DOCSLIB.ORG

The Founding of Modern States Chapter Two the Founding of Non

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Founding of Modern States Chapter Two the Founding of Non 1 The Founding of Modern States Chapter Two The Founding of Non-Democratic States Richard Bensel Gary S. Davis Professor Department of Government Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14850 Abstract: All modern states claim that they rule by popular consent and that this consent arises out of the state’s commitment to a transcendent social purpose demanded by their citizens. They also claim that both popular consent and the state’s transcendent social purpose emerged from a founding moment when the state’s right to rule was created. In this manuscript, I ask: How does the founding meld the metaphysical belief in the “will of the people,” the granting of sovereignty, and the recognition of a transcendent social purpose into a symbolic act that then enables the state to secure political and social order? Although this melding is more complex than commonly acknowledged for traditional democracies, it is even more complicated for otherwise authoritarian regimes. In those foundings that produce non-democratic states, the justification of the new sovereignty originates in a transcendent social purpose that is both clearly articulated in political doctrine and susceptible to misrecognition if subjected to conventional democratic politics. At the founding, the political party that led the revolution utilizes the form of a legislative assembly to craft a constitution but it is the party itself that manifests the popular will and thus melds sovereignty, social purpose, and the will of the people into the creation of a new state. Note to the Reader The text is obviously much too long. The best way to condense the reading to a manageable size is to treat the three middle sections (this version: on the Russian-pp. 7-24, Iranian-pp. 25-69, and Nazi-pp. 70-121 revolutions, respectively) as extended footnotes on the 2 material in the introduction (pp. 1-5) and conclusion (pp. 92-108). Only the latter sections should be considered the “core” reading. Introduction In all modern foundings, the new state has been dedicated to a clearly articulated transcendent social purpose. In most cases, the announcement of this purpose prominently appears in the text of a new constitution. In democratic foundings, this purpose is understood to be something that the people can fully comprehend in the sense that they both fully understand what it is and how it can be collectively realized. As a result, the will of the people is considered to fundamentally determine the translation of the transcendent social purpose into the design of state institutions and principles. The founding elite, such as they are, does no more than record and translate the popular will that is revealed in a free and open democratic process. In non- democratic foundings, however, the transcendent social purpose is viewed as vulnerable to misrecognition if it is legislated in what is conventionally regarded as free and open democratic politics. For that reason, the revolutionary elite directs a complex process in which the people are viewed as generally aware of what it is that they should (and do) will as the purpose to which the state must be dedicated but they are not, for whatever reason, competent to carry out the founding without the intervention of the revolutionary elite. While the revolutionary elite still utilizes the form of a legislative assembly to craft a constitution, the elite itself claims to manifest the popular will and thus, as political agent, oversees the melding of sovereignty, social purpose, and the will of the people when the new state is founded. Three non-democratic foundings are examined in this chapter: the instantiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Russian revolution; the creation of an Islamic theocracy in the Iranian revolution; and the emergence of the Third Reich as the enabler of the historical destiny of the German people. In modern foundings, misrecognition of the transcendent social purpose is possible for at least two different reasons: (a) the will of the people may be not be evidenced because either (i) the identity of the people is not correctly specified or (ii) social relations within the political community somehow distort the people’s apprehension of what they must do; or (b) the will of the people must be refined and shaped after state is created.1 The possibility of misrecognition in the first sense is the primary justification for political regulations in democratic states. In the United States, for example, the federal and state governments regulate campaign contributions, require registration of voters at the polls, guarantee minority representation through the 1 The popular will is always imperfect in that something invariably impairs its natural expression in majority rule. This imperfection means that there is always a disjunction between the conception of the people (a) as imbricated in the social purpose to which a state’s sovereignty is dedicated and (b) as revealed in unregulated majority voting. For that reason, both democratic and non-democratic states “refine” the popular will. This refinement assumes that the people could not accurately identify or effectively realize that transcendent social purpose--even after its recognition at the founding--in the absence of state intervention. 3 construction of district boundaries, certify candidates who may stand for election, set age and residency requirements for suffrage, and so forth. These regulations operate on the popular will by either regulating its formation (e.g., campaign contributions), policing its expression (e.g., imposing suffrage requirements), restricting the alternatives from which the people may choose (e.g., outlawing party organizations, disqualifying individuals as candidates, or determining which issues might be the subject of a referendum), or compensating for deep-seated but improper opinions (e.g., racial and ethnic bias). While there is no question that these things have a substantive impact on what is evidenced as the will of the people (e.g., in the outcome of elections), the declared purpose is to purify the popular will from contaminating influence without otherwise influencing what the popular will might express. In this case, the concept of misrecognition thus presumes the existence of a pristine popular will that can be revealed if the political community eliminates or compensates for factors that would otherwise distort its manifestation. In theory, the will of the people is left undisturbed by these eliminations and adjustments; the content (what the people would will) is merely made available to the community. The transcendent social purpose in such states is thus dedicated to the identification and realization of the purified will of the people, along with those values and guarantees (e.g., freedom of the press) that facilitate the democratic process and make its reproduction through time possible.2 In non-democratic states, misrecognition of the transcendent social purpose occurs when the people have a broad but imperfect understanding of what it is they should (and thus do) will. Here the problem directly concerns content and only indirectly involves process. The content of what should be (and thus is) the will of the people can be (and is) revealed to those (in practice, the revolutionary elite) who are either particularly trained, skilled, or gifted in its comprehension. This revolutionary elite utilizes the people’s largely instinctual understanding of what they should (and thus do) will to mobilize them against the ancien regime which both views the will of the people and the people themselves as hostile forces. The grounding for the revolutionary elite’s privileged understanding of the will of the people is primarily historical, arising from comprehension of an unfolding pattern in which the people as both object and participant play a central role. It is this role that the people can misrecognize even as they are instinctually summoned to realize their destiny. The primary task of the revolutionary elite is thus, in the first instance, to mobilize the people’s instinctual understanding of their historical destiny in order to found the new state and then to ensure that this destiny is forcefully and efficiently realized. Part of that realization is the education and refinement of the people’s understanding of their 2 The primary transcendent social purpose of democratic foundings is the dedication of the state to the continued and (largely) unfiltered control of the will of the people. Thus the regulations described in the text apply to both the founding (when the popular will creates the state) and politics after the founding (when the popular will directs state policy). Misrecognition of the will of the people originates, for the most part, in the same potentially distorting influences both before and after the founding. The major difference is that, after the founding the state itself can become a self-interested (and thus potentially distorting) influence. 4 historical destiny in a process that is not consultative (in the manner of democratic states) but, instead, involves doctrinal instruction. For example, in the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks held that politically conscious workers could broadly recognize the historical role that their class must play but were nonetheless imperfectly aware of the proper political strategies and tactics that would realize their historical destiny. The actual content of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was thus the responsibility of the vanguard party which acted not as representatives of or in the name of the workers but as their correctly-informed political consciousness. The Bolsheviks thus knew what it was that the workers should (and thus did) will even if the workers themselves might misrecognize the transcendent social purpose of the revolution (i.e., the historical destiny imbricated in the state in the founding). At the founding of the Soviet state, this transcendent social purpose (the realization of the communist revolution as the next and final historical stage) was thus a technical matter whose theoretical preconditions and practical actualization were perfectly known only to the vanguard party.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Revolution in Real Time: the Russian Provisional Government, 1917
    ODUMUNC 2020 Crisis Brief Revolution in Real Time: The Russian Provisional Government, 1917 ODU Model United Nations Society Introduction seventy-four years later. The legacy of the Russian Revolution continues to be keenly felt The Russian Revolution began on 8 March 1917 to this day. with a series of public protests in Petrograd, then the Winter Capital of Russia. These protests But could it have gone differently? Historians lasted for eight days and eventually resulted in emphasize the contingency of events. Although the collapse of the Russian monarchy, the rule of history often seems inventible afterwards, it Tsar Nicholas II. The number of killed and always was anything but certain. Changes in injured in clashes with the police and policy choices, in the outcome of events, government troops in the initial uprising in different players and different accidents, lead to Petrograd is estimated around 1,300 people. surprising outcomes. Something like the Russian Revolution was extremely likely in 1917—the The collapse of the Romanov dynasty ushered a Romanov Dynasty was unable to cope with the tumultuous and violent series of events, enormous stresses facing the country—but the culminating in the Bolshevik Party’s seizure of revolution itself could have ended very control in November 1917 and creation of the differently. Soviet Union. The revolution saw some of the most dramatic and dangerous political events the Major questions surround the Provisional world has ever known. It would affect much Government that struggled to manage the chaos more than Russia and the ethnic republics Russia after the Tsar’s abdication.
    [Show full text]
  • The Annals of UVAN, Vol . V-VI, 1957, No. 4 (18)
    THE ANNALS of the UKRAINIAN ACADEMY of Arts and Sciences in the U. S. V o l . V-VI 1957 No. 4 (18) -1, 2 (19-20) Special Issue A SURVEY OF UKRAINIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY by Dmytro Doroshenko Ukrainian Historiography 1917-1956 by Olexander Ohloblyn Published by THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES IN THE U.S., Inc. New York 1957 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE DMITRY CIZEVSKY Heidelberg University OLEKSANDER GRANOVSKY University of Minnesota ROMAN SMAL STOCKI Marquette University VOLODYMYR P. TIM OSHENKO Stanford University EDITOR MICHAEL VETUKHIV Columbia University The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U. S. are published quarterly by the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., Inc. A Special issue will take place of 2 issues. All correspondence, orders, and remittances should be sent to The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U. S. ПУ2 W est 26th Street, New York 10, N . Y. PRICE OF THIS ISSUE: $6.00 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: $6.00 A special rate is offered to libraries and graduate and undergraduate students in the fields of Slavic studies. Copyright 1957, by the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S.} Inc. THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES IN THE U.S., INC. S p e c i a l I s s u e CONTENTS Page P r e f a c e .......................................................................................... 9 A SURVEY OF UKRAINIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY by Dmytro Doroshenko In tr o d u c tio n ...............................................................................13 Ukrainian Chronicles; Chronicles from XI-XIII Centuries 21 “Lithuanian” or West Rus’ C h ro n ic le s................................31 Synodyky or Pom yannyky..........................................................34 National Movement in XVI-XVII Centuries and the Revival of Historical Tradition in Literature .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Background Guide, and to Issac and Stasya for Being Great Friends During Our Weird Chicago Summer
    Russian Duma 1917 (DUMA) MUNUC 33 ONLINE 1 Russian Duma 1917 (DUMA) | MUNUC 33 Online TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________________ CHAIR LETTERS………………………….….………………………….……..….3 ROOM MECHANICS…………………………………………………………… 6 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM………………………….……………..…………......9 HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………….16 ROSTER……………………………………………………….………………………..23 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………..…………….. 46 2 Russian Duma 1917 (DUMA) | MUNUC 33 Online CHAIR LETTERS ____________________________________________________ My Fellow Russians, We stand today on the edge of a great crisis. Our nation has never been more divided, more war- stricken, more fearful of the future. Yet, the promise and the greatness of Russia remains undaunted. The Russian Provisional Government can and will overcome these challenges and lead our Motherland into the dawn of a new day. Out of character. To introduce myself, I’m a fourth-year Economics and History double major, currently writing a BA thesis on World War II rationing in the United States. I compete on UChicago’s travel team and I additionally am a CD for our college conference. Besides that, I am the VP of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, previously a member of an all-men a cappella group and a proud procrastinator. This letter, for example, is about a month late. We decided to run this committee for a multitude of reasons, but I personally think that Russian in 1917 represents such a critical point in history. In an unlikely way, the most autocratic regime on Earth became replaced with a socialist state. The story of this dramatic shift in government and ideology represents, to me, one of the most interesting parts of history: that sometimes facts can be stranger than fiction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hollow Regime Collapses
    Policy Briefing Asia Briefing N°102 Bishkek/Brussels, 27 April 2010 Kyrgyzstan: A Hollow Regime Collapses This briefing explains and analyses the events of the past I. OVERVIEW five years, in an effort to provide context and background to the uprising. Bakiyev came to power in the so-called A swift, violent rebellion swept into the Kyrgyz capital Tulip Revolution of March 2005, which ousted President Bishkek in early April 2010, sparked by anger at painful Askar Akayev, whom opposition leaders accused of nepo- utility price increases and the corruption that was the de- tism, corruption and growing authoritarianism. Once in fining characteristic of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s office, Bakiyev quickly abandoned most semblances of rule. In less than two days the president had fled. Some democracy, creating a narrow-based political structure 85 people were killed and the centre of the capital was run by his own family and for their profit. A combination looted. The thirteen-member provisional government now of ruthlessness and incompetence led to the regime’s faces a daunting series of challenges. Bakiyev leaves be- downfall. Almost exactly five years after his victory, Baki- hind a bankrupt state hollowed out by corruption and crime. yev was charged with the same abuses as Akayev had been, Economic failure and collapsing infrastructure have gen- by many of the same people with whom he had staged the erated deep public resentment. If the provisional govern- 2005 “revolution”. ment moves fast to assert its power, the risks of major long-term violence are containable: there are no signs of Despite the much-discussed theory that Moscow instigated extensive support for Bakiyev or of a North-South split.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 03: 1917 — Did the War Cause a Revolution? Context
    Module 03: 1917 — Did the War Cause a Revolution? Context Russia Under the Tsar The narrative below provides a brief overview of the main developments between the outbreak of World War I in August 1914 and Russia's withdrawal from that conflict in March 1918. On the eve of the war, Russia remained one of the most politically antiquated regimes in Europe. An autocratic system of government accorded nearly unlimited power to the tsar, who expected obedience and reverence from his 163 million subjects. The population under his rule included representatives of nearly seventy non-Russian ethnic groups dispersed over more than eight million square miles of territory. The overwhelming majority of the population relied on agriculture for their livelihood, although state-sponsored industrialization programs in the late nineteenth century had stimulated urbanization and social diversification, as the ranks of professionals and other "middling" orders increased along with those of the industrial working class. While supporting some measure of economic modernization, the government remained steadfastly hostile to any form of independent civic organization or political activity, whether it derived from liberal hopes for a parliamentary system and the rule of law, or the more radical socialist ideologies embraced by Russian workers. The Russo-Japanese War The aspirations of a rapidly changing society and the growing tensions between the population and a regime intent on avoiding political reform burst into the open in 1905, as the autocracy grappled with a humiliating defeat in the Russo- Japanese war. The country erupted in revolution after troops guarding the Winter Palace gunned down unarmed demonstrators on what became known as "Bloody Sunday." Faced with widespread rebellion in the countryside, debilitating strikes in the cities, and liberal professionals' demands for civil and religious liberties, Tsar Nicholas II reluctantly agreed to the establishment of a national legislative body and the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Finding
    /''•s<p- COLLECTIONS OF CORRESPONDENCE AND MANUSCRIPT DOCUMENTS George VERNADSKY Papers NAME OF COLLECTION: SOURCE: Gift of George & Nina Vernadsky, 1953-57, 1959-62, 1965, 1968; bequest of George Vernadsky, 1973; gift of Nina V. Toll, 1975-76 j: gift of Peter K. Christoff, SUBJECT:Emigration — Europe, United States; Slavic & Russian Studies in Europe & the United States; History; Emigre Scholars; Science in the Soviet Union; Eurasianism DATES COVERED: 46th-20th centuries NUMBER OF ITEMS: ca. 80,000 Gotrety. STATUS: ((chec k appropriatppp e descriptionp) ) ' W^ba^,, M, ( Cataloged: x Listed: xArranged: x Not organized: 0*t MICMICROFILR M CONDITION: (give number of vols., boxes, or shelves) Bound: Boxed: %y-\ Stored: \ oversized folders. $ l^ox glass negatives LOCATION: (Library) BAR CALL-NU/v\btK Ms Coll/Vernadsky RESTRICTIONS ON USE (^yte^mimg trM ^mJro (hnhMkUu M MX;], o£~ // np_r Correspond'ence, manuscripts, documents, photographs, subject files, DESCRIPTION: printed materials, and memorabilia of historian George Vernadsky (Georgii Vladimirovich Vernadskii; 1887-1973). Most of the collection consists of his personal and professional papers, ca. 1918-73. Sizable groups of materials also concern members of his family, especially his wife Nina (1881+-1971); his father, scientist Vladimir I. Vernadskii (1863-19^5); his mother Nataliia E. Vernadskaia (1860-19^3); and his sister Nina V. Toll (1898-ca. 1976). Cataloged correspondents include: (to George and Nina Vernadsky) Boris Bakhmeteff, Roman Jakobson, Mikhail Karpovich, Nikolai Losskii, Vladimir Nabokov, Sergei Rakhmaninov, Geroid T. Robinson, Mikhail Rostovtsev, Petr Savitskii, and Aleksandr Vasil'ev; (to Vladimir Vernadskii) Henri Bergson and Petr Struve; and Ivan Turgenev. There are a great many letters by George and Nina Vernadskyfs colleagues, friends, and relatives, including many historians, and members of the Bromberg, Il'inskii, Rodichev, Romberg, and Staritskii families.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution in Russia and the Formation of the Soviet Union
    CLASSROOM COUNTRY PROFILES Revolution in Russia and the Formation of the Soviet Union The Russian Revolution often refers to two events that took place in 1917. The first, known as the February Revolution, forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate and led to the formation of a provisional government. During the second event, commonly known as the October Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution, Vla- dimir Lenin’s Bolshevik Party seized power and began seven decades of one-party rule. Some scholars and Soviet critics have argued that the second event was actually a coup by Lenin and his supporters and not a true revolution. The Russian Empire in 1914. Date confusion—The February Revolution actually In the early 1900s, cracks were beginning to appear in the tsar’s control took place in early March. Because the Russian Em- over the Russian Empire. An attempted revolution in 1905, which saw pire followed the Julian Calendar, which is 13 days mass worker strikes and peasant revolts, shook the monarchy and forced behind the Gregorian Calendar, the events are referred Tsar Nicholas II to implement political reform, including the establishment to as the February Revolution. Likewise, the October of a parliament and a new constitution. Revolution actually took place in early November. Reform temporarily quieted the unrest, but the new policies proved inef- Soviet—The word means “council” in Russian. Soviets fective and the parliament, known as the State Duma, was largely unable were workers’ councils made up of various socialist to override the Tsar’s decrees. parties at the end of the Russian Empire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kornilov Affair: a Failed Coup D'état
    Molly Martin 21H.467 The Kornilov Affair: a Failed Coup D'état The Kornilov Affair in 1917 was a coup d'état by the General of the Russian Army, Lavr Kornilov. This coup was a major turning point in the modification of Russia’s government. Kornilov attempted to gain control of the Russian Provisional Government, which was headed by Alexander Kerensky. The coup began in late August when Vladimir Lvov told Kornilov about Kerensky’s proposed strategies to fortify the government. The three plans were for a dictatorship under Kerensky, a military government with Kornilov as a dictator and Kornilov as a leader in an authoritarian government. The main controversy of this event was that it is uncertain whether Kerensky actually sent Lvov to Kornilov’s command center. Lvov returned to Petrograd and reported to Kerensky that Kornilov preferred the plan that featured him at the head of a military dictatorship. Kerensky took this information to mean that Kornilov was attacking him personally. Believing this, Kerensky tried to gain information about Kornilov’s actual plan. Due to the distance separating them and the limited technology that was available at the time, the teleprinter conversation was very unclear and left Kerensky confused as to what was actually happening, but he acquired the belief that Kornilov had the intention of seizing power. The next day Kornilov and his troops marched on Petrograd. He directly defied the Provisional Government. Kerensky realized that this coup was becoming a reality and asked for the help of the Petrograd Soviet to prevent a take over. The Soviet appealed to the workers and soldiers, asking them to protect the revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Polish Government-In-Exile
    Polish government-in-exile Polish government-in-exile Lesson plan (Polish) Lesson plan (English) Polish government-in-exile Signing the Sikorski–Mayski Agreement. Władysław Sikorski on the le, Ivan Mayski on the right. Winston Churchill in the middle. Source: 1941, Wikimedia Commons, licencja: CC 0. Link to the lesson You will learn to indicate why the Polish government was interned in Romania; to describe how the Polish government ended up in France and England; to list the key decisions and events related to the Polish authorities in exile; to characterize the significance of the Sikorski–Mayski agreement; to explain why the Polish government‐in‐exile lost the support of the Allied powers after the war. Nagranie dostępne na portalu epodreczniki.pl Nagranie abstraktu On the night of 17 September 1939, the government and the commander‐in‐chief left Poland and headed for Romania. They wanted to reach France. However, as a result of pressure from various groups and authorities, the Third Reich in particular, they were interned in Romania. President Ignacy Mościcki exercised his right and appointed a successor, Władysław Raczkiewicz. The new government, with Władysław Sikorski as the prime minister, based in Paris and then Angers, set as its primary goal to side with France and England in actively opposing Germany. They started forming Polish armed units, which were supposed to join the Allied forces and restore full sovereignty of Poland within its pre‐war borders. After France had been defeated, the mission continued in Great Britain. The situation changed in the summer of 1941, when the Third Reich attacked the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Activists Support the Provisional Government's Liberty Loans
    Activists Support the Provisional Government’s Liberty Loans Russia’s financial constraints during the First World War caused great strife throughout the country. Large sums of money were sent to the war front, and inflation rates soared as the government printed excess quantities of liquid assets. The Provisional Government was faced with the challenge of raising funds for the expensive war effort. On March 27, 1917, the Russian government chose to borrow money from its people in the form of Liberty Loans.1 These loans, sold in graduated amounts from 50 to 25,000 rubles, were advertised to citizens in the form of a repayable bond. Although activists throughout the nation agreed that the country was cash‐starved, the Provisional Government, the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, and the Bolshevik Group of the Soviet of Workers Deputies hotly debated the provisions of the loan. This dispute yielded various levels of support from the population at large, catalyzing a distrust of government and fueling the April Crisis of 1917. The Liberty Loan was used not only to raise money but also to foster popular support for the Provisional Government and the war effort. The Provisional Government needed to fund their cash‐stripped war orchestrated by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pavel Miliukov, and the war effort. The Liberty Loans were intended to foster support for the efforts of the Provisional Government by financing the war, elevating Russian credit abroad, and removing money from the domestic market.2 1 Prince L’vov (Minister‐President of the Provisional Government), “The Issuance of the Liberty Loan of 1917” (March 27, 1917), in Robert Paul Browder and Alexander F.
    [Show full text]
  • Dipartimento Di Scienze Politiche Cattedra Di Storia Delle Relazioni Internazionali
    Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche Cattedra di Storia delle Relazioni Internazionali RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY AND EUROPEAN SECURITY FROM GORBACHEV TO PUTIN (1985-2001) RELATORE Prof. NIGLIA CANDIDATO Francesco Tamburini 622402 CORRELATORE Prof. PONS ANNO ACCADEMICO 2014/2015 Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..p.4 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….....p.5 Note on the Transliteration of Russian…………………………………………………………...p.8 List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………p.9 1st Chapter A new thinking for the Soviet Union and the world 1.1) Domestic and international drivers.......................................................................................p.11 1.2) Contents and origins of new thinking...................................................................................p.14 1.3) Robbing the imperialists of the enemy image……………..................................................p.19 1.4) Domestic crises and new political actors………………………………………………….p.22 1.5) Gorbachev and European security: the challenge of NATO…………….………………....p.26 1.6) Achievements, failures and legacy…………….………………………………………......p.33 2nd Chapter A transformed Russia in a new world 2.1) An inevitable turn West?......................................................................................................p.36 2.2) Liberal internationalism: coalition and vision......................................................................p.38 2.3) Foreign policymaking in the Russian Federation………………………………………….p.42 2.4) Honeymoon with
    [Show full text]
  • Sacred Geography, Nationhood and Perennial Traditionalism in Alexander Dugin's Neo-Eurasianist Philosophy
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2015 Against the Thalassocracy: Sacred Geography, Nationhood and Perennial Traditionalism in Alexander Dugin's Neo-Eurasianist Philosophy Jonathan Rushbrook Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Rushbrook, Jonathan, "Against the Thalassocracy: Sacred Geography, Nationhood and Perennial Traditionalism in Alexander Dugin's Neo-Eurasianist Philosophy" (2015). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 6542. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/6542 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Against the Thalassocracy: Sacred Geography, Nationhood and Perennial Traditionalism in Alexander Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianist Philosophy Jonathan Rushbrook Thesis submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial
    [Show full text]