Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion
★★★★★
★★★★★
Regular price
€62.99
Regular price
€63.99
Sale
Sale price
€62.99
A01=Joseph Torigian
Age Group_Uncategorized
Age Group_Uncategorized
american influence
archival materials
Author_Joseph Torigian
authoritarian
autocrat
automatic-update
Category1=Non-Fiction
Category=HBG
Category=HBJF
Category=HBJQ
Category=HBLW
Category=NHB
Category=NHF
Category=NHQ
cia
cold war
communist party
COP=United States
cult of personality
Delivery_Delivery within 10-20 working days
deng xiaoping
eq_history
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_non-fiction
Language_English
leadership selection
leninist
military influence
PA=Available
politburo
power struggle
present day
Price_€50 to €100
PS=Active
secret police
softlaunch
xi jinping
Product details
- ISBN 9780300254235
- Dimensions: 156 x 235mm
- Publication Date: 12 Jul 2022
- Publisher: Yale University Press
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Hardback
- Language: English
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days
Our Delivery Time Frames Explained
2-4 Working Days: Available in-stock
10-20 Working Days: On Backorder
Will Deliver When Available: On Pre-Order or Reprinting
We ship your order once all items have arrived at our warehouse and are processed. Need those 2-4 day shipping items sooner? Just place a separate order for them!
How succession in authoritarian regimes was less a competition of visions for the future and more a settling of scores
“Joseph Torigian’s stellar research and personal interviews have produced a brilliant, meticulous study. It fundamentally undermines what political scientists have presumed to be the way Chinese Communist and Soviet politics operate.”—Dorothy J. Solinger, University of California, Irvine
“[Torigian’s] work is absolutely outstanding.”—Stephen Kotkin, ChinaTalk
The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner-party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history’s two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes.
“Joseph Torigian’s stellar research and personal interviews have produced a brilliant, meticulous study. It fundamentally undermines what political scientists have presumed to be the way Chinese Communist and Soviet politics operate.”—Dorothy J. Solinger, University of California, Irvine
“[Torigian’s] work is absolutely outstanding.”—Stephen Kotkin, ChinaTalk
The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner-party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history’s two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes.
Joseph Torigian is an assistant professor at the School of International Service at American University and a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center’s History and Public Policy Program.
Qty: