Статті в журналах: "Class and politics"

1

Lem, Winnie. "Class Politics, Cultural Politics." Critique of Anthropology 14, no. 4 (December 1994): 393–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0308275x9401400403.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

2

Byrne, David. "Class politics." Soundings 84, no. 84 (October 10, 2023): 189–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.3898/soun.84-85.rev02.2023.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

3

Arnold, Kathleen R. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 639–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002337.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

4

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 643–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002349.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

5

Carmines, Edward G. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 645–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002350.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

6

Dean, Jodi. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 648–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002362.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

7

McClain, Paula D. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 651–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002374.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

8

Waddell, Brian. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 659–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002441.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

9

Pontusson, Jonas. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 654–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153759271100243x.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson'sWinner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Classis both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue ofThe American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers ofPerspectives on Politicswill know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels'sUnequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.”Winner-Take-All Politicsthus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

10

Jarness, Vegard, Magne Paalgard Flemmen, and Lennart Rosenlund. "From Class Politics to Classed Politics." Sociology 53, no. 5 (April 9, 2019): 879–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038519838740.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Questions of political conflict have always been central to class analysis; changing political fault lines were a key argument in the debates about the ‘death of class’. The ensuing ‘cultural turn’ in class analysis has shown how class continues to shape lives and experience, though often in new ways. In this article, we bring this mode of analysis to the political domain by unpacking how a multidimensional concept of class – based on the ideas of Bourdieu – can help make sense of contemporary political divisions. We demonstrate that there is a homological relation between the social space and the political space: pronounced political divisions between ‘old’ politics related to economic issues and ‘new’ politics related to ‘post-material values’ follow the volume and composition of capital. Importantly, the left/right divide seems more clearly related to the divide between cultural and economic capital than to the class hierarchy itself.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

11

Lekhi, Rohit. "Rethinking Class Politics." New Political Science 22, no. 3 (September 2000): 361–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713687945.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

12

Chu, Jinyi. "Civilizational Myth and Class Politics." Comparative Literature 75, no. 2 (June 1, 2023): 140–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00104124-10334490.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract What is the connection between class and race? Socialist revolutionaries in early twentieth-century Russia engaged with this question in their political essays. The imperial partition of China and the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway made the China question one of the most topical issues in Russia. This article examines Lenin’s essays on China in which he criticizes racist ideas popular in Russia and Europe. By comparing his essays with other Russian political commentaries on China, this article argues that Lenin views racism as a matter of political economy and global class politics. On the one hand, the myth of racial rivalry and clash of civilizations veils class struggle. On the other, racial and ethnic issues complicate class politics. Lenin’s critique of racism elaborated in the discussion of wars and revolutions in China is not a dogmatic extension of Marx, but directly addresses the transnational migration, geopolitical tension, and intellectual network.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

13

Cullenberg, Stephen. "The Politics of Class Analysis versus the Class Analysis of Politics." Review of Radical Political Economics 20, no. 2-3 (June 1988): 12–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/048661348802000204.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

14

Limbu, Prem Prasad. "Discourse on Contemporary Nepali Politics based on Class and Identity Politics." International Research Journal of Management Science 5, no. 1 (March 21, 2021): 102–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/irjms.v5i1.35865.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The class and identity, these two factors have become major driving forces of contemporary Nepali politics. Class politics related to left political spectrum is defined as broader than identity politics. Broadly, it is believed that the left politics can support many identity question; so, identity politics can be packaged within the class politics as well. However, the contemporary Nepali politics is not in this frame where the long history of left politics is. Now, the communist party is ruling party and parallel to it the identity politics is raising in a new speed positioning as third largest political power.It has made the discourse of identity politics as an attractive agenda of discourse in Nepal. The article is completely about this new discourse of identity politics in Nepal with comparative analysis with class-based politics, its outlook and action upon identity in burning politics of Nepal. The discussion of the article isbased on the position of political parties secured in federal parliament through election, raise of the identity politics and its political agendas with some contents of class.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

15

Limbu, Prem Prasad. "Discourse on Contemporary Nepali Politics based on Class and Identity Politics." International Research Journal of Management Science 5, no. 1 (March 21, 2021): 102–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/irjms.v5i1.35865.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The class and identity, these two factors have become major driving forces of contemporary Nepali politics. Class politics related to left political spectrum is defined as broader than identity politics. Broadly, it is believed that the left politics can support many identity question; so, identity politics can be packaged within the class politics as well. However, the contemporary Nepali politics is not in this frame where the long history of left politics is. Now, the communist party is ruling party and parallel to it the identity politics is raising in a new speed positioning as third largest political power.It has made the discourse of identity politics as an attractive agenda of discourse in Nepal. The article is completely about this new discourse of identity politics in Nepal with comparative analysis with class-based politics, its outlook and action upon identity in burning politics of Nepal. The discussion of the article isbased on the position of political parties secured in federal parliament through election, raise of the identity politics and its political agendas with some contents of class.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

16

Carchedi, G. "Class Politics, Class Consciousness, and the New Middle Class." Insurgent Sociologist 14, no. 3 (October 1987): 111–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089692058701400305.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

17

JOHNSTON, WILLIAM, and MICHAEL D. ORNSTEIN. "Class, work, and politics*." Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 19, no. 2 (July 14, 2008): 196–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618x.1982.tb00860.x.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

18

PRATT, GERALDINE. "Class, home, and politics." Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 24, no. 1 (July 14, 2008): 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618x.1987.tb01070.x.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

19

Clark, C. "Politics, Language, and Class." Radical History Review 1986, no. 34 (January 1, 1986): 78–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01636545-1986-34-78.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

20

Eley, Geoff, and Keith Nield. "Farewell to the Working Class?" International Labor and Working-Class History 57 (April 2000): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0147547900002660.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

By the early 1980s, the class-centered politics of the socialist tradition was in crisis. In this situation, leading commentators took apocalyptic tones. By the end of the 1980s, the Left remained deeply divided between the advocates of change (“New Times” required new politics) and the defenders of the faith (class politics could be practiced, mutatis mutandis, much as before). By the mid-1990s the former had mainly carried the day. We wish to present this contemporary transformation not as the “death of class,” but as the passing of one particular type of class society, one marked by the process of working-class formation between the 1880s and 1940s and the resulting political alignment, reaching its apogee in the social democratic construction of the postwar settlement. As long-term changes in the economy combined with the attack on Keynesianism in the politics of recession from the mid-1970s, the unity of the working class ceased to be available in the old and well-tried way, as the natural ground of left-wing politics. While one dominant working-class collectivity went into decline (the classic male proletarians of mining, transportation, and manufacturing industry, with their associated forms of trade unionism and residential concentration), another slowly and unevenly materialized to take its place (predominantly female white-collar workers in services and all types of public employment). But the operative unity of this new working-class aggregation—its active agency as an organized political presence—is still very much in formation. To reclaim the political efficacy of the socialist tradition, some new vision of collective political agency will be needed, one imaginatively keyed to the emerging conditions of capitalist production and accumulation at the start of the twenty-first century. Class needs to be reshaped, reassembled, put back together again in political ways. To use a Gramscian adage: The old has been dying, but the new has yet to be born. Class decomposition is yet to be replaced by its opposite, the recomposition of class into a new and coherently shaped form.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

21

Howard, Walter T., Eric Arnesen, Julie Greene, and Bruce Laurie. "Labor Histories: Class, Politics, and the Working Class." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53, no. 4 (July 2000): 720. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2696152.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

22

Papadakis, Elim. "Class Interests, Class Politics and Welfare State Regime." British Journal of Sociology 44, no. 2 (June 1993): 249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591219.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

23

Cruddas, Jon MP. "A new politics of class." Soundings 38, no. 38 (March 1, 2008): 141–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3898/136266208820465399.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

24

Antonio, Robert J., Stewart Clegg, Paul Boreham, and Geoff Dow. "Class, Politics and the Economy." Social Forces 66, no. 2 (December 1987): 562. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2578759.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

25

Teeple, G., and Leo Panitch. "Working Class Politics in Crises." Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 13, no. 4 (1988): 473. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3340828.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

26

Gray, Robert. "Class, politics and historical ‘revisionism’." Social History 19, no. 2 (May 1994): 209–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071029408567904.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

27

Otto, Mary. "The Class Politics of Teeth." Dissent 65, no. 2 (2018): 52–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dss.2018.0028.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

28

Muntaner, C. "Power, politics, and social class." Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 56, no. 8 (August 1, 2002): 562—a—562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.8.562-a.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

29

Kolluoğlu, Biray. "Editor's introduction: Class and politics." New Perspectives on Turkey 46 (2012): 15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0896634600001497.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Social classes are fading away. They are fading away as forms of identity with which groups associate themselves; they are fading away as anchors of social movements; and they are fading away as objects of study from social scientists' agenda. This was the shared opinion of one of our Editorial Board meetings in 2009. Not having much power to intervene on the first two accounts, we decided that we still could do something about bringing social class back onto the agenda of social scientists. We could organize a conference and invite scholars to share their work on social classes or to rethink their work through the prism of social class. Hence a conference entitled “Urban Classes and Politics in the Neoliberal Era: Turkey in Comparison” was held in October 2010. The objective was to instigate a scholarly debate on social classes in urban Turkey, in comparison to other regions such as South Asia and Latin America.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

30

Pletsch, Carl. "Class, nationalism and identity politics." Peace Review 11, no. 2 (June 1999): 197–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402659908426253.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

31

Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. "Politics and the new class." Society 35, no. 2 (January 1998): 213–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02838144.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

32

Clark, Terry Nichols. "The breakdown of class politics." American Sociologist 34, no. 1-2 (March 2003): 17–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-003-1003-0.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

33

Harrits, Gitte Sommer, Annick Prieur, Lennart Rosenlund, and Jakob Skjott-Larsen. "Class and Politics in Denmark: Are Both Old and New Politics Structured by Class?" Scandinavian Political Studies 33, no. 1 (March 2010): 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00232.x.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

34

Fudge, Judy, and Harry Glasbeek. "The Politics of Rights : a Politics With Little Class." Social & Legal Studies 1, no. 1 (March 1992): 45–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096466399200100104.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

35

Burbank, Stephen, and Sean Farhang. "Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals." Michigan Law Review, no. 119.2 (2020): 231. http://dx.doi.org/10.36644/mlr.119.2.politics.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This Article draws on novel data and presents the results of the first empirical analysis of how potentially salient characteristics of Court of Appeals judges influence class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We find that the ideological composition of the panel (measured by the party of the appointing president) has a very strong association with certification outcomes, with all-Democratic panels having dramatically higher rates of procertification outcomes than all-Republican panels—nearly triple in about the past twenty years. We also find that the presence of one African American on a panel, and the presence of two women (but not one), is associated with procertification outcomes. Our results show that, contrary to conventional wisdom in scholarship on diversity on the Courts of Appeals, the impact of diversity extends beyond conceptions of “women’s issues” or “minority issues.” The consequences of gender and racial diversity on the bench, through application and elaboration of certification law, radiate widely across the legal landscape, influencing implementation in such areas as consumer, securities, labor and employment, antitrust, insurance, product liability, environmental, and many other areas of law. In considering possible explanations for our findings on the procertification preferences of women and African Americans, we note that class action doctrine, as transsubstantive procedural law, traverses many policy areas. As strategic actors, it would be rational for judges to take into consideration how class-certification doctrine in a case that does not implicate issues on which they have distinctive preferences might affect certification in cases that do. Alternatively, or in addition, our results may be the first evidence that transsubstantive procedural law affecting access to justice is itself a policy domain in which women and African Americans have distinctive preferences. In either case, the results highlight the importance of exploring the effects of diversity on transsubstantive procedural law more generally. Our findings on gender panel effects in particular are novel in the literature on panel effects and the literature on gender and judging. Past work focusing on substantive antidiscrimination law found that one woman can influence the votes of men in the majority (mirroring what we find with respect to African Americans in class-certification decisions). These results allowed for optimism that the panel structure—which threatens to dilute the influence of underrepresented groups on the bench because they are infrequently in the panel majority—actually facilitates minority influence, whether through deliberation, cue taking, bargaining, or some other mechanism. Our gender results are quite different and normatively troubling. We observe that women have substantially more procertification preferences based on outcomes when they are in the majority. However, panels with one woman are not more likely to yield procertification outcomes. Panels with women in the majority occur at sharply lower rates than women’s percentage of judgeships, and thus certification doctrine underrepresents their preferences relative to their share of judgeships and overrepresents those of male judges.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

36

Verschueren, Jef. "A touch of class." Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 13, no. 1 (March 1, 2003): 135–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.1.06ver.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This paper describes how political discourse, as manifested in the policy statements of two Flemish political parties which assign to themselves the epithet ‘social’, contributes to the erasion of group-based or class- related forms of social inequality. A brief comparison with the academic defense of ‘Third Way’ politics (in the work of Anthony Giddens) leads to the suggestion that we are witnessing a hegemonic process.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

37

Franklin, Raymond S. "The Postindustrial Paradox: Growing Class Inequalities, Declining Class Politics." Critical Sociology 20, no. 1 (April 1994): 103–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089692059402000105.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

38

Licht, Walter, Eric Arnesen, Julie Greene, Bruce Laurie, and Calvin Winslow. "Labor Histories: Class, Politics, and the Working-Class Experience." Journal of American History 86, no. 4 (March 2000): 1808. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2567663.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

39

Sidoti, Francesco. "The Italian Political Class." Government and Opposition 28, no. 3 (July 1, 1993): 339–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1993.tb01320.x.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

IN MODERN ITALIAN, ‘POLITICAL CLASS’ IS A CONCEPT quite distinct from that of a ruling class. The notion of political class applies to a million people who are in full-time politics. The cream of these professional politicians is part of the ruling class: a term which applies to the people who effectively run the country working in business, finance, administration, politics, and so on.In Italy the history of the changing importance of the political class has always been connected with the weakness of the ruling class, which was evident from the beginning of unification. Italy became a nation-state in 1861, largely thanks to the action of a tiny group of patriots consisting of ambitious aristocrats and romantic intellectuals. While in the same period the Prussian monarchy gave strong leadership to the process of unification in Germany, the Piedmont monarchy led the Italian process of national unification under the discreet partnership, open protection, or direct involvement of other major European states. From 1861 to the present time in Italian history many observers have pointed to the weakness of the ruling class and the interference of foreign powers.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

40

Manolov, Georgi L. "The Political Class – Definition and Characteristics." Slovak Journal of Political Sciences 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 5–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/sjps-2013-0008.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract This article treats the historical- political developments of the political class phenomenon. It analyses in detail the concepts of „political class“, „elite“ and „oligarchy“, their definiteness, composition and structure, and it emphases on the characteristics of oligarchy in politics. In this sense, the separate political layers and their relationship with the contemporary political oligarchy have been outlined through in-depth theoretical analysis.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

41

Scambler, Graham, and Annette Scambler. "Underlying the Riots: The Invisible Politics of Class." Sociological Research Online 16, no. 4 (December 2011): 227–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.2556.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Rioters from what has been contemptuously dismissed as a ‘feral underclass’ have become instant ‘folk devils’, a judgement evoking wider ‘moral panic’. In this brief contribution to an already lively project to make sociological and explanatory sense of four days of unpredicted mahem, together with its political/media packaging, we provide some pointers from sociology's classic tradition. It is argued that the post-1970s era of financial capitalism has witnessed a shift in the dynamic between class and state. The class politics of the advantaged, engineered by core members of Britain's capital executive and their allies in the state's power elite, has effectively restricted the potential for a class politics of the disadvantaged. The riots cannot be reduced to class action, far from it: they seem to have been more opportunistic and consumerist than political. Nevertheless, they cannot be explained without reference to the class politics of the advantaged. Issues of oppositional mobilization are addressed and three proposals for a research programme commended.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

42

Lowndes, Joseph. "The Inevitably Cultural Politics of Class: A Response to Verity Burgmann." International Labor and Working-Class History 67 (April 2005): 50–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0147547905000062.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

In this response I argue that class politics are always experienced culturally, and open to diverse expressions in specific historical moments. I attempt to show that class politics did not so much die in the 1960s as get rearticulated through linkages to conservative political positions. Finally, I argue that a revival of class politics on the left depends on the possibility of linking class to the other “identity” positions that Burgmann sees as competitors.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

43

LERNER, M. "Identity Politics, Class Politics, Spiritual Politics: The Need for a More Universalist Vision." Tikkun 28, no. 4 (October 1, 2013): 20–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/08879982-2367460.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

44

Mascat, Jamila M. H. "Class and party : Daniel Bensaïd’s philosophy of strategy against the randomization of politics." Soft Power 6, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 156–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/softpower.2019.6.1.8.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This article argues for the centrality of the notion of class struggle in both political theory and praxis in order to counter what E. M. Wood, echoing P. Anderson (1983), has referred to as the «randomization of politics» (1986), namely a politics reduced to pure contingency where no causality between the social and the political is allowed. It suggests that class struggle is precisely the lost cause of radical politics, since class struggle operates as a synthetic principle informing a concept of society as a whole and a view of antagonism as a systemic and totalistic instance. Drawing on Daniel Bensaïd’s «philosophy of strategy» and its critical reading of Marx’s class theory (Bensaïd, 1995; 2002; 2011; 2016), the article suggests that class struggle be rethought as a new «strategic universalism» across the international division of labor. Along the lines of Bensaïd’s understanding of politics as a «strategic art» of recommencement (Bensaïd, 1995), it will be argued here that radical politics cannot do without class struggle or without the party

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

45

Chang, Kyung-Sup. "South Korea's condensed transition from class politics to citizenship politics." Citizenship Studies 16, no. 1 (February 2012): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.651399.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

46

Dentith, S. "Contemporary working‐class autobiography: Politics of form, politics of content." Prose Studies 8, no. 2 (September 1985): 60–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440358508586243.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

47

Lekhi, Rohit. "The Contexts of Class." Politics 15, no. 2 (May 1995): 71–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1995.tb00123.x.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Class now occupies a marginal position in much of contemporary social and political theory and (it seems) in politics in general. This is discernible most clearly in the proliferation of emancipatory projects constituted around non class axes where class appears to be of little (if any) relevance. This article suggests that class is still important for our understanding of political struggles (including ostensibly non-class struggles) but only if we are able to think of class in a much more fluid and open-ended way.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

48

Lachmann, Richard, Lawrence Stone, and Jeanne C. Fawtier Stone. "Class, Status, and Politics in England." Contemporary Sociology 14, no. 4 (July 1985): 439. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2069160.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

49

Feagin, Joe R., and Chandler Davidson. "Race and Class in Texas Politics." Contemporary Sociology 21, no. 1 (January 1992): 36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2074712.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

50

Kemp, Alice Abel, and Johanna Brenner. "Women and the Politics of Class." Contemporary Sociology 31, no. 3 (May 2002): 362. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3089725.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Статті в журналах з теми "Class and politics"

Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями