Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Well, we finally have something we can agree on.
The point I was trying to make is that there is more to politics than a simple left-right dichotomy. I would guess that we can agree that at least there are two properties to it, social politics and economic politics. If you have an issue with the terms, let's call the extremes on both axes "permissive" and "restrictive", or give them any label you enjoy but I don't think labeling them "left" and "right" would do it justice, for the extreme positions of "left" and "right" are Stalinism and Fascism, and they both are on the extreme end of social restrictive.
That's not to mean that restrictive means "bad" and permissive is "good". An extreme permissive society ultimately leads to anarchy, which in turn, due to human nature, leads to despotism because somehow we can't just NOT be governed. Extremely restrictive societies are basically police states with Nazi Germany being a pretty good example of the more recent past. Extremely permissive economy leads to social problems, we've seen that in the industrial revolution where workers were exploited up to and beyond their graves for profit, with child labor, 16 hour days, extremely dangerous working conditions and all the other unpleasant problems this entailed. Extreme restrictions on economy, i.e. state-run economy has been tried, too, and I hope everyone remembers just how great that experiment went. Actually, take a look at North Korea, where there's one of the last examples on exhibition.
Neither permissive nor restrictive is good or bad. Both are good in moderation, in my opinion.
I doubt that anyone could sensibly argue that any of those extreme positions are a good idea. The question is where in between them the perfect spot is. In my opinion, the duty of the state is to make sure that everyone, no matter his upbringing, can succeed provided he can put his own skills to it. But that's my opinion. Some may argue that this is unfair towards those whose parents worked hard already to offer their kids a better start into the world. Others may argue that I don't care enough for those whose abilities don't allow them to succeed and that they need to be taken care of, too. Is any of these positions "right" (as in correct, not as the opposite of left)?
I doubt that there is a "correct" political opinion. But I am pretty sure that there are some that are just plainly wrong, i.e. all that benefit a small minority on the expense of the general population. Aside of that, well, there's room for debate.