Politics and architecture don't map onto one another very well; trying to understand what leads to good architecture through political "isms" doesn't really get us anywhere.
While the USSR was building a baroque metro system, the USA was building modernist skyscrapers:
So the architecture debate is very strange, because opposing "sides" feel obliged to defend things that don't match their other views.
Some people want more "traditional" architecture, and others defend "modern" architecture.
These are, broadly speaking, the supposed "sides".
"Minimalism" is badly misunderstood, but that's not really anybody's fault, because we're living in a time where it feels like minimalism is the dominant aesthetic.
Everything from buildings to bollards are designed the same way: simple, no details, little variety or colour.
And so, because they're simple, we call it "minimalism".
But minimalism was never just about keeping things simple.
The point of minimalism is using beautiful materials to make useful things (like this chair), not making things as bland and greyscale as possible.