Talk:Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland

Untitled

Is the partys program nationalist, I've never hard them say about anything related to nationality?

Their current program is not nationalist, it's similar to social democratic, but its intelectual quality is lower than poor, it's inconsistent and unrealistic. Samoobrona is just a bunch of populists who will tell each group of people what that group wants to hear, even if that leads to condradicting statements. E. g. when they're talking to better educated people in the cities, they portray themselves as tolerant, modern leftist party, but when they're talking to some uneducated people in the country, they sometimes use nationalistic and anti-semitic slogans. It only depends on the audience they're talking to at the moment. MarcoosPL 18:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The party is left wing. I don't know why it was ommitted from the article. Is it becasue it allied itself with the twins?

Samoobrona - a "socialist" party?

I really fail to understand what is Samoobrona has populist pro-welfare state positions, but its background is in agrarian lobbyism, not socialism suppose to mean, the two aren't mutually exclusive in any way. Are you saying that only parties based on directly on the PZPR can be described that way.

I'm afraid You're either completley ignorant of political scene in Poland (in which case You really shouldn't be making edits here) or You're intentionally trolling (and unfortunately You're aggresive retheoric seems to confirm the later). --212.76.33.89 19:35, 14 December 2005 signature added, --Thorsten1 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, welcome 212.76.33.89, and thank you for explaining your motivation for your edits. I had overlooked your post above, since it appeared at exactly the same minute as your edit of the article, and so it did not appear on my watchlist. For this, I apologize.

Let me briefly explain why I disagree. It seems we are simply using different definitions of the term "socialist". You said that "socialism" and "populist pro-welfare state positions" (my words) are not "mutually exclusive in any way. They are certainly not, but neither are they mutually causative, as you seem to believe. I.e., the presence of the latter does not sufficiently justify categorising an organization as the former. Socialism is one of the three large political ideologies that emerged in Europe in the 19th century (the other two being liberalism and conservatism). There is also nationalism, which is rather a 20th century phenomenon, and the even more recent Green movement. These currents have their current presentation in the form of parties or similar political organizations in most, if not all European and many other countries worldwide, even if the strengths of the respective parties very much vary. Additionally, there are certain parties which cannot be unambigiously or at all attributed to any of these currents or ideologies, and are often specific to one or several countries. In Poland, the agrarian Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe is such a case; Samoobrona is a similar case. Samoobrona undisputedly adopted certain characteristics (and individual members) of nominally socialist/social-democratic parties, but that does not mean that it became such a party itself. The party's defining element remains populist agrarian/lower class lobbyism without any coherent ideological foundation. After the 2005 election, which marginalised the traditional left, it is not at all impossible that Samoobrona will gradually take over its functional role, at least for a certain period. Whether a party that fills the vacuum left behind by the implosion of a socialist party can be called "socialist" on this grounds is open to debate; but it is much too early for this debate. At the moment, there is no real basis whatsoever for categorising Samoobrona as "socialist". Neither does the party have any historical background in, or any notable personal continuity with, the socialist movement, nor is it a member of the Socialist International or the Party of European Socialists.

Certainly, if we stretch the definition far enough, one could also include Law and Justice or the League of Polish Families under the heading "socialism", due to their vague pro-welfare message and skepticism of the free market. Even the National Socialist German Workers Party could arguably be counted as "socialist", not only due to its the name, but due to its message - and it attracted significant portions of the electorate of the SPD and KPD, too. However, here on Wikipedia, we simply do not use such loose definitions or apply categories to things that cannot be backed up with previously existing and established research. There is a strict rule called "no original research", and using new or unconventional categories for things is original research. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a place for political essayism.

Finally, a formal request: Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically create a signature with your IP address and a time stamp, so we can trace who said what and when. I would also recommend you obtain a personal user name. This has several benefits, not only if you would like to contribute on a regular basis. We can also judge your expertise, and how legitimate your statements and accusations (such as "childish", "completley ignorant" or "intentionally trolling") are, in the light of what else you contribute. --Thorsten1 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To begin with there's really no reasonable doubt that that the NSDAP was a socialist party.

Both PiS and (especially) LPR, have socialist elements in their programs. The diffrence between them and Samooborna however is that while the former don't openly admit it, instead describing themeselves as a social party or other such terms. Samoobrona on the other hand openly declares itself as socialists public saying things such as "we are the modern left", "we, socialists". In the presidential and parliamentry campaign this party has itself admited to being socialist so it strikes me as to try to deemphesize and downplay this fact, even though it's bluntly obvious from reading the program included in this article. None of this is my original research it has all been covered by mainstream Polish media such as TVN, Rzeczpospolita, OZON, Wprost and many, many others during the past few months.

Finaly, the argument about historical continuity and historical background strikes me as particulary weak. They could just as well have arrived from Mars yesterday, that doesn't in any way prevent them from adhering to stupid ideologies. Nor does being a socialist require recognition from other socialists. if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

212.76.33.87 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

....but it doesn't mean it's a duck

--84.26.109.69 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Samoobrana/NSDAP is/was a PATROTIC PARTY,over all.Lepper/Hitler is/was a great leader and a working class heroDzoni 14:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

While I largely agree with Thorsten1 above, he omits one 'political' movement which I believe is of some relevance here - populism. Hitler was no political theorist, he adopted (purloined is perhaps more appropriate) political positions from both left and right that he thought would win his party power while it still had to contest elections. Perhaps a more moderate comparison might be with the Louisiana (US) politician Huey Long in the 1930s. Of course, all political parties (even highly-ideologically-driven ones) to some extent occupy a breadth of political opinion, and will also naturally pitch their public statements differently according to context in an attempt to maximise support from different strands of society. But the old adage "you can tell a person by the company he keeps" is the key here. The simple fact that Samoobrana has not aligned itself with the Socialist grouping in the European Parliament but with the rightist/nationalist UEN grouping is a clear self-certification that it is not a genuine socialist party. If it sometimes claims adherence to socialist policies, it would then clearly be populist in essence. R J Sutherland (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is worth adding that in European countries with a strong Roman Catholic tradition, (eg. Belgium, Poland) a strong pro-welfare tendency often exists that originates from Christian teaching and practice rather than leftist political theory. Both tendencies may well co-exist but are often manifested in different political parties; in the religious case, typically this takes the form of a right-of-centre Christian Democrat party. In the European context, therefore, adherence to a pro-welfare policy is no reliable indicator of the socialist nature (or otherwise) of a political party; conversely, its adherence to such a policy may nevertheless be genuine. R J Sutherland (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

@R J Sutherland: You wrote that "[...] Thorsten1 [...] omits one 'political' movement which I believe is of some relevance here - populism". First off, I'm glad someone finally rallies to my side, even if it's 3.5 years on... :-D Of course, I fully agree with everything you say. Just one thing in my defense, though: I didn't omit populism; in fact, at the very top of the section I'm quoted saying that "Samoobrona has populist pro-welfare state positions, but its background is in agrarian lobbyism, not socialism". Admittedly, that was in an easily overlooked edit summary in December 2005; however, shortly after that, I wrote on this very page that Samoobrona's "defining element remains populist agrarian/lower class lobbyism without any coherent ideological foundation" [emphases added]. So I really don't think I'm guilty of omitting populism. :) Interestingly, the populist pro-welfare state rhetoric of Samoobrona (along with the "patriotic" rhetoric of the LPR) has by now largely been absorbed by PiS, who are even more careful to avoid the words "socialist" or "social-democratic" in favor of "social" or "solidary". Anyway, I'm positive that now that Samoobrona has all but disappeared from Poland's mainstream political scene, the temptation to polemicize by associating socialism/social democracy with Samoobrona (or vice versa) is no longer there and the quarrel above no longer relevant. --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth Thorsten1 I agree here. Feel free to add the "w/o any coherent ideological foundation" to the article if it's not in there now.radek (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

@Radek: Great, who said we need to disagree about everything? I really do feel free to add this, but for now I'm not going to add it anyway. I've opened enough cans of worms and been framed as "anti-Polish" for lesser things... :D --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A source for that kind of description ("w/o coherent etc." and for "populist") can easily be found it'll just take some digging since for all practical purposes they're not around anymore. The only thing about them being "socialist" - they DID have a lot of former PZPR members and there's was a lot of jumping between SLD and SO back when SO still had support. So they are "somewhat" post-communist, though not as post-communist as SDL was.radek (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"they DID have a lot of former PZPR members" – ok, but so did other parties. The fact that those people ended up in Samoobrona, rather than the SLD, UP, SdPl or other nominally socialist parties, doesn't mean that Samoobrona is "socialist", but that they intended to distance themselves from socialism. Of course, later, some SLD members from Sandra Lewandowska to Leszek Miller deserted the sinking ship and jumped the Samoobrona bandwagon instead; but this fact rather demonstrates that these people are careerists than that Samoobrona are socialists. "A source for that kind of description ("w/o coherent etc." and for "populist") can easily be found it'll just take some digging" - ok, so you do the digging! You have my blessing... ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding an Accusation

Accusing the League of Polish Families to be an extremist organization, the user:Piotrus, also known as the "Prokonsul," and having shown many times to be an expert on matters concerning Poland on English Wikipedia, states that Self-Defense of the Republic of Poland, is also an extremist organization. Is this a correct assessment? Dr. Dan 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point out where I have made such accusation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On November 8, 2005, you stated in the opening line of Żydokomuna, that this organization was not only extremist but anti-Semitic. You are also the author of this peculiar article. Dr. Dan 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See, Dr. Dan, I was just translating the Polish Wikipedia article, and as I had no sources to defend the translation, I had no problems with the term extremist being removed soon afterwards by another editor (this also thought me to be careful translating articles from Polish Wikipedia, which is habitually underreferenced). Thus please stop misinterpreating other's actions: I did not call those organizations extremist, I merely translated a source that said this. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for same-sex marriage

"With right-wing religious conservative social policies" Whoever did write this knows of course that Lepper supports same-sex marriage ? http://www.przeglad-tygodnik.pl/index.php?site=artykul&id=5509 Innego zdania jest Andrzej Lepper, który deklaruje: - Geje i lesbijki są w naszym społeczeństwie i żyją ze sobą. A skoro takie zjawisko jest, niech będzie legalne.

Cheers. --Molobo (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not far-right

Samoobrona wasn't a far-right organization. Rather far-left on social issues (statist), and mixed stance on ideological issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zymnos (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~smikkel/kaliciak.doc
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kuwi.euv-frankfurt-o.de/de/lehrstuhl/vs/politik1/team/gruen/SO_Paris_Paper.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.euroculturemaster.org/pdf/Campbell.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117135426/http://www.samoobrona.org.pl/pages/20.english/ to http://www.samoobrona.org.pl/pages/20.english/

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) 22:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)