Search results

In recent months the UK Labour Party has been reviewing its policy approach and putting some flesh on the bones of what a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn and current shadow chancellor John McDonnell might hope to achieve. Central to their approach has been a renewed interest on the perils of market failure and what can be done about it. An alternative vision has emerged that focuses on prospects for a more cooperative and democratic economy constructed around a limited programme of (re)nationalisation and a National Investment Bank. In the process, two major reports have been produced as discussion documents. The first, Alternative Models of Ownership (herein referred to as AMO) discusses market failures and proposes a new type of economy based on co-ops, and a high-tech networked society encapsulating what McDonnell has referred to as "socialism with an iPad".1 The second report, Financing Investment (FI), examines the nature of the UK economy, with an array of policy proposals designed to boost the economy through investment in order to encourage productivity growth.2 Both reports are contextualised by academic contributions to the debate and discourse in which concepts such as "post-neoliberalism" or "alternative economic models" have emerged as political projects coveted by sections of the left. These theoretical contributions construct an alternative vision of society based on cooperative sharing, benevolent capital and state-facilitated investment as a successor to the neoliberal phase of capitalism. The purpose of this article is to explore this brand of socialist ideal and to offer a critique in the classical Marxist, revolutionary tradition.

Workers played a key role in the October 2000 revolution in Serbia that overthrew Milošević and his Socialist Party regime. Since then, the trade union movement has begun to consolidate itself into three separate union federations, each with its own distinct orientation. Serbia's economic problems have persisted, leading to heavy dependence on privatisation, foreign direct investment and loans and grants from international financial institutions. This environment has both constrained and shaped the strategies of the unions. This labour experience is difficult to compare with those of advanced western democracies, and is still conditioned by legacies from the past.

The article traces the historical development and peculiarities of (West) German capitalism and the place of consensus within the ideological superstructure. New state and employer offensives against labour are recorded and analysed and the resultant crisis of labour relations is discussed. The author argues that employers are, as yet, unwilling to launch a full frontal attack on co-determination.

Interest has arisen in the contribution of vo cational education and training (VET) to national competitiveness as part of more gen eral debates on 'national economic models'. In particular the 'dual system' of the German `model' has been put forward as a more com petitive example than the deregulated and market-based system in Britain. Over the last decade and a half, training has been consider ably overhauled in Britain with the aim of rais ing both the quantity and quality of provision. A range of new initiatives has been introduced without altering the market-driven and volun tarist approach. More recently, policy docu ments have emerged in Britain from both government and opposition on the question of education and training, while in Germany the Kohl regime has launched a '50-point pro gramme' with the intention of labour-market deregulation and cutting non-wage costs. Yet evidence suggests that while the German sys tem itself is now under strain as a result of in creasing unemployment and employer-driven moves towards more flexible labour practices, it nevertheless remains superior in terms of its output and contribution to the country's skills base. This article assesses the core philosophies and approaches within both systems and ex amines the prospects for 'plugging the gap' in training between Britain and Germany. Finally, attention is given to the role of trade unions and collective bargaining as a vehicle for change.

In this article, we review the workplace battleground and explore the potential of social media for mobilizing social movements in labour conflicts and beyond. By conducting a case study with empirical accounts obtained from the 2010–2011 British Airways cabin crew dispute in the United Kingdom, along with secondary sources, we discern social media in the workplace as a contested field. Inquiring into the unfolding dynamic of social media and workplace conflict, we investigate the mobilizing prospects of theoretical concepts like 'distributed discourse' and 'accelerated pluralism' through the analytical prism of our interviews. Our analysis of these empirical accounts will tease out certain empowering potentials in the use of social media to shape discourse and mobilise movement. However, we also note that these same communicative actions may challenge internal union authority, generate counter-mobilising efforts and constitute an integral part in exposing both our private and working lives to the processes of marketisation and commodification.