Suchergebnisse

An exploration of the history of the totalitarian approach maintains that the three main theoretical explanations are political science-structural, socioreligious, & historical-genetic. A brief discussion of less-noted understandings is followed by clarifications of the main versions, noting that ideologically justified annihilation is a common feature of all three. The political science-structural approach, also called "classic theory," focuses on characteristics that distinguish "totalitarian" from "free" states. It places communist & fascist states on the same side, & fails to address the possibility of a historical link between the totalitarian system & the Western constitutional state. The lesser-known socioreligious version looks at the possibility of strong forces of enthusiasm in totalitarian movements that created the will to annihilate, suggesting these forces may have grown out of elements of the liberal system. The author's four-part "history of modern ideologies" is drawn on to argue for the greater usefulness of the historical-genetic explanation, maintaining that it fills a gap in the scholarly literature. Critiques of the historical-genetic approach are acknowledge & rebutted. J. Lindroth

Im Paragraphen 2 der Misère de la philosophie führt Marx in der Polemik gegen Proudhon drei Titel von englischen "Sozialisten" an, in denen längst vor Proudhon "die egalitäre Anwendung der Ricardoschen Theorie" vorgeschlagen worden sei:Nous pourrions citer à M. Proudhon: l'Économie politique de Hopkins, 1822; William Thompson: An Inquiry into the Principles of the distribution of wealth, most conducive to human happiness, 1824; T. R. Edmonds: Practical, moral and political Economy, 1828; etc., etc., et quatre pages d'etc.