東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Illiberal nationalism in post-Lenini...

Chen, Cheng.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist states (Russia, China, Romania, Hungary).

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist states (Russia, China, Romania, Hungary)./
Author:	Chen, Cheng.
Description:	281 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-04, Section: A, page: 1388.
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3087378

Illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist states (Russia, China, Romania, Hungary).
Chen, Cheng.

Illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist states (Russia, China, Romania, Hungary). - 281 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-04, Section: A, page: 1388.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2003.

This dissertation is a study of the dynamics behind “illiberal nationalism” in post-Leninist states. It offers a systematic explanation for the different degrees to which universalist liberal political principles have proven compatible with nationalist projects in post-Leninist states. It explores how nationalism and another universalist ideology, Leninism, were reconciled in the past, and how the manner of this reconciliation has led to degrees of illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist societies. The author's hypothesis is that the more successful the fusion of Leninist principles and nationalist ideology was, the more “illiberal” nationalism would turn out to be during post-Leninist transition, despite the fact that both Leninism and liberalism are universalist ideologies. To compare the degrees to which Leninism was fused with national identity, the author categorizes Leninist regimes into four types by using two distinctions: initial conditions (whether Leninism was a result of indigenous revolution) and the strategy for reconciling nation-building projects with Leninist principles for building socialism. The argument is based on the comparative-historical study of four cases—Russia, China, Romania, and Hungary—each of them representing a different type of Leninist regime and a different post-Leninist outcome. This approach combines insights from the existing literature of nationalism, state-society relations, and post-Leninist politics. The result is a larger and coherent explanatory framework to assess the prospects for building liberal democracy in post-Leninist states. This work also provides important policy implications for those seeking to engage elites involved in post-Leninist transitions

Illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist states (Russia, China, Romania, Hungary).
LDR:02385nmm 2200169 4500 001 1852955
005 20040413111856.5
008 130614s2003 eng d
035 $a (UnM)AAI3087378
035 $a AAI3087378
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Chen, Cheng. $3 1940836
245 1 0 $a Illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist states (Russia, China, Romania, Hungary).
300 $a 281 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-04, Section: A, page: 1388.
500 $a Adviser: Ian S. Lustick.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2003.
520 $a This dissertation is a study of the dynamics behind “illiberal nationalism” in post-Leninist states. It offers a systematic explanation for the different degrees to which universalist liberal political principles have proven compatible with nationalist projects in post-Leninist states. It explores how nationalism and another universalist ideology, Leninism, were reconciled in the past, and how the manner of this reconciliation has led to degrees of illiberal nationalism in post-Leninist societies. The author's hypothesis is that the more successful the fusion of Leninist principles and nationalist ideology was, the more “illiberal” nationalism would turn out to be during post-Leninist transition, despite the fact that both Leninism and liberalism are universalist ideologies. To compare the degrees to which Leninism was fused with national identity, the author categorizes Leninist regimes into four types by using two distinctions: initial conditions (whether Leninism was a result of indigenous revolution) and the strategy for reconciling nation-building projects with Leninist principles for building socialism. The argument is based on the comparative-historical study of four cases—Russia, China, Romania, and Hungary—each of them representing a different type of Leninist regime and a different post-Leninist outcome. This approach combines insights from the existing literature of nationalism, state-society relations, and post-Leninist politics. The result is a larger and coherent explanatory framework to assess the prospects for building liberal democracy in post-Leninist states. This work also provides important policy implications for those seeking to engage elites involved in post-Leninist transitions
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3087378