如何做好民主轉型與鞏固?
2008-04-03 16:49:38   來自: 程明
http://www.douban.com/subject/discussion/1173249/
  
   這本罷在書案卷帙浩繁的民主轉型與民主鞏固的巨著,是浙江人民出版社“政治與社會譯叢”最後一本出版的書。難以想像能為這樣的民主轉型與民主鞏固的巨著寫任何評論,本書原汁原味的閱讀勝過了任何作者進行評論的語言敍述。林茨和斯泰潘合著的《民主轉型與鞏固的問題:南歐、南美和後共產主義歐洲》可以說是國內政治學與社會學界繼1999年翻譯亨廷頓的《第三波——20世紀後期的民主化浪潮》之後的又一比較政治學巨著。

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(1) 人氣()

http://www.wpunj.edu/%5C%5C~newpol/issue24/ehrenb24.htm Beyond Civil Society John Ehrenberg [from New Politics, vol. 6, no. 4 (new series), whole no. 24, Winter 1998]

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

國際政治經濟學的葛蘭西學派
http://myy.cass.cn/file/2006010618377.html
李濱
在我國的國際政治經濟學研究中,西方當前的民族主義理論和自由主義理論已經逐漸被介紹,並且被一些學者引用,不論從觀點上還是從研究方法上都是如此。然而,國際關係和國際政治經濟學的一個重要理論流派——西方馬克思主義國際關係和國際政治經濟學理論,在我們的學術研究中卻沒有得到應有的重視。這種現象的出現與我們對它缺乏透徹的瞭解,以及我們對馬克思主義理論理解得不夠全面有關。本文希望通過通過葛蘭西學派的國際政治經濟學的介紹和分析,加深中國學者對該派理論的認識。
葛蘭西思想與葛蘭西學派的國際政治經濟學

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

政治學:福柯、德裏達和馬克思
陸揚
來源:《後現代性的文本闡釋:福柯和德裏達》第七章
資料來源:《新青年》
http://intermargins.net/intermargins/TCulturalWorkshop/academia/scholar%20and%20specialist/fucault/f07.htm

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

民間社會與民主的鞏固:有關亞洲社會的十個命題與九項思考
(On Civil Society and the Consolidation of Democracy: Ten General Propositions and Nine Speculations about Their Relation in Asian Societies)
 http://www.inpr.org.tw:9998/inprc/pub/jounals/120-9/m121_1.htm
■菲利普‧施密特(Philippe Schmitter) 史丹佛大學政治系教授
民間社會的出現,有助於民主的鞏固,但這只是「有助於」民主的鞏固,而非引發民主,它無法單獨促成民主的出現。民間社會並非由單一類型的中介組織構成,而是由眾多類型所組成,而這一組合,將隨著政體變遷與民主化的階段,改變其衝突的內容與強度。

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Michael Oakeshott and the Political Economy of Freedom
BY JOHN GRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gray is a Fellow of Jesus college, Oxford University, Research for this article was undertaken during a period of residence as Distinguished Research Fellow at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University, Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1663
January 31, 2006
Robert Higgs
The Freeman
Full-fledged corporatism, as a system for organizing the formulation and implementation of economic policies, requires the replacement of political representation according to area of residence by political representation according to position in the socioeconomic division of labor. The citizen of a corporate state has a political identity not as a resident of a particular geographical district but as a member of a certain occupation, profession, or other economic community. He will probably be distinguished according to whether he is an employer, an employee, or self-employed.

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3054
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 13, 2002
We are probably heading into some economic heavy weather which will spur needed debate on what's right and wrong with our economy. This will require our being clear about what kind of economy we really have. I have mentioned before that we increasingly live not in a capitalist society but in a corporatist one, and I would like to flesh out this notion.
What is corporatism? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois. It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not. In classical capitalism, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market. The market is trusted to provide. Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies. This now includes basically everyone from the economic elite to ordinary consumers.

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0411e.asp
by Anthony Gregory, Posted February 23, 2005
Principled advocacy of the free market requires an understanding of the differences between genuine free enterprise and “state capitalism.” Although the Left frequently exaggerates and overemphasizes the evils of corporate America, proponents of the free market often find themselves in the awkward position of defending the status quo of state capitalism, which is in fact a common adversary of the free marketer and the anti-corporate leftist, even if the latter misdiagnoses the problem and proposes the wrong solutions.
Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state — whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts — inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms.
Conservatives and many libertarians, on the other hand, frequently dismiss many ills such as poverty as fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact it does a disservice to the cause of liberty and free markets to defend the current system and ignore very real and serious problems, which are often caused by government intervention in the economy. We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and it is nearly inevitable in a mixed economy that the introduction of more socialism will cartelize industry and consolidate wealth in the hands of the few.

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm
Corporatism
In the last half of the 19th century people of the working class in Europe were beginning to show interest in the ideas of socialism and syndicalism. Some members of the intelligentsia, particularly the Catholic intelligentsia, decided to formulate an alternative to socialism which would emphasize social justice without the radical solution of the abolition of private property. The result was called Corporatism. The name had nothing to do with the notion of a business corporation except that both words are derived from the Latin word for body, corpus.
The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."
Under corporatism the labor force and management in an industry belong to an industrial organization. The representatives of labor and management settle wage issues through collective negotiation. While this was the theory in practice the corporatist states were largely ruled according to the dictates of the supreme leader.

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

http://www.npf.org.tw/particle-1079-2.html
詹中原
  意識形態(ideology)往往是各國在制訂政策上主要的依循方向。沒有意識形態主導的政策,可以說是沒有方向的政策。政策若失去了方向的引導,除了喪失政策本身的定位之外,也可能造成制訂政策的失敗。所以為什麼有一些國家同樣是制訂社會福利政策,所出來的政策結果卻是不同的,到底是什麼方式影響了各國在制訂政策時,是意識形態呢?還是選舉策略?
  以美國的兩黨制為例,共和黨傳統上是以中產階級的支持為主,而民主黨的傳統中堅分子乃是工會、自由派和黑人的支持,共和黨與民主黨在執政之後,對於在選舉之前的意識形態是否會因其執政之後而有所變遷?變遷幅度有多大?兩黨之間的意識形態是否會因為選舉時的競爭而趨同(convergence)?雖然兩黨都是以主流政黨為號召,並在若干的政策上有基本的共識,但是在許多公共政策的面向上,兩黨還是有所區隔。這些區隔究竟是兩黨基本上意識形態的不同所影響,還是因為選舉時,面對主流的民意,所不得不提出的花招。況且美國兩黨都會產生這樣的狀況,更何況是與美國相近的英國以及不同系絡(context)的法國、德國與泛北歐系的國家。所以政黨的意識形態,總是會隨著主流民意與大環境的變化,相對應地在政策綱領上進行調整,而民意的趨向,則是反映在各國大選的結果上。
  而當前世界各國的國家形態約可分類為:一是以美國、英國為主的央格魯薩克遜為主的國家治理的意識形態;二是以歐洲國家(含泛北歐國家)為主的國家治理意識形態。在以美國、英國為主的央格魯薩克遜為主的國家型態,強調政府再造式的改革,是奠基在新公共管理以及新右派的市場上。而以歐洲國家(含泛北歐國家)為主的國家型態上強調國家對於社會福利的重視,反對以英美為馬首是瞻的新公共管理改革模式,強調國家應負起照顧人民的權益,涉及到公共利益的民營化更是要由國家來管理與執行,不可交由民間來執行。汎北歐國家的模式,就是要建立「平等」制度,其特色包括:公共性質濃厚的社會政策、高度的普遍主義、國家強力介入及高稅率與高給付水準;就其細目而言,汎北歐國家(包含瑞典、挪威、丹麥、芬蘭)對於政策的細目還是有其不同之處。

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

The Four Networks in the United States
How does the Four Networks theory apply to the United States? This section shows why it is plausible to suggest that there is class domination in the United States, especially compared to most other democratic capitalist countries. Economic elites have had no serious power rivals in the United States for a number of complex historical reasons.
When the United States is viewed in historical-comparative perspective as a fragment of the European system of capitalist nation-states, there is a prima facie case that leaders from the capitalist class are more powerful than in European nations and in comparison to any other group or the federal government. First, America did not have a feudal past, so its capitalists were not hindered by a rival economic class that had to be battled, assimilated, or deferred to in attempting to dominate the state. Conversely, the absence of such a rival economic elite meant that the state could not play off one strong economic class against another in an attempt to gain autonomy from the capitalist elites.
In Europe, the feudal landlords and state elites were able to limit the rise of corporate capitalism, and even to insist that capitalists had to bargain with organized workers. In the United States, there were no restraints on the rise of giant corporations from these sources, and the corporations were able to eliminate most attempts at union organization. That is a huge difference in terms of the wealth and income distribution, and in terms of the use of government to provide collective social benefits like health care insurance and a good retirement income.
By the late 19th century, the nationwide nature of the transportation and communication systems, and the commonality of language, education, and culture, meant that the bases for class solidarity were present for both corporate owners and their employees, although the corporate community was far more cohesiveness than the working class for a variety of reasons. Still, class conflict over wages, hours, working conditions, and other issues has frequently manifested itself since the late 19th century. Contrary to pluralists and state autonomy theorists, and in agreement with Marxists on this issue, I believe class conflict was the single most important factor (but not the only factor) driving American politics in the 20th century, even overshadowing the more visible and violent struggles over racial inclusion and exclusion.

devilred 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

Blog Stats
⚠️

成人內容提醒

本部落格內容僅限年滿十八歲者瀏覽。
若您未滿十八歲,請立即離開。

已滿十八歲者,亦請勿將內容提供給未成年人士。