A Review of Recent Scholarly Research on the European Radical Left in China

After the major setbacks suffered by socialism in the 20th century, the communist parties of European countries underwent a great transformation. Some communist parties completely abandoned the goal of communism and turned into social democratic parties; some carried out large-scale reforms of themselves; only a few retained their radical characteristics. Most European political scholars turned their gaze to the right wing of the political spectrum. Entering the 21st century, most European countries were governed by mainstream parties. The policies of mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties converged. The outbreak of the financial crisis and the European debt crisis exposed the limited capacity of mainstream parties to respond to crises. At the same time, key issues such as the environment increasingly became the focus of voters' attention, and a large number of radical parties came into people's view. The success of the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) and Spain's Podemos party demonstrated the resurgence of the European radical left. With the emergence and rise of the European radical left, academia began to pay attention to this issue and conducted extensive and in-depth research on it.

20世纪社会主义遭受重大挫折之后，欧洲各国的共产党经历了大转型，一部分共产党完全放弃了共产主义的目标转为社会民主党，一部分共产党对自身进行了大规模改革，只有少数共产党保留了自己的激进特点，欧洲大多数政治学者将目光转向政治光谱的右翼。进入21世纪，欧洲多数国家由主流政党执政，主流中左翼和中右翼政党政策趋同，金融危机、欧债危机的爆发暴露了主流政党应对危机的能力有限。与此同时，环境等关键议题日益成为选民关注的重点，一大批激化政党走进人们的视线。希腊激进左翼联盟、西班牙“我们能”党的成功表明欧洲激进左翼的重新崛起。随着欧洲激进左翼的出现与兴起，学界开始关注这一问题，对其进行了广泛而深入的研究。

I. Defining the European Radical Left

一、对欧洲激进左翼的界定

The European radical left is currently in a period of formation and development; its essential characteristics have not yet fully manifested themselves, and its boundaries with other left-wing forces are also blurred. Therefore, some scholars believe that there is currently no complete definition of the European radical left. Paolo Chiocchetti points out that the definition of the European radical left cannot be narrowed down solely to the party level. However, most scholars agree that although not all European radical left forces share the same political tradition or follow the same ideological principles, they all belong to the same party family. Scholars have defined the European radical left, mainly from the following representative perspectives.

当前欧洲激进左翼正处于形成发展期，其本质特征还未完全显现，与其他左翼的界限也模糊不清，故有学者认为，目前还没有关于欧洲激进左翼的完备定义。保罗·乔切蒂指出，对欧洲激进左翼的定义，不能仅仅被缩小到党派层面。但多数学者共同认为，虽然并非所有的欧洲激进左翼都具有相同的政治传统或遵循相同的意识形态原则，但它们都属于同一个政党家族。学者们对欧洲激进左翼进行了界定，主要有以下几种代表性视角。

(1) The Perspective of "Radical" Nature

（一）“激进”性质的视角

The academic community generally believes that the European radical left is classified as left-wing because it advocates equality, promoting economic equality through collective ownership, economic planning, and redistribution. Luke March and others compare radicalism with extremism to clarify the connotation of "radical." They argue that extremism negates democratic values and is anti-democratic, whereas the European radical left only opposes the capitalist form of liberal democracy, not democracy itself. Furthermore, some scholars propose that the radical nature of the European radical left is manifested in its opposition to the underlying socio-economic structures of contemporary capitalism, its advocacy for the thorough transformation of capitalism, and its call to seize power from the existing political and elite classes.

学界普遍认为，欧洲激进左翼之所以被划分到左翼是因为它提倡平等，主张以集体所有制、经济计划和再分配促进经济平等。卢克·马奇等将激进主义与极端主义进行对比以阐明“激进”的内涵，他们认为，极端主义否定民主价值观念，是反民主的，而欧洲激进左翼只是反对资本主义式的自由民主形式，并不反对民主本身。此外，还有学者提出，欧洲激进左翼的激进性表现在它反对当代资本主义的潜在社会经济结构，提倡资本主义的彻底转型，主张从现有政治和精英手中夺取权力。

(2) The Ideological Perspective

（二）意识形态的视角

Babak Amini believes that there are many problems in defining the terms "radical" and "left," and their connotations change over time. Some scholars advocate defining the European radical left from an ideological perspective, but there are differences in their specific approaches to positioning. Mark Visser and others, starting from ideology, position the European radical left to the left of the social democratic parties. They argue that the European radical left has a natural connection with the social movements of the far left, opposes modern capitalism and neoliberalism, and attempts to promote and construct alternative economic and power models by reconstructing a social culture of redistribution and equality. Paolo Chiocchetti also agrees with this definitional approach. He believes that the European radical left has undergone some form of change in its development process. In the past, the European radical left often used positive qualifiers, such as communist, socialist; now it commonly uses negative qualifiers, such as alternative, anti-neoliberal, anti-capitalist. Some scholars have expressed differing opinions, suggesting that the European radical left is positioned to the left of social democratic parties and green parties, including communist parties, former communist parties, and radical socialist parties, advocating for thorough changes to the current economic and social system.

巴巴克·阿米尼认为，在定义“激进”和“左派”这两个术语时存在很多问题，其内涵会随时间而变化。一些学者主张从意识形态上界定欧洲激进左翼，但在具体的定位方式上，学者们的观点存在差异。马克·维瑟等人从意识形态出发，将欧洲激进左翼定位于社会民主党的左侧，认为欧洲激进左翼与极左派的社会运动有着天然的联系，它反对现代资本主义和新自由主义，试图通过重构再分配和平等的社会文化，宣扬、建构替代性的经济和权力模式。保罗·乔切蒂也赞同这一界定方式，他认为，欧洲激进左翼在发展过程中经历了某种形式的变化，过去欧洲激进左翼常用积极的限定词，如共产主义、社会主义，而现在常用否定的限定词，如替代、反新自由主义、反资本主义。也有学者提出不同意见，认为欧洲激进左翼处于社会民主党和绿党的左翼，包括共产主义政党、前共产主义政党和激进的社会主义政党，主张对当前的经济和社会制度进行彻底变革。

(3) The Perspective of Party Relations

（三）政党关系视角

Many scholars believe that the boundaries between the European radical left and other left-wing forces are blurred. They advocate clarifying its connotation by analyzing its relationship with other left-wing forces. For example, Li Qiqing divides the political forces in Western Europe into five types: far right, right or conservative, left, radical left, and far left. Overall, the European radical left is a force opposing capitalism. The European radical left believes that capitalism requires drastic changes and advocates using legal struggle to oppose capitalism. Lin Deshan, based on political consciousness, modes of action, and political influence, divides European left-wing parties into three types: moderate left, radical left, and extreme left. He believes that the European radical left includes communist parties in some countries and political forces that identify more with traditional left-wing political methods. Against the backdrop of the increasing centrism of social democratic parties, the European radical left inherits to a greater extent a series of policy propositions of post-war social democratic parties under the principle of "democratic socialism." Tian Dewen divides European left-wing forces into centre-left, radical left, and emerging left. He believes that the European radical left adheres to the ideologically more left-wing "democratic socialism," but in terms of advocating reform and opposing revolution, there is no fundamental difference from the centre-left. For a long time, it has been difficult for the radical left to enter the political mainstream, mainly exerting influence as a protest party. Zeng Zhisheng further divides the left wing of the political spectrum into moderate left, radical left, extreme left, and rebellious left, defining European radical left parties as communist parties of various countries, using Marxism-Leninism as their ideological weapon for transforming society. Overall, scholars mostly define the European radical left from the level of party politics, with a few interpreting it from a broader perspective including parties, non-party organizations, subcultures, etc. Differences in the division of European left-wing forces lead to differences in the definition of the concept of the European radical left. Some scholars only have a vague understanding of the European radical left, mixing concepts such as radical left, far left, and extreme left.

许多学者认为，欧洲激进左翼与其他左翼的界限模糊不清，他们主张通过分析与其他左翼之间的关系来厘清内涵。例如，李其庆将西欧社会的政治力量分为五种：极右派、右派或保守派、左派、激进左翼、极左翼。总体来看，欧洲激进左翼是一支反对资本主义的力量，欧洲激进左翼认为资本主义需要经历剧烈的变革，主张采用合法斗争的方式反对资本主义。林德山按照政治意识、行动方式以及政治影响力，将欧洲左翼政党分为三类力量，即温和左翼、激进左翼和极端左翼，他认为，欧洲激进左翼包括一些国家的共产党和一些对传统左翼政治方式更为认同的政治力量，在社会民主党日益中间化的背景下，欧洲激进左翼更大程度上继承了战后社会民主党在“民主社会主义”原则下的一系列政策主张。田德文将欧洲左翼力量划分为中左翼、激进左翼和新兴左翼。他认为，欧洲激进左翼秉承意识形态上更左的“民主社会主义”，但在推崇改良、反对革命方面则与中左翼没有根本差别，长期以来很难进入政治主流，主要作为抗议党发挥影响。曾枝盛进一步把政治光谱的左翼划分为温和左翼、激进左翼、极端左翼和反叛左翼，将欧洲激进左翼政党定义为各国共产党，以马克思列宁主义作为自己改造社会的思想武器。总体看来，学者们多从政党政治层面来界定欧洲激进左翼，也有少数学者从政党、非政党组织、亚文化等更为宽泛的角度解读。对欧洲左翼力量划分的不同，导致对欧洲激进左翼概念的界定也有差异。一些学者仅对欧洲激进左翼进行模糊性的理解，将激进左翼、极左翼、极端左翼等概念混用。

European radical left parties are still in the process of formation and development. Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe [1]1 The author refers to the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe around 1989-1991., they were represented by communist parties. In the 1970s and 1980s, some European radical left forces began to absorb new political issues, giving rise to new European radical left forces. For example, the French Left Party included eco-socialism in its party platform, and the Swedish Left Party declared itself a feminist party. The 2008 financial crisis spurred the rise of a new wave of anti-establishment parties, such as the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) and Spain's Podemos party, which raised the banner of anti-austerity and anti-establishment to attract popular support. During the development process, the connotation of the European radical left has been constantly changing, and the definition of its concept should be a process that keeps pace with the times.

欧洲激进左翼政党还处于形成发展过程之中，苏联解体和东欧剧变之前，其以共产党为代表。二十世纪七八十年代，一些欧洲激进左翼开始吸收新政治议题，产生新的欧洲激进左翼，如法国左翼党将生态社会主义列入党纲之中，瑞典左翼党宣称自己是女性主义政党。2008年金融危机促进新一批反建制政党的崛起，如希腊激进左翼联盟、西班牙“我们能”党高举反紧缩、反建制旗帜，吸引民众支持。在发展过程中欧洲激进左翼的内涵不断变化，对其概念的界定应是一个与时俱进的过程。

II. Typology of the European Radical Left

二、欧洲激进左翼的类型划分

Although academia usually interprets the European radical left as political parties, some scholars generally divide it into three levels: parties, non-party organizations, and subcultures. At the party level, the European radical left is further divided into communist parties, green parties, democratic socialist parties, and social populist parties. At the non-party organizational level, the supporters of the European radical left are no longer entirely the working class; the decline in union membership, differences among leaders, and decreased political influence are the most obvious manifestations of the crisis of Western European communism. At the subcultural level, since the 1990s, new European radical left subcultures and social movements have emerged and actively unfolded in countries such as the UK, France, and Germany, involving major issues including animal rights, environmental protection, and anti-globalization. Most scholars, at the party level, classify the types of the European radical left according to criteria such as ideology, party origin, and policy choices. Common methods include dichotomies, trichotomies, and quadripartite divisions.

虽然学界通常将欧洲激进左翼作为政党来解释，但也有学者从总体上将其划分为政党、非政党组织和亚文化三个层面。在政党层面上，欧洲激进左翼又被划分为共产党、绿党、民主社会主义政党和社会民粹主义政党。在非政党组织层面上，欧洲激进左翼的支持者已不完全是工人阶级，工会成员减少、领导人之间的分歧和政治影响力下降是西欧共产主义危机最明显的表现。在亚文化层面上，自20世纪90年代以来，新的欧洲激进左翼亚文化和社会运动兴起，并在英法德等国积极展开，涉及的主要问题包括动物权利、环境保护、反全球化等。多数学者从政党层面，按照意识形态、政党起源、政策选择等标准划分欧洲激进左翼的类型，常见的有二分法、三分法和四分法。

(1) Dichotomy

（一）二分法

Before the end of the 1970s, communist parties occupied an important position in the political structures of some Western European countries. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the communist forces across Europe underwent varying degrees of transformation. Looking at the evolutionary trajectory of European communist parties, one part transformed into new-type radical left parties. Particularly in Nordic countries, these parties combined traditional left-wing issues with new social movements, especially ecologism—for example, the Left Alliance in Finland and the Left Party in Sweden. Another part transformed into democratic socialist parties. After mainstream social democratic parties adopted neoliberal programs and shifted to the right, these parties filled the gap they left behind—for example, the Left Party in Germany. Based on policy positions, Raúl Gómez et al. divide the Western European radical left into traditional anti-capitalist parties loyal to the communist position and modernized new left parties that have absorbed new political issues. Based on whether they retain a communist identity, George Charalambous divides European radical left parties into those that retain a communist identity, such as the Communist Party of Greece and the Progressive Party of Working People of Cyprus, and post-communist parties that have abandoned the communist identity label, such as the Left Alliance in Finland and the Left Party in Sweden. In discussing Western European alternative left parties and their development trends, Yu Haiqing points out that foreign scholars do not regard alternative left parties as an independent party family but merge them with communist parties under the label "radical left."

20世纪70年代末以前，共产党在一些西欧国家的政治结构中占有重要地位，苏东剧变后，整个欧洲的共产主义力量经历了不同程度的转型。从欧洲国家共产党的演进趋向来看，一部分共产党转型为新型激进左翼政党，特别是北欧国家的共产党，将传统左翼问题与新社会运动尤其是与生态主义相结合，如芬兰左翼联盟、瑞典左翼党等。另一部分共产党转型为民主社会主义政党，这些政党在主流社会民主党采用新自由主义计划右倾后，填补了其留下的空白，如德国左翼党。劳尔·戈麦斯等依据政策立场，将西欧激进左翼划分为忠诚于共产主义立场的传统反资本主义政党和吸纳了新政治议题的现代化新左翼政党。乔治·查拉兰波斯依据是否保留共产主义身份，将欧洲激进左翼政党划分为保留共产主义身份的政党，如希腊共产党、塞浦路斯劳动人民进步党等；抛弃了共产主义身份标签的后共产主义政党，如芬兰左翼联盟、瑞典左翼党等。于海青在论述西欧替代左翼政党及其发展走向时指出，国外学者并未将替代左翼政党视为独立的政党家族，将其与共产党合并称为激进左翼。

(2) Threefold Classification

（二）三分法

These scholars argue that the European radical left presents a pluralistic state. Based on political ideology, some scholars divide the European radical left into three categories: traditional Marxist-Leninist parties, red-green parties, and democratic socialist parties. From the perspective of the parties' historical origins, some European radical left parties evolved from communist parties or former communist parties; some split off from the left wing of social democratic parties in certain countries; and some were formed after the 1980s through the union of traditional left-wing forces with radical groups that developed alongside new social movements. These different types of parties exert different influences in national political life. Some scholars combine these classification factors. Li Mingming et al., following ideological and policy tendencies, divide the European radical left into orthodox communist parties, reform communist parties, and red-green alliances. Other scholars, based on party origins and ideological characteristics, divide European radical left parties into traditional Marxist-Leninist parties, reform communist parties, and red-green parties. Mogens Pedersen proposes a party life-cycle theory, arguing that a party's development must pass through the thresholds of declaration, authorization, representation, and relevance. Based on this standard, Wang Congcong classifies the European radical left: stronger parties have crossed the representation threshold and entered national parliaments, such as the French Communist Party and the German Left Party; among the radical parties that have crossed the representation threshold, some have crossed the relevance threshold and entered government, influencing government composition and policy, such as the Progressive Party of Working People of Cyprus and the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) in Greece.

这些学者认为，欧洲激进左翼呈现出一种多元状态。依据政治意识形态，有学者将欧洲激进左翼划分为三类：传统马列主义政党、红绿政党和民主社会主义政党。从党的历史渊源来看，一部分欧洲激进左翼由共产党或前共产党演变而来，一部分由一些国家社会民主党的左翼力量分化而来，还有一部分政党是20世纪80年代后，由传统左翼力量与随着新社会运动发展起来的激进团体联合而成，这些不同类型的政党在国家政治生活中产生着不同影响。一些学者将这些分类因素综合起来考虑。李明明等按照意识形态和政策倾向将欧洲激进左翼划分为正统共产党、改革共产主义政党以及红绿联盟。还有学者基于党的起源和政党意识形态特征，将欧洲激进左翼政党划分为传统马列主义政党、改革共产党以及红绿政党。莫根斯·彼得森提出政党生命周期理论，认为政党的发展需要经过宣布门槛、准许门槛、代表权门槛和重要性门槛。王聪聪依据这一标准对欧洲激进左翼进行分类，有实力较强的政党跨过了代表权门槛，进入全国议会，如法国共产党、德国左翼党；在已通过代表权门槛的激进政党中，有通过了重要性门槛进入政府，对政府组成和政府政策产生影响，如塞浦路斯劳动人民进步党、希腊激进左翼联盟。

(3) Fourfold Classification

（三）四分法

The classic classification of the European radical left comes from Luke March. Based on ideological stance, he divides the European radical left into four main subgroups: communist parties, democratic socialist parties, socialist populist parties, and social populist parties. Most scholars adopt this classification, though some propose different methods, dividing the European radical left into traditional communist parties, radical socialist parties, social populist parties, and red-green parties. Taking into account party origins, ideological characteristics, and current development, some scholars divide the European radical left into traditional communist parties, successor parties of communist parties (democratic left parties), party alliances or newly established "new left" parties, and "red-green" parties with strong "new politics" concerns. Overall, the classification of European radical left types is diverse, but the classification criteria are relatively concentrated, mostly based on party origins, ideology, policy positions, or a mixture of these criteria. Each classification has its strengths and weaknesses. Although most European radical left parties developed from communist parties, after the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the financial crisis, significant differences have emerged within the European radical left. Classifying solely by party origins can easily lead to underestimating the development and changes of the European radical left. Using only a party's ideology or policy positions as a classification standard also has shortcomings. Generally, a party's ideology and policy positions are unified, but the development and changes of parties in the twenty-first century have shown a disconnect between the two. Some parties, while firmly opposing capitalism and neoliberalism in their party programs, adopt relatively moderate policies in actual policy implementation.

对欧洲激进左翼的经典分类来自卢克·马奇，他根据意识形态立场，把欧洲激进左翼划分为四个主要的亚群体：共产主义政党、民主社会主义政党、民粹社会主义政党和社会民粹主义政党。多数学者采用这一分类方式，也有学者提出不同分类方法，将欧洲激进左翼划分为传统共产党、激进的社会主义政党、社会民粹主义政党和红绿政党。考虑到政党的起源、意识形态特征以及当前发展状况，有学者将欧洲激进左翼分为传统共产党、共产党的后继党（民主左翼政党）、政党联盟或新成立的“新左翼”政党以及具有强烈“新政治”关切的“红绿”政党。总体来看，对欧洲激进左翼类型的划分呈现多样化，但划分标准较集中，多从党的起源、意识形态、政策立场或这些标准的混合来划分，这些划分各有优劣。多数欧洲激进左翼，虽然都是从共产党发展而来，但在经历苏东剧变和金融危机之后，欧洲激进左翼内部呈现出较大差异，仅从党的起源对来进行分类，容易对欧洲激进左翼的发展变化估计不足。单以政党的意识形态或政策立场作为划分标准也存在不足，一般而言，政党的意识形态和政策立场是相统一的，但二十一世纪政党的发展变化已显示出两者之间存在着脱节，一些政党虽然在党纲中坚称反对资本主义和新自由主义，但在实际的政策执行时却采用相对缓和的政策。

3. Ideological Appeals and Policy Positions of the European Radical Left

三、欧洲激进左翼的意识形态诉求及政策立场

The policies and ideology of the European radical left showed marked changes before and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the economic crisis of 2008. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the European radical left's identification with democracy declined, it abandoned the planned economy, and it emphasized post-materialism while adhering to Marxism. After the economic crisis of 2008, the European radical left began to emphasize political authority and revived planned economy policies. The current policy positions of the European radical left mainly include the following aspects:

欧洲激进左翼的政策和意识形态，在1991年苏联解体和2008年经济危机前后表现出明显变化。1991年苏联解体后，欧洲激进左翼对民主的认同下降，放弃计划经济，在坚持马克思主义的基础上强调后物质主义。在2008年经济危机后，欧洲激进左翼开始强调政治权威，重拾计划经济政策。当今欧洲激进左翼的政策立场主要包含以下几个方面：

First, in the economic sphere, it supports government control of the economy, emphasizes that the government should formulate long-term economic plans, opposes the free market economy, advocates income redistribution, protects collective economic and social rights, opposes austerity policies, and argues that the government's current policies rescue the main culprits of the crisis (financial institutions) while making the people bear the consequences of the crisis, exacerbating social inequality and poverty.

第一，在经济领域支持政府管控经济，强调政府应制定长期经济计划，反对自由市场经济，主张收入再分配，保护集体经济和社会权利(30)，反对紧缩政策，认为政府现行政策在援救危机主凶（金融机构）的同时却要民众来承受危机的恶果，加剧了社会不平等和贫困。

Second, in the political sphere, it supports direct and participatory democracy, improves administrative efficiency, emphasizes decentralization, advocates establishing a broad progressive united front, creating a permanent annual European political forum, and promoting the integration of European radical left forces on the basis of diversity.

第二，在政治领域支持直接和参与式民主，提高行政效率，强调去集中化(32)，主张建立广泛的进步统一战线，创办永久性年度欧洲政治论坛，在多样性基础上促进欧洲激进左翼力量的融合。

Third, in ideology, it criticizes neoliberalism and opposes the underlying values of capitalism. After the outbreak of the debt crisis, the European radical left strongly criticized capitalism, and its proposals for safeguarding the interests of the masses attracted significant public attention.

第三，在意识形态上批判新自由主义，反对资本主义的潜在价值观。债务危机爆发后，欧洲激进左翼强烈批评了资本主义，其所提出的维护大众利益的主张受到民众的极大关注。

Fourth, in the cultural and social sphere, it opposes cuts to welfare, advocates building a welfare state, defends existing social security and healthcare systems, establishes minimum living standards, expands women's rights, protects the ecological environment, opposes the increasing privatization of education, health, and transport, advocates fair distribution of resources, strives for equality, protects the rights of marginalized groups such as immigrants and the unemployed, opposes established political and economic elites, opposes racial and gender discrimination, and pursues social justice.

第四，在文化社会领域反对削减福利，提倡建立福利国家，捍卫现有社会保障和医疗体系，建立最低生活标准，扩大妇女权利，保护生态环境，反对教育、卫生和运输日益私有化，提倡资源公平分配，争取平等，保护移民、失业者等被排斥者的权利，反对既定政治经济精英，反对种族和性别歧视，追求社会正义。

Fifth, on globalization, it opposes the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" and opposes the plunder of financial capital on a global scale.

第五，在全球化上反对新自由主义的“华盛顿共识”，反对金融资本在全球范围内的掠夺。

Sixth, on European integration, it questions the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty, and the Treaty of Lisbon, arguing that the European Union restricts the autonomous rights of member states, fosters xenophobia, racism, and fascism, advocates building a peaceful, democratic, and social Europe, advocates leaving the European Union, and argues that the financial crisis is the result of imperialist policies, with the European Union being the representative of those imperialist policies. Before the 1960s, the European radical left unconditionally opposed European integration. After the 1960s, some European radical left parties, out of electoral strategy and the need to enter government, shifted to "soft Euroscepticism."

第六，在欧洲一体化问题上，质疑《罗马条约》、《马斯特里赫特条约》和《里斯本条约》，认为欧盟限制了各国的自主权利，助长了排外主义、种族主义和法西斯主义，提倡建立一个和平的、民主的、社会的欧洲，主张脱离欧盟，认为金融危机是帝国主义政策的结果，而欧盟则是帝国主义政策的代表。20世纪60年代之前，欧洲激进左翼对欧洲一体化持无条件反对态度，20世纪60年代之后，一些欧洲激进左翼出于选举战略和进入政府的需要转为“软疑欧”。

Seventh, in foreign policy, it opposes US hegemonism and its series of foreign wars, opposes NATO, has achieved relative cohesion on international issues, opposes international free trade agreements, and advocates that countries cooperate to solve issues of common concern in support of internationalism.

第七，在对外政策上反对美国的霸权主义及其一系列对外战争，反对北约，在国际议题上取得了相对凝聚力，反对国际自由贸易协定，主张各国协作努力解决共同关心的问题以支持国际主义。

Overall, after socialism suffered major setbacks, most members of the European radical left family developed a strong interest in other non-socioeconomic issues. In the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, the European radical left added many issues related to post-materialism, multiculturalism, peace, freedom, and so forth. Most of the European radical left moderated their stance on classic left-right core issues but still distinguished themselves from other parties through this. The shift from old issues to new left-wing issues mainly occurred in Nordic countries.

总体来看，在社会主义遭受巨大挫折之后，欧洲激进左翼家族的大多数成员对其他非社会经济问题产生了浓厚兴趣。在20世纪90年代和21世纪头10年，欧洲激进左翼增加了许多有关后物质主义、多元文化、和平、自由等的议题。大部分欧洲激进左翼在经典的左、右派核心问题上态度缓和，但仍通过此与其他政党区别开来。从旧议题到新左翼议题的变化主要出现在北欧国家。

IV. Comparative Analysis of the European Radical Left and the European Radical Right

四、欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的比较分析

The European radical left and the European radical right occupy the left and right ends of the political spectrum. In recent years, their electoral support has been rising, and they have become important political forces in many European countries. The French National Front, the Dutch Party for Freedom, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), and the Spanish party Podemos have all made electoral gains. Research shows that the European radical left and the European radical right share both commonalities and differences.

欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼处于政治光谱的左右两端，近年来选举支持正在上升，并在欧洲许多国家成为重要的政治力量。法国国民阵线、荷兰自由党、希腊激进左翼联盟、西班牙“我们能”党都在选举上取得了进展。研究表明，欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼既有共同点又存在差异性。

(I) Commonalities

（一）共同性

Regarding the commonalities between the European radical left and the European radical right, academia mainly interprets them from two aspects: first, basic attributes. The European radical left and the European radical right share four common basic attributes: Euroscepticism, anti-globalization, anti-establishment character, and populism. Although the reasons for these four attributes differ between them, they are united through their opposition to the form of European integration and the globalization process, and their criticism of the current liberal democratic system and elite structure. Furthermore, nationalism transcends party lines, constituting a common feature of the Euroscepticism of both the European radical right and the European radical left. Second, the voter groups supporting them. In stark contrast to mainstream European parties, both the European radical left and the European radical right focus on representing socially and economically disadvantaged groups. These groups feel disappointed with mainstream parties, angry at traditional politics and the economy, and harbor strong distrust towards politicians and political institutions.

对于欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的共同性，学界主要从两方面进行解读：一是基本属性。欧洲激进左翼和欧洲激进右翼具有欧洲怀疑主义、反全球化、反体制性和民粹主义这四个共同的基本属性。虽然它们产生这四个属性的原因有所不同，但它们通过对欧洲一体化、全球化进程形式的反对和对当前自由民主制度、精英结构的批评而团结在一起。此外，民族主义跨越党派界线，构成了欧洲激进右翼和欧洲激进左翼欧洲怀疑主义的共同特征。二是支持二者的选民群体。与欧洲主流政党形成鲜明对比的是，欧洲激进左翼和欧洲激进右翼都专注于代表社会和经济弱势群体，这些群体对主流政党感到失望，对传统政治和经济感到愤怒，并对政客和政治机构产生强烈的不信任。

(II) Differences

（二）差异性

The differences between the European radical left and the European radical right are mainly manifested in two aspects: First, from the perspective of basic attributes, Andreas Fagerholm summarizes the distinction between the two from the angles of core definition and ideal definition. The ideal, typical European radical right positions itself on the socio-cultural right by emphasizing nativism, authoritarianism, and traditional ethics, and positions itself at the center of the socio-economic spectrum by accepting the free market and economic intervention. The ideal, typical European radical left positions itself on the socio-economic left by emphasizing opposition to capitalism, and positions itself on the socio-cultural left by emphasizing feminism, liberal ethics, multiculturalism, and ecologism. Nanou Kyriaki et al. emphasize that although both possess attributes of nationalism and Euroscepticism, their starting points differ. The nationalism of the European radical right, i.e., ethnic nationalism, is rooted in national supremacy. It views the EU as a heterogeneous entity composed of several different countries, with labor and cultural flows among EU member states, which runs counter to the mission of the European radical right. The primary task of the European radical right is to protect the home country from foreign influence. The European radical left upholds civic nationalism, opposes imperialism and its domination, and views the EU as a tool of the elite class and power rule, at the expense of the masses. The European radical left levels strong criticism against all other parties, claiming these parties are led by corrupt privileged elites who cooperate with imperialist forces. Second, from the perspective of voter groups, the issues of concern to the voter groups of the two differ. Supporters of the European radical left mainly focus on social equality; they often hold a hostile attitude towards capitalism, advocate for intervening in the economy and promoting economic equality. In contrast, voters supporting the European radical right focus on immigration issues. Regarding voter characteristics, compared with the European radical right, supporters of the European radical left have relatively higher levels of education and exhibit altruistic tendencies. From a political psychology perspective, people with altruistic tendencies often care about welfare and solidarity, which prompts voting for the European radical left.

欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的差异主要表现在两个方面：一是从基本属性来看，安德烈亚斯·法格霍姆通过核心定义和理想定义这两个角度，对两者的区别进行了概括。理想的、典型的欧洲激进右翼通过强调本土主义、威权主义和传统伦理，定位于社会文化的右翼，并通过接受自由市场和经济干预，定位于社会经济的中心。理想的、典型的欧洲激进左翼通过强调反对资本主义而定位于社会经济左翼，并通过强调女权主义、自由伦理、多元文化主义和生态主义而定位于社会文化左翼。纳努·基里亚基等强调，虽然两者都具有民族主义和欧洲怀疑主义属性，但其出发点不同。欧洲激进右翼的民族主义，即种族民族主义植根于民族至上主义，认为欧盟是一个异质实体，由若干不同的国家组成，各欧盟成员国之间存在劳动力和文化的流动，这与欧洲激进右翼的使命背道而驰，欧洲激进右翼的首要任务是保护本国不受外国影响。欧洲激进左翼秉持公民民族主义，反对帝国主义及其统治，认为欧盟是精英阶层和强权统治的工具，以牺牲大众阶层为代价。欧洲激进左翼对所有其他政党提出了强烈批评，声称这些政党由腐败的特权精英领导，与帝国主义势力合作。二是从选民群体的角度来看，两者的选民群体所关注的问题有所不同，欧洲激进左翼的支持者主要关注社会平等，他们往往对资本主义持敌视态度，主张干预经济、促进经济平等，相比之下，支持欧洲激进右翼的选民专注于移民问题。就选民特征而言，与欧洲激进右翼相比，欧洲激进左翼的支持者受教育程度相对较高，且表现出利他主义倾向。从政治心理学角度来说，具有利他倾向的人往往关注福利和团结，这促使了对欧洲激进左翼的投票。

V. Factors Influencing the Development of the European Radical Left and Its Prospects

五、影响欧洲激进左翼发展的因素及其前景

Kaare Strøm argues that political parties have different developmental goals; ideal-typical goals are office, policy, or votes, and sometimes these goals may overlap. The success or failure of a party is constrained by multiple factors, such as country and region. In summary, the factors influencing the future development of the European radical left are related to the parties themselves and voter groups, and changes in the external environment also permeate the influence on parties and voters.

卡雷·斯特罗姆认为，政党有不同的发展目标，理想型目标是职位、政策或选票，有时这些目标可能重叠。政党的成败受制于多方面因素，如国家、地区等。归结起来，影响欧洲激进左翼未来发展的因素与政党本身和选民群体有关，外界环境的变化也渗透在对政党和选民的影响当中。

(I) Theory of Internal and External Party Factors

（一）政党内外因素说

The success or failure of the European radical left is related to the external environment faced by the party and changes within the party itself. External factors are the best explanation for the electoral breakthrough of the European radical left, while internal factors can more effectively explain the persistence of electoral achievements.

欧洲激进左翼的成败与政党所面临的外部环境及政党自身变化有关。外部因素是欧洲激进左翼选举突破的最佳解释，而内部因素能更有效地解释选举成就的持续性。

The influence of external factors on parties. From the perspective of the external environment faced by parties, it is influenced by historical political culture, economic development, and party competition. First, history and political culture affect the importance of specific issues among voters, becoming a "breeding ground" for specific parties. Countries with deep social divisions and ideological splits are considered capable of providing space for the European radical left to operate. For example, the persistent socioeconomic and ideological divisions and political polarization in France and Italy help sustain the existence of the strongest communist parties. Second, the European radical left's emphasis on economic and employment security issues can resonate in countries with poor overall economic conditions, especially where government performance is unfavorable. Historically, communist parties thrived in underdeveloped countries with socioeconomic problems. Third, social democratic parties, green parties, and the European radical right form strong competitive relationships with the European radical left. When these competitors are weaker, the European radical left tends to be more successful.

外部因素对政党的影响。从政党所面临的外部环境来看，它受到历史政治文化、经济发展及政党竞争的影响。第一，历史和政治文化影响着特定议题在选民中的重要性，成为特定政党的“滋生地”，那些存在深刻社会分歧和意识形态分裂的国家，被认为能够为欧洲激进左翼提供活动空间，如法国、意大利持续的社会经济和意识形态分裂以及政治两极化有助于维持最强大的共产党存在。第二，欧洲激进左翼对经济和就业保障议题的强调，能够在那些总体经济条件较差，尤其是政府表现不利的国家产生共鸣，从历史上看，共产党在存在社会经济问题的欠发达国家蓬勃发展。第三，社会民主党、绿党和欧洲激进右翼与欧洲激进左翼形成了强烈的竞争关系，当它们实力较弱时，欧洲激进左翼会更成功。

Internal party factors. First, past experience influences the success of the European radical left. European radical left parties that once governed former communist countries also achieved relatively greater success in post-communist environments. If a European radical left party entered parliament in the previous election cycle, it will gain more votes than a party that did not enter parliament; entering parliament grants the party greater exposure and resources. Second, the electoral threshold is a powerful factor hindering the European radical left. Generally, higher electoral thresholds in Eastern Europe are seen as a contributing factor to the marginalization of the European radical left. Third, ideological and policy adjustments influence the success of the European radical left. The drastic changes in Moscow's policy line in the 20th century led to the failure of communism. In the context of 21st-century globalization anxiety and modernization crises, anti-EU stance has become a prominent identity marker for the European radical left to promote vote gains. Fourth, party leadership affects the stability and attractiveness of the party. If pragmatic party leaders control the party organization and can centralize the party, professionalize it, or unify its core values, then these parties can flexibly respond to the external environment without fear of splits, such as the Progressive Party of Working People in Cyprus and the Left Bloc in Portugal. Furthermore, the charisma of leaders also brings attractiveness to the party and increases votes, but over-reliance on a single populist leader also carries risks, the most obvious case being the Scottish Socialist Party.

政党内部因素。第一，过去经历影响着欧洲激进左翼的成功。曾执掌过前共产主义国家的欧洲激进左翼在后共产主义环境中也取得了相对较大的成功。如果一个欧洲激进左翼曾在上届选举期内进入议会，那么它将比未进入议会的政党获得更多选票，进入议会将赋予政党更大的曝光度和资源。第二，选举门槛是一个阻碍欧洲激进左翼的强大因素。通常而言，东欧更高的选举门槛被视作欧洲激进左翼边缘化的推动因素。第三，意识形态和政策调整影响欧洲激进左翼的成功。20世纪莫斯科政策路线的急剧变化导致共产主义的失败，在21世纪全球化焦虑和现代化危机的情况下，反欧盟已成为欧洲激进左翼显著的身份标识，以促进选票的增加。第四，政党领导层影响政党的稳定性和吸引力。如果是务实的政党领袖控制党组织，并能够将党集中起来，实现党的职业化，或将其核心价值观统一起来，那么这些党就可以灵活地应对外界环境，不必担心分裂，如塞浦路斯劳动人民进步党和葡萄牙左翼集团。此外，领袖的魅力也为政党带来吸引力，增加选票，但过于依赖单个民粹主义领袖也会带来风险，最明显的案例是苏格兰社会党。

(II) Voter Perspective Theory

（二）选民视角说

From the voter level, the basic characteristics of voters, and voters' personal attitudes, especially their attitudes when facing changes in the external environment, influence their support for parties.

从选民层面来说，选民的基本特征，选民个人的态度，尤其是在面临外部环境变化时的态度影响着自身对政党的支持。

The influence of the external environment on voters. Voters are a key factor affecting the electoral success or failure of the European radical left, and the future development of the European radical left cannot be separated from voter support. Reviewing the existing literature, it can be found that changes in the external environment influence voters’ attitudes and, to a certain extent, determine whether they vote for the European radical left. First, the impact of the economic environment. Scholars differ on the role of this influencing factor. Laurie Beaudonnet et al. hold the deepening hypothesis, arguing that poor economic conditions are a favorable factor for the success of the European radical left, and that voters with negative evaluations of the economic situation tend to support the European radical left, a situation that becomes more pronounced during economic crises. However, some scholars argue that the electoral support of the European radical left is related to social structure. In countries with higher levels of social mobility, voters do not need to be overly concerned about income disparity, and the influence of the economy is smaller at such times. In countries with lower levels of social mobility, support for the European radical left tends to be more widespread.[28] Matthijs Rooduijn et al. hold the risk-aversion hypothesis, arguing that many European radical left parties lack governing experience, and voting for them is a risky strategy. Therefore, less affluent citizens will only vote for the European radical left when the external environment is more favorable. For the European radical left, because it focuses more on economic issues, when the overall sociocultural environment is good—that is, when the immigration issue is not prominent—and the socioeconomic environment is unfavorable, individuals in poorer economic conditions tend to vote for the European radical left. Second, the impact of historical tradition. Some scholars argue that the historical tradition of authoritarianism also influences voters, and that people living in countries with an authoritarian tradition are more likely to support the European radical left. Scholars differ on this issue. Some scholars argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialist regimes shattered the European public’s illusions about socialism, and that the legacy of communist regimes actually hinders support for the European radical left.

外部环境对选民的影响。选民是影响欧洲激进左翼选举成败的关键因素，欧洲激进左翼的未来发展离不开选民的支持。梳理已有文献，可以发现，外界环境的变化影响选民的态度，在一定程度上决定了是否投票给欧洲激进左翼。第一，经济环境的影响。对于这一影响因素的作用，不同学者之间产生了分歧。劳里·博多内等持深化假设，认为糟糕的经济状况是欧洲激进左翼成功的一个有利因素，对经济状况持负面评价的选民倾向于支持欧洲激进左翼，这种情况在经济危机期间表现得更加明显。然而，也有学者认为，欧洲激进左翼的选举支持与社会结构有关，在社会流动程度较高的国家里，选民不必过分担心收入差距，此时经济的影响作用较小，在社会流动程度较低的国家里，对欧洲激进左翼的支持会更普遍。28马泰斯·罗德金等持风险规避假设，认为许多欧洲激进左翼缺乏执政经验，投票给它是一种危险的策略。因此，富裕程度较低的公民只有在外部环境更有利的情况下才会投票给欧洲激进左翼。对于欧洲激进左翼来说，由于它更多关注经济议题，因此当总体社会文化环境较好，即移民问题不突出，而社会经济环境不利时，经济状况较差的个人才会倾向于投票给欧洲激进左翼。第二，历史传统的影响。有学者认为，威权主义的历史传统也对选民产生了影响，生活在有威权主义传统的国家的人更可能支持欧洲激进左翼。针对这一问题，学者之间产生了分歧，有学者认为，苏东剧变打破了欧洲民众对社会主义的幻想，共产主义政权的遗产实际上阻碍了对欧洲激进左翼的支持。

Internal factors among voters. Voters who support the European radical left can be summarized to include the working class, the new middle class, low-income earners, the unemployed, trade union members, urban residents, non-natives, young voters, and the non-religious; they possess distinctive characteristics. However, scholars differ on whether they are manual laborers and on the level of education. Luis Ramiro argues that supporters of the European radical left also include manual laborers in state-owned enterprises, and that the influence of education is relatively complex, presenting a non-linear relationship. Marc Visser, on the other hand, points out that whether one is a manual laborer has little impact on electoral support for the European radical left, and that the influence of education is linear, with those who have received higher education being more likely to support the European radical left. This may reflect that, compared to those with lower levels of education, people with higher education are more inclined to accept more progressive values. The divergence between the two scholars may be caused by differences in the samples selected. Both used data from the European Social Survey (ESS), but the years and number of parties selected differed. In fact, influenced by differences in the internal types of the European radical left, there are considerable differences between different countries, and even between different European radical left parties within the same country, and their voter groups also show significant differences. Attitudes towards practical issues also influence voters’ decisions to vote for the European radical left. Dissatisfaction with democracy, opposition to European Union membership, and opposition to economic globalization all promote voters to vote for the European radical left.

选民内部因素。支持欧洲激进左翼的选民，归纳起来可以包括工人阶级、新兴中产阶级、低收入者、失业者、工会成员、城市居民、非本地人、年轻选民、不信仰宗教者，他们具有独特的特征。但在是否是体力劳动者和受教育程度上，学者间出现了分歧。路易斯·拉米罗认为，欧洲激进左翼的支持者还包括国有企业的体力劳动者，教育的影响则相对复杂，呈现的是非线性关系。马克·维瑟则指出，是否是体力劳动者对欧洲激进左翼的选举支持影响不大，教育的影响是线性的，受过高等教育的人更有可能支持欧洲激进左翼，这可能反映出，与低教育程度的人相比，受过高等教育的人更倾向于接受更进步的价值观。两位学者之间的分歧可能是由所选样本的差异导致的，他们都采用了欧洲社会调查（ESS）的数据，但选取的年份和政党数量有所不同。事实上，受欧洲激进左翼内部类型差异的影响，不同国家、甚至同一国家的不同欧洲激进左翼之间呈现较大差异，其选民群体之间也表现出较大不同。对现实问题的态度也影响选民对欧洲激进左翼的投票。对民主不满、反对欧盟成员国身份、反对经济全球化都会促进选民投票给欧洲激进左翼。

Regarding the development prospects of the European radical left, scholars generally believe that its development path will be difficult and tortuous. Some scholars have also put forward suggestions for its future development. Marcello Musto argues that the European radical left must, on the basis of absorbing existing experiences and lessons, build its future prospects through the following aspects: first, formulating policy plans beneficial to workers; second, establishing a basic social security system; third, reversing the privatization process; fourth, abolishing the euro agreement through national referendums; fifth, launching a series of political movements and transnational movements to win broad support; sixth, taking root in factories and rebuilding connections with workers. Babak Amini, on the other hand, proposes that the European radical left needs to resist de-radicalization and the transformation towards social democratic market-based welfarism, formulate clear, distinctive, and pragmatic policies to confront neoliberalism, establish long-term radical goals while supporting progressive social movements, and at the same time strengthen the power of the European radical left.[5]

对于欧洲激进左翼的发展前景，学者们普遍认为，它的发展道路将是艰难曲折的，也有学者对其未来发展提出了建议。马塞罗·默斯托认为，欧洲激进左翼必须在吸收既有经验教训的基础上，通过以下几个方面来建设未来前景：一是要制定有利于劳动者的政策计划；二是建立基本的社会保障体系；三是颠覆私有化进程；四是借助全民公投废除欧元协议；五是发起一系列政治运动和跨国运动，争取广泛支持；六是扎根工厂，重建与工人的联系。巴巴克·阿米尼则提出，欧洲激进左翼需要抵制去激进化和向以社会民主市场为基础的福利主义的转变，要制定明确、独特、务实的政策来对抗新自由主义，在支持进步社会运动的同时，建立长期的激进目标，同时要加强欧洲激进左翼的力量。5

VI. Evaluation of the Current State of Research and Further Prospects

六、对研究现状的评析与进一步展望

Overall, compared to research on the European radical right, the research literature on the European radical left is relatively sparse, with case studies predominating. Reviewing the existing literature, it can be found that research on the European radical left has mostly concentrated in the period after the 2008 financial crisis, reaching two peaks of research activity especially after the 2009 and 2014 European Parliament elections. In recent years, with the rise of radical parties, comparative studies of the European radical left and the European radical right, as well as studies on the development status of the European radical left, have been increasing.

总体而言，相较于对欧洲激进右翼的研究，对欧洲激进左翼的研究文献相对较少，以个案研究为主。梳理已有文献，可以发现对欧洲激进左翼的研究多集中在2008年金融危机之后，尤其是在历经2009年和2014年两次欧洲议会选举之后达到两次研究高潮。近年来，激化政党崛起，对欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的比较研究和欧洲激进左翼的发展状况研究不断增多。

(I) Achievements of Existing Research

（一）已有研究所取得的成就

First, research is no longer limited to case studies and has begun to focus on holistic research. The academic community has come to regard the European radical left as a party family, but also recognizes that there are considerable differences within it. From the perspectives of party origins, policy positions, and ideology, the European radical left can be further divided into different sub-types, which hold different positions on issues such as European integration and attitudes towards capitalism. Analyzing the European radical left as a whole represents a shift in research direction following changes in the European situation, which is conducive to exploring the radical characteristics of European party politics from an overall perspective and analyzing the future development trends of European party politics.

第一，不再局限于个案研究，开始注重整体研究。学界已将欧洲激进左翼作为一个政党家族看待，但也意识到其内部存在较大差异，从党的起源、政策立场、意识形态等方面，欧洲激进左翼内部又可划分为不同的子类型，这些子类型在面对欧洲一体化、对资本主义的态度等问题时存在不同立场。将欧洲激进左翼作为一个整体分析，是紧随欧洲形势变化所作出的研究方向的转变，有利于从整体上探讨欧洲政党政治的激进特点，分析欧洲政党政治的未来发展走向。

Second, research no longer analyzes the European radical left in isolation, but has begun to understand the European radical left from the perspective of its relationship with other types of parties. The European radical left exists within the broader context of European party politics, and strategic changes by other types of parties are important factors influencing the electoral performance of the European radical left. Against the backdrop of the rise of radical parties, existing research results focus on analyzing the relationship between the European radical left and the European radical right, with the main focus being on the similarities and differences between the European radical left and the European radical right, including their characteristics, policy propositions, ideological stances, the characteristics of their voter groups, and the influence of changes in the external environment.

第二，不再孤立地分析欧洲激进左翼本身，开始注重从欧洲激进左翼与其他类型政党的关系的角度认识欧洲激进左翼。欧洲激进左翼处在欧洲政党政治这个大背景之中，其他类型政党的策略变化是影响欧洲激进左翼选举的重要因素。在激化政党崛起的大背景下，现有研究成果注重分析欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的关系，其主要着眼点在于欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的异同，包括两者的特征、政策主张、意识形态立场、选民群体的特性以及外部环境变化所产生的影响作用。

Third, accurate judgments and predictions have been made regarding the actual situation and future development of the European radical left. Existing research results have discerned the current difficulties faced by the European radical left. Under the influence of populism, the European radical left faces the dilemma of participating in government while maintaining its radical characteristics. Furthermore, its internal heterogeneity also hinders the unification of the European radical left’s forces. Scholars have made precise predictions regarding the future development prospects of the European radical left. In the future, the European radical left faces a more difficult and tortuous development path. This prediction is consistent with the actual situation. The results of the 2019 European Parliament elections showed that the influence of the European radical left had declined. The European United Left–Nordic Green Left group, representing it, actually lost 11 seats, with Spain’s “Podemos” party alone losing 5 seats. European politics is moving in a rightward trend, which poses a huge challenge to the European radical left.

第三，对欧洲激进左翼的现实状况和未来发展进行了准确判断和预测。现有研究成果洞察了欧洲激进左翼当前面临的困境，在民粹主义的影响下，欧洲激进左翼面临着参与政府和保持激进特点的两难困境。此外，其内部的异质性也阻碍了欧洲激进左翼力量的联合。对于欧洲激进左翼的未来发展前景，学者们进行了精准预测。未来，欧洲激进左翼面临着更加艰难、曲折的发展道路。这一预测与现实情况是相符合的，2019年欧洲议会选举结果表明，欧洲激进左翼的影响力有所下降，作为其代表的欧洲联合左翼—北欧绿色左翼党团实际上下降了11个席位，仅西班牙“我们能”党就减少了5个席位，欧洲政治正在沿着右倾化趋势迈进，这对欧洲激进左翼形成了巨大挑战。

Fourth, in terms of research methods, attention is paid to the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Domestic research concentrates on qualitative research, drawing conclusions by analyzing the party platforms, party constitutions, and historical election results of the European radical left. Foreign research mainly uses quantitative methods, primarily by utilizing data from the European Election Studies (EES), the European Social Survey (ESS), the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES), the Manifesto Project Data (MPD), the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP), the Eurobarometer, the European Manifesto Project (EMP), and the Manifesto Research Group (MRG) for quantitative analysis.

第四，在研究方法上注重定性与定量的结合。国内集中于定性研究，通过分析欧洲激进左翼的党纲、党章及历届选举结果得出结论。国外以定量研究为主，主要方式是利用欧洲选举研究（EES）、欧洲社会调查（ESS）、教堂山专家调查（CHES）、宣言项目数据（MPD）、比较政见研究（CMP）、欧洲晴雨表（Eurobarometer）、欧洲宣言项目（EMP）和政见研究组（MRG）的数据进行定量分析。

(II) Deficiencies in Existing Research

（二）现有研究存在的不足

In recent years, academic research on the European radical left has made significant progress, yet shortcomings remain, mainly manifested in the following aspects:

近年来学界关于欧洲激进左翼的研究取得重大进展，但仍存在不足之处，主要表现在：

Basic concepts have not yet been clarified. The current academic community defines the connotation of the European radical left from multiple perspectives, without forming a unified view. Moreover, due to differing classification criteria, various forms of subdivision of the internal subtypes of the European radical left have been carried out, which leads to deviations in the scope of academic research on the European radical left. Some scholars equate the European radical left with the far left or the alternative left, and some even include the Green parties within the category of the radical left.

基本概念尚未厘清。当前学界从多方视角界定了欧洲激进左翼的内涵，尚未形成统一观点，且因分类标准不同，对欧洲激进左翼内部子类型进行了多种形式的划分，这导致学界对欧洲激进左翼的研究范围存在偏差。一些学者将欧洲激进左翼等同于极左翼、替代左翼，甚至有学者将绿党列入激进左翼的范畴。

Research content requires further deepening. Among existing research results, there are relatively few that systematically sort out the historical development and evolution of the European radical left. This problem leads to a lack of systematic grasp of the European radical left within the academic community, affecting the understanding of its connotation and classification. Scholars tend to focus more on interpreting certain stage-specific issues and characteristics of the European radical left, such as the attitude of the European radical left toward European integration. Discussing a particular issue detached from the historical development and evolution of the European radical left easily leads to insufficient analysis and explanation of that issue. On the one hand, regarding relations with other political parties, academic research concentrates on the relationship between the European radical left and the European radical right, neglecting the study of relations with other types of political parties. On the other hand, there is a lack of comparative analysis of the European radical left by region. The radical left in Western Europe and Eastern Europe faces vastly different developmental conditions. Academic research focuses on the analysis of the Western European radical left, lacking introductions to the Eastern European radical left, and there are relatively few works conducting comparative studies between the two.

研究内容有待深入。现有研究成果中对欧洲激进左翼的历史发展演变进行系统梳理的较少，这一问题导致学界缺乏对欧洲激进左翼的系统把握，影响了对欧洲激进左翼内涵和分类的理解。学界更侧重于解读欧洲激进左翼的某些阶段性问题和特征，如欧洲激进左翼对欧洲一体化的态度。脱离欧洲激进左翼的历史发展演变讨论某一问题，容易对该问题的分析阐释不足。一方面，在与其他政党的关系上，学界集中于欧洲激进左翼与欧洲激进右翼的关系，忽视了与其他类型政党的关系研究。另一方面，缺乏对欧洲激进左翼的分地区比较分析。西欧和东欧的激进左翼面临截然不同的发展状况，学界聚焦于对西欧激进左翼的分析，缺乏对东欧激进左翼的介绍，对两者进行比较研究的文献较少。

Thirdly, the research perspective is relatively narrow. Existing academic research is limited to political science analysis, with insufficiently diverse research perspectives, leaving considerable room for exploration. For example, regarding the question of "factors influencing the development of the European radical left," the academic community concentrates on a political science perspective, analyzing its effects from three factors: political parties, voters, and the external environment. This analytical perspective is relatively singular, lacking historical, psychological, and mass communication angles, leading to a relatively insufficient analysis of this issue.

再次，研究视野较为狭窄。学界已有研究局限于政治学的分析，研究视角不够多元，还存在很大探索空间。例如，对于“影响欧洲激进左翼发展的因素”这一问题，学界集中于政治学视角，从政党、选民、外界环境三个因素分析其影响作用，这一分析视角较为单一，缺乏历史的、心理的、大众传播的角度，导致对该问题的分析相对不足。

(III) Further Reflections on the European Radical Left

（三）关于欧洲激进左翼的进一步思考

It is necessary to consolidate the research foundation of the European radical left on the basis of clarifying basic concepts. Currently, definitions of the European radical left vary. From the perspective of further deepening research, it is urgent to form some consensus-based definitions of its concept, clarify its internal connections, and consolidate the theoretical foundation of research.

需要在明晰基本概念的基础上夯实欧洲激进左翼的研究基础。目前，对欧洲激进左翼的定义各异，从进一步深化研究的角度来看，亟需对其概念形成一些共识性的界定，厘清其内部联系，夯实研究的理论基础。

It is necessary to enrich and deepen research content and expand the scope of research. First, attention should be paid to the systematic sorting of the evolution of the European radical left, which is conducive to enhancing the academic community's overall understanding of the European radical left and also provides support for scholars to predict the future development direction of political parties. Second, further attention should be paid to the relationship between the European radical left and mainstream parties, Green parties, and traditional communist parties, especially the impact of these parties on the elections of the European radical left. Attention should be paid to the relationship between the European radical left and mainstream parties. Some scholars believe that voting for the European radical left can be seen as a barometer of voter sentiment; when dissatisfaction with mainstream parties increases, votes for the European radical left increase. The 2014 European Parliament election confirmed this view. Attention should be paid to the relationship between the European radical left and Green parties. Judging from the 2019 election results, pro-European centrist liberal parties and ecological Green parties performed more prominently, reflecting the intensification of fragmentation in European party politics, where mainstream parties are no longer the most important factor affecting the European radical left. In light of the results of this European Parliament election, future research should focus on Green parties and their relationship with the European radical left. Attention should be paid to the relationship between the European radical left and traditional communist parties. Communist parties are the main force and source of the European radical left. With the development of European society, other forces have been added to the family of European radical left parties, but overall, the historical development of the European radical left and the development process of communist parties are mutually integrated and inseparable. Future research should strengthen the study of the relationship between the two, exploring the role of the European radical left in developing socialism and achieving communism. Third, comparative research on the radical left in Eastern and Western Europe should be strengthened, including typological classification, organizational evolution, policies, current situation, and development trends.

需要丰富和深化研究内容，拓展研究范围。第一，关注对欧洲激进左翼演变的系统梳理，有利于学界增强对欧洲激进左翼的整体认识，也为学者们预测政党未来发展方向提供支撑。第二，进一步关注欧洲激进左翼与主流政党、绿党、传统共产党的关系，特别是这些政党对欧洲激进左翼选举的影响。关注欧洲激进左翼与主流政党的关系。有学者认为，对欧洲激进左翼的投票可以被看作是选民意向的风向标，当对主流政党不满时，欧洲激进左翼选票增加,2014年的欧洲议会选举证实了这一观点。关注欧洲激进左翼与绿党的关系。从2019年的选举结果来看，亲欧的中间自由主义政党和生态主义绿党组织表现更为突出，这反映出欧洲政党政治碎片化加剧，主流政党不再是影响欧洲激进左翼的最重要因素。针对此次欧洲议会选举结果，未来研究应着重对绿党及其与欧洲激进左翼的关系研究。关注欧洲激进左翼与传统共产党的关系。共产党是欧洲激进左翼的主力和来源，随着欧洲社会的发展，欧洲激进左翼政党家族中又填充进其他力量，但总体来说，欧洲激进左翼的历史发展与共产党的发展历程是相互融合、不可分割的。未来应加强两者之间的关系研究，探讨欧洲激进左翼对发展社会主义、实现共产主义的作用。第三，加强对东、西欧激进左翼的比较研究，包括类型划分、组织演变、政策、现状、发展走向等。

Further expand research perspectives. Future research on the European radical left should integrate research concepts from multiple disciplines, comprehensively utilizing perspectives and methods from political science, history, sociology, psychology, communication studies, and other disciplines for analysis. For example, from the perspective of mass communication, attention can be paid to the impact of the internet and other communication media on the policies and voting of the European radical left; from the perspective of psychology, attention can be paid to the impact of voters' psychological changes on voting for the European radical left, etc. (Notes omitted)

进一步拓展研究视角。未来关于欧洲激进左翼的研究应融合多学科的研究理念，综合运用政治学、历史学、社会学、心理学、传播学等多学科视角、方法等进行分析。例如，可以从大众传播的角度，关注互联网等传播媒介对欧洲激进左翼政策、投票的影响，也可以从心理学的角度，关注选民的心理变化对欧洲激进左翼投票的影响等。（注释略）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑