This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
How can a left-wing party be social conservative?
Please give reasons to the question above. The infobox claims that the party is social conservative. Is there evidence to support this?--R-41 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is both Social Conservative and Social Democratic.
It is for closer links with Serbia, it wants the Serbian language as the official language of Montenegro and it maintains respect of the Church. That is why it's (among other reasons) Social Conservative. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Take that back. I mixed it with SNP CG. This one is actually a bit Serb nationalist and pro-Slobodan Milosevic. It is the party of Momir Bulatovic. That's why. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is a pro-Milosevic party social conservative? I guess I should ask as well, is Milosevic social conservative? Not all nationalists are conservative and social conservative. There are many left-wing nationalist parties that have been antagonistic towards minorities or ethnic groups opposed to their movement, Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe, the Arab Socialist Baath Party in Syria and formerly in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In my country, Canada, the left-wing Quebec nationalist and social democratic Parti Quebecois is opposed to the use of the English language in Quebec and is opposed to any increase in the English-speaking population in the largely French-speaking province of Quebec in Canada. As a matter of fact, the most extreme nationalists in Quebec who were in the militant FLQ, committed terrorist attacks against English-speaking people in Quebec to force Canada to allow the creation of an "independent and socialist Quebec", so social conservative is highly inaccurate to apply to all nationalists, even extreme ones. I know that Milosevic became a de facto nationalist and tried to earn the support of the Orthodox Church for his policy in Kosovo, but I've read about Milosevic, he and his wife were athiests and actually claimed that his public relations campaign with the Orthodox church was quote "bulls***", meant only to strengthen support from non-Communists for his agenda. I believe on Wikipedia it claims that Bulatovic is a religious follower, but that doesn't mean he's social conservative. For instance, in my country, Canada, we have a social democratic party called the New Democratic Party (NDP) which under the leadership of Tommy Douglas advocated Christian socialism, promoted social democratic agendas with religious undertones, and the NDP gained large support from the United Church of Canada. Douglas was NO social conservative. In order to prove that Bulatovic and parties under his leadership are considered social conservative, the following questions must be examined and answered, as these are typical positions that social conservative parties explicitly and directly oppose.
1) Is the party explicitly opposed to abortion for moral or religious reasons? (i.e. some communist regimes like the Soviet Union under Stalin have opposed abortion for the sake of increasing the population rather than for moral reasons)
2) Is the party explicitly opposed to gay marriage?
3) Is the party explicitly opposed to increased immigration?
4) Is the party explicitly opposed to affirmative action (i.e. measures to insure protection of minorities)?
If you can show that the party publicly endorses all of these key elements of social conservatism as mentioned above, then it is correct to label it social conservative. If it only opposes the last two combined with its left-of-centre economic policies, left-wing nationalist is the best applicable term.--R-41 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Milosevic wasn't really a nationalist - he used nationalism to his agenda.
Bulatovic's a Commie, his respect for the Serbian Orthodox Church - the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral - lies basically just in patriotism.
Then it is left-wing national conservative...but I thought all national conservatives tend to be right wing. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
But Social Democratic? Absolutely no way. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It claims to be social democratic and in economic policy it is. Unlike the former Communist party, Milosevic and Bulatovic accepted the market economy while calling for the maintaining of social welfare. As autocratic as Bulatovic has been, supporters of him and his political agenda would point out that it was him and his political supporters that created a multiparty parliamentary system in the first place. I am aware that Bulatovic and Milosevic were corrupt and attempted vote rigging, but other leaders and political parties in the world are corrupt. Even so, Bulatovic and Milosevic were not as authoritarian as other regimes, for instance, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Iraq under Saddam Hussein always claimed to have won 99% of the vote in elections and ruthlessly repressed dissent, while both Bulatovic's and Milosevic's political forces were forced to enter coalition governments with some parties opposed to their policies. Both Bulatovic and Milosevic probably didn't want multiparty democracy but they had no choice as communism collapsed. Furthermore we should not cast too much judgement on the views of Bulatovic's political movements as that is POV. The key elements of all of Bulatovic's parties which are not disputable are (1) Serbian-Montenegrin unionism; (2) A left-wing based Montenegrin nationalism within the context of union with Serbia, such as endorsing the annexation of Dubrovnik to Montenegro; (3) Advocacy of social welfare within a free market economy; and (4) Official acceptance of a democratic multiparty system.--R-41 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bulatovic was no autocrat (btw, alleged vote rigging was brought by Djukanovic, and not Bulatovic), but I don't think you really understand the status of this joke-mockery of Montenegrin society-of-a-party.
Do you know that Bulatovic probably doesn't even know the name of this party? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am aware that you have probably read the National conservatism article. That article is completely inaccurate, national conservatives are far-right, they have been known to be fervant anti-communists and anti-leftists, they are staunch social conservatives, and in Serbia they are often monarchists and strongly connect to religious support from religious social conservatives. Thus it is very inaccurate to call Bulatovic's parties "national conservative" as his support base has included ex-Communist party members and supporters, he held political relations with Yugoslav Left, a socialist party led by Milosevic's wife, who is a self-declared athiest and Marxist, though she accepted her husband's agenda to increase the free market in Serbia.--R-41 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have found a suitable compromise, as it appears that the party is not genuinely social democratic, state socialism is the best alternative. State socialism does not necessarily entail total control over the economy but does advocate significant state influence into public affairs, such as the media.--R-41 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)