 |
 |
Dear Steve, Can you please not email me. Paul Stewart Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone ---- Steve Jefferys wrote ---- Dear Dan, Martin and Roland, Dan is puzzled about the claim that 'this new highly mobile capitalism' entering CEE in the 1990s. It is true, of course, as Sabina Sath also points out, that CEE countries opened up to selected FDI from the 1970s. The difference is that the financialisation of international capitalism in the late 1980s created a significantly more mobile capital whose behaviours (enabled by the new technologies) were essentially motivated not on securing rent from 'trade' or 'consumption', but from risk. Capital movements then increased exponentially in the 1990s and especially in CEE where 'protective' command structures had broken down. But the 1990s represented not just a new opening for finance capital in CEE. A major consequence of 1989 was to unleash this new barely restrained risk-focused finance capital on the rest of the world. Roland is right to point out that Swedish and other (non-command) forms of 'socialism' concerned with 'social' as well as with 'political' democracy lay in a continuum with 'command' forms. What they shared in common was the argument for 'greater equality' in the social sphere: at work, in housing, in education, etc. And to a greater or lesser extent they considered that this greater equality could be introduced through redistributing resources. Somewhere along the continuum from the CEE countries to Sweden (and beyond) was a key difference in how such redistribution could be brought about: from above or from below. For those of us who consider that workers and their organisations can make a difference to the extent of 'greater equality' in the social sphere, the real debate is less about what to call the different positions on that continuum but about how to win more people to the argument that greater equality matters. Best wishes Steve 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, 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...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 22:02, Roland Erne <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Dear Dan I agree, what serves current elites is the identification of socialism with Stalinism. I also very much respect and sympathise with those who fought Stalinism when it really mattered, like you. And yet, I do think that it is too easy to say their 'socialism' has nothing to do with ours. After all we are also talking about Swedish "neo-corporatism" even if the social democratic Rehn-Meidner model differs in many ways from Mihail Manoliescu's "corporatism" Some parts of the concepts with the same origin are similar while others are completely different. This should lead to a differentiated discussion of both the history of "real socialism" and the "post-socialist" present. This should help us to A) learn from past mistakes of the labour movement (eg. The iron law of oligarchy hardly apply only to Stalinist organisations of the labour movement) B) also resist tokenistic "condemnation of communism" (Basescu) by current elites, which first and foremost serve to justify the onslaught on social rights in Romania and elsewhere -- and even -- the Nazi's war against the Soviet Union (see http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13460894/Rumaenien-veraergert-Russland-mit-Barbarossa-Lob.html) But maybe it is not up to me to make these comments, as I grow up in post-cold war Switzerland. Thus the link to Sabina's blog post (thanks Andreas for the correct links). Kind regards Roland Roland Erne www.ucd.ie/indrel/re.htm<http://www.ucd.ie/indrel/re.htm> On 15 May 2015, at 18:11, Dan Gallin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: 15.05.15 Dear Roland, The link to Sabina Stan's contribution to Andreas Bieler's blog does not work (the computer says "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist".) Try again? I don't think that the democratic Left made it "too easy for itself" to claim that "what happened in the East" was not socialism. What, in fact, did "happen in the East"? Starting with the democratic Left in the USSR, thousands paid with their lives for that "claim". It gets worse, much worse, later. If one wants to learn anything from history, the first step is to know your history. I am not sure what you mean by a "tokenistic"condemnation of communism"". Whatever that may be, I don't think that is what this discussion is about. As for "real socialism" (or "really existing socialism"), that was a phrase invented in the GDR as the Stalinist version of "there is no alternative", to distinguish their system from the unreal socialism, our socialism, the one socialists carried in their hearts and minds before there was ever a promised land. What serves current elites is the identification of socialism with Stalinism, now generally perceived to have been a violent, corrupt and oppressive regime. The drumbeat of conservative propaganda on this theme has intimidated the social-democrats, consolidated right-wing hegemony over the political debate and contributed to de-politicise much of the trade union movement. That is why it needs to be resisted. Fortunately the Stalinist sect, in its pure form, is pretty marginal at this point but we have not yet reached the end of that story.. I read Sabina San's article in CriticAttac. It is an interesting article, dealing with the importance of intellectuals and workers joining forces, and why this hasn 't happened so far in Romania. About the revolution (in December 1998) she writes that "University Square, among other sites, were the centers of protests against a State and a ruling class not so much police minded but predatory, having appropriated in an abusive and illegitimate manner the common product of the whole society, thus progressing not in the sense of socialism but towards its opposite." Best wishes, Dan At 11:36 15.05.2015, you 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]<mailto:[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<tel:%2B44%280%297827%20314649> > >[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >Sent: 14 May 2015 15:59 >To: Martin Upchurch >Cc: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) or Ryan Buchschacher > >([log in to unmask]<mailto:[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<tel:%2B44%280%297827%20314649> > > > >[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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<tel:%28%2B41%2022%29%C2%A0344%2063%2063> >e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >website: www.global-labour.org<http://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<tel:%28%2B41%2022%29%C2%A0344%2063%2063> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> website: www.global-labour.org<http://www.global-labour.org> Global Labour Institute Av Cardinal-Mermillod 18 CH-1227 Carouge Switzerland tel: (+41 22) 344 63 63<tel:%28%2B41%2022%29%C2%A0344%2063%2063> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> website: www.global-labour.org<http://www.global-labour.org> Roland Erne www.ucd.ie/indrel/re.htm<http://www.ucd.ie/indrel/re.htm> On 15 May 2015, at 18:11, Dan Gallin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: 15.05.15 Dear Roland, The link to Sabina Stan's contribution to Andreas Bieler's blog does not work (the computer says "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist".) Try again? I don't think that the democratic Left made it "too easy for itself" to claim that "what happened in the East" was not socialism. What, in fact, did "happen in the East"? Starting with the democratic Left in the USSR, thousands paid with their lives for that "claim". It gets worse, much worse, later. If one wants to learn anything from history, the first step is to know your history. I am not sure what you mean by a "tokenistic"condemnation of communism"". Whatever that may be, I don't think that is what this discussion is about. As for "real socialism" (or "really existing socialism"), that was a phrase invented in the GDR as the Stalinist version of "there is no alternative", to distinguish their system from the unreal socialism, our socialism, the one socialists carried in their hearts and minds before there was ever a promised land. What serves current elites is the identification of socialism with Stalinism, now generally perceived to have been a violent, corrupt and oppressive regime. The drumbeat of conservative propaganda on this theme has intimidated the social-democrats, consolidated right-wing hegemony over the political debate and contributed to de-politicise much of the trade union movement. That is why it needs to be resisted. Fortunately the Stalinist sect, in its pure form, is pretty marginal at this point but we have not yet reached the end of that story.. I read Sabina San's article in CriticAttac. It is an interesting article, dealing with the importance of intellectuals and workers joining forces, and why this hasn 't happened so far in Romania. About the revolution (in December 1998) she writes that "University Square, among other sites, were the centers of protests against a State and a ruling class not so much police minded but predatory, having appropriated in an abusive and illegitimate manner the common product of the whole society, thus progressing not in the sense of socialism but towards its opposite." Best wishes, Dan At 11:36 15.05.2015, you 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]<mailto:[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<tel:%2B44%280%297827%20314649> > >[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >Sent: 14 May 2015 15:59 >To: Martin Upchurch >Cc: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) or Ryan Buchschacher > >([log in to unmask]<mailto:[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<tel:%2B44%280%297827%20314649> > > > >[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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<tel:%28%2B41%2022%29%20344%2063%2063> >e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >website: www.global-labour.org<http://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<tel:%28%2B41%2022%29%20344%2063%2063> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> website: www.global-labour.org<http://www.global-labour.org> Global Labour Institute Av Cardinal-Mermillod 18 CH-1227 Carouge Switzerland tel: (+41 22) 344 63 63<tel:%28%2B41%2022%29%20344%2063%2063> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> website: www.global-labour.org<http://www.global-labour.org> -- Steve Jefferys Emeritus Professor London Metropolitan University 160-220, Holloway Rd., London N7 8DB [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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