Explore the vast range of titles available.

In her introduction to the themed cluster “Nationalism, (Anti-)Communism and Violence in the European Cold War,” the author contextualizes the issue's research contributions on Greece, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. She introduces the methodological rationale and highlights what binds the three case studies together: They explore how nationalism was woven into Cold War societies. The authors employ, as analytical prisms, both physical and symbolic violence in order to visualize empirically the workings of nationalism in the service of both communism and anti-communism. Hitherto, few scholars have focused on the interconnections between nationalism, (anti-)communism, and violence in Cold War east central and southeastern Europe.

This article takes a historicizing and structural approach to anti-Chinese racism, a stream of anti-Asian racism, understood as a system of meaning making for power advantages in changing contexts (Hall 2021[1997]). Based on textual data, observations, and interviews and drawing on literature on scapegoat racism and the sacrificial politics of threat and security (Girard 2021[1977]), it advances the following arguments: first, current discussions about anti-Asian racism are often narrowly focused on individual acts of hateful attacks, overlooking the anti- Chinese scapegoating discourse that is at the root of discriminatory and hostile treatment of the Chinese, particularly those with Mainland Chinese background. Second, the anti-Chinese scapegoating discourse has revived the anti-Communist Sinophobia during the Cold War with exaggerated claims about the threat of China and perceives the “Bad Chinese” in the Chinese diaspora as threats to Canada. Third, the anti-Chinese scapegoating discourse not only fuels racist and discriminatory treatment of the Chinese, it also diverts our attention away from serious issues in Canada that do not have much to do with China or the Chinese diaspora.

\"The McCarthy-era witch hunts marked the culmination of an anticommunist crusade launched after the First World War. With Bolshevism triumphant in Russia and public discontent shaking the United States, conservatives at every level of government and business created a network dedicated to sweeping away the 'spider web' of radicalism they saw threatening the nation. In this groundbreaking study, Nick Fischer shines a light on right-wing activities during the interwar period. Conservatives, eager to dispel communism's appeal to the working class, railed against a supposed Soviet-directed conspiracy composed of socialists, trade unions, peace and civil liberties groups, feminists, liberals, aliens, and Jews. Their rhetoric and power made for devastating weapons in their systematic war for control of the country against progressive causes. But, as Fischer shows, the term spider web far more accurately described the anticommunist movement than it did the makeup and operations of international communism. Fischer details how anticommunist myths and propaganda influenced mainstream politics in America, and how its ongoing efforts paved the way for the McCarthyite Fifties--and augured the conservative backlash that would one day transform American politics\"-- Provided by publisher.

There are of course ignorant young people at all times and in all places. Whether his year at Berkeley provoked him to repudiate that position or merely accelerated a trend that was already in place is hard for me to say, but clearly it was gone by the time he left for the less turbulent atmosphere of All Soul's College, Oxford, where there was not only no student movement, but no students at all. Whether or not Kolakowski would have thrived in Berkeley if he had arrived at a less vexing moment or stayed longer I cannot say, but it certainly felt like a loss for us, especially for those like myself who were struggling to sort out the valuable from the dubious elements in a Marxism that resisted being either fully embraced or summarily dismissed. think it fair to say that enormous mutual benefit flowed from the sustained connection with Berkeley of another exiled anti-Communist giant of 20th-century Polish intellectual life, Czeslaw Milosz, who had been on the faculty since 1961. If truth be told, Kolakowski was himself never as much of a force in American intellectual life after he left for Oxford as might have been expected, despite the publication of several collections of essays in English and a considerable amount of time spent on the Committee of Social Thought at the University of Chicago from 1981-1994.

Since independence, Islamic civil society groups and intellectuals have played a vital role in Indonesian politics. This paper seeks to chart the contestation of Islamic religious ideas in Indonesian politics and society throughout the 20th Century, from the declaration of independence in 1945 up until 2001. This paper discusses the social and political influence of, and relationships between, three major Indonesian Islamic intellectual streams: Modernists, Traditionalists, and neo-Modernists. It describes the intellectual roots of each of these Islamic movements, their relationships with the civil Islamic groups Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), their influence upon Indonesian politics, and their interactions with the state. The paper examines the ways in which mainstream Islamic politics in Indonesia, the world’s largest majority Muslim nation, has been shaped by disagreements between modernists and traditionalists, beginning in the early 1950s. Disagreements resulted in a schism within Masyumi, the dominant Islamic party, that saw the traditionalists affiliated with NU leave to establish a separate NU party. Not only did this prevent Masyumi from coming close to garnering a majority of the votes in the 1955 election, but it also contributed to Masyumi veering into Islamism. This conservative turn coincided with elite contestation to define Indonesia as an Islamic state and was a factor in the party antagonizing President Sukarno to the point that he moved to ban it. The banning of Masyumi came as Sukarno imposed ‘guided democracy’ as a soft-authoritarian alternative to democracy and set in train dynamics that facilitated the emergence of military-backed authoritarianism under Suharto. During the four decades in which democracy was suppressed in Indonesia, Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, and associated NGOs, activists, and intellectuals were the backbones of civil society. They provided critical support for the non-sectarian principles at the heart of the Indonesian constitution, known as Pancasila. This found the strongest and clearest articulation in the neo-Modernist movement that emerged in the 1980s and synthesized key elements of traditionalist Islamic scholarship and Modernist reformism. Neo-Modernism, which was articulated by leading Islamic intellectual Nurcholish Madjid and Nahdlatul Ulama Chairman Abdurrahman Wahid, presents an open, inclusive, progressive understanding of Islam that is affirming of social pluralism, comfortable with modernity, and stresses the need for tolerance and harmony in inter-communal relations. Its articulation by Wahid, who later became president of Indonesia, contributed to Indonesia’s transition from authoritarianism to democracy. The vital contribution of neo-Modernist Islam to democracy and reform in Indonesia serves to refute the notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy and pluralism.

The consensus it achieved in the field of theatre as well as in the imaginary citizenry, maintained its validity for decades through stagings and publications in Peru and abroad. [...]the analysis of the play attempts to answer the reason for its success and validity, what impact it had in the field of national theatre, how it achieves such a consensus, what dramaturgical and ideological mechanisms it mobilized. The main character, Echecopar, as emblematic as the play itself, is deconstructed through the analysis of the different discourses it represents: sexist, anti-oligarchic, anti-communist, ante-internationalist, anti-intellectual, anti-artistic, authoritarian, intolerant, paternalistic, violent and patriotic. Entre estos destacan los de J. T. Daniel (1970), que se ocupa de su estructu-ra mítica; Arthur Natella (1971), quien opina que el protagonista es símbolo de la lucha colectiva y que tiene sensibilidad social pero no se alínea con el comunismo; Robert Morris (1977), quien des-taca la combinación de elementos regionales con un carácter universal; Hernán Vidal (1988), que encuentra la obra inspirada en el espíritu desarro-llista de la época y en el protagonista la represen-tación de la clase media vacilante en el proceso del desarrollo del capitalismo en el Perú, además de rasgos fascistas y apristas en la mentalidad del protagonista y el autor; y Oswaldo Obregón (2001, p. 36), analiza la obra para descubrir cómo cons-truye el autor un \"paisaje nacional peruano\" en el texto y le atribuye la intención de acabar con \"la balkanización del país en costa, sierra y selva\" como mundos incomunicados (p. 36). Pasados setenta años de su creación, podemos ver la obra con otros ojos y buscar nuevas interpretaciones. ¿Qué propone como idea del Perú en ese momento crucial de nuestra historia?, ¿tuvo una intención ideológi-ca y política?, ¿desde dónde se enunciaban y a quién representaban sus ideas?, ¿cómo resuena en el Perú de hoy el discurso de Collacocha?