Search results

This paper documents and accounts for the globalization of the so-called national bourgeoisie in the late twentieth century. A substantial and growing body of sociological literature holds that firms and investors from the developing world have been denationalized, neutered, or destroyed by their efforts to penetrate international markets – and that cross-national economic competition is therefore giving way to transnational class conflict over time. By way of contrast, I hold that not only peripheral capitalists but their elected and appointed representatives are compelled to undertake large-scale, fixed investments, exploit their competitive advantages, and challenge foreign firms – and their respective representatives – on their own soil by the very logic of capitalist competition, and that the aforementioned challenges will occur on political as well as economic terrain.

An Innocent Merriment – A Medieval Song about the Plague also sheds light on the COVID-19 epidemic period as an epidemic song. Companies are not in solidarity; they are trying to replace artificial intelligence with labour. Short work, more rest, more time for children, strong immune system, happy families are easier with artificial intelligence. Using artificial intelligence against labour condemns us to collective stupidity. The slogan of capitalism has been discussed in the prime centres of globalisation. For the financial centre, globalisation is the unimpeded circulation of money across borders, the transfer of its earnings whenever it wants, and not encountering national barriers. Now it is said that there should be customs for goods and a mobility barrier for people. People will not accept this without injuring their conscience. The Wat Tyler rebellion, which erupted after the Black Death following the Great Famine, was the birth pain of the bourgeoisie. The war against the mystical, irrational world of the Middle Ages strengthened the bourgeoisie. The irrational ideas of the bourgeoisie, which today emulate the aristocracy with admiration, open the way for despots; the bourgeoisie is almost preparing its own end. The bourgeoisie led the great transformations by preaching respect for labour in the footsteps of thinkers such as Wat Tyler, A. Smith, J. Locke. However, the leadership cannot be sustained with the feudal capitalist mood: ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity’ is still alive, except for the leader! The understanding of ‘the better always can be in a shorter time’ in the economy made humanity unhappy and filled its time. Based on the household economy, the environmentally friendly core economy can be a solution by opening the door to street workers and disadvantaged groups, as the flood of solidarity in every corner of our planet adds strength and morale to our resilience.

Autonomy, unity, identity: these three themes and ideals have been pursued by nationalist thinkers everywhere since Rousseau and Herder (Hutchinson & Smith, 1994). Zionism, founded in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century,¹ is a particular case of a national movement, putting into practice the idea of a political community located within the boundaries of a single nation-state. Yet, at the same time, the Jewish nation-building process, which began in Palestine in 1881 and achieved its aim of independence in the spring of 1948, with the establishment of the State of Israel under the political leadership of the Labor movement, was unusual in its complexity and marked, from its inception, by dramatic struggles over the distribution of power.

Reports an analysis of class preferences for certain foodstuffs in the UK. Multivariate analysis of the UK Family Expenditure Survey is used to show that distinct factors operate in choice of food purchase dependent on a person′s social class. Relying on Bourdieu′s Distinction thesis as the theoretical basis, a scale of tastes for certain foods is arrived at using discriminant analysis. This builds on work already reported in the BFJ.

The chapter draws on historical evidence from Central America to test two of the most influential theories of the development of democracy: (1) structural theories derived from the work of Barrington Moore and (2) theories of the “political economy of democratic transitions.” The Central American evidence confirms Moore's theory in regard to the anti-democratic role of landed elites, but not the democratic role of the bourgeoisie. Contrary to some structural theories, the industrial working class was also not important in the development of democracy in Central America. Nor does the Central American evidence fit the political economy of democratic transitions model of negotiated or imposed “transitions from above.” A new model, termed the route to democracy through socialist revolution from below is proposed to account for the Central American evidence and the implications of the model are explored for the development of democracy generally.

In the second half of the 1980s, together with Perestroika in the Soviet Union, a process took place to end the Cold War as a confrontation between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. At the same time, this process caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist system and thereafter the separation and independence of the many nationalities that constituted the Soviet socialist system in the East and South Europe. However to our regret, such nationalities could not enjoy freedom by independence, but went to brutal wars between separated nationalities. Even after many local wars and brutalities we cannot yet find the final solution through peace and justice for peoples.

This chapter offers a few stylized observations about the middle class and its role in the fall of communist regimes in East Central Europe. I claim that successive East European modernization projects during the 20th century (intrawar, communist, and postcommunist) were essentially middle-class “revolutions from above.” They occurred in a backward region among late modernizers keenly aware of their peripheral position and were based on and carried out by the state. Both a product of the state and dependent on it, the middle class was the main actor and supporter of these modernization efforts. I also argue that the Solidarity movement in 1980/81 and the 1989 collapse of communism were the last successful middle-class revolutions. Hopes for another political rebellion against postcommunist authoritarianism may be misplaced, since the transformational potential of the East European middle class, produced by the peculiarities of communist rule, has been exhausted. Fast progressing modernization, segmentation, and fragmentation of identity of the postcommunist middle class brought about by the economic, cultural, and political integration with the West undercut its mobilizational potential and its role as an agent of political transformations. The East European middle-class revolution against communist rule can offer four basic lessons. First, the middle class is a cultural and historical not economic phenomenon. Second, it is extremely rare for the middle class to become a collective actor, the class for itself. Third, the main competitors of middle-class identity are nationalism, ethnicity and religion. Finally, postmodernity with its fluidity, uncertainty, fractured identities, fragmented lifestyles, consumption patterns, and status configuration does not provide facilitating conditions for middle-class solidarity and mobilization, making it politically feeble.

Sociologists studying the rise of postmodernism have generally concentrated on either macro-level structures of economy or micro-level subjectivities of individuals. Few have specified how meso-level actions within concrete institutions have produced both these macro- and micro-changes. Bourdieu's concept of field provides a meso-level concept that allows sociologists to explain the transition to a postmodern society by changes in the composition and competition of producers and consumers struggling for advantage in the economy and culture. The chapter focuses on architecture, revealing that the rise of a postmodern aesthetic was the result of internal changes of this field and their complex interrelation with the external changes of an economy in transition from Fordism to post-Fordism.

Commenting on the Mexican Revolution in 1938, Trotsky argued that the country might achieve “national independence,” understood as a break with dependency relations. Whether this might occur depended – Trotsky continued – on “international factors.” Though not engaging with Mexico, Antonio Gramsci made a similar theoretical point. It is hence from this perspective that this chapter analyses the Mexican Revolution, asking whether it led to a break in dependency relations and the attainment of “national independence” or what I refer to as “relative geopolitical autonomy.” Presenting a framework of analysis largely based on the work of Gramsci that highlights its continuity with the thought of Marx, the chapter will answer negatively to this question. The chapter starts from the idea that Porfirio Díaz’s regime was unable to adapt the economic structure (still pre-capitalist) to the complex superstructures (capitalist), that is, to realize an historic bloc. It would be this job that the emergent Mexican bourgeoisie sought to finish. However, the situation is complicated by the powerful emergence of social movements from below, constituted largely by landless peasants, and to a lesser extent, the industrial proletariat. I will therefore argue that the revolution has been both “passive” and “bounded.” The term passive revolution will be applied to the last phase of the revolution as the emerging bourgeoisie successfully coopted the demands of the popular masses thereby “passivizing” them. But crucially, the revolution was also “bounded” because international factors, and especially US influence, played a conditioning role throughout the revolutionary process. At the same time, it would be the very “passive” nature of the revolution that would contribute to the reproduction of relations of dependency. Hence the chapter concludes that the period Trotsky commented upon (the Cárdenas period) is the highest level of “independence” Mexico achieved, only to decrease again over the years.