Eddy U has tought in the Department of Chinese Studies at the University of Sydney, and is an associate professor of sociology at University of California, Davis.
this book offers a new interpretation of socialism and its failure in the last century, and takes on the conventional view that socialist China and other Soviet-type societies represented the domination of bureaucracy. Using a wealth of original archival sources, interview data, and comparative material, Eddy U argues that these societies were not bureaucratic enough. The ruling regimes established a form of workplace administration that is the antithesis of modern bureaucratic organization. Because the workplace lacked rational rules and practices, Soviet-type societies were marred by technical inefficiency, political resentment, and social friction. But U does not merely expose workplace disorganization in Soviet-type societies; his theoretically and empirically grounded research raises questions about the contention that socialism has been proven unworkable. He concludes that strengthening the rational capacity of the state may still be the key to improving social and economic justice.
評分
評分
評分
評分
Solidly and neatly argued scholarship, clear engagement with Weber. The analytical framework has the shell but not the content of going beyond Eurocentric paradigms, but some empirical observations are still useful. Shall read alongside Gross, Ghosh, and Andreas.The criticism of Neo Liberalism in the conclusion is inadequate or even unnecessary.
评分Solidly and neatly argued scholarship, clear engagement with Weber. The analytical framework has the shell but not the content of going beyond Eurocentric paradigms, but some empirical observations are still useful. Shall read alongside Gross, Ghosh, and Andreas.The criticism of Neo Liberalism in the conclusion is inadequate or even unnecessary.
评分Solidly and neatly argued scholarship, clear engagement with Weber. The analytical framework has the shell but not the content of going beyond Eurocentric paradigms, but some empirical observations are still useful. Shall read alongside Gross, Ghosh, and Andreas.The criticism of Neo Liberalism in the conclusion is inadequate or even unnecessary.
评分Solidly and neatly argued scholarship, clear engagement with Weber. The analytical framework has the shell but not the content of going beyond Eurocentric paradigms, but some empirical observations are still useful. Shall read alongside Gross, Ghosh, and Andreas.The criticism of Neo Liberalism in the conclusion is inadequate or even unnecessary.
评分Solidly and neatly argued scholarship, clear engagement with Weber. The analytical framework has the shell but not the content of going beyond Eurocentric paradigms, but some empirical observations are still useful. Shall read alongside Gross, Ghosh, and Andreas.The criticism of Neo Liberalism in the conclusion is inadequate or even unnecessary.
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息,本站不存儲任何數據與內容,任何內容與數據均與本站無關,如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 qciss.net All Rights Reserved. 小哈圖書下載中心 版权所有