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-relations
> >
> >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
|