggression and violence against the USSR's enemies also scored higher on Bob Altemeyer's RWA Scale. That's not surprising. The Communist Party in the USSR was equivalent to what my predecessors in the US called "the establishment". Those who had been socialized under USSR rule from the get-go especially considered that the way they were supposed to live. The Politburo's orders were to be followed carefully for the good of the social order. In the name of anti-imperialism, any of a number of human rights abuses were considered okay. McFarland and his colleagues did well in establishing a link between allegiance to the Communist Party and right-wing authoritarianism. 

Insofar as this all went, it was fascinating research. The USSR collapsed, and McFarland's interest in further research in that particular line of inquiry ended shortly thereafter. The Cold War made it very difficult for scholars to study each other's governments, cultures, ideologies, and ways of life in the process. McFarland succeeded to answer some questions that would have interested at least some academic types if nothing else. I think he and his colleagues added some insights that can address our current concerns.

The reality is if we - for the sake of argument - consider Maduro a communist and his supporters as communists, we need to accept the possibility that not only is he psychologically more right-wing but so too are his followers. Okay. They claim to be for the workers and the impoverished. Swell. And yet the very workers and impoverished who ask inconvenient questions are treated as infidels. Opposition parties and movements have been outlawed. Some supporters of the Maduro regime have formed militias who, often on motorbikes crack down on protesters. There are those who support their efforts. If we consider Maduro's regime nominally communist and its adherents as communist as well, they sure act suspiciously right-wing. Forgive me for being a bit suspicious that right-wing regimes like Putin's Russia or the Iranian regime are just fine with Maduro continuing to rule with an iron fist even if the economic and social legacy he inherited collapses around him. Forgive me if I am suspicious of those who support Putin also acting completely cool while Maduro apparently stole another election. Forgive me for accepting that the "horseshoe theory of politics" is still very much a reality and the extreme left and extreme right end up being almost indistinguishable. So it goes.