Suchergebnisse

This study, based on an extensive program of interviewing former American, British, French, and Italian Communists, provides many answers to these questions and gives a convincing insight into the motivations, tensions, and loyalties of Party members. First, the book examines Communist literature (the Lenin and Stalin classics and current Party media) to see what the Communists themselves expect of their movement. Then it shows whether this ideal is realized by the people who have "been through it." The final sections, which follow the interviews closely, reveal what actually happens to people when they join, while they are in the Party, and after they leave. Originally published in 2050. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905

Few political scientists can claim to have made significant substantive as well as methodological contributions as has Harry Eckstein. His theory of political stability has won a lasting place in the systematic literature on the properties and conditions of democratic stability. His case study typology is one of the most original and significant contributions to the methodology of political science and is an impressive contribution to the metamethodology of political science of this or any generation. His theory of social science as cultural science is an impressive contribution to the metamethodology of the social sciences.

Les tables séparées. Ecoles et sectes dans la science politique américaine.
Gabriel A. Almond [39-57].
Cet article utilise une métaphore pour décrire l'état de la science politique américaine dans les années quatre-vingt, science politique qui est aujourd'hui une discipline divisée. Les différentes écoles et sectes de la science politique sont assises maintenant à des tables séparées, chacune ayant sa propre conception de la science politique et chacune se protégeant l'une de l'autre. Les politistes sont séparés selon deux dimensions : une dimension idéologique et une méthodologique. Les extrêmes sont très visibles mais, selon Almond, une majorité écrasante de politistes se trouvent quelque part au centre -partageant une idéologie libérale et modérée, ecclectiques et ouverts d'un point de vue méthodologique. Almond en appelle à un retour à une grande tradition de la science politique.

This paper is a written version of a research colloquia presented at the Center for the Study of Democracy and the Department of Politics and Society, University of California, Irvine, November 1995. Almond discusses the development of the "Civic Culture" study and his views of political culture research since this landmark study

Joseph Schumpeter, a great economist and social scientist of the last generation, whose career was almost equally divided between Central European and American universities, and who lived close to the crises of the 1930s and '40s, published a book in 1942 under the title, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. The book has had great influence, and can be read today with profit. It was written in the aftergloom of the great depression, during the early triumphs of Fascism and Nazism in 1940 and 1941, when the future of capitalism, socialism, and democracy all were in doubt. Schumpeter projected a future of declining capitalism, and rising socialism. He thought that democracy under socialism might be no more impaired and problematic than it was under capitalism.He wrote a concluding chapter in the second edition which appeared in 1946, and which took into account the political-economic situation at the end of the war, with the Soviet Union then astride a devastated Europe. In this last chapter he argues that we should not identify the future of socialism with that of the Soviet Union, that what we had observed and were observing in the first three decades of Soviet existence was not a necessary expression of socialism. There was a lot of Czarist Russia in the mix. If Schumpeter were writing today, I don't believe he would argue that socialism has a brighter future than capitalism. The relationship between the two has turned out to be a good deal more complex and intertwined than Schumpeter anticipated.