Just to drop the below observations in brackets to this intriguing discussion:
(Find the topic important in terms of the similarities with the
parallel debates going on between capitalists and capitalisms and in
between the two fronts. So that some argues today's state capitalism
is not representing capitalism in general, like neocons, Chinese,
Russian,... the forms of 'authoreterian capitalism' are not
represneting the original perfect capitalist hypothesis. While that
was Hayes, an eastern European theorist of the 'stateless capitalism
by state', who highlighted that after 90s first time in the history of
capitalism, world structures now super imposing this form, from
periphery towards centre. What is also very interesting to observe
that some others from both sides converge in the middle, around the
debates on new capitalism without capitalism, or 'post' capitalism
visions that are going beyond capitalisms, while those like
Wallenstein, in his recent overview, identifies a darker possibility
emerging in that beyond capitalism visioning.)
best,
Örsan
On 15 May 2015 at 12:22, Steve Jefferys <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Dan, Martin and Roland,
> It's a real problem. In research for the French Ministry of Labour published
> in 2011, the introduction to the book used the more functionalist (but
> accurate) term 'command economies', not far from the slightly more
> convoluted 'centrally administered economies' adopted, Dan writes, by the
> UN.
> best wishes
> Steve
>
> Introduction
>
> The 1990s witnessed the conjuncture of two major economic events: the
> financialisation of global capitalism and the entry of this new, highly
> mobile capitalism into the Central and Eastern Europe command economies.
> Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) experienced an unprecedented rapid
> explosion of inward foreign direct investment (FDI), whose associated risks
> were lowered significantly by the 2004 and 2007 European Union (EU)
> accessions of first eight and then two more of the former Communist states.
> Hundreds and then thousands of multinational corporations thus invested in
> the region either to take advantages of its highly skilled but low cost
> labour supply or to position themselves to take advantage of opportunities
> (many created by massive privatisations) to access rapidly growing local
> markets.
>
> The spectacular growth of FDI supported an equally rapid economic
> catching-up process. The CEE economies restructured dramatically away from
> heavy industry and agriculture towards services and industries based on
> medium or high-level technologies; much of existing manufacturing was
> modernised; extensive technology transfers took place on a massive scale.
>
> This huge contribution of foreign-owned multinationals towards the
> transition and subsequent high growth rates of CEE created considerable
> questioning about the employment relations or social models that accompanied
> these MNC investments. Would the MNCs be tempted to export their own
> country-of-origin social models and – in a region with relatively new and
> potentially malleable employment systems and institutions – to try and
> influence the national systems of employment relations in the host countries
> where they were investing? Would their transfer of contemporary ‘Western’
> human resource management methods and of ‘best practices’ operating
> successfully in their countries of origins effectively ‘modernise’ CEE
> social models? Would the MNCs use the opportunity of lower wages and often
> lower levels of worker and social protection in CEE to undercut wages and
> conditions of workers in their countries-of-origin through ‘social dumping’?
> Or would the path dependency of each individual CEE country, each with its
> own legacy from the Communist era, and its distinctive institutional and
> cultural particularities and economic context, ensure conformity by inward
> investing MNCs to a wide variety of social models?
>
> Throughout most of CEE, however, the extent of pressure by host country
> institutions on MNC subsidiaries was quite weak. While there were some
> variations, their overall trajectories followed the line spelt out first by
> the Washington Consensus whereby they should be ‘re-educated’ from the
> Communist framework as rapidly as possible, and then by the European Union,
> which required they adopt the 31 chapters making up the basic rights and
> duties of EU membership.
>
> In reality, for CEE the 1990s and 2000s were decades of a totally unexpected
> kind in terms of changes in employment regulation. For everywhere the
> predominant structuring of employment systems at individual nation-state
> level was beginning to be challenged by globalisation and in particular by
> the new exceptional degree of capital mobility. This strengthened the
> employers as a class, but also encouraged increased international
> competition between both capitalists and capitalisms. As a consequence, not
> only did trade union membership come under pressure, but at the same time,
> at first in external-facing industries and then in internal ones too,
> collective bargaining, where it continued to exist, shifted to local
> workplace level, where workers were often at their weakest. Associated
> changes were a weakening of many employee rights and a much greater
> flexibility in working time, payment systems and other working conditions...
>
> Globalizing Employment Relations: Multinational Corporations and Central and
> Eastern European transitions and transfers (eds. Sylvie Contrepois, Violaine
> Deltiel, Patrick Dieuaide and Steve Jefferys}, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
>
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 10:36, Roland Erne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dan (and Martin)
>>
>> As you know I am admiring your work very much.
>>
>> Yet, may I add another voice to your discussion? See: Sabina Stan's
>> contribution - who actually participated in the Romanian revolution of
>> 1989 - on Andreas Bieler's blog
>> http://andreasbieler.blogspot.no/2013/11/why-socialism-can-be-nothing-else
>> -than.html
>>
>> I agree with her that the (democratic) left often makes it simply too easy
>> for itself, when it claims that what happened in the East is not
>> socialism. If we want to learn anything from history, we should engage
>> ourselves substantively and critically with its history in a way that goes
>> beyond a tokenistic "condemnation of communism" or "real socialism", which
>> is only serving current elites. See also Sabina's contribution on the 2012
>> anti-austerity protests in Bucharest
>> http://www.criticatac.ro/13821/piata-universitatii-cealalta-poveste/ which
>> at least Dan should be able to read.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Roland
>>
>> ---
>> Roland Erne, University College Dublin,
>> http://www.ucd.ie/indrel/staff/rolanderne/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Critical Labour Studies
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Gallin
>> Sent: 14 May 2015 19:31
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [SPAM: 209.000] Re: Post-Socialist Economies, Nationalistic
>> Conflicts and Labour
>>
>> 14.05.15
>>
>> Dear Martin,
>>
>> Many thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Your caveat does reflect awareness of the problem, but I do not understand
>> how "post socialism" could be described as "historically more accurate".
>> It is not. As to being "more in tune with local usage", that might well
>> be the case, but it is exactly what we need to oppose, because as long as
>> socialism remains identified by "local usage" with Stalinism there is no
>> way we can promote a socialist agenda in the counties of the former Soviet
>> bloc. Not even in their labour movement.
>>
>> The dilemma is not just rooted in the
>> Stalin-Trotsky split. Practically every political tendency of the Left
>> would challenge the definition of the USSR as a socialist country,
>> starting with the dissident Trotskyists (Shachtman, Castoriadis, aka
>> Chaulieu, and others), Titoists like Djilas, council communists (Hermann
>> Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, HenryJacoby), the Bordiguists (who
>> fought with the POUM), the anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists, and
>> of course the social-democrats (Kautsky since 1926) , the Mensheviks in
>> exile.
>>
>> That is a considerable body of opinion on the Left. In fact, its all of
>> the Left except the Stalinist sect. There is no dilemma and no need to
>> subjectively agonize.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> At 19:08 14.05.2015, you wrote:
>> >Hi Dan,
>> >
>> >I appreciate your cautions and caveats. I for one am of the 'State
>> >Capitalist' school while others organising the event prefer the term
>> >'State Socialist' when referring to the countries of the former Soviet
>> >Union and its satellites plus the former Yugoslavia. The terminology is
>> >contentious, and we have referred to this in the footnote attached to
>> >our recent Work, Employment and Society' E-special (attached). The
>> >caveat we apply here is "
>> >Countries, societies and work practices in the region are more often
>> >than not referred to by authors of the reviewed articles as either
>> >post-socialist, post-communist or post-Soviet.
>> >Our review has retained authors’ preferences whenever possible. It is
>> >nonetheless important to point out that these different terms are
>> >significant, carrying often ideologically loaded meanings or an
>> >implicit bias toward views developed in the West and particularly the
>> >English-speaking world, during the Cold War. It would therefore be
>> >philologically as well as ethically more appropriate to employ terms
>> >which are both historically more accurate and more in tune with local
>> >usage such as post-socialism, particularly for Eastern European popular
>> >democracies; and post-Soviet, for the Russian Federation and other
>> >successor states of the Soviet Union."
>> >
>> >I know this doesn't solve the dilemma, which is rooted, of course, in
>> >the Stalin-Trotsky split, but at least helps explain why ways through
>> >the dilemma in a subjective sense are very difficult.
>> >
>> >best wishes,
>> >
>> >Martin Upchurch
>> >Professor of International Employment Relations Middlesex University
>> >Business School The Burroughs Hendon London NW4 4BT
>> >
>> >+44(0)7827 314649
>> >
>> >[log in to unmask]
>> >
>> >Google Scholar
>> >http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=D7owhWEAAAAJ&hl=en
>> >
>> >Research Cluster
>> >http://www.mdx.ac.uk/our-research/research-groups/employment-relations
>> >
>> >Globalisation and Work Facebook Group
>> >http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#/group.php?gid=238371095227&ref=ts
>> >________________________________________
>> >From: Dan Gallin [[log in to unmask]]
>> >Sent: 14 May 2015 15:59
>> >To: Martin Upchurch
>> >Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> >Subject: [SPAM: 209.000] Re: Post-Socialist Economies, Nationalistic
>> >Conflicts and Labour
>> >
>> >14.05.15
>> >
>> >Dear Martin,
>> >
>> >I think references to "post-socialist economies"
>> >and "post-socialist Europe" are problematic since they assume that
>> >there have been at some time "socialist economies" and a "socialist
>> >Europe". I believe that this has not been the case.
>> >
>> >I am sure you are aware that even before 1991 the description (or
>> >self-description) of the USSR and the States of the Soviet bloc as
>> >"socialist" was controversial. Much of independent Marxist research,
>> >and others, described the system operating in these countries more
>> >accurately as another form of society, neither capitalist nor socialist
>> >(bureaucratic collectivism), or else as State capitalism. It is highly
>> >debatable whether any "socialist States" have ever existed in history
>> >so far. The issue here is the meaning of socialism, which is itself
>> >open to debate, but there is a historical record, theoretical and
>> >practical, framing the definition which should not be ignored.
>> >
>> >Would you now describe China, Vietnam, Laos or Cuba as "socialist"? all
>> >of them are moving very fast towards authoritarian forms of capitalism
>> >while the single party is attempting to maintain total control of
>> >society by administrative methods (police and military) to the benefit
>> >of capitalist enterprise. That leaves North Korea.
>> >Paraphrasing Karl Marx, I would say that if this is socialism I am not
>> >a socialist.
>> >
>> >I am of course aware that before 1991 both the propaganda of the USSR
>> >and its allies and the conservative Right were unanimous in describing
>> >the Soviet system a "socialist" The Communists, in their Stalinist
>> >version, tried to legitimise their system by appropriating the symbols
>> >and the language of the historical socialist movement- The conservative
>> >Right attempted to discredit the socialist movement by identifying and
>> >amalgamating it with the reality of the USSR and of Communist rule
>> >wherever it was able to exercise power. This was, and remains,
>> >conceptual embezzlement of the worst kind. To accept this consensus is
>> >to give socialism a bad name and to give credibility to its worst
>> >enemies.
>> >
>> >It would have been much better if your choice of terminology would not
>> >have pre-empted any political conclusions and would not have imposed
>> >from the outset a specific interpretation of the past and present
>> >nature of these societies. The UN has already, years ago, found a term
>> >which side-steps this issue; their documents refer to "centrally
>> >administered economies".
>> >
>> >Dan Gallin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >At 13:20 14.05.2015, you wrote:
>> > >Post-Socialist Economies, Nationalistic Conflicts and Labour in
>> > >Central-Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union Workshop Friday 29
>> > >May, 9.30 to 18.00 Middlesex University, London NW4 4BT, Hendon
>> > >Campus, College Building, room C114
>> > >
>> > >For further information, and to register at the workshop, please
>> contact:
>> > >Claudio Morrison ([log in to unmask]) or Ryan Buchschacher
>> > >([log in to unmask]
>> > >
>> > >Programme outline
>> > >9.30 10.00 Registration and coffee
>> > >Welcome by Professor Richard Croucher (MUBS Director of Research) and
>> > >Dr Claudio Morrison (PLSG Convenor)
>> > >
>> > >10.00 - 11.45
>> > >Session 1: Protests and Trade Unions in Post-Socialist Europe: what
>> > >prospects for Labour?
>> > >Chair: Olga Cretu
>> > >o Ukraine: between competing nationalisms and
>> > >competing imperialisms, Volodymyr Ishenko (Centre for Social and
>> > >Labour Research, Kiev);
>> > >o Social Protests between Spontaneity and
>> > >Organisation: the case of the 2014 Bosnia Uprising’, Goran Markovic
>> > >(East Sarajevo University, Sarajevo Plenum);
>> > >o Labour protests in Russia: protection of
>> > >labour rights or revolt against the power?, Petr Bizyukov (Centre for
>> > >Social and Labour rights, Moscow);
>> > >o Trade unions in Poland: Pathways into the
>> > >21st century, Dr Vera Trappman (University of Leeds)
>> > >
>> > >11.45 12.00 Coffee break
>> > >
>> > >12.00 13.20
>> > >Session 2: Post-Socialist Europe between crises and conflict: The
>> > >Politics of Nationalism
>> > >Chair: Hanna Danilovich
>> > >o Passive Revolutions of the XXI
>> > >Century: capitalist restoration and nationalist conflicts in
>> > >post-socialist Europe, Dr Claudio
>> > Morrison (Middlesex University)
>> > >o Conflict in the post-communist Yugoslavia:
>> > >the case of Serbia: An examination of the consequences of the varying
>> > >political discourse of nationalism from Tito through to the
>> > >neoliberal order of today, Dr. Jelena Timotijevic (University of
>> Brighton)
>> > >o Russian external threats and the ‘enemy
>> > >within’: government policies and public responses, Biziukova (Levada
>> > >Analytical Centre, Moscow)
>> > >
>> > >13.20 14.20 Lunch break
>> > >
>> > >14.20 15.45
>> > >Session 3: The Political Economy of
>> > >Post-Socialism: Economics, Debt and Conflict (1)
>> > >Chair: Marian Rizov
>> > >o How Can We Explain Continuing Dysfunction in
>> > >Post Socialist Economies?, Professor Martin Upchurch (Middlesex
>> University);
>> > >o The Polish "beggar imperialism" and uneven
>> > >development of the Eastern Europe, Dr Filip Ilkowski (Institute of
>> > >Political Science, Warsaw)
>> > >o Social Polarisation - history or politics?
>> > >The case of Ukraine, Dr Daryna Grechyna (Economics, Middlesex
>> > >University)
>> > >
>> > >15.45 16.00 Coffee break
>> > >
>> > >16.00 17.00
>> > >Session 4: The Political Economy of
>> > >Post-Socialism: Economics, Debt and Conflict (2)
>> > >Chair: Martin Upchurch
>> > >o Ukraine’s Economy of Debt, Professor John
>> > >Grahl (economics, Middlesex University)
>> > >o The Russian Federation and its
>> > >‘neighbourhood’: A Eurasian Economic Space?, Dr Hanna Danilovich
>> > >(LWO, Middlesex University)
>> > >
>> > >17.00 17.40
>> > >Plenary Session:
>> > >The way forward: Prospects and challenges for future research and
>> > >social impact
>> > >Discussant: Richard Croucher
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Martin Upchurch
>> > >Professor of International Employment Relations Middlesex University
>> > >Business School The Burroughs Hendon London NW4 4BT
>> > >
>> > >+44(0)7827 314649
>> > >
>> > >[log in to unmask]
>> > >
>> > >Google Scholar
>> > >http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=D7owhWEAAAAJ&hl=en
>> > >
>> > >Research Cluster
>> > >http://www.mdx.ac.uk/our-research/research-groups/employment-relation
>> > >s
>> > >
>> > >Globalisation and Work Facebook Group
>> > >http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#/group.php?gid=238371095227&ref=ts
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >------
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Please note that Middlesex University's preferred way of receiving
>> > >all correspondence is via email in line with our Environmental
>> > >Policy.
>> > >All incoming post to Middlesex University is opened and scanned by
>> > >our digital document handler, CDS, and then emailed to the recipient.
>> > >
>> > >If you do not want your correspondence to Middlesex University
>> > >processed in this way please email the recipient directly. Parcels,
>> > >couriered items and recorded delivery items will not be opened or
>> > >scanned by CDS. There are items which are "exceptions" which will be
>> > >opened by CDS but will not be scanned a full list of these can be
>> > >obtained by contacting the University.
>> >
>> >Global Labour Institute
>> >Av Cardinal-Mermillod 18
>> >CH-1227 Carouge
>> >Switzerland
>> >tel: (+41 22) 344 63 63
>> >e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> >website: www.global-labour.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >----
>> >
>> >
>> >Please note that Middlesex University's preferred way of receiving all
>> >correspondence is via email in line with our Environmental Policy.
>> >All incoming post to Middlesex University is opened and scanned by our
>> >digital document handler, CDS, and then emailed to the recipient.
>> >
>> >If you do not want your correspondence to Middlesex University
>> >processed in this way please email the recipient directly. Parcels,
>> >couriered items and recorded delivery items will not be opened or
>> >scanned by CDS. There are items which are "exceptions" which will be
>> >opened by CDS but will not be scanned a full list of these can be
>> >obtained by contacting the University.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Global Labour Institute
>> Av Cardinal-Mermillod 18
>> CH-1227 Carouge
>> Switzerland
>> tel: (+41 22) 344 63 63
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> website: www.global-labour.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Jefferys
> Emeritus Professor
> London Metropolitan University
> 160-220, Holloway Rd., London N7 8DB
> [log in to unmask]
> Mob: 00 44 (0) 7928 388 749
> Facebook: steve.jefferys.79
> Twitter: @steveJefferys45
>
>
> Companies Act 2006 : http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/companyinfo
|
