Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

Recent dispute (2009)

I think the section Ideology in Ru.wiki summarises quite well why this party can not be considered liberal in any meaningful sense.

Идеология. Согласно официальной программе ЛДПР, партия выступает за либерализм и демократию. ЛДПР категорически отрицает коммунистическую идеологию и марксизм в целом. При этом считается, что главным выразителем интересов людей и общества является государство и что все интересы граждан должны быть ему подчинены. Личная свобода также признаётся в той мере, в которой она не входит в противоречие с государственными и общественными интересами. Позиция ЛДПР по отношению к корпоративной собственности состоит в том, что государство должно осуществлять над ней жёсткий контроль.

This shows that the party is closer to etatist-fascist positions and has as little to do with liberalism as did, say, the CPSU. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• But the party claims liberalism as part of it's platform, whether or not they adhere to common definitions of their own principles may be worth mentioning, but I think some form of liberalism should be listed in the party's platform in the infobox. Political parties rarely live up to their ideals anyway. And I'm not a propagandist for this party; it should be pretty obvious where my sympathies lie: with the KPRF and other communist and social-democratic parties in Russia. My source is the party's own website, and the Russian (before you edited it) and Polish wikipedias. Your source is some opinion-editorial piece. Farkas János (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to argue a semi-fascist party might still be liberal in some respect is of course no propaganda for the liberal cause, if you meant his. I have seen your user page and know where your loyalties are. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You you tell lies and break Wikipedia:NPOV to all russian party you write nationism but their political programs speak of inverse. You hate all russian or only parties opponent? Gnomsovet (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

LDPR russian analog Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)

LDPR russian analogue Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) rather then nazi party. There was period Right-wing populism but already finished in 2001. Only, the radical liberal opponents name their nationalist Gnomsovet (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Love to US is not synonym of the liberalism

Love to US is not synonym of the liberalism. LDPR occupies active anti-american position, but this does not mean that on antiliberal. Proamerican sources for this name as nationalistic party but this whole only expression of the preconception. Gnomsovet (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

the programme of the party clearly shows (see above), that the party is illiberal, not liberal. Please find at least some academic sources that describe this party as liberal in whatever respect. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss discordant on your opinion points program LDPR discordant social liberalism. But no need to give its opinion for single faithfull Gnomsovet (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what you just wrote Gnomsovet. Would you say that again in a different way? Farkas János (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I not member what or party, but I well know political system to Russia and do not love when opinion only one sides is given for absolute truth. Prove its not prejudice on base of the political program LDPR http://www.ldpr.ru/partiya/prog/ Otherwise you break Wikipedia:NPOVGnomsovet (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you then. I cited the LDPR's website also for my statements earlier on this page.Farkas János (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sras.org/the_world_according_to_zhirinovsky here is one of the example that not about what nationism LDPR does not speak

"At first the name was "Rus," then "Russia," and the nationality of a people had no meaning whatsoever. We all lived on Earth, and it made no difference whether it was America, Europe, or Africa." Zirinovski say

This clean patriotism rather then nationism Gnomsovet (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is pointless. What wikipedia needs about liberalism is

• (a1) statement that LDPR considers itself liberal
  • (a2) supported by proofs of LDPR that it is liberal
  • (a3) founded on the version of the definition of liberalism accepted by LDPR: political buzzwords must be read in context. A good example from not so distant past is irresolvable clash of "bourgeois democracy" and "people's democracy": if people speak different languages, it is impossible to compare oranges and orangs.
• (b1) Statements from others that it is not liberal
  • (b2) supported by proofs why it is not liberal.

Wikipedia is encyclopedia i.e., source of knowledge, not source of propaganda or counterpropaganda. - 7-bubёn >t 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian nationalist not LDPR

In LDPR multinational party and emerges although and against countries USA but not against what or nations. Earlier in 1993-1999 was a period populism , which was directed against all not citizen to Russia, many west researchers perceived this wrongly as nationalism. But he long ago passed. Russian nationalists this Great Russia (political party) and People's Union (Russia). Gnomsovet (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion. I've added a number of sources into the article. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the text by User:Gnomsovet. The text is so clumsy, so difficult to understand that right now it needs a thorough check and cleanup, and only then can it be introduced to the article.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

April 12 1991 party was registered by Ministry to justices USSR as LDPSS (Liberal-democratic party of the SOVIET UNION). December 14 1992 registered by Minister of the Russian Federation as LDPR.

The Initiative group summer-autumn formed under name Liberal-democratic party 1989 year around Vladimir Valentinovich Bogachyov, abandoned Democratic party Lev Ubozhko (split off in turn from Democratic Alliance).

The Autumn 1989 year to Bogachyov was joined Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, author of the project Program Social-democratic party to Russia , referring else to May 1988 year. The Program was renamed and became draft program Liberal-democratic party to Russia December 13 1989 year, after organizing meeting on apartment V.Bogachyov. Originally in contents of the project was contributed only one change: word social- was everywhere replaced on liberal- . On begin 1990 in parties consisted 13 persons.

In spite of so small number, party has got the broad advertisment in soviet and party press. About making the parties was declared on soviet radio in the first number of the March 1990, immediately after announcement about election M. S. Gorbachyov on job title of the President USSR. Zhirinovskiy gave the interview a number party publishing, has conducted several press-conferences in press-room CK CPSU with the other figure of the legal opposition, leader so named Alliance of democratic power im. Saharova V. V. Voroninyn.

On Constituent convention on March 31 1990, which passed in DK im. Rusakova, group Bogachev-Zhirinovskiy became to be identified Liberal-Democratic Party of the Soviet Union (LDPSS). It Was declared that LDPSS unites more than three thousand people from 31 regions of the country and is first opposition party in USSR .

On presidential choice in RSFSR in 1991 V. Zhirinovskiy has taken 7,81 % voice, got third place.

During attempt of the coup d'etat at August 1991 Vladimir ZHirinovskiy on behalf of VS LDPSS has done the statement about support of the transition of the whole fullness authorities in USSR to GKCHP USSR, recovering the action to Constitutions USSR on the whole territory of the country . And hitherto in LDPR consider the decision to support GKCHP faithfull.

At December 1991 LDPSS has convicted Belavezha Accords, conducted the mass-meetings against disinteration USSR.

August 10 1992 Ministry to justices to Russia cancelled the registration LDPSS since she was made with rough breaches legislation, on adulterated document . As it was realized, list was presented at registrations of the parties from 146 party members (under the law in parties union level was to be listed not less 5 thousand people). However at December of the same year party was newly registered.[3]

The former CPSU Politburo member Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev claims that the party was a joint project of CPSU leadership and the KGB. Yakovlev wrote in his memories that KGB director Vladimir Kryuchkov presented the project of the puppet LDPR party at a meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev and informed him about a selection of LDPR leaders. According to Yakovlev, the name of the party was invented by KGB General Philipp Bobkov. However Bobkov said that he was against the creation of this "Zubatov-like pseudo-party under KGB control that directs interests and sentiments of certain social groups".

E.g. what could the sentence

Zhirinovskiy gave the interview a number party publishing, has conducted several press-conferences in press-room CK CPSU with the other figure of the legal opposition, leader so named Alliance of democratic power im. Saharova

mean? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hypocritical

This is again a prove that Wikipedia is not neutral. I once edit a article on the Romanian Socialist Alliance Party. A party who is not genuine socialist and has a social democratic program ( A social market program ). The Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova is also a party who is not communist, but here on Wikipedia it is shown as communist. Wikipedia says that It is not the task of Wikipedia to judge who is a 'real' socialist and who isn't. But here is the proof that Wikipedia is not neutral.

We all know that this “Liberal Democratic” Party is not liberal. It is a authoritarian party who wants a nationalist state ruled by money and rich capitalists. But who is Wikipedia to say that this party is not liberal ? If I’m not allowed to say the Romanian Socialist Alliance Party is not socialist ! If this party calls it self a social liberal party, then we should shown it as liberal party here on Wikipedia.

But no we call it a Russian ultra nationalist party ! So why call the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova still communist ? We all see that this party did not turned Moldova into a socialist state ? The Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova and the Romanian Socialist Alliance Party are not genuine socialist and have a pro market program which makes them social democratic, since socialists oppose capitalism. But that information is not allowed to appear here on Wikipedia.

--UDSS (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We (the editors) are not supposed to call any party anything. Even if something is bloody obvious, we should not be saying it unless we have references to back such a statement up. We are supposed to report how the party is described by independent, verifiable, reliable sources. Anything else would be original research.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text sourced to book by Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev

Why this removal? There is absolutely no requirement for sources to be "academic"; they must simply be WP:RS. Besides, Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev is frequently regarded as a "theoretician" in his area and even spent a year in Columbia University. Regardless, he is obviously an expert in the area he writes about as a former CPSU Politburo member. Biophys (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the text after two weeks without response. Please note that none of other sources disproves this information taken from a book of Yakovlev, who also quotes another publication by Bobkov. Biophys (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consensus. bd2412 T 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

LDPR → Liberal Democratic Party of Russia – More accurate and more encyclopedic. Երևանցի ^talk 02:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - we really shouldn't use acronyms for things that aren't really in English in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"nominated by an electoral association "Moscow city branch of the Political party LDPR", a member of the Political party LDPR, a member of the Supreme Council of the Political party LDPR"

• Strong oppose. It will be not accurate and not encyclopedic. That nationalist party is not the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. And according to Russian Justice Ministry website, "Full name: Political party LDPR" [4]. The party was renamed in December 2012. See 2013 Moscow mayoral election ballot paper: "nominated by an electoral association "Moscow city branch of the Political party LDPR", a member of the Political party LDPR, a member of the Supreme Council of the Political party LDPR". Other interwiki links should be renamed to "Political party LDPR". --TarzanASG (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide us with another example of such title used in English Wikipedia. "Political party LDPR" is nonsence, despite the fact that it's used by the Russian Ministry of Justice. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The party's own charter (available here) states that the full name of the party is the "Political party LDPR — Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia", with "LDPR" being an abbreviated name and with "LDPR" and "Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia" having equal legal status. Since legal name is what your argument is based on, could you please comment? It seems to me that any of the three variants might be acceptable, with "Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia" being the one that would make most sense to our predominantly English-speaking readership. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 8, 2014; 14:20 (UTC)

Дело обстоит так. Эта партия была действительно переименована в 2012 году [5][6]. После этого была переименована статья в русской Википедии. Но, оказывается, как можно узнать из государственного реестра 9 сентября 2013 года в название опять целиком добавили расшифровку аббревиатуры. Эта партия, как все знают, никогда не была ни либеральной, ни демократической. Сама она занимается тем, что проводит националистическую политику, ругает всё либеральное и западное. Её знают именно как "ЛДПР", расшифровка не используется (см. типичный рекламный плакат). Да и вообще партии в России называются как попало, не обязательно всё переносить в английскую Википедию для неподготовленного читателя (из-за этого статьи о выборах и Госдуме создают ложное впечатление, что в Госдуме есть либеральные партии, которые отсутствуют в парламенте с 2003 года). Представитель ЛДПР так и говорил: "Избиратель привык к ЛДПР. Если раньше в бюллетенях значилось «Либерально-демократическая партия России», то теперь будет просто «Политическая партия ЛДПР»... Люди знают эту партию как ЛДПР. Это звучит коротко и емко". "Из политической рекламы, избирательных документов и бюллетеней расшифровка вообще исчезнет".[7] Называть статью "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia" это полное издевательство над здравым смыслом. В этом случае вполне можно выбрать аббревиатуру. Я нашёл по крайней мере один интересный прецедент. Одна датская правоцентристская партия переводится как "Левая", поэтому в английской Википедии используется оригинальное название, чтобы не получилось "правая партия "Левая"". С ЛДПР такая же ситуация - "антилиберальная авторитарная партия "Либерально-демократическая партия России"" это слишком нелепо. --TarzanASG (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I am not convinced. What the party line is is beyond the point here. The title of any Wikipedia article should represent the name under which the entity being described is best known in English. Now, I can very well imagine that one can argue about whether "Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia" or "LDPR" is more common, but "political party LDPR" is simply bad English and is not used very often (and outside of sources originating in Russia, hardly ever). Add to that the fact that the party's own charter states that the names "Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia" and "LDPR" have equal status, and I don't see why the title of our article shouldn't be "Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia" as well, since it's at least not a meaningless collection of letters.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2014; 19:32 (UTC)

Если партия известна на английском языке только как "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia", это ужасно. Надо как-то сделать исключение, и взять за основу имя, которое реально используется самой партией и, в целом, в СМИ, то есть аббревиатуру. Если в англоязычных источниках переводят название партии как "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia", что не вносит ясность, а наоборот запуывает, то такие источники логично было бы отбросить как неправильные. Не знаю практику анговики и насколько такие исключения возможны. Я считаю, что вполне можно переименовать статью в "LDPR (political party)", но целиком название не нужно. У расшифровки в данном случае полностью отсутствует информативность. Поясню на примере: когда в статье о выборах указано "Communist Party", то сразу понятно о чём речь, но если в строке "Party" будет указано "Liberal Democratic", как это было раньше, то какой вообще смысл в этой строке, если читатель прочитает одно, а перейдя по ссылке в статью узнает ровно противоположное об идеологии партии. Это могло бы быть очень смешно, если бы не вводило читателя в заблуждение. Я считаю, что вполне можно использовать "LDPR" наряду с такими именами собственными как "United Russia" и "A Just Russia", у всех трёх партий названия мало что говорят об идеологии. Слово "Laser" тоже раньше было акронимом, а теперь используется как обычное слово. С сайта ЛДПР: "Новое название, а также его сокращение будут значиться в избирательных документах: бюллетенях, программе партии, различных заявлениях, для того, чтобы избиратели сразу могли идентифицировать партию, а не искать ее в в списке из множества различных организаций либерально-демократического толка". [8] --TarzanASG (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It may or may not be terrible, but that's the reality of Wikipedia naming conventions. For the record, I am not entirely against having this article under "LDPR" (but note that "LDPR (political party)" is a non-compliant title, since there are no other article named "LDPR", hence disambiguation is not required), but I don't see having it under "Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia" as much of a problem. What the party ideology is should be clear after reading the article, not just by looking at its title. If someone draws wrong conclusions about the party based just on the article's title, it's their problem, really. As for linking from other articles, you can easily pipe "LDPR" in cases where having "liberal democratic" in lists is confusing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 10, 2014; 21:20 (UTC)

• Support some sort of rename. The current title is wrong. Political Party LDPR is atleast required, but is grammatically very bad in English. LDPR Political Party would fix that. But why does this need "Political Party"? LDPR or Liberal Democratic Party of Russia are the only acceptable forms. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment at the time I lodged my opinion this page was located at "Political party LDPR", not "LDPR", which is at variance with what is said in the nomiation as the location of the page at the time of suggestion. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Direct translations from foreign languages are never a great idea. This is clearly the common and intuitive name in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment without expressing an opinion on the actual English name of the party, I would say the "political party" prefixing this name sought to be removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. We should avoid acronyms like other jargon. The title is weird, as in unnatural. "Political party LDPR" sounds Russian, and does not sound English. Titles should be anglicised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some clarifications

I think that it is "Liberal Democratic" (heck, now somehow even removed?) because it supports liberal democracy. It defines itself after that, not after liberalism. So it supports (some elements of) liberal democracy like a multiparty system and partly some elements of constitutional protection so it is liberal democratic.

Also in regard to the above old discussion. Leftism and Rightism are not associated with more or less socialism or liberalism or fascism even. It is about how authoritarian a party is. Rightism (Rightist) seek central control while leftism seems as pluralistic control as possible or even the lack of control. So that's all left and right is about. Since the end of the 19th century though it has been corrupted in all ways possible to suite certain peoples opinions. This party is far right because it seeks to (from above) impose the definition of Russian culture, it seeks to excert political control from the top and so on. Few countries have leftist political platforms today. Countries with a large section of local control and democracy could be constituted as leftist such as Switzerland and the United States or Sweden. Most countries today are quite rightist and moving in that direction partly. For example like Russia which declared that governors be elected by the president and not by the people recently I think (although it might have been reverted too, I can't quite remember).46.59.99.198 (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Thanks to Fuhghettaboutit for an overview of this tangled history. The page will be moved back to Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, the last consensus-backed title, with no prejudice against a new request. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

LDPR (political party) → Political party LDPR – acorrding to the 28 january 2014 move, bd2412 misused it by renaming it his own version "Political party LDPR" althought the consensus clearly said that it was either, Political party LDPR" or "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia"Liberal Democratic Party of Russia" it is its real name and correct working english Dannis243 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. My Google search turned up essentially no uses of "political party LDPR" as an actual name for the party, as opposed to an incidental description. "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia" also seems very rare, confined to academic sources that may be out of date. "LDPR" seems to be the most common term in English, and the party's own political identity fetishizes the "ЛДПР" acronym of which "LDPR" is a translation. This seems to be at the best title already. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just to correct the record as recounted in error in the OP, BD2412 close a prior requested move discussion seen higher on this page and thereupon moved the article from Political party LDPR to Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. The move from that title to the current one was done by a different user, TarzanASG in the next edit in the history nine minutes later, apparently flouting the consensus from the closed move request, and that unilateral re-titling was never reverted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090126081208/http://www.ldpr.ru:80/partiya/prog/ to http://www.ldpr.ru/partiya/prog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should make the LDP's economic views third position and not left wing

While clearly they incorporate different left positions into their rhetoric, from a historical and practical perspective, their economics would be much closer to third positionism and fascism than to socialism or communism. One of the main platforms of the Nazi party early on was anticapitalism and government control over the private sector. Rhetoric was used specifically to mimic leftist ideology and to co-opt left wing movements to the Nazi party. In the LDP we see something similar. Their praise for Stalin as well as their opposition to neoliberal capitalism would instead demonstrate syncretic third positionism. This is not left wing as socialist and communist movements within russia and abroad generally advocate much more for workers control and an end to private ownership of production like factories and farms. the LDP dos not seem to hold these positions and instead, as stated in the article, favors a mixed economy with private ownership and state direction of resources, similar to what we have seen in previous fascist countries. Therefore, I believe it to be misleading to call the party left wing economically; instead I would advocate we edit the article to list their economics as third positionist and syncretic, especially given their opposition to the communist party and communism

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120021228/http://www.russiaprofile.org/resources/political/majorparties/ldpr/index.wbp to http://www.russiaprofile.org/resources/political/majorparties/ldpr/index.wbp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Monarchist Party

Link provided does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia fake western media

"It is widely considered to be a satellite party of United Russia, the ruling political party of Russia, as it is one of the few other parties that can currently participate in national-level elections in Russian Federation." - this is bullshit. Wikipidors can you stop lying in articles about Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:B10:CC3B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Cut text...

I've removed the following text from the article's lede:

"It is widely considered to be a satellite party of United Russia, the ruling political party of Russia, as it is one of the few other parties that can currently participate in national-level elections in Russian Federation."

A few problems: 1. considered by whom exactly? 2. There's no citation. 3. It's factually inaccurate, as other political parties actually CAN, and in fact DO, participate in national-level Russian elections, including the communist parties, and also more liberal and pro-Western parties. The latter category doesn't get many votes these days, but they do participate in the elections. -2003:CA:872D:A893:E916:6542:4C49:985F (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)