Blockchain Papers

Seongcheol Kim

The term “movement party” has gained widespread currency in the social sciences in recent years, finding extensive application to political parties ranging from the radical left (Della Porta et al., 2017) to the far right (Caiani & Císař, 2019; Pirro & Castelli Gattinara, 2018). Unlike with other academic buzzwords such as “populism,” however, there is also a notable lack of readily identifiable and competing theoretical paradigms that have made systematic attempts at conceptualizing the term—a problem that Kitschelt (2006, p. 278) already pointed out with his arguably first such attempt, noting that “movement party” lacks well-defined status as “a formal concept with a specific terminological content.” Since then, an influential strand of scholarship building on Kitschelt's work has emerged around what might be termed an interactive-mobilizational approach, for which the primary definitional criterion for being a “movement party” is a hybridity of mobilizational repertoires in the electoral-institutional and protest arenas giving rise to a loosely formalized interactive balance between movement and party orientations (hence the proposed syntagma “interactive-mobilizational”). As will be argued in the following, while this approach has succeeded in spawning a wide range of applications across distinct party types (from anti-austerity to far-right), the definitional focus on protest activity concedes insufficient attention to the organizational dimension and renders the concept of movement parties more or less reducible to what Borbáth and Hutter (2021) have referred to as “protesting parties.” In recognizing both the merits and limitations of this literature, this paper proposes an alternative discursive-organizational approach, drawing on the author's previous work based on the post-foundational discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe (2001[1985]) to conceptualize movement parties as a distinct form of political organization: one that is predicated on horizontal integration of autonomously organized movement actors as the basic decision-making agents and constituent subjects within the party. From this perspective, I go on to examine three examples of movement parties of the radical left, center, and far right, respectively: the CUP (Candidatures d'Unitat Popular) in Catalonia, the (now defunct) Együtt in Hungary, and the Right Sector in Ukraine. All three examples vividly illustrate the inherent organizational precarity (and, in some instances, ephemerality) of the movement party form, but also the willingness of these actors to maintain a movement party structure in high-stakes institutional contexts and their ability to exert recognizable political weight within these settings. The discursive-organizational approach presented here draws on an expanded framework of post-foundational discourse theory in which political organization is understood as a performative extension of discursive constructions of collective identities (hence the syntagma “discursive-organizational”). As I will argue, movement parties are characterized internally by a privileging of a certain type of relation—namely, horizontal coordinative links between autonomously operating movement actors who maintain a dual identity as representatives of the party and of their respective movements—in contrast to what I call Volksparteien of a new type (VNTs) such as Podemos and France Insoumise, which are characterized by vertical plebiscitary links between a centralized unitary leadership and a broad, undifferentiated popular base (e.g., via leadership-initiated referenda open to anyone registered online). As such, movement parties and VNTs can be considered paradigmatic opposites along the horizontal/vertical spectrum; movement parties tend to display a networked or coalitional structure, featuring “assemblies,” “platforms,” and joint executive organs bringing together representatives of distinct movements that remain organizationally separate and autonomous—in the language of social movement theory, as contentious claims-making actors in their own right—while pooling their decision-making input within the party. In this vein, the discursive-organizational approach can contribute to an awareness of the inherently precarious, tension-laden, and often transient nature of the movement party phenomenon—as already recognized by Kitschelt (2006)—while also going beyond the latter's interactive-mobilizational approach to develop an understanding of the organizational specificity of the movement party form. In the following, the paper proceeds in three main steps: first, an overview of the interactive-mobilizational approach, from Kitschelt's foundational work to more recent contributions; second, a presentation of the discursive-organizational approach, featuring conceptual reflections in conjunction with empirical an of the three movement parties of the radical left, center, and far right in by a The empirical is of an the to a of organizational distinct movement party as as notable examples of their or conceptual and empirical a for a the of which are in the Kitschelt's on a foundational for what has an interactive-mobilizational strand of on movement parties (e.g., & Císař, 2019; Porta et al., Pirro & Castelli Gattinara, 2018). Kitschelt's (2006, is from movement to party” as a for of the protest and institutional rise to movement parties as of political who from social movements and to the organizational and of social movements in the of party an of in that emerged in the and in to and political parties in the of and protest movements Kitschelt & & & The of this is in movements parties and of party such as that of protest movements In his work on “movement as a Kitschelt the as a specific within this to of collective and social parties collective via a of electoral-institutional and protest but with in the of formalized organization or of this the of movement parties in their mobilizational both protest and as as their of organizational and which in for between movement and party orientations the the movement parties are characterized by this between of protest and the right of as to the from one or the Kitschelt's movement parties are inherently and tend to be As the movement parties often parties the develop organizational and p. examples such as the parties in that the “movement party” can be a transient is noting here that Kitschelt's a specific of organizational that the organizational of movement parties can a wide ranging from with a and to the of of being the in is both and however, a dual movement and party in with a of formalized organization: paradigmatic examples of “movement such as the predicated on a of organizationally and formalized such as the or the of party and which have also for their (e.g., by a between party and to the of and p. have pointed out from the of radical theory that for protest movements on of or is and and are but be as the of more (e.g., will be in the In a of the interactive-mobilizational approach as by Kitschelt is the definitional focus on a dual of actors operating both in the protest and the & Castelli Gattinara, p. which go in with a wide range of organizational characterized by a of The organizational dimension is but primary this approach as is the the of organizational that movement The specific form of organization that from a mobilizational is Since the the of the movements of the and their of on movement parties within the interactive-mobilizational has work on distinct party such as “movement parties (Della Porta et al., 2017) or right movement (Caiani & Císař, a conceptual these have the definitional focus on the dual party and social movement which in with a range of organizational of movement a here to to with the paradigmatic of the anti-austerity being and the (Della Porta et al., and an understanding of based on political and discursive the hybridity of “movement in their of contentious from the protest within the of that is to a wide range of radical right parties in the from the for and the to and the to and The approach can be to have succeeded in spawning a with a of applications to empirical across and The merits of this be in the that a is for “movement as to and often transient within the of political in of the of of the the mobilizational hybridity of protest and repertoires or to as the definitional criterion for a “movement Borbáth and Hutter for have proposed the term “protesting for the of in protest for a political party to be a movement party and a an organizational dimension is however, has left in the as movement parties are in of the of organizational the of a movement party reducible to to there is form of movement party organization from this perspective, but a of is this conceptual the merits of a understanding to the and by the movement party the alternative approach in the to The post-foundational discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe (2001[1985]) an understanding of discourse that beyond and and in their and performative understanding of as as also Laclau & I have proposed an expanded framework of post-foundational discourse for the of political organization as a performative extension of in this a between “movement and parties of a new as horizontal and vertical of respectively: parties are predicated on the horizontal integration of autonomously organized social movement actors via and collective leadership within the VNTs are characterized by vertical plebiscitary links between a centralized unitary leadership and a undifferentiated of as the by the party The basic this is political actors collective identities and on the of organizational The theoretical here are and (2001[1985]) understanding of radical as a horizontal of and between that an specific to (e.g., and theory of that the vertical dimension of the of on the of a a wide range of around a In this vein, radical and can be understood as paradigmatic of horizontal and vertical characterized by a distinct of collective identities are in of horizontal between autonomously operating movement actors autonomously contentious of their or a vertical as to 2017) of around a popular this to these of horizontal and vertical out of political organization that have in the in the of the movements of the I that movement parties are a paradigmatic form of horizontal organization the autonomously organized movement actors as decision-making agents (e.g., by giving their own within the VNTs are predicated on a vertical of a broad, undifferentiated of as the within the party (e.g., via that open to anyone registered and by these plebiscitary to a centralized unitary leadership In other the party types are characterized by a privileging of a certain type of in their collective identities and on the of organizational horizontal coordinative between organizationally separate movements in the of movement parties and vertical plebiscitary links between a centralized leadership and a undifferentiated popular base in the of this discursive-organizational approach, I the term “movement party” as to a of The party is organized as to be by movement who maintain a dual identity as representatives of the party and of their respective The of a movement party organization in networked or coalitional featuring or to movement actors to with their movement within party in to a collective leadership with the of the vertical of across representatives of the paradigmatic of a movement party in this is the CUP in be in the from a on a organizational the party which as a for social movement actors such as radical and in the organizational with their own such as of the on the other can be understood as the paradigmatic of movement parties along the horizontal/vertical on the of a in to a of referred to as of the and to in decision-making via plebiscitary referenda in the and with party In this vein, the concept is to understanding of characterized by a of a of plebiscitary via referenda by and to a The of such a party is Podemos in referred to as the predicated on building the party around organized but the of the from the to the of their to with the of a in the of between the base and the leadership also & 2018). the of party the of movement parties proposed here is of which is as a of constituent such as and the main being the at in with party however, a of movement parties as understood here in a horizontal of the to the leadership of the party in the form of a collective leadership The concept of in draws on the of which also as a for his concept of party” to the or contrast to parties with their an and undifferentiated base with a party leadership that on a in more of In this the as understood here a of the the is already in the of party the paradigmatic contrast between movement parties and VNTs for a understanding of and as the of political from the of who the basic constituent subjects of party organization movement actors registered to their links are to what of leadership with plebiscitary the on movement the proposed here between movement parties and VNTs from a discursive-organizational is of what Kitschelt as a of between horizontal between movement and vertical or what Porta et p. have referred to as a range of from to In contrast to these movement parties are understood here in a as to one of this the privileging of horizontal between movement as to a distinct organizational form. The as in the previous is that an interactive-mobilizational the hybridity of mobilizational repertoires as the of movement parties while the organizational dimension a discursive-organizational approach, by the of movement parties is understood in an organizational being reducible to protest that the party is organized as a horizontal of movement who maintain a dual within the party and their respective movements formalized for such as and collective leadership From this perspective, parties such as France Insoumise, the or as a unitary party in are movement but the VNTs characterized by a privileging of a vertical of plebiscitary links to a centralized here that this between movement parties and as the one between and a of and As and and in form or in a of a horizontal of (e.g., a of the radical to be in their as with their own within party The between horizontal and vertical is a but of can the other to develop and also on the other (e.g., a within a party the of via the of a in their is also that parties from a movement party to a or to both in an to the of both of the first be in from a of radical to a unitary party of and around to the popular will by and the the of more recent parties of this also & & that also to for the for the party in of the of horizontal and vertical can be in for and in the such as with from the movement as the discursive-organizational approach presented here a more understanding of “movement in the interactive-mobilizational literature, the is to to what Kitschelt already recognized as the inherently tension-laden, and often transient nature of the movement party drawing on a theoretical framework in an awareness of the but between and the approach here can contribute to a understanding of these and in to a of the organizational dimension in movement parties from other party types as VNTs as proposed to be is the ability of this approach to across contexts and party right movement for be from a discursive-organizational as will be in the empirical that is in the such as and can be in a formal of radical their theoretical such as and for & to distinct of organizational that can be on the far right in to the radical left or the In the following, I three such of movement parties of the left, center, and right for and as a for a CUP in Catalonia, Együtt in Hungary, and the Right Sector in Ukraine. The have for their and in of their and in a wide in of or and organizational renders to out a of the movement party from the radical left to the to the far right, as a for also on the of The CUP has an within the in with at the from to while Együtt in and the Right Sector in and has in and and in the of the The that are of a the on a overview of organizational distinct movement party as in these own as as notable examples of their or I from the conceptual of here (e.g., of and for the of a the empirical will be the understanding of and as The d'Unitat CUP or to the as the as a of for radical in to a and of at the The CUP have organizational in a of networked social and radical left to a as an within in of already the CUP gained in and in the and in at the for the first in of the and three in the The CUP their to in the with a joint and of the and in a for the in which to a of high-stakes that will be in the CUP have with and institutional weight and for a in the In the the CUP in for the first and in the new The organizational structure the of a movement of a of at the of across the that autonomously with the of anyone who the to in the decision-making can an by with a and the right to and in the decision-making of the as as the of CUP at a which in the as a collective leadership of the party d'Unitat The CUP are characterized by a structure d'Unitat p. the the in which are organized and is in in specific and movement also the CUP as a a of together in to their decision-making The of in contrast to what has as the in parties such as The basic decision-making and constituent within a movement party CUP is the organized in the registered in leadership-initiated dimension to the movement party structure is the in which the political that the expanded CUP in the are and in the joint work d'Unitat a of horizontal organizationally distinct and but movement The high-stakes in on display to the the movement party at an by the the for the bringing together the and the by emerged on as the with of the the for a to a and the The and to the as in the in in in with by with at the of the the CUP the on the to a of the of the which on and of and to a of for on this the to on in of the lack of a for in the the of in in with and for new a between the CUP and on as a As these the CUP to their movement party as a political in a high-stakes of with less the and the on the a in the of the in on the made by CUP their decision-making at the of the of the party. with the of this decision-making the party arguably main with an alternative to as and a that go on to the with from the in the of the the CUP and a by the the CUP as a paradigmatic of a movement party to the and that such a be to in institutional but also as as the willingness of the party to maintain a movement party structure with an of in a such as the in The CUP to the and institutional weight that a movement party with organizational can to The Együtt for in in a joint of three the for and the and The for a joint of the with a for the with a in of the In the of a the from of and the of the to the of the and the Együtt as a of a via from The of the three as the in this with being across of and a for by a who with the an and protest the by the and the a for and the of that together from both of the the from the and the the as a that parties and as a for a joint for the this to the already a the that the three the of the a political party in The party structure to that of a movement party as based on a of horizontal between the three constituent with own within the new party and being at the leadership and and a collective leadership of the party maintain their organizational and but in the of the new political via the three by to a party is this coalitional or coordinative between contentious actors from remain and separate in their own right while pooling their decision-making input via organized within the to a distinct movement party in this with the performative to a broad, of a of movement actors the party to the party Együtt a with for party by who a the between the being by a featuring the from both in to as joint the the a by the and bringing together the main parties and of the three of the by to Együtt and one to The a joint of own in the within Hungary, of the and one three other parties between and the lack of in beyond the however, the Együtt and of a around In of as a unitary party the three constituent and with as and the to the party In this Együtt movement party of and collective leadership to the three The party a within the of the and one in the leadership in In Együtt a and of a movement one a a in a and a certain institutional weight in the within a in and for the far the The party movement party structure this of the of a party and by actors from as the of a also succeeded in an with the as an extension of horizontal at the leadership but to this to other The movement party of Együtt to an with the party in in a of with the and The Right Sector is the of the three recognizable of a movement party in with leadership The in in the of the in gained in (and, with in and of from and to the competing the for of with In the following, the in on the Right networked in conjunction with in the with as a political party in the of an movement party of the far right and in the of by the leadership of The Right Sector emerged as an of such as and of as as (hence the to the of the of the protest in a display of at the of which the of The Right Sector but also with the by of with other for from p. the on that the willingness for Right of in that of the party on a as of with political to the for the Right Sector p. In this the Right Sector on the of an movement to the in the of what a activity as based on and as to the of the to the leadership to the three main parties and and their the In this the Right Sector in from which to from protest and from in (e.g., in the of the The Right Sector organizational in in to the out of the of a and willingness to in between and and in the of and the of the Right Sector as a political party in a in with (from as party and for the in this that and the Right political and be in the new as by a the Right organization from this is to is to here a certain movement party of horizontal organizationally distinct movements at the of the political in with the of and his performative as a with at his who at will for the and as a for political on the the of Right Sector as a party characterized by by to the certain an of a on and the of or the to the in which in with on the of the from other political and such as the that the in the The Right as a movement party with weight within the in of such as the to the or and left the Right Sector the of the with in and the that in the of his as party the of this first of the Right in which presented as an extension of the on the and as a certain political weight from the with of and as with on the to which the party as a for movement actors of the far the however, predicated on the coalitional nature of the Right movement party in a pooling together of in this vein, as a of the that the the Right ability to his as this the Right Sector the party in the of with less in the a in the in that the Right Sector less of the In the and which in for and his party of the the Right Sector the and together with other but these in both and the Right Sector is to be with own the in the of on is a of attention for for the the to which of and the have paper presented an discursive-organizational approach to the and of “movement from a of the concept as understood in what I to as the interactive-mobilizational The of the discursive-organizational approach is to to a understanding of movement parties as inherently to and often transient already recognized by Kitschelt in his foundational work on the to a understanding of the organizational dimension that is but left as a range of within the interactive-mobilizational I a of a movement party as a form of party organization the horizontal integration of autonomously organized movement actors as the basic decision-making agents and constituent subjects within the as in networked or coalitional with or for movements as as a collective leadership of the party as a parties in this can be understood as a paradigmatic of which a is the often characterized as a “movement party” the horizontal/vertical the discursive-organizational approach a more and understanding of movement the examples here of and the Right Sector illustrate the wide range of political and contexts in which movement parties from this can from the radical left to the to the far All three for their illustrate a movement party at the to movement or contentious actors from around these be on an the of or an via organizational of horizontal movement actors who are within the party in their movement such as their own as as joint executive organs bringing together constituent this horizontal in a of with vividly in the of the Right Sector as an movement three here to the willingness of the actors in to maintain their movement party in high-stakes institutional such as the in Catalonia, in Hungary, and the in Ukraine. All three to the political that movement party with their can this is to specific by or as in the of Együtt and the Right or in a more as is out to be the with the The CUP in that movement parties can also maintain as and actors across of or parties the between the three can also be in to the of with the of collective leadership in with the movement party in contrast to the Right on leadership or of the movement party of and collective a for a drawing and building on the discursive-organizational approach presented here for empirical work across a wide range of As a discursive-organizational approach can contribute to of in movement party and go within the organizational of political The or between the horizontal of movement parties on the one and institutional or on the other be in three here and is for the of organizational from a movement party in in the of rise in own the of also of movement parties will a for from a discursive-organizational perspective, in to protest such as the movements of the or more social movements and such as the In this vein, the presented here also be to the and of movement parties in to their is a for which the paper might as a conceptual and empirical a discursive-organizational strand of within the The work for this by the and between and the of the of the I to as as at the the of and the for their and organized by is a at the of and at the of

Kolja Möller

In the established landscape of research in the social sciences, populism is seen as a type of politics that chiefly revolves around the distinction between the “people” and the “elite”.1 Within this, different forms of populism can be distinguished—ranging from right-wing and authoritarian to liberal-centrist and religious varieties. In the camp of the political left, populism is often cast as essentially a democratic endeavor. Drawing on a conception of inclusive peoplehood, which is not opposed to other vulnerable social groups “below” but solely to the “elite above”, many authors emphasize that it is crucial to pursue a populist strategy in order to overcome existing hegemonies, democratic deficits, ossifications, and class-rule (Grattan, 2016; Howse, 2019; Kempf, 2020; McCormick, 2001; Mouffe, 2018). Throughout the past few decades, the landscape of research on left populism has grown considerably. Various studies have investigated the history of anti-establishment popular movements of the 19th century, such as the Narodniki in Russia or the American Populist Party (Canovan, 1981; Kazin, 1995). Further, research has also looked at how, from the 1990s, anti-neoliberal alliances in Latin America had their momentum, entered governmental office, and established a far-reaching renewal of constitutional orders (Linera, 2014; Weyland, 2013). And in particular, in the last decade, the rejuvenation of left politics in Europe and the United States has often relied on populist approaches (Katsambekis & Kioupkiolis, 2019). Taking a more systematic stance, theories of radical democracy have sought to demonstrate that politics in modern societies is structured around the embodiment of the “people” as an empty signifier. From this perspective, it is not by accident that left varieties of populism can be recurrently observed; their persistence reflects that politics is, at its heart, not only concerned with policy-issues but with “constructing the people” (Laclau, 2014). Thus, populism may not be episodic, accidental, or a specific ideology that brings the vital interests of ordinary people to the fore. Rather, it must be seen as a generalizable discursive strategy—in the words of Ernesto Laclau: the “royal road”—when it comes to the strive for political power (Laclau, 2005, p. 67).2 In recent years, a neo-Machiavellian strand of research has emerged that is not so much concerned with the discursive construction of peoplehood, instead focusing on the materiality of social power. Drawing inspiration from the political philosophy of Early Modernity and Niccolò Machiavelli's insights on the exercise of political rule, these approaches assume that societies are constantly split between the “plebian” people and the ruling elites (McCormick, 2001; Vergara, 2020a). Against this backdrop, populism amounts to a plebian politics that “springs from the politicization of wealth inequality in reaction to systemic corruption and the immiseration of the masses, an attempt to balance the scales of social and political power between the ruling elite and the popular sectors” (Vergara, 2020a, p. 238). However, the historical balance sheet of left populisms remains ambivalent. Though recurring attempts to change society through mobilizing the people against the elite can be observed, they have often revealed self-defeating dynamics:3 the collapse into authoritarian government once populism is in power, the inability to account for how complex modern societies actually operate by adhering to an all-too simple people/elite binary distinction; and the arising incapacity to identify reasons for political failure and success apart from stressing that popular mobilizations played a key role (when successful) or were diluted (when unsuccessful). In the current debate on left-populism, however, a broader camp of anti-populist critiques mainly advances objections from a normative angle (Arato, 2016; Cohen, 2019; Urbinati, 2019; Müller, 2014). It is argued that populist forms of politics are, in principle, incompatible with central achievements of liberal democracy, such as pluralism, the separation of powers, or parliamentary representation. They seem to be unavoidably entangled in authoritarian politics and, therefore, in need of being rejected as a course of political action. This article aims to move beyond the rigidified divide between appraisals and rejections of left populism by shifting the field of inquiry: instead of investigating the relation of populism and the political as such or evaluating whether populism is compatible with principles of liberal democracy, it conducts a reconstruction of discussions in the broadly conceived camp of European Social Democracy in the “long 19th century” (Hobsbawm). Thereby, it focuses on how the leading intellectuals of this political current were reflecting on the practical potentials and limitations of a politics that is centered on the popular will. As emphasized by contemporary discourse theoretical approaches to the study of populism, politics in modern societies largely revolves around the role of the people and the conflicts that surround its articulation.4 Therefore, a wide range of people-centered politics can be identified—popular, populist or folky. While the article echoes the definition of populism as people-centered politics that opposes the elites, it stresses not only its inevitability but also its limitations. It scrutinizes populism's internal pitfalls and how it reacts to the contradictions and problems inherent to the structure of the given societal order. Thereby, the article aims at circumventing a transhistorical per se perspective and at a closer examination of the respective social circumstances. The ambition is not to provide an encompassing investigation of the whole theoretical landscape of social democracy, but to look for how some of the leading intellectuals grappled with the problems of a people-centered politics in the light of practical experiences in political struggle. It will be argued that we can identify an intellectual trajectory that dealt with the question of whether a politics that is centered on the popular will as opposed to the elites is able to incite social transformation and collective learning processes or, to the contrary, thwarts them. Admittedly, one should not overlook that there are severe differences between the social democratic mass parties of the 19th century and the contemporary disorganized party landscape. However, the article encourages an investigation that overcomes the juxtaposition of left populisms and other variants of progressive politics such as social movement politics (Arato & Cohen, 2021) or class-politics (Seferiades, 2019). Drawing on the recent work of the historian Christina Morina, European Social Democracy is understood in the following as a broader social movement that extended from the mid-19th century to the First World War (Morina, 2022).5 It was characterized by the advent of new forms of political organization, most notably trade unions and social democratic mass parties. Despite severe internal conflicts, it was driven by a shared approach to history and society that was drawn from the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The defining feature of European Social Democracy was located in a specific mode of social inquiry. As stressed by Morina, activists and intellectuals may have engaged in controversies around a whole set of issues. They all assumed, however, that modern societies take part in the course of historical evolution and that a sound type of political action must be derived from a comprehensive inquiry that clarifies the scopes for social transformation at a given historical moment. The common denominator that constituted coherence within the movement was the that societies a historical as and that a conception of political action must to the problems and contradictions inherent in this to Morina, the not in a perspective, but in the to the They leading intellectuals and activists of European Social from work a of to the and not a in the only to was actually a study of the (Morina, p. This was the of European Social Democracy that from the works of Marx and to different activists and such as Karl and It to be that the was a political the and were in many and the theories of Marx and were not the only intellectual at the of the 19th However, it comes to the that the controversies within the European the of played a crucial This article how this political movement dealt with the potentials and of populist the Marx and of the and a on people-centered with the movements of their they that to for social In to this in European Social Democracy in its as as its more radical to the popular will from the how of European Social to the of politics and society through a of social democracy as around the This populism was to the but it should also overcome the by collective learning the that European Social trajectory can be seen as a learning with to potentials and pitfalls of left controversies should be to these insights and in more on the history of populism demonstrate that social movements have often relied on the distinction between the people and the from the different attempts to the of against the of in the to the popular in and from to of the the to the people as opposed to the elites has played a role 2001; As the intellectual historian has the 19th century was a for the of a people-centered was and for its a central of political how to of the popular will and how it can be to a the and the the people in the and the people in the of social and the of the democratic were p. Though at the constitutional established forms of popular and as being by the people as power. the to the people was a of within a politics that the of and The with as was the in to power that democratic in and the for a of popular and p. However, the to the people was only one part of the From the 19th century, a with popular be as at this into the works of the of but it was other in of a on popular an inquiry into the of social such as the the and the for a that should the of modern society instead of to the will of the the to and, by a political that the historical achievements within these social popular as of which are on a of the people” popular the of on it was to the of the this set the for a whole strand of discussions around the between politics and popular Admittedly, it was not of the but the on historical through a people-centered politics that were by and and into From attempts to change society had to with a on the one society be characterized by a of social Against this backdrop, approaches to this as a whole were as being to on the other society was conceived as a and, a politics for or of that the whole The question to is a politics that on the popular will a course of action for the societal contradictions of modern Marx and works the intellectual for European Social a in evaluating popular It has a in recent political philosophy to of in order to democracy and social 2016; However, there is from the that Marx political action. to from the that societies are by an of different forms in politics and Thus, Marx not only a conception of p. in but was also in an for how the of the and its were through a of the the and the This of had it to the role of political action. the of modern a people-centered politics not be seen as the for social This to political within the of the as by Marx and p. from of more or p. Marx on the one democracy as the of the and popular against conception of in the p. the was of approaches to political action that at the of the This can be from of in the one has to the of by in the and for was to incite an in the of and, a the of the will of the people” p. central was the to political in of and from on to an political strategy Marx and argued that the the of they on the of the the for a & p. They the as of the of of which are to be all the more and in as their is & p. In the to on the in this the as in the which relied on with but to be as they not with the central of modern society p. The political is a political it within the of The and more it is, the more is it of social The of political is the The of politics is the will. The more and, therefore, the more the political is, the more it in the of the the more is it to the and of the and the more is it of the of social p. The more and the more comprehensive is the political of a the more the will its in the of the that will be in it in political it the will as the of all and and the of a of the as the the of the p. The approach into an the political that the for in the for social As this approach revolves around the of the it that society is by the between and not by the contradictions between and within social This can be as a of people-centered the popular will as the that in the political is not able to the of historical however, not solely through political but also through other of social to the of the this popular to a and it comes to and strategy approaches that the of the people is the strategy of This that must be to a of popular it was not it was not or it was the radical activists and the and so with more and However, they in many not to of will but to the of social adhering to a political they have of the for they this Marx rejected as as popular to the It may be to at this in Marx a to a political of the p. one can identify an in people-centered instead of in and, in many attempts to change society through collective action centered on the popular will it in the of or one must take in the more question how political action is able to to the transformation of the systemic of modern societies at in of the existing power and of the a political be It this political as it and its its its comes to the the political p. In this the a conception of politics to the that an to It was by the social democratic current in the to overcome the it more to an perspective on societies and a politics centered on The of history the the are on on and The parties of as they are the by They with is the of this and and look p. As to democracy and its role in the not it a more part in in with an that not the the of of its a as the most radical party has played as such in and as the of the whole and such a the whole mass in it and which to be as In Marx and a approach and their to the at However, as it the of the popular will and popular not be by it to the and The more that social democratic mass parties emerged in different the more the conflicts around the of the the Marx in and with of the movement the of the is to be in the to the of As by this was mainly to with the of in that to structure From the European Social Democracy had its unions and social democratic parties emerged which were to a of and a conception of Marx was in of a from popular to In particular, European Social around the for the political in the of the the and by the of parties were to government by the people and political the First World War and to a parties the of democratic in p. The movement largely to people-centered politics and around the for As has in study on European Social one can a from politics to popular from the activists were to the as a by it from the of the from the the people as mass the central of p. one in it all all have from or from a they the of the of this be a of different of that have more differences had the “people” of as as the of are have more at p. that the the within the people” and different of the to the that the and the p. the social should not be the trade but the of the is able to to of and it or of the people it is able to all these and a of and p. was to a was the need to the of society to a and the popular will. between and the question how to of the between the and the of a people-centered politics in European Social to the of political from the political to the the political a in the 19th Though part in the of social the constitutional its role in that to and society as a In encompassing of the advent of modern the constitutional has that of constitutional were in most European of as as to the and of p. existing it these to popular The to the people was a reaction to the that was established to the of the political The existing order was by the role of the people against the ruling constituted for renewal from the on to the that this As European Social Democracy part in the of modern it established internal of from the in and to the trade unions that to on with the was of social democracy to p. of advances in these different a political strategy that at mobilizing the through a p. an such collective action not as as the following a that was to incite collective learning Thereby, beyond the was not solely concerned with the of will but with the of within the social Admittedly, the with the as will be argued of all of societal However, one can identify a move from a left to a the new of social in modern societies and emphasized the role of new popular movements historical for forms of popular movements and new of and the of the with the p. was that they were not and by party or trade They relied on mass and their of the a systematic of this in from Taking from the movements in Russia and the in the role of collective The few in Russia at that were not the only to in the as there was complex of of the a of p. this popular movement to a for European Social that the of politics must be the mass was the the social democratic transformation of societies As a of the separation of the political and the and the of is but an of the the one in the course of the is split into a of in and in of the other the political is not by the in a but in with the of the in a by the of representation. p. focusing its politics on or on the trade unions and in the social democracy a The was as a of being within the respective of and not as a for a new societal but as a between different parties in the political for or as a between specific groups of the and It into of The mass however, as a course of action that the ambition into it should the whole of social democracy into a its from simple and so that a popular in society as a only and at these p. which the constituted and of societal of societies into a the mass or mass and the mass are to be they must a that is, the of the must be drawn into the p. It is not the of a of that can the for action within the the contrary, this can only be through into the and of the at it can only from political and intellectual from a for on the part of the by Social Democracy p. a against populist politics have cast the that within of the “people” as an of for and the for the was the for how as an encompassing societal it is the social can that from a as the people in order to political and in the for political a it should a of collective learning and overcome the that in the of are the historical of the and the p. The modern comes of historical and its are for to it the to is its only to is not only with but also with The of its on whether the can from its p. Thus, politics is not only political will. It is the of an and an of to a of on which the should be able to from of in a collective learning this the between the and the and the of the to the The only role of the in social democracy is to the their historical The the of the in Social Democracy only in to the of they in this that is, in to how they the of all the of the masses, in in a to how they of their the and of mass action. p. In these argued that an role in the learning however, is to as it thwarts at the that the role of and is in the to a conception of in the course of the the their from being to of Admittedly, it remains how this can be However, to the that the of political action can be the is on an that the limitations of it the of political will on social or the role of be often in with crucial are the for movements that can we of collective learning from the to its be a This should not to overlook the that approach can be as an it can be seen as a in a learning it from the of existing experiences from and the limitations of class-politics to the in As we have it is to the that the advent of social democratic mass parties as some of left European Social Democracy as a movement that to a of popular Despite these it to the popular will. should be to European Social Democracy with the recent of left populisms the in as by studies & Kioupkiolis, 2019; Kioupkiolis, a can be from social movement and the to a people-centered politics in such as or were As in this the of populism should not be seen as an between and populism, but as a learning The of a learning in the of social movements was by the in study on the advent of the movement from to In this how the practical of in the and with intellectual advances in from these leading to a and of political In of and was able to identify at the of political action and intellectual p. The that this article has through it with one in the mid-19th century, Marx and from the of They that a sound conception of politics should take the structure of modern society into This to the of of political action to the and its inherent contradictions In in the century, European Social Democracy in all its and to a politics that at social transformation through the popular will. This was largely to the of the political that was to take and it to overcome In from the problems of by of a on the one it should overcome the through a as the it should overcome the through an on collective learning The was not only the of but also of the of and Thereby, the for a a populism that should not only simple or but should also society and the to the the contradictions and societal of modern society are take on collective learning processes was It beyond the of this article to provide a comprehensive account of the relation of populism, and collective learning However, some of account must be has political approaches from the that social as such with society and rejected it in all its a perspective, and instead of mass in of the inquiry is, from the constituted and of social are seen as in a it through into social or through a sound perspective on the social to the of the of social European Social which was concerned with a more of modern it has in this that processes can in a progressive and that must be overcome from within the internal contradictions of social not solely through a on the social the that there can be many and movement may not be to social the conception the of the collective learning as it to of action that may to be in many Thereby, populism of the to learning of are in order to the with the of and the into mass the can collapse into a the learning is from the In light of the against the of a that must be It remains to or more complex of The of learning is as is not the of mass of populism have to on a more mode of inquiry that the of a perspective, but not of from the a is that to the of social of constantly the of movement a must be in order to populist approaches seem for social transformation in a given or the of left populism or per it is to with more of left populisms in as as in contemporary and whether they incite or collective learning whether they to or whether they from past to and as as to the for on of this It is within the of the research by the for and and by is of at the of of