詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "共産主義者同盟" 全国委員会
5件中 1-5の結果を表示しています
  • 地域紛争と国際理論
    定形 衛
    国際政治
    1987年 1987 巻 86 号 54-67,L8
    発行日: 1987/10/24
    公開日: 2010/09/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the interdependence between a national question and a nonaligned foreign policy by focussing on the political process during and after the Croatian Crisis in 1971. Ethnically, Yugoslavia is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. The largest group, the Serbs, makes up less than 40 percent of the population, and the second largest group, the Croats, represents approximately 20 percent of the total population.
    The South Slavs (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrines) were once under the rule of two empires set against each other—Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Consequently the South Slavs have had entirely different characteristics between the so-called northerners and the southerners. The potential for national discord was built into the structure of the country when it was founded on December 1, 1918, as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The conflict among these various nationalities made Yugoslavia practically ungovernable in the interwar years and led to its self-disintegration when Germany invaded in the spring of 1941.
    In the process of constructing a scialist society the Yugoslav communists have attempted to reconcile these differences. In response to past conflicts, Tito and the rest of the Yugoslav leadership have striven to create a political system that strikes a balance between a recognition of the diversity throughout the country, on the one hand, and the extent of centralization essential to the maintenance of an integrated state, on the other. In contrast to the Soviet Union, where a major requisite for Communist rule is the dominance of the Russians, Communist rule in Yugoslavia is most likely to be maintained only if no single nationality is permitted to become too strong.
    Since the middle of the 1960's—the economic reforms of 1965 and Rankovic's downfall in 1966—Yugoslavia's leaders have established a pattern of decisionmaking characterized by decentralization, inter-regional consultations, and consensus. In this situation Croats began to insist on political and economic decentralization, while in the southern underdeveloped republics they favored the “firm hand” of the federal organs for their development. Given these competing cross-currents, the policy of nonalignment constituted a viable compromise giving partial satisfaction to all. Any deviation from nonalignment in favor of the Soviet Union would have created major repercussions in Slovenia and Croatia; any explicitly close affiliation with the West would have alienated important party elites with the southern constituencies. A nonaligned foreign policy enabled the Yugoslav government to keep a balance between all states externally and all nationalities domestically.
    The fate of multinational Yugoslavia lies in the fact that she must achieve equality among diffirent nationalities by the principle of balance-of-power as an unstable system. It may safely be said that the only alternative compatible with this is nonalignment.
  • 大上 渉
    心理学研究
    2013年 84 巻 3 号 218-228
    発行日: 2013/08/25
    公開日: 2013/11/01
    ジャーナル フリー
    This study examined the behavioral patterns of Japanese extremist groups, based on 377 terror incidents that occurred in Japan between 1990 and 2010. These incidents included bombings, rocket attacks, hostage taking, and vehicle assaults. Information was drawn primarily from on-line newspaper databases. A multiple correspondence analysis was performed using five categories: extremist group identity, time of attack, target of attack, attack strategy, and method of claiming responsibility. Extremist group characteristics varied along two dimensions: the interaction level between terrorist and victim, and the indiscriminate level of use of force. We categorized multiple far-left, far-right, and religious extremist groups based on these two dimensions. Our findings may help prevent terror attacks, and help identify the group responsible for a given incident.
  • 日本オーラル・ヒストリー研究
    2016年 12 巻 59-
    発行日: 2016年
    公開日: 2018/12/26
    ジャーナル オープンアクセス
  • 石井至
    危険と管理
    2017年 48 巻 84-103
    発行日: 2017年
    公開日: 2019/12/23
    ジャーナル フリー
  • 会田 弘継
    アメリカ研究
    2018年 52 巻 41-62
    発行日: 2018/05/25
    公開日: 2021/09/28
    ジャーナル フリー

    The sudden revival of interest in James Buchanan (1905-1987), an almost totally forgotten political thinker, may be called one of the most intriguing aspects of the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Trotskyist-turned hardcore anti-communist forged an idiosyncratic future vision of human society which apparently synchronized with popular sentiments of “middle America” in our age. Several figures mediated his return into the political public sphere. Among them is Samuel Francis (1947-2005), an obscure conservative thinker who passed away more than ten years ago, and who also returned to the political narrative in America along with Burnham.

    Burnham, born in 1907 to a prosperous Chicago railway executive, studied English and philosophy at Princeton and Oxford. While teaching philosophy at New York University, he joined the Trotskyist movement in the early 1930s and soon became a central flgure, along with Sydney Hook and Max Shachtman. His Trotskyist odyssey started much earlier and therefore lasted longer than the earliest neo-conservatives such as Irving Kristol and Nathan Glazer. By finding his views on Stalinist Russia incongruent with those of the mainstream Trotskyists and Trotsky himself when Stalin signed a pact with Hitler then invaded Poland, he broke ranks with them and the movement in 1940.

    Soon thereafter, he authored two important ideological books, in 1941 and 1943

    respectively. The Managerial Revolution and The Machiauellians seem completely relevant to the Trump age. In the former, Burnham described his future vision in which he rejected the Marxist idea of the final transition by class struggle from capitalism to socialism. He considered that it would not be proletariats but “managers” who would take control of the means of production. The technocrat-ruled world that he envisioned would be divided into three “super-states” looks like the world we live in today. The latter book, on neo-Machiavellians in the early twentieth century, investigates an inevitable dichotomized society of the ruling elites and the ruled and how to defend freedom in such a society.

    Burnham, who died in 1987, had disappeared from people’s memory by the early 2000s, though he turned out a dozen books while editing a flagship conservative magazine as a conspicuously active right-wing public intellectual. Samuel Francis succeeded Burnham in his peculiar brand of conservatism, tainted by Marxism and neo-Machiavellianism, yet he was marginalized into oblivion by mainstream conservatives after his death in 2005.

    However, the Trump campaign triggered a debate over the relevance of Francis’ political thought and Burnham’s peculiar vision of the world we live in. It began among conservatives, as they found in the Trump campaign a replay of Pat Buchanan’s bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency in the 1990s advised by Francis, with the “America First” slogan and outlandish policy proposals. The debate eventually involved the main traditional media outlets both on the right and left. It is certain that this whole process of resurrection of the dead, forgotten thinkers happened in reaction to grievances of the people in contemporary America.

feedback
Top