Suchergebnisse

En este artículo se ofrece una interpretación comprensiva de la relación entre las principales organizaciones políticas de izquierda y el movimiento estudiantil-popular de 1968 en México como punto de inflexión. Primero, más allá de las visiones instrumentalistas, situamos las aportaciones que realizaron dichos organismos al movimiento y la participación empírica que tuvieron en él a fin de poder comprender su influencia directa. Segundo, de acuerdo con los resultados de su involucramiento, recuperamos los principales retos políticos que el movimiento planteó y la manera en que dichas organizaciones los abordaron en su práctica política subsecuente. Por eso descentramos la mirada de la guerrilla situándola en el conjunto de las expresiones de la izquierda. Establecemos así una línea de continuidad entre la izquierda anterior y posterior a 1968 bajo la tesis de que el fenómeno experimentado fue una recomposición y no propiamente una ruptura radical que diera nacimiento a la llamada nueva izquierda. Finalmente, pensamos que una reinterpretación del proceso en esta clave nos arroja pistas para la comprensión de la izquierda mexicana actual.

The article analyzes the views of the "left" and criticism of these views by the famous journalist, writer and analyst Yulia Latynina. In addition, the author cites the objections by Latynina from other journalists and political scientists: Andrei Loshak and Evgenia Albats. The author does not consider the disputable arguments to be solid and undertakes his own analysis. It offers a concise outline of the genesis of the modernist culture, starting from the crisis of antiquity and the Middle Ages. Several prerequisites of this culture are highlighted: the need to obtain funds for warfare and at the same time establish order in the territory under control, the processes of reform and counter-reformation, the transfer of the center of power from heaven to earth and, as a result, the formation of a new semantic project, the formation of a new European personality, the development of the economy and cities, the invention and the formation of the state, the struggle of citizens for their rights and ideals. The causes of the crisis of modern culture itself are also discussed: social life has become much more complicated (as a result, it has diverged from the initial ideas of modernity) and technologies have been created that allow the state, society and law to be used differently than intended. As a result, a need arose to build a new semantic cultural project. Such a project was formed by the "left". It contains two basic principles: the requirement of social justice for all and the socialist organization (distribution, redistribution, taxation, benefits, pensions, etc.) as a way to implement these requirements. In addition, the "left" insist that the rich should share with other citizens. The author shows that the "left" see and think in the framework of the new cultural project that they have created, and therefore do not accept criticism of them. In conclusion, he discusses the anthropological conditions of a possible future culture. On the one hand, it is culture and sociality that determine the value orientations of people, and on the other hand, since a person makes a contribution to sociality, partly depends on his activity whether good prevails over evil.

A contribution to a symposium on Bertrand de Jouvenel highlights his appreciation of American political institutions. Jouvenel recognized the enormous power accessible in American society & saw basic restraints on government as political & moral necessities. However, he was a "pessimistic evolutionist" who stressed that restraining Power required "untimely wisdom and timely prudence." A champion of the politics of liberty, Jouvenel contended that the emphasis on an individualistic view of human nature was a critical flaw in American society. He argued that the Lockean notion of individual rights as separate from politics failed as a restraint on Power & political authority could only be curbed within & by law. Ways in which Jouvenel's thinking was in conflict with the New Deal are examined, along with his criticisms of the direction of political science in America; the political/constitutional challenge of balancing & stabilizing forces; the relationship between Power & interest groups; Jouvenel's regard for American political parties; & his contention that political liberty requires the "formalization" of politics. J. Lindroth

Voting is key to political integration of immigrant‐background minorities, but what determines their voting preferences remains unclear. Moreover, dual‐citizen minorities can vote differently in their country of residence and origin. Using a representative survey of Turkish‐Muslim minorities in two cities in Belgium (N = 447, M_age = 36.3), we asked whether left‐right ideology or religious identity predicted their voting in their country of residence and origin, besides typical predictors of right‐wing voting (i.e., efficacy, deprivation, and authoritarianism). Authoritarianism, low political efficacy, and high deprivation predicted voting for right‐wing parties in Turkey, whereas the latter two, surprisingly, predicted voting for the left in Belgium. Latent class analyses of their religious practices distinguished "moderate" versus "strict" Muslims. While "strict" Muslims voted for right‐wing parties in Turkey, ideology did not predict their voting. Conversely, in Belgium, while Muslim identity did not predict their voting, ideology did. Analyzing their combined effects, "moderate" Muslims voted based on their ideology—right‐leaning voting for the right, whereas "strict" Muslims voted according to their interests as a disadvantaged minority in Belgium—thus voting for the left—or as a devout Muslim in Turkey—thus voting for the right. Our results elucidate processes underlying the voting behaviors of European‐Muslim minorities.

THIS PAPER STUDIES BURKE'S STANDING WITH THE LEFT. BURKE'S GENIUS IN SENSING THAT IN THE FUTURE CAPITALIST MARKET SOCIETY WOULD STILL REQUIRE INTERNALIZED STATUS DIFFERENTIATION HAS MUCH TO TEACH THE LEFT.

Traces the Jewish-Left alliance from 1789, attributing Jewish support for the Left to both class & ethnic considerations. Poverty & anti-Semitism influenced Jews to join a movement that promised to end capitalist & racial oppression. However, following the Holocaust & the creation of the State of Israel, many Jews lost their faith in universalistic solutions & switched their commitment from international to nationalist force. Nevertheless, lingering links still exist between Jews & the Left. 122 References. Adapted from the source document.