SWOT ANALYSIS ON American Airlines - November 26th, 2010 American Airlines, Inc. (AA) is a major airline of the United States[9] and is the world's second-largest airline in passenger miles transported,[10] passenger fleet size, and operating revenues. American Airlines is a subsidiary of the AMR Corporation and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, adjacent to its largest hub at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. American operates an extensive international and domestic network, with scheduled flights throughout North America, Latin and South America, Europe, Asia/Pacific and the Caribbean. American Airlines was listed at #120 on the Fortune 500 list of companies in 2010 and is a founding member of the Oneworld airline alliance. Strengths * Leading global entertainment & content company * Robust operational capabilities with strong market share * Strong diversified portfolio * Brand equity - MTV, BET, etc * Reach - MTV reaches more than 500 million consumers worldwide * Growing bottom line Weaknesses * RealNetworks performance has lagged compared to other companies' success in the same arena * Generally lagging in online growth & innovation Opportunities * Mobile integration with music and video services * Online growth * Further music consolidation & future acquisitions * Strategic alliances * Capitalizing on growth of HDTV Threats * Online competitors who are more fragmented but faster to react and typically very innovative * FCC regulation * US economic slowdown American Airlines From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia American Airlines
Transcript
SWOT ANALYSIS ON American Airlines - November 26th, 2010American Airlines, Inc. (AA) is a major airline of the United States[9] and is the world's second-largest airline in passenger miles transported,[10] passenger fleet size, and operating revenues. American Airlines is a subsidiary of the AMR Corporation and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, adjacent to its largest hub at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. American operates an extensive international and domestic network, with scheduled flights throughout North America, Latin and South America, Europe, Asia/Pacific and the Caribbean.
American Airlines was listed at #120 on the Fortune 500 list of companies in 2010 and is a founding member of the Oneworld airline alliance.
Strengths
* Leading global entertainment & content company* Robust operational capabilities with strong market share* Strong diversified portfolio* Brand equity - MTV, BET, etc* Reach - MTV reaches more than 500 million consumers worldwide* Growing bottom line
Weaknesses
* RealNetworks performance has lagged compared to other companies' success in the same arena* Generally lagging in online growth & innovation
Opportunities
* Mobile integration with music and video services* Online growth* Further music consolidation & future acquisitions* Strategic alliances* Capitalizing on growth of HDTV
Threats
* Online competitors who are more fragmented but faster to react and typically very innovative* FCC regulation* US economic slowdown
American AirlinesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During this time, concern over airline bankruptcies and falling stock prices brought a warning from American's
CEO Robert Crandall. "I've never invested in any airline", Crandall said. "I'm an airline manager. I don't invest
in airlines. And I always said to the employees of American, 'This is not an appropriate investment. It's a great
place to work and it's a great company that does important work. But airlines are not an investment.'" Crandall
noted that since airline deregulation of the 1970s, 150 airlines had gone out of business. "A lot of people came
into the airline business. Most of them promptly exited, minus their money", he said.[citation needed]
Miami became a hub after American bought Central and South American routes from Eastern Air Lines in 1990
(inherited from Braniff International Airways but originated by Panagra). Through the 1990s, American
expanded its network in Latin America to become the dominant U.S. carrier in the region.
On October 15, 1998 American Airlines became the first airline to offer electronic ticketing in the 44 countries it
serves.
In 1999 American Airlines, together with British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Canadian Airlines and Qantas,
founded the global airline alliance Oneworld.
[edit]TWA merger and 9/11 to the present
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2009)
American Airlines had an average fleet age of 14.5 years in August 2010.[78] Currently, American Airlines
operates an all-Boeing fleet (including aircraft produced by McDonnell Douglas before it merged with Boeing in
1997), one of only two legacy carriers which have such a fleet. [79] This situation will soon change however as
American has ordered a total of 260 Airbus aircraft to replace it's aging MD80, 757 and 767-200 jets. Below is
the current fleet of operating aircraft:[80]
American Airlines fleet
AircraftIn
serviceOrders
PassengersNotes
F J Y Total
Airbus A320
Family0 130[81] TBA Replacing MD-80, 757-200 and 767-200ER
Airbus A320neo Family
0 130[81] TBA Replacing MD-80, 757-200 and 767-200ER
Boeing 737–800
156 151[82] 0 16 Old: 132New: 148
Old: 148New: 16
0
All aircraft will be receiving the new cabin configuration.Replacing MD-80.
Boeing 737RE
0 100 TBAIntends to order 100. Launch Customer for 737RE. Replacing
MD-80, 757-200 and 767-200ER.
Boeing 757–200Domestic
106
— 0
22
166
188
Boeing 757–200
International
18 16 182
Boeing 767-200ER
15 — 10
30
128 168 To be phased out.
Boeing 767-300ER
58 — 0 195 225
Boeing 777-200ER
47 7[83] 16 37 194 247
Boeing 777-300ER
— 8[84] TBA
Boeing 787–9
— 42 TBAAlthough it has not yet placed a firm order,
the Airline has purchase rights for 42 aircraft and options for 58 more.[85]
McDonnell Douglas MD-82
132 —
0 16 124 140
Being replaced by: Boeing 737–800, 737RE, A320 & A320neo
McDonnell Douglas MD-83
88 —Largest operator of the MD-83
Being replaced by: Boeing 737–800, 737RE, A320 & A320neo
Total 620 568
*Aircell Internet Broadband access is available on all Boeing 767–200 aircraft and on select McDonnell Douglas MD-80 and Boeing 737–800 aircraft.[86] Note that on two-class domestic flights
(including flights to Hawaii), the highest premium class is branded as First Class, while on flights to the Caribbean, Canada, Mexico, and Central America, it is referred to as Business Class.
Fleet Notes
As of December 2010, the American Airlines fleet consists of 621 aircraft.[87] The company is currently in talks
with aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing Co. to purchase at least 250 aircraft in a deal valued at about
$15 billion.[88]
On July 20, 2011, American Airlines ordered 460 and took options for 465 aircraft from Boeing and Airbus, with
the intention of replacing MD-80, 757-200 and 767-200 aircraft.[89][90]
American Airlines July 20, 2011 order
AircraftExisting orders
New orders
OptionsFirst
delivery
Boeing 737-800 54 0 0 2011
Boeing 737NG family1 0 100 40 2013
Boeing 737RE family1, 3 0 100 60 TBD
Total Boeing 54 200 100
Airbus A320 family2 0 130 85 2013
Airbus A320neo family2 0 130 280 2017
Total Airbus 0 260 365
Grand Total 54 460 465
Notes:
1 For both the 737NG and 737RE family, American Airlines has the option to determine closer to delivery
date what version to take delivery of. For the 737NG, American can choose the 737-700, -800 and -
900ER.
2 For both the A320 and A320neo family, American Airlines has the option to determine closer to delivery
date whether to take delivery of A319, A320 or A321 models.
3 737RE refers to a re-engined version of the 737 family, with CFM LEAP-X engines. This version is
expected to be approved by Boeing's board of director's later in 2011.
In August 2007 the airline announced it would offer Wi-Fi internet services on Boeing 767-200ER American
Flagship Service (AFS) routes across the United States.[91] On August 20, 2008, American Airlines became the
first to offer full inflight internet service.[92]
In October 2008, American announced plans to order the Boeing 787–9 Dreamliner.[93]
American is the largest operator of the McDonnell Douglas MD-80, with some 225 of the type in service, with
leases running until as late as 2024.
In August 2009, American officially retired its fleet of Airbus A300 aircraft, after 21 years of service. American
has not made plans to replace this fleet. On January 19, 2011, American Airlines announced that it would order
two Boeing 777-300ERs, and will become the first American carrier to operate Boeing 777-300ER. The Boeing
customer code for American Airlines is 7x7-x23. (i.e. 737–823, 777–223)
Boeing 727-200 atChicago O'Hare Airport
Boeing 737 taking off fromLos Angeles International Airport
Boeing 757 landing atVancouver International Airport
Boeing 757–200approaching Princess Juliana International Airport, St. Maarten
that it would, and a vice president of AA immediately offered to lease the premises. The airline then procured a
liquor license and began operating the lounge as the "Admirals Club" in 1939.
The second Admirals Club opened at Washington National Airport. Because it was illegal to sell alcohol in
Virginia at the time, the Club contained refrigerators for the use of its members, so they could store their own
liquor at the airport. For many years, membership in the Admirals Club (and most other airline lounges) was by
the airline's invitation. After a passenger sued for discrimination,[103] the Club (and most other airline lounges)
switched to a paid membership program.
Membership now costs $300 to $450 a year, depending on AAdvantage frequent flyer program level (and
annual renewal membership costs $250–$400); membership can also be purchased with AAdvantage miles.
As of December 2010, passengers can buy a 24-hour pass for $59.
[edit]Flagship Lounge
Though affiliated with the Admirals Club and staffed by many of the same employees, the AA Flagship Lounge
is a separate lounge specifically designed for customers flying on premium flights both within the United States
and internationally. This means that only First Class passengers on 3-class aircraft, both Internationally and
Transcontinentally, are granted entrance to these clubs. A 3-class aircraft operating a non-transcon AFS flight
and not sold as 3-class is not considered Premium, and entrance is not granted to passengers on this type of
service. Lounge access is granted to passengers on non-AA operated flights flown by select airline partners as
well, again, as long as the flight has a true International First Class cabin and the passenger is booked in that
class as a paying customer or on a premium cabin frequent flyer award ticket (not as an upgrade). The only
exception to this rule is for OneWorld Emerald elite FF members (including AA Executive Platinum) on
international flights (excluding Canada, the Caribbean, and Mexico except Mexico City), and non-AAdvantage
OneWorld Emerald elite FF members on 'domestic' flights, who are granted access to the lounges travelling in
any class.[104]
The added amenities of the Flagship Lounges compared to the normal Admirals Club include free alcoholic
beverages including premium brands not found in the Admirals Club, free premium buffet snacks including
breakfast items, salads, sandwiches, fruits, chocolates, cheeses and other light fare (options change based on
time of day), as well as a less crowded, more comfortable lounge space. Additionally,
complimentary Lenovo computer terminals with free internet access, complimentary T-Mobile hotspot access,
and complimentary printing is available at most locations, as are shower facilities.
The first Flagship Lounge was opened at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport as a courtesy to First Class
customers preparing for long flights to London and Tokyo. While the Dallas lounge is no longer open, Flagship
Lounges are now available at four airports: Chicago-O'Hare, London-Heathrow, Los Angeles and New York-
JFK.
[edit]Accidents and incidents
Main article: American Airlines accidents and incidents
[edit]In popular culture
This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate.Editing help is available. (April 2008)
Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. (March 2009)
AA lobbied heavily to be assigned the IATA airline code US when the U.S. military released it for non-
military use. However, USAir ultimately won the bid for the US airliner code.[when?]
AA is the only Big Five legacy carrier in the United States which has not filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.
AA has its name on two major U.S. venues, American Airlines Center in Dallas, home to
the Mavericks basketball team and Dallas Stars ice hockey team, and American Airlines Arena in Miami,
home to the Miami Heat basketball team.
American Airlines has a Broadway Theatre called the "American Airlines Theatre" on 42nd Street in New
York City.
AA plays a key role in the first two films of the Home Alone series.
American Airlines is also featured in the movie L.A. Story at the point in which Harris K. Telemacher's love
interest, Sara, a journalist from London, tries to fly home.
AA appears in the movie Up in the Air, starring George Clooney, in which it and Hilton Hotels received free
publicity;[105] the movie juxtaposes human bonds with corporate loyalty, such as bonus programs for
frequent travelers.
An AA rebranding effort is a brief subplot in Mad Men.
An American Airlines DC-2 is the setting for Shirley Temple to sing, "On the Good Ship Lollipop" in the
film Bright Eyes while James Dunn is taxiing the plane around the airport. Contrary to popular belief, the
"good ship Lollipop" refers to an airplane, not a seagoing ship. The film contains some fine aeronautical
footage of the DC-2 and the contemporary Curtiss Condor airliner.
The nose section of an American Airlines DC-7 is displayed at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum
In the film Silent Running the "Valley Forge" is labeled as an American Airlines Space Freighter.
Friedrich Engels (28 November 1820–5 August 1895) was a German political philosopher and Karl Marx’s co-
developer of communist theory. Marx and Engels met in September 1844; discovering that they shared like
views of philosophy and socialism, they collaborated and wrote works such as Die heilige Familie (The Holy
Family). After the French deported Marx from France in January 1845, Engels and Marx moved to Belgium,
which then permitted greaterfreedom of expression than other European countries; later, in January 1846, they
returned to Brussels to establish the Communist Correspondence Committee.
In 1847, they began writing The Communist Manifesto (1848), based upon Engels’ The Principles of
Communism; six weeks later, they published the 12,000-word pamphlet in February 1848. In March, Belgium
expelled them, and they moved to Cologne, where they published the Neue Rheinische Zeitung , a
politically radical newspaper. Again, by 1849, they had to leave Cologne for London. The Prussian authorities
pressured the British government to expel Marx and Engels, but Prime Minister Lord John Russell refused.
After Karl Marx’s death in 1883, Friedrich Engels became the editor and translator of Marx’s writings. With
his Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884) — analysing monogamous marriage as
guaranteeing male social domination of women, a concept analogous, in communist theory, to the capitalist
class’s economic domination of the working class — Engels made intellectuallysignificant contributions
to feminist theory and Marxist feminism.
[edit]Early intellectual influences
Main article: Influences on Karl Marx
Different types of thinkers influenced the development of Classical Marxism; the primary influences derive from:
German philosophers: Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach et al.
British political economists: Adam Smith & David Ricardo et al.
French social theorists: Jean-Jacques Rousseau; Charles Fourier; Henri de Saint-Simon; Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon; Flora Tristan; Louis Blanc et al.
and secondary influences derive from:
Ancient materialism, e.g. Epicurus, Lucretius et al.
Aristotle
Giambattista Vico
Lewis Morgan
Charles Darwin
[edit]Concepts
[edit]Historical Materialism
"The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or rather, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism
into the domain of social phenomenon, removed two chief defects of earlier historical theories. In the first place, they at best
examined only the ideological motives of the historical activity of human beings, without grasping the objective laws
governing the development of the system of social relations... in the second place, the earlier theories did not cover the
activities of the masses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with the
accuracy of thenatural sciences the social conditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions."
Russian Marxist theoretician and revolutionaryVladimir Lenin, 1913.[6]
"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which
these individuals stand."
— Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858[7]
The historical materialist theory of history, also synonymous to “the economic interpretation of history” (a
coinage by Eduard Bernstein),[8] looks for the causes of societal development and change in the collective ways
humans use to make the means for living. The social features of a society (social classes, political structures,
ideologies) derive from economic activity; “base and superstructure” is the metaphoric common term describing
this historic condition.
The base and superstructure metaphor explains that the totality of social relations regarding “the social
production of their existence” i.e. civil societyforms a society’s economic base, from which rises
a superstructure of political and legal institutions i.e. political society. The base corresponds to the social
consciousness (politics, religion, philosophy, etc.), and it conditions the superstructure and the social
consciousness. A conflict between the development of material productive forces and the relations of
production provokes social revolutions, thus, the resultant changes to the economic base will lead to the
transformation of the superstructure.[9] This relationship is reflexive; the base determines the superstructure, in
the first instance, and remains the foundation of a form of social organization which then can act again upon
both parts of the base and superstructure, whose relationship isdialectical, not literal.[citation needed][clarification needed]
Marx considered that these socio-economic conflicts have historically manifested themselves as distinct stages
(one transitional) of development in Western Europe.[10]
1. Primitive Communism : as in co-operative tribal societies.
2. Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state; Aristocracy is born.
3. Feudalism : aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into capitalists.
4. Capitalism : capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the proletariat.
5. Socialism : workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian revolution depose the capitalist
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, replacing it in turn with dictatorship of the proletariat through which the
socialization of the means of production can be realized.
6. Communism : a classless and stateless society.
[edit]Criticism of capitalism
"We are, in Marx's terms, 'an ensemble of social relations' and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of
a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the
historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable
manifestations."—Martha E. Gimenez, Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy[11]
According to the Marxist theoretician and revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, "the principal content of Marxism" was
"Marx's economic doctrine".[12] Marx believed that the capitalist bourgeois and their economists were promoting
what he saw as the lie that "The interests of the capitalist and those of the worker are... one and the same"; he
believed that they did this by purporting the concept that "the fastest possible growth of productive capital" was
best not only for the wealthy capitalists but also for the workers because it provided them with employment.[13]
A person is exploited if he or she performs more labour than necessary to produce the goods that he
consumes; likewise, a person is an exploiter if he or she performs less labour than is necessary to produce the
goods that he consumes.[14] Exploitation is a matter of surplus labour — the amount of labour one performs
beyond what one receives in goods. Exploitation has been a socio-economic feature of every class society, and
is one of the principal features distinguishing the social classes. The power of one social class to control
the means of production enables its exploitation of the other classes.
In capitalism, the labour theory of value is the operative concern; the value of a commodity equals the socially
necessary labour time required to produce it. Under that condition, surplus value (the difference between the
value produced and the value received by a labourer) is synonymous with the term “surplus labour”; thus,
capitalist exploitation is realised as deriving surplus value from the worker.
In pre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved via physical coercion. In the capitalist
mode of production, that result is more subtly achieved; because the worker does not own the means of
production, he or she must voluntarily enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to earn
the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary in that he or she chooses which
capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus, exploitation is inevitable, and the
"voluntary" nature of a worker participating in a capitalist society is illusory.
Alienation denotes the estrangement of people from their humanity (German: Gattungswesen, “species-
essence”, “species-being”), which is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production
belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others, and so generate alienated labourers.
[15] Alienation objectively describes the worker’s situation in capitalism — his or her self-awareness of this
condition is not prerequisite.
The identity of a social class derives from its relationship to the means of production; Marx describes the social
classes in capitalist societies:
Proletariat : “those individuals who sell their labour power , and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do
not own the means of production“.[citation needed] The capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions
enabling the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat because the workers’ labour generates a surplus
value greater than the workers’ wages.
Bourgeoisie : those who “own the means of production” and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus
exploiting the proletariat; they subdivide as bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.
Petit bourgeoisie are those who employ labourers, but who also work, i.e. small business owners,
peasant landlords, trade workers et al. Marxism predicts that the continual reinvention of the means of
production eventually would destroy the petit bourgeoisie, degrading them from the middle class to the
proletariat.
Lumpenproletariat : criminals, vagabonds, beggars, et al., who have no stake in the economy, and so sell
their labour to the highest bidder.
Landlords : an historically important social class who retain some wealth and power.
Peasantry and farmers: a disorganised class incapable of effecting socio-economic change, most of whom
would enter the proletariat, and some become landlords.
Class consciousness denotes the awareness — of itself and the social world — that a social class possesses,
and its capacity to rationally act in their best interests; hence, class consciousness is required before they can
effect a successful revolution.
Without defining ideology,[16] Marx used the term to denote the production of images of social reality; according
to Engels, “ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false
consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be
an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces”.[17] Because the ruling class
controls the society’s means of production, the superstructure of society, the ruling social ideas are determined
by the best interests of said ruling class. InThe German Ideology, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every
epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is, at the same time, its ruling
intellectual force”.[18]
The term political economy originally denoted the study of the conditions under which economic production
was organised in the capitalist system. In Marxism, political economy studies the means of production,
specifically of capital, and how that manifests as economic activity.
[edit]Revolution, socialism and communism
Marxists believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism is an inevitable part of the development of
human society; as Lenin stated, "it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of
capitalist society [into a socialist society] wholly and exclusively from the economic law of motion of
contemporary society."[19]
Marxists believe that a socialist society will be far better for the majority of the populace than its capitalist
counterpart, for instance, prior to the Russian revolution of 1917, Lenin wrote that "The socialization of
production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society... This
conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours,
and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and
improved labour."[20]
[edit]Marxism in academia
Some Marxists have criticised the academic institutionalisation of Marxism for being too detached from political
action. For instance, Zimbabwean Trotskyist Alex Callinicos, himself a professional academic, stated that "Its
practitioners remind one of Narcissus, who in the Greek legend fell in love with his own reflection... Sometimes
it is necessary to devote time to clarifying and developing the concepts that we use, but for Western Marxists
this has become an end in itself. The result is a body of writings incomprehensible to all but a tiny minority of
highly qualified scholars."[21]
[edit]Political Marxism
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)
Since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the theoretical
basis for their politics and policies, which have often proved to be dramatically different and conflicting[citation
needed]. One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of 'reformism', who argued that the
transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeoisparliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who
argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state.
The 'reformist' tendency, later known as social democracy, came to be dominant in most of the parties affiliated
to the Second International and these parties supported their own governments in the First World War[citation
needed]. This issue caused the communists to break away, forming their own parties which became members of
the Third International[citation needed].
The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to
Marxism:[22] Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Republic of
Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East
Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North
Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam.
In addition, the Indian states of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist governments, but change
takes place in the government due to electoral process. Some of these governments such as
in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have been democratic in nature and maintained
regular multiparty elections.
[edit]History
The 1917 October Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin, was the first large scale attempt to put Marxist ideas about
a workers' state into practice. The new government faced counter-revolution, civil war and foreign intervention.
[23] Lenin consistently explained "this elementary truth of Marxism, that the victory of socialism requires the joint
efforts of workers in a number of advanced countries" (Lenin, Sochineniya (Works), 5th ed Vol XLIV p418.) It
could not be developed in Russia in isolation, he argued, but needed to be spread internationally.
The 1917 October Revolution did help inspire a revolutionary wave over the years that followed,[24][25][26][27] with
the development of Communist Parties worldwide, but without success in the vital advanced capitalist countries
of Western Europe. Socialist revolution in Germany and other western countries failed, leaving the Soviet
Union on its own. An intense period of debate and stopgap solutions ensued, war communism and the New
Economic Policy (NEP). Lenin died and Joseph Stalin gradually assumed control, eliminating rivals and
consolidating power as the Soviet Union faced the events of the 1930s and its global crisis-tendencies. Amidst
the geopolitical threats which defined the period and included the probability of invasion, he instituted a ruthless
program ofindustrialization which, while successful,[28] was executed at great cost in human suffering, along
with long-term environmental devastation.[28]
Modern followers of Leon Trotsky maintain that as predicted by Lenin, Trotsky, and others already in the 1920s,
Stalin's "socialism in one country" was unable to maintain itself, and according to some Marxist critics,
the USSR ceased to show the characteristics of a socialist state long before its formal dissolution.
In the 1920s the economic calculation debate between Austrian Economists and Marxist economists took
place. The Austrians claimed that Marxism is flawed because prices could not be set to recognize opportunity
costs of factors of production, and so socialism could not make rational decisions.
The Kuomintang party, a Chinese nationalist revolutionary party, had Marxist members who opposed the
Chinese Communist Party. They viewed the Chinese revolution in different terms than the Communists,
claiming that China already went past its feudal stage and in a stagnation period rather than in another mode of
production. These Marxists in the Kuomintang opposed the Chinese communist party ideology.[29]
Following World War II, Marxist ideology, often with Soviet military backing, spawned a rise in revolutionary
communist parties all over the world. Some of these parties were eventually able to gain power, and establish
their own version of a Marxist state. Such nations included the People's Republic of
China, Vietnam, Romania, East Germany, Albania, Cambodia, Ethiopia, South Yemen,Yugoslavia, Cuba, and
others. In some cases, these nations did not get along. Rifts occurred between the Soviet Union and China,
[30] as well as Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (in 1948), whose leaders disagreed on certain elements of Marxism
and how it should be implemented into society.[31]
Many of these self-proclaimed Marxist nations (often styled People's Republics) eventually became
authoritarian states, with stagnating economies. This caused some debate about whether Marxism was
doomed in practise or these nations were in fact not led by "true Marxists". Critics of Marxism speculated that
perhaps Marxist ideology itself was to blame for the nations' various problems. Followers of the currents within
Marxism which opposed Stalin, principally cohered around Leon Trotsky, tended to locate the failure at the
level of the failure of world revolution: for communism to have succeeded, they argue, it needed to encompass
all the international trading relationships that capitalism had previously developed.
The Chinese experience seems to be unique. Rather than falling under a single family's self-serving and
dynastic interpretation of Marxism as happened in North Korea and before 1989 in Eastern Europe, the
Chinese government — after the end of the struggles over the Mao legacy in 1980 and the ascent of Deng
Xiaoping — seems to have solved the succession crises[citation needed] that have plagued self-proclaimed Leninist
governments since the death of Lenin himself. Key to this success is another Leninism which is a NEP (New
Economic Policy) writ very large; Lenin's own NEP of the 1920s was the "permission" given to markets
including speculation to operate by the Party which retained final control. The Russian experience
in Perestroika was that markets under socialism were so opaque as to be both inefficient and corrupt but
especially after China's application to join the WTO this does not seem to apply universally.
The death of "Marxism" in China has been prematurely announced but since the Hong Kong handover in 1997,
the Beijing leadership has clearly retained final say over both commercial and political affairs[citation needed].
In 1991 the Soviet Union was dismantled and the new Russian state, alongside the other emerging republics,
ceased to identify themselves with Marxism. Other nations around the world followed suit. Since then, radical
Marxism or Communism has generally ceased to be a prominent political force in global politics, and has
largely been replaced by more moderate versions of democratic socialism—or, more commonly,
by neoliberal capitalism. Marxism has also had to engage with the rise in the Environmental movement.
Theorists including Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy have synthesized
Marxism, socialism, ecology and environmentalism into an ideology known as Eco-socialism.[32]
[edit]Social Democracy
Main article: Social Democracy
Social democracy
Precursors[show]
Development[show]
Policies[show]
Organizations[show]
Leaders[show]
v · d · e
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. Many parties in
the second half of the 19th century described themselves as social democratic, such as the British Social
Democratic Federation, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In most cases these were
revolutionary socialist or Marxist groups, who were not only seeking to introduce socialism, but also democracy
in un-democratic countries. Many social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only
through class conflict, revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat.
The modern social democratic current came into being through a break within the socialist movement in the
early 20th century, between two groups holding different views on the ideas of Karl Marx. Many related
movements, including pacifism, anarchism, and syndicalism, arose at the same time (often by splitting from the
main socialist movement, but also through the emergence of new theories) and had various, quite different
objections to Marxism. The social democrats argued that socialism should be achieved through evolution rather
than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed by the revolutionary socialists,[33][34] who argued that any
attempt to reform capitalism was doomed to fail, because the reformists would be gradually corrupted and
eventually turn into capitalists themselves.
Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of socialism remained united until the
outbreak of World War I. The war proved to be the final straw that pushed the tensions between them to
breaking point[citation needed]. The reformist socialists supported their respective national governments in the war, a
fact that was seen by the revolutionary socialists as outright treason against the working class (Since it
betrayed the principle that the workers "have no nation", and the fact that usually the lowest classes are the
ones sent into the war to fight, and die, putting the cause at the side)[citation needed]. Bitter arguments ensued within
socialist parties, as for example between Eduard Bernstein (reformist socialist) and Rosa
Luxemburg (revolutionary socialist) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Eventually, after
the Russian Revolution of 1917, most of the world's socialist parties fractured. The reformist socialists kept the
name "Social democrats", while the revolutionary socialists began calling themselves "Communists", and soon
formed the modern Communist movement, the Comintern.
Since the 1920s, doctrinal differences have been constantly growing between social democrats and
Communists (who themselves are not unified on the way to achieve socialism), and Social Democracy is
mostly used as a specifically Central European label for Labour Parties since then, especially in Germany and
the Netherlands and especially since the 1959 Godesberg Program of the German SPD that rejected the praxis
International Bureau World Socialist Movement Socialisme ou
Barbarie
Related topics[hide]
Western Marxism ·Libertarian socialism
Council communism
Luxemburgism · Ultra-leftism
Libertarian Marxism
Autonomism · Impossibilism
Situationist International
Communism portal
v · d · e
This section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (May 2011)
Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the Communist Left, which criticizes the political
ideas of the Bolsheviks from a position that is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and proletarian than
the views of Leninism held by the Communist International after its first two Congresses.
Two major traditions can be observed within Left communism: the Dutch-German tradition; and
the Italian tradition. The political positions those traditions have in common are a shared opposition to what is
termed frontism, nationalism, all kinds of national liberation movements and parliamentarianism and there is an
underlying commonality at a level of abstract theory. Crucially, Left Communist groups from both traditions tend
to identify elements of commonality in each other[vague].
The historical origins of Left Communism can be traced to the period before the First World War, but it only
came into focus after 1918 . All[according to whom?] Left Communists were supportive of the October
Revolution in Russia[citation needed], but retained a critical view of its development. Some[which?], however, would in
later years come to reject the idea that the revolution had a proletarian or socialist nature, asserting that it had
simply carried out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution by creating a state capitalist system[citation needed].
Left Communism first came into being as a clear movement in or around 1918[citation needed]. Its essential features
were: a stress on the need to build a Communist Party entirely separate from
the reformist and centrist elements who were seen as having betrayed socialism in 1914, opposition to all but
the most restricted participation in elections, and an emphasis on the need for revolutionaries to move on the
offensive[citation needed]. Apart from that, there was little in common between the various wings. Only the
Italians[original research?] accepted the need for electoral work at all for a very short period of time, and the German-
Dutch, Italian and Russian wings opposed the "right of nations to self-determination", which they denounced as
a form of bourgeois nationalism.
[edit]Dispute that the Soviet Union was Marxist
Marx defined "communism" as a classless, egalitarian and stateless society. To Marx, the notion of a
communist state would have seemed an oxymoron,[37][38][39]as he defined communism as the phase reached
when class society and the state had already been abolished. Once the lower stage towards communism,
commonly referred to as socialism, had been established, society would develop new social relations over the
course of several generations, reaching what Marx called the higher phase of communism when not only
bourgeois relations but every class social relations had been abandoned. Such a development has yet to occur
in any historical self-claimed socialist state.[37][38][39]
Even within the Stalinist state at its height, there were repressed[37] expressions of Marxist orthodoxy, revealed
after the fall of the USSR, arguing that it had developed new class structures: those who are in government and
therefore have power (sometimes referred to as the political class), and those who are not in government and
do not have power, the working class. This is taken to be a different form of capitalism, in which the
government, as owner of the means of production, takes on the role formerly played by the capitalist class; this
arrangement is referred to as "state capitalism."[37] These statist regimes have generally followed a planned
economy model without making a transition to this hypothetical final stage.[40]
Some academics such as Noam Chomsky disputed the claim that the political movements in the former Soviet
Union were Marxist.[40] Communist governments have historically been characterized by state ownership of
productive resources in a planned economy and sweeping campaigns of economic restructuring such
asnationalization of industry and land reform (often focusing on collective farming or state farms). While they
promote collective ownership of the means of production, Communist governments have been characterized by
a strong state apparatus in which decisions are made by the ruling Communist Party. Dissident communists
have characterized the Soviet model as state socialism or state capitalism.
[edit]Variants
Marxists can interpret the Manifesto differently, and therefore all variants cannot be covered in this article.
[edit]Marxism-Leninism
Main article: Marxism-Leninism
At least in terms of adherents and the impact on the world stage, Marxism-Leninism, also known colloquially
as Bolshevism or simply communism is the biggest trend within Marxism, easily dwarfing all of the other
schools of thought combined.[41] Marxism-Leninism is a term originally coined by the CPSU in order to denote
the ideology that Vladimir Lenin had built upon the thought of Karl Marx. There are two broad areas that have
set apart Marxism-Leninism as a school of thought.
First, Lenin's followers generally view his additions to the body of Marxism as the practical corollary to Marx's
original theoretical contributions of the 19th century; insofar as they apply under the conditions of advanced
capitalism that they found themselves working in. Lenin called this time-frame the era of Imperialism. For
example, Joseph Stalin wrote that
“Leninism grew up and took shape under the conditions of imperialism, when the contradictions of capitalism had reached an extreme point, when the proletarian revolution had become an immediate practical question, when the old period of preparation of the working class for revolution had arrived at and passed into a new period, that of direct assault on capitalism.[42] ”
The most important consequence of a Leninist-style theory of Imperialism is the strategic need for workers in
the industrialized countries to bloc or ally with the oppressed nations contained within their respective countries'
colonies abroad in order to overthrow capitalism. This is the source of the slogan, which shows the Leninist
conception that not only the proletariat, as is traditional to Marxism, are the sole revolutionary force, but all
oppressed people:
“Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite![43]
”Second, the other distinguishing characteristic of Marxism-Leninism is how it approaches the question of
organization. Lenin believed that the traditional model of the Social Democratic parties of the time, which was a
loose, multitendency organization was inadequate for overthrowing the Tsarist regime in Russia. He proposed
a cadre of professional revolutionaries that disciplined itself under the model of Democratic Centralism.
[edit]Marxism-Leninism after Stalin
For better or worse, Marxism-Leninism as a body of thought and practice was closely identified with the figure
of Joseph Stalin after the death of Lenin. After the death of Stalin, the leader of the USSR,Nikita
Khrushchev made several ideological and practical ruptures with his predecessor which lead to the eventual
split of Marxism-Leninism into two main branches, post-Stalin "Moscow-aligned" communism and anti-
revisionism. In turn, these branches evolved into multiple schools of thought over time.
[edit]Post-Stalin Moscow-aligned communism
At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev made several ideological
ruptures with his predecessor, Joseph Stalin. First, Khrushchev denounced the so-called Cult of
Personality that had developed around Stalin, which ironically enough Khrushchev had had a pivotal role in
fostering decades earlier. More importantly, however, Khrushchev rejected the heretofore orthodox Marxist-
Leninist tenet that class struggle continues even under socialism. Rather, the State ought to rule in the name of
all classes. A related principle that flowed from the former was the notion of peaceful co-existence, or that the
newly emergent socialist bloc could peacefully compete with the capitalist world, solely by developing the
productive forces of society.
[edit]Eurocommunism
Beginning around the 1970s, various communist parties in Western Europe, such as the Partito Comunista
Italiano in Italy and the Partido Comunista de España under Santiago Carillo tried to hew to a more
independent line from Moscow. Particularly in Italy, they leaned on the theories of Antonio Gramsci, despite the
fact that by 1921 Gramsci believed that a Communist Party in the Leninist sense was needed. This trend went
by the name Eurocommunism.
[edit]Anti-revisionism
There are many proponents of Marxist-Leninism who rejected the theses of Khrushchev. They believed that
Khrushchev was unacceptably altering or "revising" the fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism, a stance from
which the label "anti-revisionist" is derived. Usually, they are referred to externally by the following epithets,
although anti-revisionists typically refer to themselves simply as Marxist-Leninists.
[edit]Maoism
Maoism takes its name from Mao Zedong, the erstwhile leader of the Peoples Republic of China; it is the
variety of anti-revisionism that took inspiration, and in some cases received material support, from China,
especially during the Mao period. There are several key concepts that were developed by Mao. First, Mao
concurred with Stalin that not only does class struggle continue under thedictatorship of the proletariat, it
actually accelerates as long as gains are being made by the proletariat at the expense of the disenfranchised
bourgeoisie. Second, Mao developed a strategy for revolution called Prolonged People's War in what he
termed the semi-feudal countries of the Third World. Prolonged People's War relied heavily on the peasantry.
Third, Mao wrote many theoretical articles on epistemology and dialectics, which he called contradictions.
[edit]Hoxhaism
Hoxhaism, so named because of the central contribution of Albanian statesman Enver Hoxha , was closely
aligned with the People's Republic of China for a number of years, but grew critical of Maoismbecause of the
so-called Three Worlds Theory put forth by elements within the Communist Party of China and because it
viewed the actions of Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping unfavorably. Ultimately, however, Hoxhaism as a trend
came to the understanding that Socialism had never existed in China at all.
[edit]Trotskyism
Main article: Trotskyism
Trotskyism is the usual term for followers of the ideas of Russian Marxist Leon Trotsky, the second most
prominent leader of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky was a contemporary of Lenin from the early years of
the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, where he led a small trend in competition with both
Lenin's Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks; nevertheless Trotsky's followers claim to be the heirs of Lenin in the
same way that mainstream Marxist-Leninists do. There are several distinguishing characteristics of this school
of thought; foremost is the theory of Permanent Revolution. Another shared characteristic between Trotskyists
is a variety of theoretical justifications for their negative appraisal of the post-Lenin Soviet Union; that is to say,
after Trotsky was expelled by a majority vote from the CPSU[44] and subsequently from the Soviet Union.
Trotsky characterized the government of the USSR after his expulsion as being dominated by a "bureaucratic
caste" and called for it to be overthrown.[45] Trotskists as a consequence usually advocate the overthrow of
socialist governments around the world that are ruled by Marxist-Leninist parties.
[edit]Left Communism
Main article: Left Communism
Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the communist left, which criticizes the political
ideas of the Bolsheviks from a position that is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and proletarian than
the views of Leninism held by the Communist International after its first two congresses.
Although she lived before left communism became a distinct tendency, Rosa Luxemburg has been heavily
influential for most left communists, both politically and theoretically. Proponents of left communism have
included Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, Karl Korsch, Amadeo Bordiga , and Paul Mattick.
Prominent left communist groups existing today include the International Communist Current and the
International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party. Also, different factions from the old Bordigist International
Communist Party are considered left communist organizations.
[edit]Western Marxism
Main article: Western Marxism
Western Marxism is a term used to describe a wide variety of Marxist theoreticians based
in Western and Central Europe (and more recently North America ), in contrast with philosophy in the Soviet
Union, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the People's Republic of China.
[edit]Structural Marxism
Main article: Structural Marxism
Structural Marxism is an approach to Marxism based on structuralism, primarily associated with the work of the
French theorist Louis Althusser and his students. It was influential in France during the late 1960s and 1970s,
and also came to influence philosophers, political theorists and sociologists outside of France during the 1970s.
[edit]Autonomist Marxism
Main article: Autonomism
Autonomism is a term applied to a variety of social movements around the world, which emphasizes the ability
to organize in autonomous and horizontal networks, as opposed to hierarchical structures such as unions or
parties. Autonomist Marxists, including Harry Cleaver, broaden the definition of the working-class to include
salaried and unpaid labour, such as skilled professions and housework; it focuses on the working class in
advanced capitalist states as the primary force of change in the construct of capital. Modern autonomist
theorists such as Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt argue that network power constructs are the most effective
methods of organization against the neoliberal regime of accumulation, and predict a massive shift in the
dynamics of capital into a 21st century Empire.
[edit]Marxist humanism
Main article: Marxist humanism
Marxist humanism is a branch of Marxism that primarily focuses on Marx's earlier writings, especially
the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 in which Marx develops his theory of alienation, as
opposed to his later works, which are considered to be concerned more with his structural conception
of capitalist society. It was opposed by Louis Althusser's "antihumanism", who qualified it as
a revisionist movement.
Marxist humanists contend that ‘Marxism’ developed lopsidedly because Marx’s early works were unknown
until after the orthodox ideas were in vogue – the Manuscripts of 1844 were published only in 1932 – and it is
necessary to understand Marx’s philosophical foundations to understand his latter works properly.
[edit]Marxism-Deleonism
Marxism-Deleonism, is a form of syndicalist Marxism developed by Daniel De Leon. De Leon was an early
leader of the first US socialist political party, the Socialist Labor Party. This party exists to the present day. De
Leonism lies outside the Leninist tradition of communism. The highly decentralized and democratic nature of
the proposed De Leonist government is in contrast to the democratic centralism of Marxism-Leninism and what
they see as the dictatorial nature of the Soviet Union. The success of the De Leonist plan depends on
achieving majority support among the people both in the workplaces and at the polls, in contrast to the Leninist
notion that a small vanguard party should lead the working class to carry out the revolution. Daniel De Leon
and other De Leonist writers have issued frequent polemics against 'democratic socialist' movements,
especially the Socialist Party of America, and consider them to be "reformist" or "bourgeois socialist". De
Leonists have traditionally refrained from any activity or alliances viewed by them as trying to reform capitalism,
though the Socialist Labor Party in De Leon's time was active during strikes and such, such as social justice
movements.[citation needed]
[edit]Marxist feminism
Main article: Marxist feminism
Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to
liberate women. Marxist feminism states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality,
dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root
of women's oppression. According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies the individual is shaped by class
relations; that is, people's capacities, needs and interests are seen to be determined by the mode of production
that characterises the society they inhabit. Marxist feminists see gender inequality as determined ultimately by
the capitalist mode of production. Gender oppression is class oppression and women's subordination is seen
as a form of class oppression which is maintained (like racism) because it serves the interests of capital and
the ruling class. Marxist feminists have extended traditional Marxist analysis by looking at domestic labour as
well as wage work in order to support their position.[citation needed]
[edit]Criticism
Main article: Criticisms of Marxism
Criticisms of Marxism have come from the political left, right, and libertarians. Democratic socialists and social
democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflictand a proletarian
revolution. Many anarchists reject the need for a transitory state phase. Other critiques come from an economic
standpoint. Economists such as Friedrich Hayek have criticized Marxism for allocating resources inefficiently.
Some contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable, but that the
corpus is incomplete or somewhat outdated in regards to certain aspects of economic,
This view of industrial relations is a by product of a theory of capitalist society and social change.
Marx argued that:
Weakness and contradiction inherent in the capitalist system would result in revolution and
the ascendancy of socialism over capitalism.
Capitalism would foster monopolies.
Wages (costs to the capitalist) would be minimized to a subsistence level.
Capitalists and workers would compete/be in contention to win ground and establish their
constant win-lose struggles would be evident.
This perspective focuses on the fundamental division of interest between capital and labor, and
sees workplace relations against this background. It is concerned with the structure and nature
of society and assumes that the conflict in employment relationship is reflective of the
structure of the society. Conflict is therefore seen as inevitable and trade unions are a natural
response of workers to their exploitation by capital.
Industrial relationsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Industrial relations is a multidisciplinary field that studies the employment relationship.[1] Industrial
relations is increasingly being called employment relations because of the importance of non-industrial
employment relationships. Many outsiders also equate industrial relations to labour relations and believe
that industrial relations only studies unionized employment situations, but this is an oversimplification.
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
2 History
3 Theoretical perspectives
o 3.1 Unitary perspective
o 3.2 Pluralist perspective
o 3.3 Marxist/Radical perspective
4 Industrial Relations Today
5 Notes
6 Further reading
[edit]Overview
Industrial relations has three faces: science building, problem solving, and ethical.[2] In the science building
face, industrial relations is part of the social sciences, and it seeks to understand the employment
relationship and its institutions through high-quality, rigorous research. In this vein, industrial relations
scholarship intersects with scholarship in labor economics, industrial sociology, labor and social history,
human resource management, political science, law, and other areas. In the problem solving face,
industrial relations seeks to design policies and institutions to help the employment relationship work
better. In the ethical face, industrial relations contains strong normative principles about workers and the
employment relationship, especially the rejection of treating labor as a commodity in favor of seeing
workers as human beings in democratic communities entitled to human rights."The term human relations
refers to the whole field of relationship that exists because of the necessary collaboration of men and
women in the employment process of modern industry."It is that part of management which is concerned
with the management of enterprise -whether machine operator,skilled worker or manager.It deals with
either the relationship between the state and employers and workers organisation or the relation between
the occupational organisation themselves.
Industrial relations scholarship assumes that labor markets are not perfectly competitive and thus, in
contrast to mainstream economic theory, employers typically have greater bargaining power than
employees. Industrial relations scholarship also assumes that there are at least some inherent conflicts of
interest between employers and employees (for example, higher wages versus higher profits) and thus, in
contrast to scholarship in human resource management and organizational behavior, conflict is seen as a
natural part of the employment relationship. Industrial relations scholars therefore frequently study the
diverse institutional arrangements that characterize and shape the employment relationship—from norms
and power structures on the shop floor, to employee voice mechanisms in the workplace, to collective
bargaining arrangements at company, regional, or national level, to various levels of public policy and labor
law regimes, to "varieties of capitalism" (such as corporatism),social democracy, and neoliberalism).
When labor markets are seen as imperfect, and when the employment relationship includes conflicts of
interest, then one cannot rely on markets or managers to always serve workers’ interests, and in extreme
cases to prevent worker exploitation. Industrial relations scholars and practitioners therefore support
institutional interventions to improve the workings of the employment relationship and to protect workers’
rights. The nature of these institutional interventions, however, differ between two camps within industrial
relations.[3] The pluralist camp sees the employment relationship as a mixture of shared interests and
conflicts of interests that are largely limited to the employment relationship. In the workplace, pluralists
therefore champion grievance procedures, employee voice mechanisms such as works councils and labor
unions, collective bargaining, and labor-management partnerships. In the policy arena, pluralists advocate
for minimum wage laws, occupational health and safety standards, international labor standards, and other
employment and labor laws and public policies.[4] These institutional interventions are all seen as methods
for balancing the employment relationship to generate not only economic efficiency, but also employee
equity and voice.[5] In contrast, the Marxist-inspired critical camp sees employer-employee conflicts of
interest as sharply antagonistic and deeply embedded in the socio-political-economic system. From this
perspective, the pursuit of a balanced employment relationship gives too much weight to employers’
interests, and instead deep-seated structural reforms are needed to change the sharply antagonistic
employment relationship that is inherent within capitalism. Militant trade unions are thus frequently
supported.
Part of a series on
Organized labour
The labour movement [show]
Labour rights [show]
Trade unions [show]
Strike actions [show]
Academic disciplines[show]
v · d · e
[edit]History
Industrial relations has its roots in the industrial revolution which created the modern employment
relationship by spawning free labor markets and large-scale industrial organizations with thousands of
wage workers.[6] As society wrestled with these massive economic and social changes, labor problems
arose. Low wages, long working hours, monotonous and dangerous work, and abusive supervisory
practices led to high employee turnover, violent strikes, and the threat of social instability. Intellectually,
industrial relations was formed at the end of the 19th century as a middle ground between classical
economics and Marxism, withSidney Webb and Beatrice Webb’s Industrial Democracy (1897) being the
key intellectual work. Industrial relations thus rejected the classical econ.
Institutionally, industrial relations was founded by John R. Commons when he created the first academic
industrial relations program at the University of Wisconsin in 1920. Early financial support for the field
came from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. who supported progressive labor-management relations in the
aftermath of the bloody strike at a Rockefeller-owned coal mine in Colorado. In Britain, another progressive
industrialist, Montague Burton, endowed chairs in industrial relations at Leeds, Cardiff and Cambridge in
'If the essence and appearance of things directly coincided, all science would be superfluous'. Does Marx's dictum lead to novel insights?
The purpose of science is to discover the nature of reality concealed under surface appearance. Based on this definition, Marx makes the above assertion - if things appeared exactly as they are, there would be no need for science to remove the veil of appearance. Social science, therefore, is the search for the real nature of society, underneath all of its visible, external façades. If the reality of society is easily observable in our everyday experience, then there is no need for scientific reflection on
society, as Marx defines science. The idea that society has an 'appearance', which is not the same as social 'essence', forms the starting point for the Marxist discussion of ideology. Ideology is what allows a society to persist, even though the essence of that society may contain contradictions.
It is important to note that the difference between appearance and reality is not due to some form of false belief or faulty vision on the part of the observer. The appearances are caused by the reality. There is no 'mistake' in the observance of society, because it is the nature of society that the essence projects a certain appearance. It is the nature of a mirage that it is an illusion, it is not a case of 'faulty vision'. A person with normal vision will still see a mirage, as it is the very essence of the mirage which creates the illusion.
Marx was primarily concerned with the nature of the capitalist mode of production. The cardinal tenets of Marx's theory of the essence of capitalism are: Only expenditure of labour creates economic value, in proportion to the amount of labour expended; workers do not receive the
whole value of what they produce - capitalists enjoy profits due to surplus value, for which the worker is not paid; labour power is the only form of capital investment which creates profit. (1) The social appearance, on the other hand is: An object is worth what it can be exchanged for in the market, i.e. its exchange-value; workers appear to be paid for all of their labour; capital is seen to 'create' profit. There is clearly a marked difference between the appearance and essence of society. Marx uses the idea of 'commodity fetishism' to explain this difference.
'Commodity fetishism' is the vision of objective value in commodities especially money, as the commodity of exchange. Under a society with exchange, the only way people can gauge value is during the exchange process. For example, in the labour market, a worker will agree to a contract with an employer for a certain wage per time period. The worker feels that he is being paid for all of his work, and the employer feels that the value of the labour-power employed is worth the wage. The actual value of the labour is more than the wage, as the employer will eventually extract a surplus value when the product is sold. The cause of this commodity fetishism is the nature of the exchange process. The result is that some aspects of the appearance of society are the 'inverse' of its essence.
The notion of 'inversion' is very important to Marx, as it sums up the idea that the capitalist mode of production contains contradictions. The contradiction is between the essence and appearance. Marx goes so far as to say that 'everything appears as reversed in competition' (2). Ideology 'conceals the contradictory essential relations...because it is based on a sphere of reality which reveals the contrary to its essential relations' (3). The role of ideology, therefore, is to hide the essence of society as it contradicts the appearance, which is beneficial to the ruling class at the time. As ideology is based on the 'phenomenological sphere', or the sphere of 'appearances', is fulfils its role by reinforcing the appearances of society, thus further burying the 'essence'.
It is useful to compare the predominant ideologies associated with feudalism and capitalism. In a feudal society, the fact that the surplus labour of the serf is obvious by the fact that he/she will spend some of his/her time producing for the lord directly. The exploitation is blatant,
and in order to avoid uprising, ideology takes a religious form, where servitude is seen as a way of guaranteeing a successful after-life. In the feudal case, the ideology can not hide the contradictory and exploitative nature of society, and so its role is justification rather than concealment. Essentially, though, the role is the same as under capitalism - to help the unequal and contradictory social system survive.
In comparison, ideology in a capitalist society takes the form of 'commodity fetishism', and several 'principles implicit in all exchange'. When people enter the market, they enter freely as equals, each with their own property, and concern for their own self-interest. Marx explains the existence of these 'principles' as such, 'Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity...are constrained only by their own free will,...they contract as free agents. Equality because...they exchange equivalent with equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham (self-interest), because each looks only to himself.' (4) Each of these principles is inherently linked to the exchange process, and so each one contributes to 'commodity fetishism'. The essence of society is one of inequality and unfreedom, as there is inequality between the propertied and propertyless classes, and that workers are not free to withhold their labour-power from the market. In order to survive, a worker must sell his labour to the capitalist class. The ideology of the exchange market conceals this essence.
Marx's model of ideology is not a simple conspiracy of the capitalists to make sure that the workers live by the ideology so that they do not realise the contradictory nature of capitalism. The ruling class are also subject to the illusions and appearances of the mode of production as much as the exploited class. Again, this encourages the persistence of the capitalist mode of production. If the essence of society was not hidden, not only would the workers feel resentment at being exploited, but also the exploiters would lack the composure for confident rule.It has already been stated that social science can be used to uncover the essence of society. This does not mean, however, that science ends the contradiction. Just knowing the contradiction in the essence of society does not stop there being a contradiction. Even when you understand a mirage, you still see it. This means that something more is required for an end in the contradiction of the mode of production. The essence of society must be directly changed, before the contradictions can be removed.
Up to this point in the discussion of ideology, the definition has been a very negative one - ideology conceals the contradictions between the appearance and essence of society, and therefore benefits the status quo and the ruling class. The examination of class struggle in relation to ideology brings in a more positive view. During periods of social calm, the ideology of society remains largely unchallenged. In a class struggle, however, the dominant ideas are associated with the ruling class, and are open to criticism. By criticising the existing ideology, the dominated class puts forward political views. These views will be backed up theoretically, and these form the basis of a 'class ideology'. There will then be 'ideological conflict' between the fundamental classes of society. A basis for this development of the idea of ideology can be found in Marx: 'a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.' (5) We now have a very different place for ideology in society. By looking at class struggle, it appears as though all classes may put forward an ideology in the form of political views. These views challenge the existence of the social ideology which hides the contradictions of the mode of production.
The links between the formation of a class consciousness and its ideology are very close. A class consciousness can be conceived as an ideology opposed to the dominant ideology of society. Georg Lukacs puts forward a thesis showing the difference between the class consciousness of the proletariat, and the ideology in which they must survive, which is that of the bourgeoisie. Clearly, the life of a member of the proletariat is highly infected with bourgeois ideology. The consciousness of the class as a whole, however, is the way in which it fights the ideological battle against the dominant class. Class struggle takes an ideological form, and there are large obstacles for the proletariat to overcome. This is due to the fact that the way in which members of society conceive that society has already been infected. This is based on the interpretation of ideology as part of the way in which people relate to society.
The ideological battle between classes is for 'hegemony'. Antonio Gramsci puts forward this concept as the 'ideological domination' of society.
Hegemony is created in the domain of the superstructure, by forming alliances with other classes so that an ideologically dominant class can rule by consent. In order for the proletariat to gain hegemony, it must wage a 'war of position', where 'organic intellectuals' of the working class put forward a new ideology, and try to gain support for it from other classes and social forces.
These developments of the Marxist views begin to confuse the terminology initially adopted by Marx. Ideology was initially found to be the way in which the contradiction between essence of society and its appearance is hidden. By saying that a class can 'have' or 'put forward' and ideology confuses this matter. What the class is putting forward is not an ideology in the above sense, but political, ethical or philosophical arguments against the persistence of the social contradictions. Louis Althusser makes the claim that ideology is part of the relation between the individual and society. He says, 'an ideology is a system of representations endowed with a historical existence and role within a given society' (6). This means that people 'act consciously though ideology', but ideology itself is unconscious. This by itself agrees with Marx's views on the affect of ideology. Commodity fetishism and the acceptance of the status quo are largely unconscious. Althusser drifts away from the views of Marx when he makes the claim that there will still be ideology, even in a classless society, because there will still be the need for people to relate to society. Marx clearly has the view that in a classless society, there will be no ideology, for the reason that the appearance will be equal to the essence of a classless society.
In order to allow Althusser to make these statements, we must realise that he uses a different concept of ideology. To illustrate this point, an argument from Cohen is useful. Cohen claims that Marx has a negative view of science, in that it always exposes contradictions between
appearance and essence. Marx criticised the economists of his time for using simple notions of price and production which are 'obvious to the simple businessman'. Cohen claims that those economists were scientists, but that they were neutral. Although there were not revealing any contradiction between essence and appearance, they were producing useful theory on the way economies function. This type of social science will not 'wither away' under a classless society. Similarly, it is this type of ideology which Althusser claims will exist in a classless society. People will still need to relate to society. In a classless society, however, that relation will not contain a contradiction.
This development of the theory of ideological theory from Marx through Lukacs, Gramsci and Althusser, provides a full view of how ideology is framed in Marxist thought. Marx starts the development by showing that ideology is what hides the contradictory essence of society. Gramsci expands on this by showing how this allows for capitalism to persist, and by suggesting new strategies for the leaders of the proletariat. Ideology functions as part of the superstructure, along with the pursuit of social science. Social science, in the negative form conceived by Marx, pulls back the cover of ideology to reveal the nature of the 'essence' society. By ruling out the economists of his time as 'unscientific', Marx left only himself and his disciples as true 'social scientists'. It is ironic that he does so. If, as he predicted, the proletarian revolution occurs, then, according to the dictum in the question, his own branch of expertise would be 'superfluous'. This would leave only those who he condemned as 'non-scientists' to take up the banner of social investigation.
References:G. A. Cohen, The Withering Away of Social Science in his Karl Marx's theory
of History.K. Marx, Capital vol. iii, p. 209.J. Larrain, Marxism and Ideology.K. Marx, Capital vol. i, p. 172.K. Marx, preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
L. Althusser, Marxism and Humanism in his For Marx p. 231.
In pluralism the organization is perceived as being
made up of powerful and divergent sub-groups -
management and trade unions. This approach sees
conflicts of interest and disagreements between
managers and workers over the distribution of
profits as normal and inescapable. Consequently,
the role of management would lean less towards
enforcing and controlling and more toward
persuasion and co-ordination. Trade unions are
deemed as legitimate representatives of
employees. Conflict is dealt by collective
bargaining and is viewed not necessarily as a bad
thing and if managed could in fact be channeled
towards evolution and positive change.Realistic
managers should accept conflict to occur. There is
a greater propensity for conflict rather than
harmony.
They should anticipate and resolve this by securing agreed procedures for settling disputes.
The implications of this approach include:
The firm should have industrial relations and personnel specialists who advise
managers and provide specialist services in respect of staffing and matters relating
to union consultation and negotiation.
Independent external arbitrators should be used to assist in the resolution of
disputes.
Union recognition should be encouraged and union representatives given scope to
carry out their representative duties
Comprehensive collective agreements should be negotiated with unions
