What do you think?
Rate this book
Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism
No political party has every won an electoral majority on a program offering a socialist transformation of society. The authors explain why.
230 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1986
1 person is currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Adam Przeworski
45 books46 followersAdam Przeworski is the Carroll and Milton Professor of Politics and (by courtesy) Economics at New York University. Previously he taught at the University of Chicago, where he was the Martin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor, and held visiting appointments in India, Chile, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences since 1991, he is the recipient of the 1985 Socialist Review Book Award, the 1998 Gregory M. Luebbert Article Award, the 2001 Woodrow Wilson Prize, the 2010 Lawrence Longley Award, the 2010 Johan Skytte Prize, the 2018 Sakip Sabanci Award, and the 2018 Juan Linz Prize.. He recently published Why Bother with Elections? (London: Polity Press 2018).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 27, 2025
In the 19th century as the socialist movement grew in Europe, it faced a choice: whether to participate in elections. The anarchists said no. The remaining socialists waded into electoral battle. This book analyzes that decision and its consequences.
The worry was that participation in bourgeois elections would reduce the independence and radicalism of the working class. But the authors rightfully point out that political parties can also be agents of class formation, shaping the way that people think of politics. If a party emphasizes that they are organizing the working class, and brings together members of that class, this gives them a framework for making sense of the world.
The authors fit equations to election results in different European countries. They argue that the working class has never been a majority of the electorate in any country, which has forced socialist parties to appeal to non-working class voters. But there's a trade-off: the parties reduce the ideological salience of class and lose working class voters.
My main issue is that the authors define working class as only manual workers and their spouses. Even though they acknowledge that many socialists define working class as everyone who must sell their labor power to survive (which includes many white collar and service sector workers), they ignore this in their model.
It's true that socialist parties have reached out to non-workers, and the data show there are tradeoffs. But the authors don't analyze the rhetoric, policies, or structures that the parties used. Concluding that it's not possible to unite blue and white collar workers seems unjustified, especially since they only looked at data from 7 countries, all in Europe.
Noteworthy conclusions: Socialist parties face a larger trade-off for pursuing non-working class voters when there is an option to vote for a communist party in their country. The trade-off is much smaller when there is a centralized mechanism for collective bargaining or one large union like in some Nordic countries.
I read several other reviews of this book in publications like the American Journal of Sociology. Accessed for free using my library account. We love libraries!
The worry was that participation in bourgeois elections would reduce the independence and radicalism of the working class. But the authors rightfully point out that political parties can also be agents of class formation, shaping the way that people think of politics. If a party emphasizes that they are organizing the working class, and brings together members of that class, this gives them a framework for making sense of the world.
The authors fit equations to election results in different European countries. They argue that the working class has never been a majority of the electorate in any country, which has forced socialist parties to appeal to non-working class voters. But there's a trade-off: the parties reduce the ideological salience of class and lose working class voters.
My main issue is that the authors define working class as only manual workers and their spouses. Even though they acknowledge that many socialists define working class as everyone who must sell their labor power to survive (which includes many white collar and service sector workers), they ignore this in their model.
It's true that socialist parties have reached out to non-workers, and the data show there are tradeoffs. But the authors don't analyze the rhetoric, policies, or structures that the parties used. Concluding that it's not possible to unite blue and white collar workers seems unjustified, especially since they only looked at data from 7 countries, all in Europe.
Noteworthy conclusions: Socialist parties face a larger trade-off for pursuing non-working class voters when there is an option to vote for a communist party in their country. The trade-off is much smaller when there is a centralized mechanism for collective bargaining or one large union like in some Nordic countries.
I read several other reviews of this book in publications like the American Journal of Sociology. Accessed for free using my library account. We love libraries!
Displaying 1 of 1 review