No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Two Neo-Conservative Myths in Germany 1919-32: The "Third Reich" and the "New State"
As the global crisis triggered by the COVID-19 virus unfolded, The Economist magazine published a cover in May 2020 titled “Goodbye globalization: the dangerous lure of self-sufficiency.” The title summed up well the new political interest in the ideology of national economic self-sufficiency in the pandemic context. Unfortunately, contemporary textbooks in the field of international political economy (IPE) say little about this kind of “autarkic” thought. No survey of the history of autarkic thought exists even within specialist IPE literature or in the fields of intellectual history and the history of economic thought. Filling this gap in existing scholarship, this article highlights a rich history of autarkic thought that includes the ideas of famous thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann Fichte, Mohandas Gandhi, and John Maynard Keynes. Three core rationales for a high degree of national self-sufficiency have been advanced in the past: (1) insulation from foreign economic influence, (2) insulation from foreign political and/or cultural influence, and (3) the promotion of international peace. At the same time, considerable disagreements have existed among autarkists about some of these rationales and their relative importance, as well as about the precise meaning of national self-sufficiency. These disagreements stemmed not just from differences in their specific goals but also from the different conditions across time and space in which autarkic thought was developed. In addition to improving understanding of the autarkic ideological tradition, this article contributes to emerging scholarship attempting to overcome Western-centrism in IPE scholarship as well as literature exploring the new politics of de-globalization in the current era.
This article discusses the role played by neo-conservative intellectuals during the tenure of Malaysia's fifth prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (2003-2009). Abdullah's leadership was distinguished by two qualities which arguably qualify it as “neo-conservative,” in
terms of revival of policies from a bygone era and the launching of political reforms within the framework of a conservative regime led by the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) party. Using the theoretical experiences of dominant conservative regimes in the Soviet Union, Japan,
China and Taiwan, the present authors are of the view that the policies and approach undertaken by Abdullah constitute a sharp departure from those of his predecessor, Mahathir Mohamad, for twenty-two years (1981-2003). Particularly eliciting controversy was the trust Abdullah put into a team
of young advisors led by his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin. In this article, we look at how these young neo-conservative intellectuals, together with several identifiable individuals, brought about reforms in Abdullah's leadership and impacted on UMNO politics. We discover that, notwithstanding
their enthusiasm for progressive reforms, these intellectuals had underestimated the strength of reactionary and conservative elements existing within an UMNO-based interlocking system, hence reducing them to an anomaly amongst these forces. The perception deficit befalling these reformists
was aggravated by their encroachment into the political economy of the UMNO rentiers and prevailing weaknesses in Abdullah's support system. The article seeks to contribute to the discourse on intra-elite conflicts in dominant conservatives regimes, such as have taken place in dominant parties
like the UMNO.
This article proposes an analysis of changes implemented during Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's administration (2003–09), using the theoretical framework commonplace in studies on conservatism. Based on the premise that transformations in conservative polities are prone to producing conflict, the dynamics of conflict situations during Abdullah's checkered Premiership is foregrounded. As we apply the main criteria defining conservatism to regime behaviour in Malaysia, it becomes clear that such criteria are stoutly held by the regime's elites in their quest for social harmony and political stability. Regime maintenance then finds justifications in such seemingly sublime ends, thereby self-perpetuating Malaysian conservatism. Such despondency prevailed during Mahathir Mohamad's administration (1981–2003), which displayed bias against changes and introduced schemes to justify the systems it upheld. Transmutations wrought during Abdullah's tenure may have been neither substantial nor totalizing, but within the conservative paradigm which had long gripped national politics, Abdullah's deviations were significant nevertheless.
Of the conservative theorists who rose to prominence during the last years of the Weimar Republic, none stood more directly in the eye of the storm that descended upon Germany in 1933–34 than Edgar Julius Jung (1894–1934). His Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen , first published in 1927 and then again in a revised and expanded edition in 1930, has been called the bible of German neo-conservatism and played a major role in crystallizing antidemocratic sentiment against the Weimar Republic. But Jung was more than a theorist; he was also a political activist deeply committed to a conservative regeneration ( Erneuerung ) of the German state. In 1930–31, for example, Jung was actively involved in the efforts of the People's Conservative Association ( Volkskonservative Vereinigung or VKV) to create a new conservative movement to the left of the German National People's Party ( Deutschnationale Volkspartei or DNVP) after its takeover by film and press magnate Alfred Hugenberg.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.