政党家族的重新概念化:激进左翼联盟、我们可以党和新改良主义左翼的出现

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE New Political Science Pub Date : 2023-07-03 DOI:10.1080/07393148.2023.2235213
Vladimir Bortun
{"title":"政党家族的重新概念化:激进左翼联盟、我们可以党和新改良主义左翼的出现","authors":"Vladimir Bortun","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2023.2235213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the past decade we have witnessed the rise of radical left parties (RLPs) in several European countries. According to the prevalent definition in the literature, the key feature of this party family is the goal to overcome capitalism. However, based on content analysis of party and governmental documents, this paper argues that the two most prominent RLPs today, SYRIZA (Greece) and Podemos (Spain), fall short in their socio-economic policies of that definition. Why are they still classified as radical left then? In addressing this puzzle, the paper critically revisits the established notion of the “party family” coined by Mair and Mudde, arguing instead that parties are what they choose to do and should therefore be classified according to their policy. Based on this, it is argued that parties such as SYRIZA and Podemos would be more accurately described as “neo-reformist left,” as a sub-type of the social democratic party family. Clarifying the character of these parties is not only important for conceptual consistency. By labelling “radical” parties that are not so, political scientists risk reinforcing the legitimacy of the neoliberal status quo, not the least by excluding from the conversation the actual radical alternatives. This is particularly relevant today, with the resurgence of anti-capitalist ideas among younger generations.","PeriodicalId":46114,"journal":{"name":"New Political Science","volume":"45 1","pages":"478 - 499"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Reconceptualization of the Party Family: SYRIZA, Podemos, and the Emergence of the Neo-Reformist Left\",\"authors\":\"Vladimir Bortun\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07393148.2023.2235213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Over the past decade we have witnessed the rise of radical left parties (RLPs) in several European countries. According to the prevalent definition in the literature, the key feature of this party family is the goal to overcome capitalism. However, based on content analysis of party and governmental documents, this paper argues that the two most prominent RLPs today, SYRIZA (Greece) and Podemos (Spain), fall short in their socio-economic policies of that definition. Why are they still classified as radical left then? In addressing this puzzle, the paper critically revisits the established notion of the “party family” coined by Mair and Mudde, arguing instead that parties are what they choose to do and should therefore be classified according to their policy. Based on this, it is argued that parties such as SYRIZA and Podemos would be more accurately described as “neo-reformist left,” as a sub-type of the social democratic party family. Clarifying the character of these parties is not only important for conceptual consistency. By labelling “radical” parties that are not so, political scientists risk reinforcing the legitimacy of the neoliberal status quo, not the least by excluding from the conversation the actual radical alternatives. This is particularly relevant today, with the resurgence of anti-capitalist ideas among younger generations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Political Science\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"478 - 499\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2023.2235213\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2023.2235213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的十年中,我们见证了激进左翼政党在几个欧洲国家的崛起。根据文献中流行的定义,这个党家族的主要特征是战胜资本主义的目标。然而,基于对党和政府文件的内容分析,本文认为当今两个最突出的工党,希腊激进左翼联盟(SYRIZA)和西班牙我们可以党(Podemos),在这一定义的社会经济政策方面存在不足。为什么他们仍然被归类为激进左派?为了解决这个难题,本文批判性地重新审视了梅尔和穆德创造的“政党家庭”的既定概念,认为政党是他们选择做的事情,因此应该根据他们的政策进行分类。基于此,有人认为激进左翼联盟(SYRIZA)和“我们可以”(Podemos)等政党更准确地被描述为“新改良主义左翼”,作为社会民主党家族的一个分支。澄清这些政党的性质不仅对概念上的一致性很重要。通过给并非如此的政党贴上“激进”的标签,政治学家冒着加强新自由主义现状合法性的风险,尤其是将真正的激进替代方案排除在讨论之外。随着反资本主义思想在年轻一代中死灰复燃,这一点在今天尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Reconceptualization of the Party Family: SYRIZA, Podemos, and the Emergence of the Neo-Reformist Left
Abstract Over the past decade we have witnessed the rise of radical left parties (RLPs) in several European countries. According to the prevalent definition in the literature, the key feature of this party family is the goal to overcome capitalism. However, based on content analysis of party and governmental documents, this paper argues that the two most prominent RLPs today, SYRIZA (Greece) and Podemos (Spain), fall short in their socio-economic policies of that definition. Why are they still classified as radical left then? In addressing this puzzle, the paper critically revisits the established notion of the “party family” coined by Mair and Mudde, arguing instead that parties are what they choose to do and should therefore be classified according to their policy. Based on this, it is argued that parties such as SYRIZA and Podemos would be more accurately described as “neo-reformist left,” as a sub-type of the social democratic party family. Clarifying the character of these parties is not only important for conceptual consistency. By labelling “radical” parties that are not so, political scientists risk reinforcing the legitimacy of the neoliberal status quo, not the least by excluding from the conversation the actual radical alternatives. This is particularly relevant today, with the resurgence of anti-capitalist ideas among younger generations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
New Political Science
New Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Researching Hindu Nationalism as a Paradigm for Multidisciplinary Political Science Hindutva as Political Monotheism , by Anustup Basu, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2020, 296 pp., $27.95 (paperback), ISBN: 978-1-478-01094-4. Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy , by Christophe Jaffrelot, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019, 656 pp., $35.00 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-691-20680-6. Hindu Nationalism in India , by Tanika Sarkar, … “Which Side Are You On” The 2023 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting & Exhibition: A Timeline Nostalgia, Hypermasculinity, and the American Far Right: What Ever Happened to Being Proud of Your Boy? The Collective Trauma of International Relations The Atlantic Realists: Empire and International Political Thought Between Germany and the United States , by Matthew G. Specter, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2022, xii + 321 pp., $30.00 (paperback), ISBN: 978-1-50-362996-7. From the Ashes of History: Collective Trauma and the Making of International Politics , by Adam B. Lerner, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022, 272 pp., $29.95 (paperback), ISBN: 978-0-19-… The Global Left: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow The Global Left: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow , by Immanuel Wallerstein, New York, NY: Routledge, 2022, 110 pp., $30.00 (paperback), ISBN: 978-1-138-39039-3.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1