Jump to content

Talk:Socialist Party of Serbia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

On SPS Ideology

I agree in a way that nationalism wasn't a policy itself of the SPS, but it was a tactic used to save the dying Serb Communist Party, therefore, though it is not an ideology, the party could be described in the 1990s as opportunist. Still, isn't the reason why the SPS did not foster war with Macedonia was because during the 90s they were too busy about supporting war with Croatia and Bosnia and later Kosovo? I believe that the SPS would have supported an invasion of Macedonia to tap into Greater Serbian nationalism and Yugoslav communist supporters under the name of uniting Yugoslavia again. I apologize if I have made mistakes, but from what I've read, I can only conclude that they are a survival branch of the Serb Communist Party that utilized nationalism as an opportunistic tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.173.85 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Addition to Comment
I would like to add to my previous comment, that while the Socialist Party of Serbia did not officially declare that the would create an entity of Greater Serbia under Milosevic (instead pushing for a Serb-controlled Yugoslavia, very much the same), they DID support Pan-Serbism as defined in Wikipedia. I'm very certain that SPS and Milosevic claimed repeatedly that they represented all Serbs, not just those in Serbia, Milosevic himself was a Serb who was born in Montenegro and whose parents where from Montenegro. Though I am no expert, I think Pan-Serbian representation is more politically accurate that nationalism, since Milosevic did back down during the Bosnian peace conference in that it secured Serb independence from other nationalities under a Bosnian state. This is unlike the Serb Radical Party which would accept nothing other than complete annexation of Srpska and Krajina. I will put Pan-Serbism on the page just so people can recognize that the Socialist Party of Serbia is not just another regular socialist party that appear throughout the world, and that it is far different in its approach to politics, as it is a fact that its leadership, Slobodan Milosevic openly supported and allowed wars for the cause of a nationality, which betrays Marxism as well as socialist tradition in Yugoslavia of "brotherhood and unity" as defined by former Yugoslav dictator Joseph Broz Tito. R-41, 04:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I see what you mean. The evidence surrounding Milosevic and the SPS ideology is very scanty. The reason that I chose not to use the term nationalism to define the SPS is first, because the party is nominally left-orientated. Now, I would never say that Milosevic was a good Marxist; he was rich whilst many his very own supporters were poor. But Lenin too drove a Rolls Royce whilst those to whom he preached socialism rode on donkeys. So, yes, the SPS as leftists did move away, but if you scan down the list of parties who compose Socialist International, a federation of leftist parties who unanimously rejected the SPS (bar the French and Greek), you'll find they too are all Leftists from the Right. On principle, left politics and nationalism don't go. Nationalism is a vision of the right: it involves the superiority of one nationality, where-as leftists are more embracing of each other, but as I said, that is all theory: leftists do build secular walls and still fight for expansion/independence, but use different propaganda tactics. If we analyse the SPS, the first conclusion you reach is that they fought to salvage what was Yugoslavia. Milosevic himself when addressing the nation would speak of Yugoslavs and Serbs interchangeably. The country was still called Yugoslavia. And as you said, the Radical Party would never have recognised Macedonia and never had given in on Bosnia and Krajina until they were finished. Equally, Yugoslavia continued with the support of another republic, Montenegro, in 1992; so if the SPS advocated Serbian nationalism, not only would they have gone to war with Macedonia but they would have changed their own name to Serbia, taking with it Montenegro too. Montenegro withdrew its alliance to the entity of Serbia in 1996 when Djukanovic emerged as leader, and the following year, when Milosevic took presidency - the highest office - he still declined to interfere with Montenegro. As Montenegrin nationalism grew, and they adopted the Deutsch Mark among other things, there was still no interference from the SPS. To that end, Montenegro participated in Yugoslav life all be it minimal (the President still controlled units such as the military and the customs control but not the police). To die-hard Serbs however, this was not acceptable. So, the nationalism represented by the SPS was probably one of being Yugoslav and not Serb: these are two individual entities. The claims of Serbian interest and control having dominated the country were largely claims by disseident non-Serbs when encouraging their republican population to vote independence. In truth, actual Serbian nationalism was quashed for much of the Yugoslav period, and even Seselj was not a long term ally of Milosevic. So the fact that Serbia benifited so much was to do with other reasons. As for not going to war with Macedonia because the military was pushed with Bosnia and Krajina. That isn't true, the vast majority of soldiers who fought it both conflicts were locals who took up arms. Even if the campaigns until 1995 had made setbacks to Serbia, there was nothing stopping Yugoslavia from refusing the recognise Macedonia (as Seselj still does) and suspending all diplomatic relations with them, but as it happened, Kiro Gligurov had a good relationship with Belgrade. As for inside Macedonia, 2% of the population is Serb, very little but they do form majorities in some small municipalities and it is certainly enough to build an army and foment revolution. Milosevic did "meddle" with areas of Serbian nationalism but it seems more like he was trying to save as much of Yugoslavia as he could. You said that "Greater Serbia" is a better example than "Nationalism" but the two are inextricable. The Serbian nationalists, like 19th century Croats such as Starcevic, did not believe in unity, and even in their wildest fantasies as to what constitutes a Serbian state, never touched Slovenia. It appeared that he was the first high profile politician to rise up in Yugoslavia and appeal to the Serbian nationalists, and in doing so, he alienated the rest of the country: Catch 18. Many Serbs had felt hard done in Yugoslavia: suppression of Cyrillic, autonomy given to non-Yugoslavs in two of their provinces, and other things which may have sooner or later led to Serbian doubts in Yugoslavia. Finally, if the SPS did stand for Serbian nationalism, not only would they have: 1)quashed Montenegro's post-1996 distancing campaign, 2)not recognised Macedonia, promising to go to war with them as soon as the time is right, 3)kept the name Yugoslavia, but just as the first Yugoslav kingdom gave away areas delicate to Slovenes and Croats to Italy, a Yugoslav republic also agreed to return captured areas to Hungary after the war which was in "Yugoslav" interest in keeping good relations, and against "Serbian" aspirations which did not care about that. So, the Serbian right wing to this day claims territory not only in Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro, but also parts of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The only reason they don't scramble to unite the Slavs of Greece whom they see as Serbs is that they themselves agreed with Greece to split the region of Macedonia at that very point, again, this was a Serbian action, not Yugoslav. This is a closer inspection as to why I believe that SPS and Serbian nationlism don't go. Evlekis 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I wasn't trying to say that Milosevic specifically endorsed "Greater Serbian" aims, he did not, as you said, Montenegro would never have had a pro-independence candidate win. What Milosevic advocated was a populist Pan-Serbian agenda, an admitingly more moderate form of Pan-Serbism than in the past (look up Pan-Serbism in Wikipedia)advocating Serb representation in all lands with Serbs. I.e. independence of Serbs in Krajina, independence of Serbs in Bosnia, and independence of Serbs in Albanian-dominated Kosovo. The reason why Milosevic did this, was in part due to Yugoslav history, he saw Yugoslavia under Tito as disgregarding that fact the Serbs were the principle founders of Yugoslavia, they did lead the fight against Austria-Hungary in the First World War. However with the ousting of the Serb-run monarchy and following the violence perpetrated between the Ustasha, the Chetniks, and the Partisans, divisions were still strong and eventually those divisions forced Tito to have to reduce Serbian voting power, concerned of the very situation which struck the Yugoslav parliament in 1990, with Serbs blocking Croat votes causing tension. To Milosevic they saw this as disgracing Serbia, as to Serbs it was deemed as forgetting the key role Serbs played in the creation of Yugoslavia and defending it in World War II. As can be seen, Balkan history and political interpretations is not an easy thing, what western media can describe as nationalism on Milosevic's part can be described by Milosevic as an act AGAINST nationalism in the other republics and protecting Serbia from further territorial losses. Milosevic, an ardent opportunist, realizing dissidence by Kosovo Serbs against Kosovo Albanians, used the alledged discrimination by Albanians on Serbs as a plank to promise an end to discrimination against Serbs across Yugoslavia and vowed to protect them from discrimination. I see this as a long-term aim at becoming the leader of Yugoslavia as a new "Serbian Tito" as his ambitious wife believed he could achieve. The first step was to run for President of Serbia, then work his way to Yugoslav presidency (which he did by 1997), but things went terribly wrong, the Slovenes protected Kosovo Albanians, then the Croats backed the Slovenes. Contrary to Serb nationalists, Milosevic was very concerned about Croatia breaking away from Yugoslavia. But by the time the authoritarian Croat nationalist and post-fascist Tudjman came to power, Milosevic had no choice but to turn to his Serb base, promising that Serbs would be protected from "Croatian fascism". Milosevic and the SPS advocated war to protect the Serbs and sustain Yugoslavia. But being authoritarian, Milosevic would not let anything stand in his way from his goals, allowing terrible atrocities to be committed. It is a long explanation which most want to simplify but each part is important, no simple explanation can explain what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. R-41, 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indirect tie to National Bolshevism?

Whether or not Milosevic deliberately tried to incorporate nationalism into the Socialist Party of Serbia, couldn't it be said that his actions and his support of Bosnian Serb actions make him fall under National Bolshevism? That is a mixture of militant nationalism and communism. In a video on Youtube called "Death of Yugoslavia", Milosevic negatively refers to the Slovenian delegates leaving the Communist Party as "those stingy Slovenes" as well as sending the nationalist General Mladic to lead the Bosnian Serb army which committed mass atrocities. Obviously his party were composed of like-minded people, so could this party be a National Bolshevik party in essence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.162.218 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

National Bolshevism is not just Nationalism + Communism. Its a distinct ideological tendency, with its own history. SPS was never in any way close of being National Bolsheviks. --Soman 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we few people do know exactly what Milosevic advocated and where he stood with Yugoslavia and with Serbia, our problem was finding a simple way of communicating this via the article regarding its policy. First, it seems that in my longer statment, I was wrong to think nationalism is the exclusive preserve of the right, because indeed socialism and nationalism can go together, and with Milosevic, there was a form of nationalism involved. But what was it? We all seem agreed that this isn't the Greater Serbia which emerged during the nationlaist revivals accross Europe during the 18th century. At largest, it would be far too small; and as for the SFRJ - we know that this spread into areas which were of no concern to Serb aspirations (eg. Slovenia and north-western Croatia; the proof being that Belgrade's flogging of Istria to Italy after WWI affected local Croats and Slovenes far more than the Serbs). A plan could have been to make Serbs a dominant plurality in a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, but in a country of a different name, what is the point of a continued Serbian existence? If they all just call themselves Yugoslavs, then they can all go about their external affairs and support each other internally (eg. together they can voice the claims over Trieste in the same way that Italy, since taking Venice in 1866, automaticly adopted Venice's key interests in wishing to recapture much of the the Eastern Adriactic coastline, thus not alienating Venetians; a fundemental difference between the administration of Post WWI Rome and Post WWI Belgrade). But Milosevic was interested in a new Serbia comprising itself, Krajina and Srpska; this makes sense, but where does that leave the pointless title of Yugoslavia and the partnership with Montenegro which Milosevic very much left alone when becoming national president in 1997 even tough Serbs make up a large chunk of Montenegro! See what I mean? The evidence is scanty. So let's back to the issue: yes, the SPS is the successor of the League of Communists, but one of these exists in all other former republics, though their policies have all changed in two ways: first, they no longer fully support a unified state, and some even took part in the struggle for independence, and secondly, they are not outright communists now, in that they have turned towards other Socialist ideologies, mainly ones in which there is a class system, and privatisation. The SPS have not been in power since 2000, the leadership has changed officially since Milosevic died and we don't know exactly which school of thought they believe in. Their support was never extremely great, and besides, every party in the world follows a political ideology but quite how they run their affairs is all together a seperate issue (ie. The British Labour party believe in Social Democracy, but read Social Democracy ideology and you'll see that there are countless conflicts between itself and the British running of the land). To this end, I plan to alter the infobox to display just socialism and nothing more until we know more: communism is to be forgotten, they were not cast as communists, and were taken off the map internationally as being communists, the fact that they allowed privatisation stood testimony to this. Evlekis 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

After reviewing what I've looked at about the collapse of Yugoslavia, Milosevic did take a grab at nationalism. But I question the motivation of that nationalism, when questioned about his musings about the historical and religious importance of Kosovo he claimed it was all "bullshit", he was a self-serving man, but I suspect that he was catering to Serbian nationalists to secure "real" support, as the Communist parties in Europe were unpopular and falling to pieces by the late 1980s. I do not see Milosevic as an idealist, but a calculating man, who knew that the Communist Party's days were running short with the rise of the nationalist Serbian Radical Party and other nationalist forces in Serbia and abroad Yugoslavia. Milosevic did not get along well with the Bosnian Serb nationalists, whom I believe he regarded as too stubborn to accept the Vance Owen peace plan. Anyway, Milosevic had little place to turn but to Serb nationalists by the 1990s with the Croats and Slovenes rebelling against his militant upsurp of power during the late 80s, when he and his supporters installed loyal puppets to Milosevic. For me, I strongly believe that Milosevic would have continued these actions in Bosnia, to allow a majority of Serb members to make him the ruler of Yugoslavia with the backing of communists and nationalists alike. I do not think Milosevic intended to tear the country to pieces, but he wanted power and reputation, one only has to look at the ethnical layout of the former Yugoslavia to see that Serbs dominated much of the land, it was easier to gain the trust of the majority Serbs through patriotic rousing speeches rather than to gather the increasingly divided nationalities together to equally decide that he should be Yugoslav leader. R-41 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The only political ideology that stands inbetween nationalism that could describe the motivations of the SPS during Milosevic's reign was Yugoslav and Serb patriotism. Note that before, during, and after Milosevic's rule and death, the Serb and SFRY and FRY flags were used interchangeably. I will add Yugoslav and Serb "patriotism" in this article along with socialism, as socialism in itself is a rather incomplete and bland explanation for this party's actions and motives. R-41 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted those edits, but only because of concerns regarding the Wikipedia policies of no original research & verifiability. Please, restore the text citing a reliable source for that description. – If you haven't done so yet, please take a look at the Simplified Ruleset :-) Best regards, Evv 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the SPS was "national conservative"

Now any indication of the SPS having any connection to its communist predacessor has been removed and replaced by information claiming that the party was right-wing and "national conservative". Whoever is doing this should present their evidence. User:R-41

I suppose you're right. I was trying to revert the idiot who replaced "nationalism", you know from past discussion that "nationalism" will not do because of a series of principles. I am reverting that section back to Pax Equilibrium as he put it as it never should have been changed by any of us. Evlekis 10:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Fair use rationale for Image:Spslogo.jpg

Image:Spslogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Social democracy vs. democratic socialism

Inside of the first paragraph of their bylaws[1] stays that "they belong to the democratic left", which is, generally, another name for democratic socialism. And they are definitely not a social-democratic party, their program is more left. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 19:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Socialism

I changed political ideology from Socialism to Nationalism and Social-Democracy again. I follow their activities regularly and am not shore what type of Socialism would they represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fachuk (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it is not nationalism, not atleast in the name of Serbia. The SPS were in power when Macedonia broke free; the Radical Stranka would to this day have never recognised Macedonia as to any Serb nationalist, that is Serbia and its people are Serbs. Apart from attempting to salvage what was left of Yugoslavia to allow a state in which all Serbs could live (baring in mind, they were already living in the same country), there is no evidence that the SPS had aspirations for the Greater Serbia devised two centuries back. There is on the other hand, all the evidence in the world that this was note the case: ie.never interfering outside Yugoslavia's 1944-92 borders where Serbs lived since before the Serbian Kingdom pre-Yugoslavia (eg.Hungary and Romania). Evlekis 08:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Wasn't the Socialist Party of Serbia, the successor to the League of Communists of Serbia. Shouldn't the ideology be communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.166.158 (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
The ideology should be nationalism. It is true that it grew out of the communists. However, Milosevic transformed it into a hardline Serb nationalist party. It is not accepted as a Socialist party by other European parties. Milosevic was mainly a man interested in power (which in fact was true about many top members in the Eastern bloc, but he found out that he would achieve more by transforming the party into a nationalist party. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. What grew out of the League of Communists was a reformed party which did indeed embrace elements of conservatism, as indeed did the successors to the Communist Parties in each of Yugoslavia's former republics. Before anyone can label the SPS as "nationalist", they need first familiarise themselves with what exactly Serbian nationalism entails; what are its symbols and characteristics. There is no compromising on one's choice of ethnicity where a nationalist renders him/her Serb; there is no separate Montenegrin, Macedonian nor Bosniak nation to the Serbian nationalist, and the respective territories should neither be controlled by non-Serb governments, nor external Serbs for that matter, but the territories would remain in one Serbia. The assistance from Belgrade to the ethnic Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia who fought for independent entities is not the same as the Radical Party/Party of Serbian Unity policy which was to have these areas alongside Macedonia and Montenegro in a Serbia-only entity, alongside other unmentioned regions. Additionally, Serbian nationalism opposes a Serbian republic, and instead opts for a kingdom, reintroducting the Serbian Royal Family. In 1989, new and old parties were freely reintroduced on the Yugoslav political scene. Slobodan Milošević, labelled a "nationalist", had every opportunity to lead his colleagues into forming a new right-wing party or even still add to the numbers of the already existing far-right parties. His name was already known and he could have wielded the same influence; there was no requirement for him nor his supporters to form the SPS, famed for succeeding a party which was created in an anti-nationalist environment, which actively suppressed nationalism for many years, whilst keeping the Chetniks in exile, and over-all conspired to remove the monarchy, not any old monarchy - but the Serbian monarchy, the greatest historical symbol of Serbian statehood. Don't get me wrong, Milošević was an authoritaian president, a "what I say goes!" and "you'll do as you're told!" figure. No question. He also bred corruption and looked after an elite in the style of Franco's Falangist Party of 20th century Spain. But neither his rhetoric nor his actions squared with nationalist aspirations. He was heavily involved with the fighting, but neither one's desire for independence nor one's desire to hold onto a territory makes one "nationalist" for their feeling. The best example is Kosovo, its existence is a symbol of anti-nationalism; why there is no ethnic-Kosovan, yet its majority population took up arms to help achieve this goal. To have been Albanian nationalists would have meant fighting to unify all Albanians in a single state. Kosovo matches Cyrpus (for both Greeks and Turks), and pre-World War I Montenegro, non-nationalist entities. Likewise, the Croatian Democratic Union is not a true Croatian nationalist party despite being right-wing and unlinked to the Croatian League of Communists. It led Croatia to independence, yes; it took the credit for integrating previously Serb-held areas such as Krajina, yes; and it supported the Croatian entity of Herceg-Bosna within Bosnia throughout 1993 and 1994, true; but it didn't imply taking with Croatia other regions, and Tudjman did negotiate directly with Milošević (a mutual gesture) who in turn met and spoke to Ibrahim Rugova during the Kosovo crisis. Try getting Vojislav Šešelj to meet any single Albanian representative, or true Croatian nationalists from their real right-wing parties such as the Party of Rights, or Party of Rights 1861 such as Dobroslav Paraga, try seeing if he would meet a Serb official, not likely. There are real nationalist parties, who follow nationalist policies; and those who are labelled nationalists by people who don't like them, or have been their opponent, but otherwise adopt no symbols of nationalism, nor preach it. In addition, the non-inclusion of the SPS in these pseudo-affiliation asylums such as Socialist International is because the bulk of the parties opposed it from joining, which in turn reflected their nation's dislike of the SPS, particularly during the 1990's. It was not because the party did not advocate socialist values; I challenge anyone to find a left-wing/workers/labour party which when in power, has been consistent in satisfying the working class and has not deviated from its ideologies, nor ever been accused of corruption by its own voters. I may also stress that the French Socialist Party, and indeed PASOK of Greece did support SPS entry into SOC-INT. Evlekis (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Orphaned references in Socialist Party of Serbia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Socialist Party of Serbia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "query.nytimes.com":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV questioned

I have tagged this article as overtly critical of its subject. Its tone fails to convey the necessary neutral scholarship.

It's not unsourced, though I would point out that much of the negativity in the first section comes from a single source.

I don't have an axe to grind. There is a sad history of this country, to a great extent associated with this party. I just think that this article's tone has been coloured a bit by recent history, and it would be a more valuable article if someone who's more acquainted with the topic than I am could go through the sections and even things out a bit.

Examples of questionable statements that made me query the neutrality:

  • Membership of the party included those with a psychological disposition of loyalty to authority. How could that highly pejorative assertion ever be evidenced?
  • The SPS has officially utilized leftist rhetoric throughout its existence, though it has enacted policies that have gone against leftist ideology This would be true of many a supposed leftist party. But no balancing mention is made of leftist policies carried out.
  • in 1996, the party passed bills on employment and strikes which another left-wing party, the Syndicate Alliance of Yugoslavia criticized as being equivalent to Mussolini's Labour Charter This sounds like a Reductio ad Hitlerum by the Syndicate Alliance of Yugoslavia and such a statement does not constitute any sort of evidence.

And it's worth noting that there is no statement of this fact: in 1990 this party got 50% of the votes cast in a general election. asnac (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask the hundreds of thousands of striking students, workers, and others of 1991, 1996, and 2000 if the Milosevic regime was true to its word, it was not. Milosevic said he was a socialist, but he and his family profiteered so much from illegal transactions that the Milosevic family had close to or over $1 billion USD by the end of his rule. Milosevic spent the money on things such as getting a ritzy mansion in an upper-class area of Belgrade, or giving his reckless playboy son, Marko Milosevic, expensive race cars that he raced and crashed and got new ones - all paid for by Milosevic's stolen funds from the state and Marko Milosevic had links with organized crime in Serbia. The Milosevic regime is well-known as a kleptocracy - the Socialist Party of Serbia was a vehicle for Milosevic and the old communist regime supporters to hang on to power and for political opportunists wanting to become the nouveau riche - its ideology was hollow. Milosevic's government set up something far worse that the mortgage crisis in the USA - his government supported the creation of pyramid schemes that Serbian people invested in and then the state stole their money, Milosevic is also charged of supporting illegal smuggling of cheap cigarettes and petroleum into Serbia - Milosevic and his supporters made billions of dollars from the pyramid schemes and illegal trade. People didn't just make this stuff up when they charged Milosevic with these things - who would think of a lie to charge Milosevic with illegal smuggling of cigarettes and petroleum? I am usually quite tame and willing to listen to other views, but I've studied Milosevic's government - there were no ideals in it, nor honesty - even its nationalism was not genuine - just a ploy for votes to help an ex-communist party survive the death of Marxism-Leninism in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and 90s. Milosevic government was all about elite people hanging on to power, wanting power, or wanting money.--R-41 (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What does "neutrality" mean for the Milosevic regime? To ignore the well-known fact that it was a corrupt kleptocracy at the level of the Mobutu regime of Zaire of state officials literally stealing billions of dollars from the state? To ignore the known pyramid schemes in Serbia run by the state that stole hundreds of millions of dollars from the citizens of Serbia? To ignore that Milosevic refused to accept municipal election results in the 1990s because the Socialist Party of Serbia did not win? To ignore the fact of the massive outrage that exploded when Milosevic's government was widely suspected of electoral fraud in the 2000 election? Sure you can remove the statement by the Syndicate Alliance of Yugoslavia - it is biased, but anyone with an awareness of the known magnitude of corruption of the Milosevic regime will know that Milosevic's word and the SPS's word meant nothing - their actions describe everything.--R-41 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Significant parts of the article retain a tone as if written by a political opponent. What really makes alarm bells ring is that Serbia had successive parliamentary elections in the 1990s, and typically this party got 30-40% of the votes. In truly rotten-to-the-core regimes the whole electoral process is either abandoned or faked, because the populace in general will not tolerate being robbed and abused if they have a choice. But here it would seem that people were free to criticise and oppose, yet this party, with or without coalition partners, retained power. Hence my appeal for this article to be looked at again by someone who knows the topic well but who has a politically detached and balanced approach. Point out the bad by all means, as long as it is sourced, but the balancing view would need to account for the party's repeated mandates. asnac (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
RE: and typically this party got 30-40% of the votes. If you read the relevant chapter in the work The communist successor parties of Central and Eastern Europe By András Bozóki, John T. Ishiyama you will see that 1) the election results were manipulated and at times rigged; and more importantly 2) the opposition was suppressed by repressions and lack of neutral media coverage, with media outlets being under direct control of the regime and in fact nothing more than its mouthpiece. As already said, 'neutrality' does not mean ignoring well-known facts. Estlandia (dialogue) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and Milosevic's pyramid schemes promoted by the Serbian government were notorious for deliberate theft of money from Serbian citizens. His government was extremely corrupt. Ignoring these facts would be like having an article on Bettino Craxi's Italian Socialist Party that ignores the Tangentopoli scandal. The fact is that Milosevic was a very illicit character, he got involved in allowing known pyramid schemes upon the Serbian public, he was repeatedly accused of vote-rigging, and he was investigated for war crimes - though no final conclusion was made - it is well known that the Milosevic's Serbian government provided military equipment and financial support to the Bosnian Serb government of Karadzic that committed genocide and ethnic cleansing upon Bosniaks - Milosevic's ally Borisav Jović publicly admitted this in interview on the BBC documentary the Death of Yugoslavia, saying that the creation of the Bosnian Serb army as independent from the JNA was so that Serbia could avoid international condemnation as an aggressor for having a military in a newly proclaimed sovereign state - and Jovic stated that without Serbia's financial assistance, the Bosnian Serb government would have been unable to pay its military officers; and Milosevic's media ally Dušan Mitević - the head of Serbian state television admitted on the ABC documentary Wide Angle: Milosevic and the Media the following: "the things that happened at state TV: warmongering, things we can admit to now: false information, biased reporting. That went directly from Milošević to the head of TV".--R-41 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the POV notice, and have taken out a couple of sentences that are heavily reliant on opinion and that gave rise to the original concern, but have left the article broadly unchanged. asnac (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticising unofficial policies of the SPS whilst in power amounts to jumping and up down in a rage and ignoring the facts. Good or bad, there is corruption everywhere except it attracts astronomically less scrutiny. The U.S. mortgage crisis is incomparable. It was a different evil; FR Yugoslavia never had and its successors will never likely see the same standard of living as the States. The facts that people block their ears to are this: all Milošević detractors from outside the region prate with excitement about the hyperinflation of the 1990s and most foolishly speak of its return to stability after the "regime" was overturned. This is not remotely true. The end to the inflation came in around 1996 and has only seen a decline since the 2000 overthrow. Nobody talks to me about that, I am between Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia ALL the time and I nobody tells me what rates I am getting. I never went into Serbia once between 1990 and 1999 but have been going from October 1999 onward (will be in Belgrade next Thursday, 10 May), I know for a fact that Serbia discluding Montenegro (as Đukanović had full power there from 1996) had a far better standard of living with better cars being driven, better roads, street lighting, cheaper prices in shops, better wages, etc. than Montenegro, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina - better than Romania, Bulgaria and if the truth be told, Kosovo also. That was THEN. Since 2000, the former drug gangs have been busted - only for new ones with strong links to the new regime. The difference? Nobody from western circles scrutinises their favoured clients in Belgrade now. Older people I know from Serbia have said that they have seen no rise in their pension since 2002/2003 time whereas there had been annual rises prior but prices in everything continue to rise. The embezzlements from the former government amount to a teardrop in the ocean - revoking all the luxuries in the world that an elite can help themselves to won't help an entire nation if the dollars had to be spread evenly among the 11 million inhabitants. I do not condone it - but I don't live in denialism of the fact that it continues to occur within the present regime. And it is no use trying to argue "yeah but not as much" because that is by the by. It is a blemish and one that today's tycoons will have to explain before pointing the finger at others, "ah, but he took much more than me!". Doesn't make it all right. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

left-wing nationalism

There is one source that says that Milosevic supported left-wing nationalism. The left-wing being an ideology of promoting equality, I do not see how that would apply to Milosevic's open exploitation of chauvinism and xenophobia that his state media promoted. The state newspaper Politika during Milosevic's rule, openly used the derogatory term "Siptar" to refer to Albanians - in North America that is the equivelent of calling a black person a "nigger" (forgive me for having to use this term, but it is for demonstrating a point here). Also, Milosevic openly legitimized the ultra-conservative and pro-nationalist Serbian Orthodox Church. Milosevic also allowed Chetniks to be unhindered in organizing themselves after 1989. It appears that Milosevic was trying to get support from extreme Serbian nationalists - many of which have been supporters of the Chetniks.--R-41 (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe...who knows. Šiptari is nothing bad, a lot of them use it for themselves. A few miserable ones take offence. Working out Milošević was always hard. Both his left- and right-orientated policies were open to question, there were things which were amiss from both sides. He probably did what he felt was best for himself and his sponsors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Following on. We have a small problem here, reaching a consensus on what a party's de facto policy has been may be easy, the problem is that it breaches Wikipedia:No original research. If we are to present ideologies, they need reliable sources. These are hard to find. To my knowledge, left-wing nationalism does not promote equality, it's the non-nationalist left politics such as democractic socialism, social democracy, etc. which focus on balance. The word "nationalist" precisely imparts that equality is not the issue. A party can embrace equality or nationalism but not both. I think the left-wing ideology here comes more from the party tradition of replacing communists regardless of what its frontman was doing, and managing the economy in a certain way - such as keeping as much as possible state-owned, keeping ownership of what is privatised confined to persons inside the country so as much of the money as possible circulates within the land (market economies in Eastern Europe invariably involve government flogging assets to wealthy foreign companies, the company in turn continues to exploit local workers but keeps the profit for itself, meanwhile the government instead of using the money for the economy, look after theirselves!), things like that. Ideology doesn't start and end with treatment of minorities, there's more. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
Despite the theory, left-wing does not exclude being nationalist. This is e.g. the case with the Communist Party of Russian Federation, which in addition to being communist is clearly nationalist, as reliable sources assess.Estlandia (dialogue) 12:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the article on the word, in the South Slavic languages "Siptar" is a derogatory term. The Russian Communist Party is different than the Socialist Party of Serbia though. The Russian Communist Party is committed to Marxism-Leninism. The Socialist Party of Serbia according to many accounts is very ideologically hollow and merely a continuation of the former members of government of SR Serbia, a party designed to continue an institution - Milosevic pursued de facto neoliberal policies of substantial privatization, he courted the Serbian Orthodox Church to gain its conservative supporters, he and the SPS repeatedly allied with the far-right nationalist Serbian Radical Party, and the Serbian Radical Party and the SPS held united protests against Milosevic's extradition to the Hague, and when arrested and the SPS was faltering elections in Serbia - Milosevic told SPS supporters to support the Serbian Radical Party. Milosevic appealed to raw chauvinist, xenophobic, and racist nationalism, he was an opportunist - he saw that such intolerant nationalism was rising and he used it to gain and maintain power. I see no left-wing ideals in the nationalism he supported at all.--R-41 (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
But you're forgetting one thing. The return to multi-party politics in 1990 placed once communist politicians throughout Yugoslavia anywhere they wished to be and there was nothing stopping Milošević forming a genuine right-wing party. His position as strong man came from the influence he wielded and his support base came from those who appreciated the rhetoric coming from his circles, suffice it to say that he could have been anything - Liberal, Green, the lot. He chose to remain within a party which publicly embraced socialism so there you have it. And no matter what trickery he engaged to re-establish the Orthodox church and giving power to Chetniks, it is irrelevant to claims of right-wing sentiment. The Russian communists claim continuity from Soviet communists and are in league with sister organisations in each of the former Soviet republics - many operating illegally within their land. The SPS has never claimed communism as an ideology during its existence; what has happened is that other minor parties have emerged in the former Yugoslav republics which either support Marxist-Leninist theories or Titoism but as I said, these are small. The purpose of the SPS was to move from far-left to centre-left. Regarding "chauvinist, xenophobic", this is a wild exaggeration. People talk about the SPS as if 1991-95 was its full timeline, it represents a fraction of the time it was in power and the period was marred by war - conflicts which would have been there anyway with or without SPS domination. People like to lay all the blame on Milošević and I have had these arguments thousands of times. Obviously the people I have the discussions with are ignorant novices whose information is courtesy of pro-west news networks but I still shut them up every time when I inform them that the number of wars 1991-2001 (my count - not including NATO as they only provided an airforce for extant belligerents) was eight, and three of them did not involve any Serb faction whilst one of them which did involve Serbs was as full-on JNA. Every faction produced warlords and every nation's clerics share equal blame for wrongdoings. The point is that FR Yugoslavia (chiefly Serbia) was multi-ethnic and many nations experienced zero problems during FRY tenure. Speak to the Vlachs/Romanians, no reports of purges whereby they lost jobs, suffered ethnic cleansing, etc. Likewise the Rusyns and Slovaks were fine too. In fact Vojvodina is very diverse with over 20 nations and most had no problems at all. The nations that did suffer some form of persecution within Serbia-proper were those affiliated to factions with whom the Serb nation was at war - and not even all of them; Bosniaks from the Sandžak region seemed to be all right although some did openly support Serbian opposition in the conflicts. The SPS and SRS holding united protests against extraditions is true but incomplete, I've said this before, I know many who have attended demonstrations against extraditions of Serbs and almost all of them are either non-political or they support mainstream parties. A great portion of the demonstrators have been actual supporters of the parties which approved the extraditions. The ICTY is not popular anywhere in the former Yugoslavia. Serbs and Croats reject it outright; Bosniaks and Albanians are mixed - they like it when someone is arrested when their own were the victims but when the court pushes to try Bosniaks/Albanians for atrocities against Croats/Serbs, they are up in arms and view the matter as an outrage. A fair percentage of ordinary Serbs have admitted being happy to see their former commanders extradited but when asked why, the answer is always the same: "because it is the only way forward for us", "because we can't stand this isolation" - but never, repeat, NEVER - "because we believe in international justice - EU membership is irrelevant". If it hadn't been for the ICTY hunting these people, there would have never been cries from the Serb nation to have them arrested and tried. Never was there a single Serbian demontsration pushing for arrests. Want proof? Certain figures have had the fingers of accusation pointed at them from their alleged victims but the ICTY hasn't always pursued them. A good example is Momir Bulatović. So if Kosovar Albanians have a reason to villify him, surely the so-called "pro-justice and pro-moral" Serbs would too. So where are they? This leaves the question of SPS and SRS "friendship and alliance". At times of conflict, often you have alliances between factions who would not at other times be friends. The two did have so much in common, such as being opposed to New World interference on their land as opposed to other opponents who welcomed western domination. It doesn't change the fact that the union was not permanent, there were times the two were in bitter opposition to each other; furthermore, real Chetniks did not approve of the union and many nationalists continued to dislike Milošević as much as they did Serb opponents, this despite the privileges they were given. Everyone knows that the SRS was the major party and that SPS alone was small and depended on coalitions. This was just how Milošević as strongman manipulated things. But if SRS had any real power, their leader would have never found himself in prison and the country would not have had the name Yugoslavia. Milošević technically used the SRS for legal reasons and they knew they had to bow to his policies so as to be where they were. They were merely the ladder which held him in place at times of emergency. Right-wing radicals always despised Milošević and the SPS, still do today. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Bottom line: ideology of party - not clear. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I don't think that Milosevic was a genuine nationalist, his behaviour indicated that he was an opportunist, but he did exploit nationalism to gain popular support. The newspaper Politika that Milosevic controlled as it was state media, issued many warmongering, xenophobic statements towards Croatia for instance. Milosevic's former close ally and head of Radio Television Serbia - Dusan Mitevic has admitted in a PBS interview that he and Milosevic cooperated and authorized warmongering propaganda and false reporting. SRS leader Seselj has admitted in the BBC documentary Death of Yugoslavia that Milosevic gave his paramilitary forces its orders of deployment. Milosevic played the nationalist card when he needed it for legitimacy, but when hyperinflation erupted as a result of sanctions against Serbia, Milosevic completely reversed and presented himself as a peacemaker. So in part I agree with you Evlekis that Milosevic was not a Serbian nationalist himself - but I do think that evidence shows that he exploited it to gain power. We should not assume a complete Western anti-Serbian bias, for instance the US ambassador Warren Zimmermann held a more favourable outlook to Milosevic than he did towards Tudjman - he regarded Milosevic somewhat negatively as an opportunist but also as willing to moderate, however Zimmermann viewed Tudjman and a number of his government members as staunchly xenophobic nationalists - Zimmermann in fact warned the US government in 1991 not to lift sanctions on arms against Croatia as Croatia was asking for arms from the US in its war, because Zimmermann did believe that Tudjman and his government would use those arms to oppress the Serbs of Croatia.--R-41 (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes in 1991 the Republicans were still in office and it was not clear which way international opinion was heading that early on in developments. James Baker was another who favoured the continuation of a Yugoslav state. Milošević no doubt expolited nationalism for personal gains at various times, I still don't know how to present the party ideology. Is there an official term for "where the wind blows!"? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Ideology solution

I've had a good idea as to how to deal with the ideology section. Display the term various and link the reader to a section within the page that explains the party's de facto and de jure policies along with its inconsistencies and changes throughout time. It seems there is little we can do with just a few words. We don't have to cite "left-wing nationalism" at all. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I think perhaps the best solution would be refer to the nationalistic policies of the SPS in the infobox as Rankovićism; also I think that "Socialism" in general would be a more accurate and broad description of what the SPS adherred to - Milosevic's wife was an open Marxist-Leninist even after the dissolution of the Communist Party, and there were many people still committed to Marxism-Leninism in the party. Now then for the nationalism part, Rankovićism is essentially what Milosevic adopted in the late 1980s, Rankovic was a Yugoslav Partisan and SFRY politician who stressed that a centralized Yugoslavia was needed to secure the unity of Serbs, he suspected Kosovo Albanians of ill-intention towards Serbs and Yugoslavia - and supported purges of the Albanian leadership of the Communist party in Kosovo on allegations that they were Stalinists or that they supported unification of Kosovo to Hoxha's Albania. Meanwhile Rankovic insured gave political dominance to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins who held most of the high positions in Kosovo. Rankovic's agenda was ended in the late 1960s when he was forced out of office by Tito. Milosevic's politics and policies were very similar to those of Rankovic and many in the late 1980s and since then have described Milosevic as restoring the agenda of Rankovic. Rankovic was extremely popular in Serbia - at his funeral in 1983, Serbs called him a "national hero".--R-41 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
We're getting somewhere. It was certainly closer to Rankovićism than anything else. My only worry is that people will see that and think, "WTF?". They'll click the link and read something unknown to them. But that's the price one has to pay for venturing into topics above his station! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
The average Canadian or American user would neither know what Deng Xiaoping Theory is about either - that's why we have internal links in articles - for people to click and learn :). I suggest that the first ideology stated should be like this:
Would this be acceptable?--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're asking me, absolutely. I'm not put off by complicated terms!! And besides, this is all close to home for me. If you're happy with that above description, go right ahead and I will gladly support it should anyone attempt to amend it. An extention of the paragraphs I helped introduce on nationalism and deviation from it might be a good place to extend on that because as we both know, the ideology is complicated. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
There simply is no such thing as 'Rankovicism'. It never occurrs in reliable sources [2]. Pure OR and own inventions. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
If you removed the accent from the "c" you would find that it has been repeatedly used.--R-41 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The recent reverting [3] to the version introduced by R-41 is unconstructive. A sourced version is constantly being replaced with a version where dubious stuff like Marxism-Leninism are presented, to say nothing of supposed ideology 'Rankovićism' - IMNSHO total nonsense. Find reputable sources or stop edit warring to this version! Estlandia (dialogue) 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Te party advocated a form of nationalism which was neither true left-wing nor right-wing nationalism. The policies of Ranković are as close as we get to the real picture. The Marxism-Leninism theory is not dubious either because the party was a successor to the League of Communists and individuals within the party did have those sentiments. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I don't care how you evaluate the situation. This is beside the point. All I asked was reliable sources that would qualify SPS as Rankovićist. None have been presented so far. Estlandia (dialogue) 18:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is there but because the ideology has very little coverage, the reader has to stretch the mind a bit. If you look at how the party went about business whilst in power, you'll see it is consistent with the term claimed. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

I don't know how to speak Serbian/Croatian but here is a video posted by the Socialist Party of Serbia that mentions the name "Aleksandar Rankovic" in the title that shows a member of the SPS speaking in front of a large logo of the SPS. [4] It is a long speech I do not know where or the speech mentions Rankovic. It may be a building named in Rankovic's honour. Here is another video by the SPS that has "Aleksandar Rankovic" in the title. [5].--R-41 (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Political parties in Post-Communist Eastern Europe classifies it as a "post-Communist party" (p. 58).[6] That description seems adequate. There is a tendency to make these lists long, but if a party can be classified under one ideological grouping, there is no need to add. TFD (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Post-communism may be an adequate term, but it seems to imply that there are no Marxist-Leninists in the party. Secondly there needs to be delicate attention to the ideology of the Socialist Party of Serbia, as it has been alleged as promoting Serbian nationalism while the party has always denied this, acknowledging perhaps patriotism but not nationalism. Serbia's Communist Party that became the SPS in 1990, was influenced by Rankovic who within the communist system promoted nationalistic policies that favoured Serbs, such as a centralized Yugoslavia, and a persecutory towards agenda Albanians in Kosovo under allegations that they were Stalinists or separatists or committed treason in one way or another; while Serbs and Montenegrins were allowed to dominate Kosovo's nomenklatura. Historians have noted that Milosevic restored Rankovic's agenda, and Milosevic was the founder and first leader of the SPS.--R-41 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There are Marxist-Leninists in all left-wing parties, including post-Communist parties. The info-box gives the reader a quick summary of the party's ideology. Detail should be provided in the article. TFD (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The infoboxes on the Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States) have been fairly stable and use substantial notes. Regardless Rankovicism is pretty important to mention if people want to know why the SPS pursues nationalistic policies without ever admitting that they are nationalists. Those policies influenced what happened in the Breakup of Yugoslavia. I will add post-communism to the article though, as it is sourced and pertinent.--R-41 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
"Rankocism" is merely an epithet that was used on a few occassions long before the SPS was established. You have developed an article that provides a theory about what it means and it has no place in this article. TFD (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You are overreacting and are unaware that Rankovic and his policies were strongly popular amongst Serbs, thousands of chanting people attended Rankovic's funeral. Serbs openly said that wanted "another Rankovic" and looked nostalgically back at the conditions that existed when Rankovic held office - a centralized state and preferential treatment for Serbs in Kosovo - that was Rankovic's agenda.--R-41 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, maybe an article on "Socialism in Serbia" can talk about the full history of socialist politics in Serbia including the politics of the League of Communists of Serbia, the influence of Rankovic, and the influence of Milosevic, amongst other socialists.--R-41 (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please provide one single reliable source that describes the ideology of the party as Rankovićism. The only source I could find is your original research in a Wikipedia article. TFD (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The user Carrite does not agree with you that it is original research in that article.--R-41 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. We worked on this section for a very long time and if anyone believes this suggestion to be wrong, I'd like to know how they would define the unclear ideology of the party. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
It is "post-Communist". That is a clearly defined term and used in countless reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
What about the SPS' sister party at the federal level, the Yugoslav Left, its leader was Milosevic's wife Mira Markovic - a staunch Marxist-Leninist, there were multiple Marxist-Leninists in the party, the party held links with the Communist Party of Cuba and the Workers' Party of Korea. That doesn't seem like "post" communism.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It is mentioned in The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe (2002), p. 207, which says, "The party claimed to have honored the elements of the communist ideology, but in reality it was a political sanctuary for the nouveau riche who had trouble with the law. The Yugoslav Left has never had significant support from voters. The political analysts all share a belief that the JUL was not a political party, but rather a political mafia."[7] It is not up to us to categorize parties but to report how they are classified in informed sources. We cannot make observations about Communist connections and draw conclusions that experts do not. Sources say the the SPS was post-Communist, but do not classify the JUL. TFD (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ideology continued

New heading - section would be too long otherwise.

All this lack of clarity regarding political direction is why it has been difficult to define. This is what we know for a fact:

  1. The party has billed itself as left-wing in its name and claim of direct succession from League of Communists.
  2. The party moved towards centre in its policies and kept many assets private in accordance with left-wing conventions.
  3. The terms in power were marred by corruption and serving an elite of sponsors - this doesn't affect the ideology however unless the party is to announce this, and frankly, corruption to a degree exists everywhere, nobody admins it in their pledges.
  4. The terms in power were largrely characterised by various wars and strained relations with western governments - conflicts which may or may not have still happened without their influence but nobody can determine to what degree. This affects actual policy decisions.
  5. Whilst still in SFRY, the party advocated ideologies which were certainly consistent with the policies of Ranković whilst the opposing factions called for decentralisation closer to Tito's policies, though the amount of devolution they sought exceeded the prescribed dosage of Titoism.
  6. All of the factions that led their entities into the successor states of Yugoslavia (with FR Yugoslavia included) governed their zones in exactly the same fashion. All were reformed communists even if they had adopted centre-right policies and all were initially insensitive towards minorities. Slovenia afforded greater privileges to Italians and Hungarians than to Croats and Serbs despite the latter two being far more populous; Macedonia discriminated its Albanians despite also being led to independence by Gligurov and the former Communists, but asides Macedonia, the rest of the entities experienced some form of war which will have influenced central policy. In fairness however, this is how it was across ALL of Eastern Europe when supposed "market economies" were replacing Communist systems.
  7. The SPS was twice allied to the far-right, both times during emergency.
  8. The SPS was opposed to the far-right during intervening peaceful period.
  9. The external entities created by Serbian rebels in Bosnia and Croatia were locally administered by right-wing factions, and the SPS supported and provided for them.
  10. The SPS had its differences with the external rebel leaderships and these culminated in the termination of union.
  11. The approach by the SPS towards traditionally unredeemed Serbian lands was inconsistent with right-wing Serbian ideology.

There you have it, a wealth of inconsistency - how can you describe the ideology??? They must surely set a world record! In reality, you had Slobodan Milošević, Momir Bulatović and a few other individuals with power; collectively, they governed by arbitrary rule. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Post-communism is good to include. Perhaps the Communist Party of China infobox provides an example for a solution, as it shows what happens to the official ideology of a political party like the League of Communists of Serbia/SPS after has been an institution of the state for a long time. Figures enter the party for various motives who may have no interest in the party's official ideology. There are many de facto factions in the Communist Party of China that cannot be officially acknowledged nor officially endorsed by the party leadership because they are not consistent with the party's official ideology of communism.--R-41 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
We are not political scientists, just editors reporting what experts say. We should not weigh the evidence and draw conclusions, just report what experts say. "Post-Communist" seems adequate, because it is widely described thus. TFD (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Right. It would appear that this party has even baffled experts! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Catch-all Party

There is no question that this political party should win an award for the confusion it has caused in nobody truly knowing what its ideologies are or have been. Discussions and amendments seem to go back for years. But this latest Catch-all party entry is something I am finding amusing (no offence intended). Big tent describes a party that appeals to all, but it is not an ideology. --OJ (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialist Party of Serbia. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone deleted referenced materials that I added to this page

On this discussion page people have been asking for referenced information. I added referenced information and the next day or so, someone deleted it! It was from a book by a historian and someone didn't like it I suppose and just decided to delete it. Considering that this page needs more information than less, please don't delete referenced information, if you want to debate it, then find referenced information elsewhere to challenge it.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialist Party of Serbia. 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:

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) 08:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism or Euroscepticism

Is SPS a Pro-EU or Eurosceptic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As is obvious by the fact that it was demonised for so many years when it had been the ruling party, it was Eurosceptic. When led by Milošević, moves towards EU membership were never on the cards. As is equally clear by the fact that the SPS has formed parts of ruling coalitions in the post-Bulldozer Revolution years, it is now firmly pro-EU. --Edin balgarin (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_Party_of_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1130490651"