15.05.15
Dear Steve,
Thank you for signaling the term "command economies", which is
also useful, I now remember coming across it a few years ago, and thank
you also for the interesting introduction to the French Ministry of
Labour publication.
I am puzzled by the statement in this introduction that " this new,
highly mobile capitalism" entered Central and Eastern Europe only in
the 1990s. I think that happened well before, like in the 1970s (see
Charles Levinson's "Vodka Cola").
Best wishes,
Dan
At 12:22 15.05.2015, Steve Jefferys wrote:
Dear Dan, Martin and
Roland,
It's a real problem. In research for the French Ministry of Labour
published in 2011, Â 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.
Â
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.
Â
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 systeems 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?
Â
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.
Â
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:Â
Sabina Stan's
- contribution - who actually participated in the Romanian
revolution of
- 1989Â - 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 Â 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 Â 12.00 Coffee break
- > >
- > >12.00 Â 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:Â 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,Â
Biziukova (Levada
- > >Analytical Centre, Moscow)
- > >
- > >13.20 Â 14.20 Lunch break
- > >
- > >14.20 Â 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 Â 16.00 Coffee break
- > >
- > >16.00 Â 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 Â 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
- >
>
