DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**VemyhemiHef** · 06-28-2010, 08:04 PM

Again, they are, by your own source, a socialist group, making them "leftist" by definition. I wouldn't exactly call the BBC an unbiased source, considering it's based out of a highly socialistic country and largely represents and extremely socialist Europe. Perhaps you deserve some credit in that it's not entirely CNN's fault in characterizing a socialist group as "far-right" as they are likely relying on rather biased sources themselves. But your basis of characterization of a group as "right-wing" solely because they are nationalist, fails to analyze other components. Typically, parties are classified by economic theory moreso than stance on social issues. This basically goes to show how the media can and do manipulate the political spectrum to bad mouth whatever ideology they disfavor.

Dude, they define themselves as "national socialist".....you know what that is, right? I understand that not a social stance a party makes, but when you are dealing with fringe hate groups, it's mostly going to be cultural and social programs and light on the economics.

And, again from Wiki:
"Concerning economic aspects of the party's program, it includes vague and contradictory populist demands such as reducing national debt while increasing old age pensions and reducing the retirement age [17]. Some of the more concrete proposals include restrictions on foreign investment, including a total ban on purchases of real estate by foreign nationals[18] and nationalization of certain companies." That's pretty vague and could go either way.

The party also wants to restore the death penalty[20], criminalize "sexual deviation", including homosexuality [21], abolish registered partnership, reduce rights of the prosecuted [22] and in some cases create new crimes with a retroactive effect [23]. Some of the most controversial proposals include marking of ethnicity in ID cards [24] and giving the police discretion to treat the arrested person inhumanly [25]. These are not left-leaning positions.

In international affairs, the party opposes NATO and European Union and requires the Czech Republic leave these organizations [26]. The party is strongly anti-American and seems to be pro-Russian [27], going as far as stating that the Czech Republic must "immediately and strongly restore its relations with Russia" [28] Concerning other matters in international affairs, it is hard to determine the party position, since the party has not taken a stance and its releases in the party internet journal are very contradictory: e.g. the chairman of the party arbitration commission congratulated the radical president of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the controversial elections[29], but wrote a highly islamophobic article 6 weeks afterwards." Again, not left, but fairly vague

In the absence of any sort of real governing strategy if they ever were to get elected to any offices, all you have to judge them on are their social/cultural programs. If they are for criminalizing homosexuality, are down with burning Roma, want stronger ties with Russia (who, might I add, have their own far-Right issues), and abolish registered partnership you can take an educated stab at what they are.

I'm not sure why you are stuck in this left/Socialist stance on this issue, but your signature makes me think you are already predisposed to that line of thinking.

06-28-2010, 08:04 PM	#23
VemyhemiHef Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 591 Senior Member	Again, they are, by your own source, a socialist group, making them "leftist" by definition. I wouldn't exactly call the BBC an unbiased source, considering it's based out of a highly socialistic country and largely represents and extremely socialist Europe. Perhaps you deserve some credit in that it's not entirely CNN's fault in characterizing a socialist group as "far-right" as they are likely relying on rather biased sources themselves. But your basis of characterization of a group as "right-wing" solely because they are nationalist, fails to analyze other components. Typically, parties are classified by economic theory moreso than stance on social issues. This basically goes to show how the media can and do manipulate the political spectrum to bad mouth whatever ideology they disfavor. Dude, they define themselves as "national socialist".....you know what that is, right? I understand that not a social stance a party makes, but when you are dealing with fringe hate groups, it's mostly going to be cultural and social programs and light on the economics. And, again from Wiki: "Concerning economic aspects of the party's program, it includes vague and contradictory populist demands such as reducing national debt while increasing old age pensions and reducing the retirement age [17]. Some of the more concrete proposals include restrictions on foreign investment, including a total ban on purchases of real estate by foreign nationals[18] and nationalization of certain companies." That's pretty vague and could go either way. The party also wants to restore the death penalty[20], criminalize "sexual deviation", including homosexuality [21], abolish registered partnership, reduce rights of the prosecuted [22] and in some cases create new crimes with a retroactive effect [23]. Some of the most controversial proposals include marking of ethnicity in ID cards [24] and giving the police discretion to treat the arrested person inhumanly [25]. These are not left-leaning positions. In international affairs, the party opposes NATO and European Union and requires the Czech Republic leave these organizations [26]. The party is strongly anti-American and seems to be pro-Russian [27], going as far as stating that the Czech Republic must "immediately and strongly restore its relations with Russia" [28] Concerning other matters in international affairs, it is hard to determine the party position, since the party has not taken a stance and its releases in the party internet journal are very contradictory: e.g. the chairman of the party arbitration commission congratulated the radical president of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the controversial elections[29], but wrote a highly islamophobic article 6 weeks afterwards." *Again, not left, but fairly vague* In the absence of any sort of real governing strategy if they ever were to get elected to any offices, all you have to judge them on are their social/cultural programs. If they are for criminalizing homosexuality, are down with burning Roma, want stronger ties with Russia (who, might I add, have their own far-Right issues), and abolish registered partnership you can take an educated stab at what they are. I'm not sure why you are stuck in this left/Socialist stance on this issue, but your signature makes me think you are already predisposed to that line of thinking.
	Quote