Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group described in this article can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which came to power as "fascist" if it fulfills all the following criteria:
Please comment on this entity's status here or leave commentary on the project's talk page. |
[edit] LDP economic policy
Given from what I've read, it would seem - frighteningly - that the LDP is actually a economically left-wing party in between NEP and the Five-Year Plans:
"the abolition of "non-traditional" and "fanatic" religious sects in Russia"
[Pretty much what the post-Bolshevik Soviet government enforced]
"state ownership of strategic sectors of the economy, particularly natural resources, alcohol, tobacco, and agriculture"
[New "commanding heights" - even though these may not necessarily include the factories]
"the right to work"
[Clearly a socialist thing]
"radical reform of the social insurance system"
[My only question is: is this reform towards the Soviet insurance system, or further away from it?]
"state support for science-intensive technologies and agriculture"
[Space program, Virgin Islands, etc.]
"Russian economic sovereignty/protectionism"
[One key difference from the traditional Soviet trade policy, which subsidized many of its trade partners]
It's a key trend with all the far-right parties these days to have quite a bit of economically left-wing policies.
Darth Sidious 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems bizarre, at least from a U.S.A. perspective, to describe a party such as this as "far right." It does seem to be nationalistic (usually, but not always associated with the political right) but also socialistic (associated with the political left). It seems as if someone is trying to "tag" the political right by associating this party with it.
Could the "far right" adjective be simply dropped from the introduction? Or at least replaced with a more descriptive term, such as "authoritarian?"
The economic reforms they support seem to echo fascism, which would make them 'far right' in some people's eyes. Of course, in reality, fascism is closer to socialism. The political compass proves that. But still, in the eyes of the public, they're 'far right'. So it would just keep being rolled back if one removed it. Joffeloff 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Does the LDPR really advocate "using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition"? Do they engage in "severe economic and social regimentation, syndicalist corporatism" and seek to "implement totalitarian systems"?
The general consensus on here seems to be that "authoritarian" or "ultra-nationalist" would be a better term. I'll change it and we'll see how long it lasts for. Shotlandiya 15:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've altered the introduction and clarified the statement about the party being regarded as far right and nationalistic. As anyone with a proper knowledge of the LDPR and how it is regarded in Russia will tell you, the idea that the LDPR has "far right" which has serious aims of taking power is just laughable. It is purely a party of business and corruption, and in many areas just a front for some extremely risky and dodgy business enterprises. It is also very much an integral part of the political establishment, and, despite the outlandish rhetoric of its leader, almost always votes with the government on issues of economic reform. This is generally missed by the foreign press, however, who still have a very "1993-centric" view of Zhirinovsky and the LDPR, and so I have clarified the view of LDPR as far-right with the statement "sometimes regarded in the foreign media".
If you want to change it back, please do so, but come on here and explain yourself first and do not accuse others of having a "skewed" view of Russian politics just because you yourself do not share this viewpoint. Shotlandiya 14:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] It's a key trend with all the far-right parties these days to have quite a bit of economically left-wing policies.
No, it is not. It is a recent trend that Far-Right parties accept an economic liberal stance. Nationalist parties, from their roots in the 19th century, have been "social" in some degree, but evolved in a very different way than socialism (social democracy, New Left, neomarxism, etc. etc.). It seems there is just confusion about what socialism and nationalism is, or at least a degree of ignorance about their history. That fascism and socialism are more closely linked than economical liberalism and fascism is a short sighted and according to what academic research indicates, incorrect, i do not say that they never have any similar stances but most of the time these are viewpoints which are shared by most political parties. Especially in Europe where a Far Right party rather not speak out against social security as a whole, yet will push for economical liberalism on other economical sectors, which, i can imagine, would be strange for an citizen of the US. It seems to me that this problem is confined to the Anglo-American world, where there is no concept of Christian Democracy of Conservative social movements. Now Christian Democracy is closer to fascism than socialism is to fascism, since they proved that in various governments (especially in Italy) and these parties always are indicated as Right Wing or Center Right, by themselves and by the overwhelming majority of voters and political analysts. To end, most of the Far Right parties within the EU have adopted an economical liberal program, while in their beginning they were far more inclined to accept state intervention which was a trend in most parties. My guess is that once Russia catches up with the Western World on the Economical level, the mass emigration ends, etc. etc. the LDPR will change its attitude towards economical policies. Final closure, the party certainly is not a liberal democratic (Liberal in the sense of political science, rule of law, seperation of powers, etc. etc.) party, so if they lie in their name, why not in their program. --84.195.233.101 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Partition of Poland?
As listed in "Platform", the "Partition of Poland" is given as one of the goals of the Liberal Democratic Party. What support is there for such a statement? If true, doesn't such a statement merit a bit more explanation? Do they want the portion of Poland which belonged to the Russian Empire prior to the independence of Poland? What will happen to the rest of Poland if Zhirinovsky gets his way? Will Germany get the bulk of it? What of formerly Austrian Galicia? The statement that the Partition of Poland is on the agenda raises far more questions than the article addresses. GorillaTheater (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- uh if Zhirinovsky gets his way what would happen would be World War 3, since Poland is part of NATO and the only way for Russia to partition Poland would be through invasion and violence. Starzaz (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Not a fourth partition, please... as a polish brazilian, I don't wanna see my grandpa's country, the country I have as my motherland, divided for the fourth time in history!!! May Zhirnikovsky don't get his way... May Poland and polish people live forever! --189.31.126.93 (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- LOL ;-P.
- Actually it would be the fifth or even sixth partition of Poland. See: [1] and [2] Barry Kent (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
