Suchergebnisse

The Leninist theory of organization is defended against Howard Chodos & Colin Hay's (1998) contention that Leninism provides an inadequate approach to political organization. Although Chodos & Hay's use of a critical realist perspective is supported, the application of critical realism to Marxist debates is questioned; specifically, critical realism's position that social relations can be reformed solely through democratic measures is rejected since such a perspective disregards existing relationships between social structures. Conversely, it is asserted that Leninism acknowledges the complex relationship between social structures. Moreover, the Leninist form of organization is advocated since it recognizes the need to create alliances between the working class & other social groups, eg, the peasantry. It is concluded that a Leninist form of organization provides the only sufficient model for mobilizing agents & oppressed groups in the contemporary world. 25 References. J. W. Parker

AbstractThese are difficult times for the Marxist Left and many tough questions are being asked. Unfortunately two extremes often come to the fore. One position takes an ultra-revisionist course, questioning the very foundations of Marxism. Another takes a profoundly dogmatic approach, defending orthodoxy in knee-jerk fashion.

Albeit some might argue that this review is a little late in coming, it is worth revisiting Pawson and Tilley's 1997 book, Realistic Evaluation (reprinted in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002) as the debate about causation and evidence-based research and evaluation continues to be a topic of debate and concern in the evaluation and research communities (see A Call to Action: The First International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry and The Claremont Debate, in this issue of JMDE).

The realist foreign policy approach adopted by President Theodore Roosevelt is studied to determine its applications in the creation of contemporary US foreign policy. The contention that Roosevelt's pre-presidential foreign policy perspective was unilateralist & expansionist in nature is explored. Roosevelt's foreign policy toward Europe & Asia during his presidency is then scrutinized, revealing that his perspective occasionally supported unilateralism but principally advocated a balance of power in Europe & Asia. Even though it is noted that Roosevelt employed different foreign policy approaches with European & Asian nations, it is stressed that his policies involving the Philippines & the construction of the Panama Canal demonstrate the maturity of his foreign policy. Attention is also dedicated to analyzing the shortcomings of Roosevelt's political career (eg, a presidential victory in 1920 may have forestalled the dissolution of the League of Nations) & illustrating the continued relevance of his foreign policy, especially with regards to US-Europe relations. J. W. Parker