Explore the vast range of titles available.

The opening events of the French Revolution have stood as some of the most familiar in modern European history. Traumatic Politics emerges as a fresh voice from the existing historiography of this widely studied course of events. In applying a psychological lens to the classic problem of why the French Revolution’s first representative assembly was unable to reach a workable accommodation with Louis XVI, Barry Shapiro contends that some of the key political decisions made by the Constituent Assembly were, in large measure, the product of traumatic reactions to the threats to the lives of its members in the summer of 1789. As a result, Assembly policy frequently reflected a preoccupation with what had happened in the past rather than active engagement with present political realities. In arguing that the manner in which the Assembly dealt with the king bears the imprint of the behavior that typically follows exposure to traumatic events, Shapiro focuses on oscillating periods of traumatic repetition and traumatic denial. Highlighting the historical impact of what could be viewed as a relatively “mild” trauma, he suggests that trauma theory has a much wider field of potential applicability than that previously established by historians, who have generally confined themselves to studying the impact of massively traumatic events such as war and genocide. Moreover, in emphasizing the extent to which monarchical loyalties remained intact on the eve of the Revolution, this book also challenges the widely accepted contention that prerevolutionary cultural and discursive innovations had “desacralized” the king well before 1789.

Why did Hungary, a country that shared much of the religious and institutional heritage of western Europe, fail to replicate the social and political experiences of the latter in the nineteenth and early twenties centuries? The answer, the author argues, lies not with cultural idiosyncracies or historical accident, but with the internal dynamics of the modern world system that stimulated aspirations not easily realizable within the confines of backward economics in peripheral national states. The author develops his theme by examining a century of Hungarian economic, social, and political history. During the period under consideration, the country witnessed attempts to transplant liberal institutions from the West, the corruption of these institutions into a \"neo-corporatist\" bureaucratic state, and finally, the rise of diverse Left and Right radical movements as much in protest against this institutional corruption as against the prevailing global division of labor and economic inequality. Pointing to significant analogies between the Hungarian past and the plight of the countries of the Third World today, this work should be of interest not only to the specialist on East European politics, but also to students of development, dependency, and center-periphery relations in the contemporary world.

The May 16 Notification, which set the agenda for the Cultural Revolution, named the movement's key targets as those “representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the government, the army, and all spheres of culture.” The ensuing uprising of students and workers, many of whom claimed to be the loyal “representatives” of revolutionary and radical forces at the grassroots of society, exposed the fulminating crisis of political representation under CCP rule. This article considers the Cultural Revolution as a manifestation of a continuing crisis of representation within revolutionary socialism that remains unresolved to the present day, as demonstrated by the tepid popular response to Jiang Zemin's “three represents” and widespread contemporary concerns about the Party's “representativeness” (daibiaoxing 代表性) in the wake of market reform. Although the Cultural Revolution enabled both public debate of and political experimentation with new forms of representative politics, the movement failed to resolve the crisis. The Party's lingering disquiet regarding issues of representation thus remains one legacy of the Cultural Revolution. 《五一六通知》为十年文化大革命重要的纲领性文件之一, 并以 “混进党里、政府里、军队里和各种文化界的资产阶级代表人物”, 视为文化大革命清洗、斗争的主要目标。此时许多学生与工人认为他们是代表底层的革命者与先进力量, 进而开始抗爭, 就此揭露共产党 “代表性” 的概念存在, 及深刻的矛盾。社会主义的代表性, 我认为此概念从文化大革命到现在一直有着同样的矛盾, 而此矛盾到目前为止还是悬而未至, 例如江泽民 “三个代表” 概念并没有受到人民热烈的爱戴, 并从改革开放时代到现在, 人民对共产党的 “代表性”一直保持著怀疑。虽然文化大革命对代表性的概念促进了公共辩论, 並体现了代表性的新方式, 但未能解决代表性本身的矛盾。因此, 文化大革命遗产之一就是共产党对 “代表性” 问题一貫性的沉默以对。

As each power vies for its national interests on the world stage, how do its own citizens' democratic interests fare at home? Alan Gilbert speaks to an issue at the heart of current international-relations debate. He contends that, in spite of neo-realists' assumptions, a vocal citizen democracy can and must have a role in global politics. Further, he shows that all the major versions of realism and neo-realism, if properly stated with a view of the national interest as a common good, surprisingly lead to democracy. His most striking example focuses on realist criticisms of the Vietnam War. Democratic internationalism, as Gilbert terms it, is really the linking of citizens' interests across national boundaries to overcome the antidemocratic actions of their own governments. Realist misinterpretations have overlooked Thucydides' theme about how a democracy corrupts itself through imperial expansion as well as Karl Marx's observations about the positive effects of democratic movements in one country on events in others. Gilbert also explodes the democratic peace myth that democratic states do not wage war on one another. He suggests instead policies to accord with the interests of ordinary citizens whose shared bond is a desire for peace. Gilbert shows, through such successes as recent treaties on land mines and policies to slow global warming that citizen movements can have salutary effects. His theory of \"deliberative democracy\" proposes institutional changes that would give the voice of ordinary citizens a greater influence on the international actions of their own government.

In this book Juan R. I. Cole challenges traditional elite-centered conceptions of the conflict that led to the British occupation of Egypt in September 1882. For a year before the British intervened, Egypt's viceregal government and the country's influential European community had been locked in a struggle with the nationalist supporters of General Ahmad al-`Urabi. Although most Western observers still see the `Urabi movement as a \"revolt\" of junior military officers with only limited support among the Egyptian people, Cole maintains that it was a broadly based social revolution hardly underway when it was cut off by the British. While arguing this fresh point of view, he also proposes a theory of revolutions against informal or neocolonial empires, drawing parallels between Egypt in 1882, the Boxer Rebellion in China, and the Islamic Revolution in modern Iran. In a thorough examination of the changing Egyptian political culture from 1858 through the `Urabi episode, Cole shows how various social strata--urban guilds, the intelligentsia, and village notables--became \"revolutionary.\" Addressing issues raised by such scholars as Barrington Moore and Theda Skocpol, his book combines four complementary approaches: social structure and its socioeconomic context, organization, ideology, and the ways in which unexpected conjunctures of events help drive a revolution.

We can rely on crises in capitalism to continue. Three ideas for how to get to a better world are: 1) Accompaniment, that is, the idea that radical professionals should expect to spend long periods of time among particular groups of the poor and oppressed, walking beside them as equals; 2) Solidarity unionism, that is, an alternative labor strategy based on the self-activity of local groups who then link up with one another horizontally; and finally 3) mandar obediciendo, that is, the idea that rather than radicals trying to take state power, leaders should govern in obedience to what subcomandante Marcos calls \"the below.\"

In late 1798 two radically different publications—Britain’s arch-conservativeAnti-Jacobin Reviewand Boston’s staunchly democratic and pro-FrenchIndependent Chronicle—found some rare interpretive common ground. In the opening article of its first edition, theAnti-Jacobin Reviewcommented favorably on the American activities of Federalist printer and writer William Cobbett, remarking that the pieces he had written during the diplomatic crisis with France had given “a proper tone to the public spirit in America.”¹ While theAnti-Jacobin Reviewcelebrated the rise of anti-Jacobin conservatism in the United States, a writer in theIndependent Chronicledecried the spirit of 1798. From his