DOCSLIB.ORG

Download (15MB)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download (15MB) https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ Theses Digitisation: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/research/enlighten/theses/digitisation/ This is a digitised version of the original print thesis. Copyright and moral rights for this work are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This work cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Enlighten: Theses https://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] THE SOCIOLOGY OP INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY Money LaLour and Class in The Capitalist Mode of Production JOHN MACIKNES Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhDo Faculty of Social Sciences University of Glasgow December 1982 ProQuest Number: 10644241 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uesL ProQuest 10644241 Published by ProQuest LLO (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.Q. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All production is social in character, including the production of PhDo theseso Marguerite Nugent not only produced a flàwless typescript but was also a welcome source of authority in the prod­ uction processo M^ friends at the Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde suffered my enthusiasm as well as my temper as the work progressed^ I owe special thanks to Tony Eiger for his initial encouragement, John Eldridge for being a patient supervisor and Tony Clarke for intellectual and moral supporto I am, of course, responsible for the errors of ommission and commission which followo Ill CONTENTS page Chapter One: Introduction: Capitalism and The Commodity Status of labouro o o o o o 1 Chapter Two: Mode of Productiono o o ■ o o <,20 Chapter Three: Labour oooo o o <, « 5 5 Chapter Four: Money oooo o o o o 162 Chapter Five: Class oooo o o o o 259 Bibliography o oooo o o o o 284 IV ABSTRACT It is argued that most approaches to industrial democracy tlse a model of capitalism based on the commodity status of labouro This gives rise to *leap and logic* analyses of modes of production and changes between them which fall foul of the *paradox of mode of production*o The labour process and value theory debates are used to illustrate this* An alternative reading of Marx*s theory of value is proposed which gives a less determinist analysis of capitalist mode of production in terms of the development of the money formo The implications of this for conceptions of class and the rationality of production relations in capitalism are investigated and conclusions offered about how industrial democracy strategies might be evaluated,, V "When I hear someone announce that he intends "to apply Marxism" to a problem, I cannot help calling up a mental picture of a Victorian headmaster with a cane„" EoPo Thompsono CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION : CAPITALISM & THE COMMODITY STATUS OP LABOUR "Labour power, therefore, is a commodity neither more nor less than sugaro The former is measured by the clock, the latter by the scalesf (Marx, Wage' Labour and Capital) 2., 1.1 Two Problems with sociology of the workplace ; reversibility and qualification While doing empirical research on industrial democracy in private industry I became increasingly dissatisfied with two features of the theories available to analyse control and power at the workplaceo The first feature was that of ’reversibility*o It seemed that virtu­ ally any proposition advanced could be plausibly reversed. For example some arguments assume that hierarchy and efficiency go together ('it's management's job to manage') others that they are incompatible (indus­ trial democracy boosts productivity.) There are arguments that m o d e m capitalism is characterised by a decline in hierarchy and the rise of qualifications to the powers of capital. An example is the concept of 'management by agreement' in British industrial relations^ It conveys the notion that whereas previously, management could rely on coercion and 'the stick' to secure compliance with its orders, it must now embrace consent and 'the carrot'. At one level the concept is intuit­ ively attractive and grasps the main direction of change: transportation and the gibbet have been replaced by industrial tribunals as the basis of state intervention in industrial relations for example. Personal autocracy and despotism (whether at the level of director or of foreman) have been superceded by protective legislation, negotiations and griev­ ance procedures. But if more precise questions are addressed to the concept it can be seen that it provides only an outline of the developmento Thus we have veny little idea of the empirical dimensions of the contemporary 'fron­ tier of control' in different industries and the changes it undergoes. Unionised workforces with sophisticated plant or company level steward organisations may be able to offer a variety of resistances to managerial authority and wield considerable influence over its behaviour, but just how much influence is difficult to sayo The basis and scope of their 'countervailing power' is difficult to grasp.^ ^ 'Agreement'may be reluctant, or simply represent a grudging recognition of a balance of forces that is in no way accorded legitimacy. Is the stick no longer used because the carrot is just as effective and ultimately achieves the same results? And is the 'stick® such an outmoded strategy anyway? Recent events at British Leyland and Grunwick, and surveys of industrial tribunal performances suggest that management's power to hire and fire labour (from which so much else must surely flow) may now be more (5 ) cumbersome or expensive to put into practice, but remains intacto The recent Monetarist sponsored recession has demonstrated that worker organisation is still very dependent on the state of the labour market, although just how dependent remains to be seeUo Against this theorists of deskilling have argued that such developments are misleading epiphenomena obscuring the reality of the progressive removal of all vestiges of control over the organisation of work by labouro These are the arguments of the labour process debate and Braverman in particulars It might be argued that any empirical failings of a concept like 'management by agreement' would result more from a lack of sufficient evidence and research than theoretical deficienciesv> However, once we ask why there has been a development of management by agreements, the problems multiply. First of all there is the problem of circularity of explanations It is usually impossible to determine cause and effect in the discussion. For example it might be asserted that the more sophis­ ticated and expensive capital equipment used today requires a workforce that is relatively committed to maximising the potential of such tech- nology^^) Thus technological developments have forced an increased reliance on: "That spirit which enables the mapager to count on just the extra bit of speed when the deliveiy date is dangerously near. To count on care in the use of the firm's material; on honest working when the foreman is not about; on one man helping anothero"(5) and in turn led to an increase in workers' powero But it might equally be argued that it was rather the increase in workers' power which forced firms to adapt to such changed circumstances by exploring more fully the greater potential contribution of such a workforce through harnes­ sing the benefits of autonomy. We come up against yet more 'reversibil- ity in such a form that it simply is not possible to decide by an appeal to the 'empirical' evidenoeo Thus to take the same example again, it has been argued that the greater masses of capital set in motion by workers today render the costs of industrial action much greater for capital (since wage costs as a proportion of total costs are proportion­ ately less.) This is held to have increased workers' bargaining power and fostered the recognition of labour by the state^^^ and the develop­ ment in most capitalist economies of 'tri-partheid' direction of eoon- omic policy. A diametrically opposed argument is advanced by Braverman (1974^. Based on Marx's arguments about the tendency of the organic composition of capital to rise (that the mass of constant capital set in motion will tend to rise) it argues that the effects of this on the labour process (deskilling and the progressively real subordination of labour in the process of production) and the labour market (growth of the industrial reserve army, and of the substituteability of labour) will be to destroy what economic basis there was to workers' power to (7) influence capital/' I deal with the issues of circularity and reversibility in much greater depth in chapter 5 BeloWo The above example is meant simply as a pre­ liminary indication of the inadequacies of most current theorisation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implications for the Training Provision for Brazilian Office Workers
    TECHNOLOGY, SKILLS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WORK: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TRAINING PROVISION FOR BRAZILIAN . OFFICE WORKERS Ana Maria Lakomy Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Education at the Institute of Education University of London Department of Policy Studies Institute of Education University of London 1995 BIEL LOREN. UNA/. Abstract This thesis is concerned with the process of office automation in Brazil and its skills and training outcomes. The thesis combines a theoretical analysis with an empirical study undertaken in Brazil. Following an introductory chapter, Chapter 2 discusses and analyses two existing theoretical perspectives which address the relationship between technology, work organisation and skills. These are: the labour process approach with reference to the 'deskilling thesis' developed by Harry Braverman (1974) and the 'flexible specialisation thesis' based on Michael Piore and Charles Sabel (1984). They focus on technological changes on the shopfloor, in advanced industrialised countries. Chapter 3 applies the main arguments put forward by these two • approaches to the office environment in advanced industrialised countries. Based on the discussion of a number of empirical studies concerned with the skill outcomes of new technology in the office, the chapter also develops two models of office automation: the 'technology-driven' and the 'informational' models. These models are used as a framework for the discussion of the empirical research undertaken in Brazilian offices. Chapter 4 discusses the recent economic developments in Brazil in order to provide a context for understanding the empirical findings. The chapter describes the country's process of industrialisation, the current economic context and its implications for the adoption of new technology in the Brazilian office environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers' Movement
    chapter 8 Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers’ Movement* What was so great about Harry Braverman? The question, obviously rhetorical, elicits a predictable response in academic circles, where the author of Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974) is deservedly praised for a text that christened the emerging field of labour process studies.1 Braverman’s book was rigorous in its conceptualisations, sufficiently abstract to present an argument that reached beyond particularities into generalised, universal experience and historical and empirical enough to sustain an analysis meant to be received across disciplin- ary boundaries. Moreover, it bridged the academic and activist worlds of left scholarship and practice, a breeze of fresh interpretive air that reinvigorated intellectual sensibilities and revived the study of the work process in fields such as history, sociology, economics, political science and human geography. One of the 50 or so most important studies produced in the third quarter of the 20th century, Labor and Monopoly Capital earned its author a remarkable reputation that, sadly, he never lived to enjoy.2 Authors of great books, having scored the music which rings in the collective ear of generations of readers, inevitably face a cacophony of criticism, some very good, some quite indifferent and some irritatingly bad. Braverman soon faced an avalanche of revisionist study, much of which was written to displace his analysis by showing that somewhere, somehow, some group’s historical engagement with the work process stepped outside the general boundaries developed in Labor and Monopoly Capital. In the end, such studies remain, for the most part, mere footnotes to the edifice of labour process studies, the foundation of which has been, for almost a quarter-century, Braverman’s book.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did Braverman Go Wrong? a Marxist Response to the Politicist Critiques
    Where did Braverman go wrong? A Marxist response to the politicist critiques Onde está errado Braverman? A resposta marxista às críticas politicistas Eduardo Sartelli1 Marina Kabat2 Abstract Braverman is considered an unquestionable reference of Marxist labour process. The objective of this paper is to show that despite Braverman’s undeniable achievements he forsakes the classical Marxist notions related to work organization, i. e. simple cooperation, manufacture and large-scale industry and replaces them with the notion of Taylorism. We also intend to show that because of this abandonment, Braverman cannot explain properly how the deskilling tendency operates in different historical periods, and in distinct industry branches. Finally, we try to demonstrate that those Marxist concepts neglected by Braverman are especially useful to understand labor unrest related to job organization. Braverman overvalues the incidence of labor fragmentation and direct forms of control and disregards the impact of mechanization achieved with the emergence of Large-scale industry and the new forms of control associated with it. Whereas Braverman’s allegedly Marxist orthodoxy is considered responsible for this, in fact, exactly the opposite can be asserted: the weaknesses of the otherwise noteworthy work of Harry Braverman are grounded in his relinquishment of some crucial Marxist concepts. We state that labor processes conventionally considered Taylorist or Fordist can be reconceptualized in Marxist classic terms allowing a better understanding of the dynamic of conflicts regarding labor process. Keywords: Labor process. Politics. Marxism. Regulationism. Workers’ Struggles. Resumo Braverman é considerado uma referência inquestionável do processo de trabalho marxista. O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar que, apesar das contribuições inegáveis de Braverman ele abandona as noções marxistas clássicas relacionadas à organização do trabalho, a saber, cooperação simples, manufatura e grande-indústria e substituí-las com a noção do taylorismo.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution and Culture: the Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy (Cornell, 1988) Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Sochor, Zenovia A
    A. A. Bogdanov, 1873-1928 REVOLUTION AND CULTURE The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy ZENOVIA A. SOCHOR Studies of the Harriman Institute CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London Copyright © 1988 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Pres~, 124 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 1988 by Cornell University Press. • International Standard Book Number 0-8014-2088-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-25063 Printed in the United States of America Librarians: Library of Congress cataloging information appears on the last page of the book. The paper in this book is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. To my parents, Joseph and Maria Sochor STUDIES OF THE HARRIMAN INSTITUTE Columbia University The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University, sponsors the Studies of the Harriman Institute in the belief that their publication contributes to scholarly research and public understanding. In this way the Institute, while not necessarily endorsing their conclusions, is pleased to make available the results of some of the research conducted under its auspices. A list of the Studies appears at the back of the book. Contents Preface ix Part I Points of Departure 1. The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy 3 2. Cultural Prerequisites of Revolution 21 3. Bogdanovism 42 Part II After October: Which Way to Socialism? 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-Bibliographical Sketch of Bert Cochran
    Lubitz' TrotskyanaNet Bert Cochran Bio-Bibliographical Sketch Contents: Basic biographical data Biographical sketch Selective bibliography Note on archives Basic biographical data Name: Bert Cochran Other names (by-names, pseud. etc.): E.R. Frank ; Alexander Goldfarb ; White Date and place of birth: December 25, 1913 [?]1, New York, NY (USA) Date and place of death: June 6, 1984, New York, NY (USA) Nationality: USA Occupations, careers, etc.: Writer, editor, journalist, lecturer, trade union and party organizer Time of activity in Trotskyist movement: 1934 - ca. 1954 Biographical sketch Bert Cochran, in the Trotskyist movement also known by his pseudonyms E.R. Frank and White, was born in Poland as Alexander Goldfarb. In the early 1930s, he attended the University of Wisconsin and was recruited to Trotskyism by Max Shachtman. In 1934, he joined the ranks of the Communist League of America (CLA), the Trotskyist party founded and led by James P. Cannon, Max Shachtman and Martin Abern. CLA was renamed American Workers Party (AWP) when it fused with the group of A(braham) J(ohannes) Muste. In accordance with Trotsky's turn towards the 'entryist' tactic, the majority of the AWP, including Bert Cochran, entered Norman Thomas' Socialist Party (SP) where the Trotskyists formed a faction called the Appeal Group (named after their organ Socialist Appeal). They were expelled from the SP in 1937 and on January 1, 1938, they founded the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Cochran belonged to the founding members of this new American Trotskyist party and for several years served as member of its leading body, the National Committee (NC).
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Barbara Dissertation Template
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Defining the Monster: The Social Science and Rhetoric of Neo-Marxist Theories of Imperialism in the United States and Latin America, 1945-1973 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Christopher Cody Stephens Committee in charge: Professor Nelson Lichtenstein, Chair Professor Alice O’Connor Professor Salim Yaqub June 2018 The dissertation of Christopher Cody Stephens is approved. ____________________________________________ Salim Yaqub ____________________________________________ Alice O’Connor ____________________________________________ Nelson Lichtenstein, Committee Chair April 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I had the benefit of working with many knowledgeable and generous faculty members at UCSB. As my advisor and the chair of my dissertation committee, Nelson Lichtenstein has ushered the project through every stage of its development, from conceptualization to defense. I pitched the idea of writing a seminar paper on Andre Gunder Frank in his office roughly four years ago, and since then he has enthusiastically supported my efforts, encouraged me to stay focused on the end goal, and provided detailed feedback on multiple drafts. That is not to say that I have always incorporated all his comments/criticisms, but when I have failed to do so it is mostly out of lack of time, resources, or self-discipline. I will continue to draw from a store of Nelson’s comments as a blueprint as I revise the manuscript for eventual publication as a monograph. Alice O’Connor, Mary Furner, and Salim Yaqub also read and commented on the manuscript, and more broadly influenced my intellectual trajectory. Salim helped me present my work at numerous conferences, which in turn helped me think through how the project fit in the frame of Cold War historiography.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology
    SO37CH08-Manza ARI 1 June 2011 11:32 The Neo-Marxist Legacy in American Sociology Jeff Manza and Michael A. McCarthy Department of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY 10012; email: [email protected], [email protected] Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011. 37:155–83 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on capitalism, class, political economy, state, work May 6, 2011 by New York University - Bobst Library on 08/08/12. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2011.37:155-183. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org The Annual Review of Sociology is online at Abstract soc.annualreviews.org A significant group of sociologists entering graduate school in the late This article’s doi: 1960s and 1970s embraced Marxism as the foundation for a critical 10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150145 challenge to reigning orthodoxies in the discipline. In this review, we Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. ask what impact this cohort of scholars and their students had on the All rights reserved mainstream of American sociology. More generally, how and in what 0360-0572/11/0811-0155$20.00 ways did the resurgence of neo-Marxist thought within the discipline lead to new theoretical and empirical research and findings? Using two models of Marxism as science as our guide, we examine the impact of sociological Marxism on research on the state, inequality, the labor process, and global political economy. We conclude with some thoughts about the future of sociological Marxism. 155 SO37CH08-Manza ARI 1 June 2011 11:32 INTRODUCTION (Burawoy & Wright 2002), not Marxist theory or politics outside the academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Class Power in the Russian Factory 1929-1991
    Rethinking class power in the Russian factory 1929-1991 By Mike Haynes Working Paper Series 2006 Number WP002/06 ISSN Number 1363-6839 Dr Mike Haynes Principal Lecturer University of Wolverhampton, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1902 321776 Email: [email protected] Rethinking class power in the Russian factory 1929-1991 Copyright © University of Wolverhampton 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, photocopied, recorded, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright holder. The Management Research Centre is the co-ordinating centre for research activity within the University of Wolverhampton Business School. This Working Paper Series provides a forum for dissemination and discussion of research in progress within the School. For further information contact: Management Research Centre Wolverhampton University Business School Telford, Shropshire TF2 9NT 01902 321772 Fax 01902 321777 All Working Papers are published on the University of Wolverhampton Business School web site and can be accessed at www.wlv.ac.uk/uwbs choosing ‘Internal Publications’ from the Home page. 2 Rethinking class power in the Russian factory 1929-1991 Abstract The nature of the labour process in the Soviet era workplace is an important topic in its own right. But it has also been suggested that its legacy might help to explain some of the difficulties of the transition years since 1991. This paper reviews the argument at Soviet workers experienced a more or less unique set of internal workplace relations which determined the non-capitalist nature of the labour process.
    [Show full text]
  • Reification, Class and 'New Social Movements'
    Reification, Class and 'New Social Movements' Paul Browne All significant social movements of the last thirty years structural features of social reality. This being done, the latter have started outside the organised class interests and must then be reconstructed in all of its complexity and his­ institutions. The peace movement, the ecology move­ toricity. As Lukacs has argued in his Ontology of Social ment, the women's movement, solidarity with the third Being, the totality of society is a historically constituted and world, human rights agencies, campaigns against pov­ developing complex of complexes. As such it is one yet many, erty and homelessness, campaigns against cultural continuous yet discontinuous, homogeneous yet heterogene- poverty and distortion: all have this character, that they ous. sprang from needs and perceptions which the interest­ In the first part of this paper I will argue that reification based organisations had no room or time for, or which is the structuring principle of the capitalist mode of produc­ they had simply failed to notice. This is the reality tion which provides the key to the conceptualization of the which is often misinterpreted as 'getting beyond class relation between working-class politics and 'new social politics'. The local judgement on the narrowness of the movements'. The second part of the article will concretize major interest groups is just. But there is not one of this by showing that the all-pervasive character of reification these issues which, followed through, fails to lead us in capitalist society (so well analyzed in Lukacs's History and back into the central systems of the industrial-capital­ Class Consciousness) is still only a tendency (albeit a domi­ ist mode of production and among others into its sys­ nant one), and when taken in isolation, an abstract universal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Turn: from Labor Process to Labor Movement
    IRLE IRLE WORKING PAPER #191-09 November 2008 The Public Turn: From Labor Process to Labor Movement Michael Burawoy Cite as: Michael Burawoy. (2008). “The Public Turn: From Labor Process to Labor Movement.” IRLE Working Paper No. 191-09. http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/191-09.pdf irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Institute for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper Series (University of California, Berkeley) Year Paper iirwps-- The Public Turn: From Labor Process to Labor Movement Michael Burawoy University of California, Berkeley This paper is posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California. http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-191-09 Copyright c 2008 by the author. The Public Turn: From Labor Process to Labor Movement Abstract The year 1974 marked a rupture in the study of labor. It was the year in which Harry Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital was published, making a break with a moribund industrial sociology. It was a rupture inspired by the resurgence of Marxism, critical of the euphoric sociology of the 1950s. Since 1974, labor studies have undergone a mutation, shifting their focus from the examination of the labor process to an engagement with the labor movement. What explains this in light of the continuing assault on labor and the decline of overall union density? The answer lies with the transformation of the labor movement itself—the demise of the old industrial, business unionism and the growing strength of New Labor with its orientation to the service sector, to im- migrant and vulnerable workers, and its invention of novel organizing strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Century US Trade Union Movement
    American Communist History, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2004 Shades of Red: The Leninist Left and the Shaping of the 20th-Century US Trade Union Movement VICTOR G. DEVINATZ* Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions Judith Stepan-Norris and Maurice Zeitlin, 2003 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 375 pp., $75.00 Not Automatic: Women and the Left in the Forging of the Auto Workers’ Union Sol Dollinger and Genora Johnson Dollinger, 2000 New York: Monthly Review Press 214 pp., hardcover $48.00, softcover $23.95 Revolutionary Labor Socialist: The Life, Ideas, and Comrades of Frank Lovell Paul Le Blanc and Thomas Barrett, eds., 2000 Union City, NJ: Smyrna Press 352 pp., $25.00 Communists and Trotskyists have played a major role in the building of and participation in US trade unions, beginning in the mid-1930s. Both branches of US Communism exerted their highest level of influence in the unions, roughly from the formation of the Committee for Industrial Organization in November 1935, later renamed the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), until a few years past the onset of the Cold War in the late 1940s. The stories of the US Communist Party’s (CPUSA) role in the organization and the leading of a number of the industrial unions affiliated with the CIO are well known throughout the literature that dates back nearly half a century.1 *Victor G. Devinatz is Professor of Management at Illinois State University. 1In fact, even before the party’s success in the industrial unions during the mid-1930s and the late 1940s, there were a couple of books written in the pre-CIO era that deal with the Communist Party’s role in the US trade unions during the party’s first few years of existence: see David Saposs, Left-Wing Unionism: A Study of Radical Policies and Tactics (New York: Russell & Russell, 1926) and David M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Birth of Capitalism: a Twenty-First-Century Perspective
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Heller, Henry Book — Published Version The birth of capitalism: A twenty-first-century perspective The Future of World Capitalism Provided in Cooperation with: Pluto Press Suggested Citation: Heller, Henry (2011) : The birth of capitalism: A twenty-first-century perspective, The Future of World Capitalism, ISBN 978-1-84964-613-0, Pluto Press, London, http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30778 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/182429 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode www.econstor.eu THE BIRTH OF CAPITALISM heller prelims.indd 1 6/7/2011 11:43:31 AM The Future of World Capitalism Series editors: Radhika Desai and Alan Freeman The world is undergoing a major realignment.
    [Show full text]