Advertisement

Industrial Relations and Globalization: A Marxist Perspective

  • V. Janardhan
Chapter

Abstract

Globalization refers to the generation and diffusion of capital across or almost all over the globe. Globalization as it is known and experienced today was clearly perceived by Marx (and Engels). But the notable point is that the original ‘Marxists’ considered this phenomenon to be a progressive tendency despite the social cost. They considered capitalism as a moment historically necessary for the transition to a truly social, human existence and flowering—possible only at the global level. This meant that capitalism had to first become global. The transcendence to socialism would/could happen thereafter. Global capitalism was the prerequisite for global socialism. The transcendence to socialism would/could happen due to the material, moral and political conditions created by capitalism itself. Mainly, the forces of production would come into increasing contradiction with the existing relations of production. The resulting rupture would result in a new mode of production; a socialization of production and new institutional structures in which the capitalist class and the private nature and character of production would be absent. This could also make for socialist industrial relations (IR) at the workplace, with the workers/employees in self-management mode. The focus comes to bear, as usual, on labour, on working-class organizations and movements such as trade unions particularly socialist trade unions and their strategies and action. What actually happened was that capital–labour relations, a structural reality, institutionally got translated as ‘industrial relations’. It acquired the trappings and character of a system by itself. It got incorporated into larger structures of power getting legitimacy in the process. In terms of a theoretical understanding, it makes for a sociological functionalist perspective, including a conflict functionalism. Industrial relations swing between conflict and cooperation between capital and labour. In an IR frame and manner, many possibilities arise including international collective bargaining and solidarity action. The Marxian case and possibilities for transcendence to socialism doubtless exist. For this to happen, Marxist IR theory and practice has to engage in a radical rethink. The present essay is a contribution to this process and prospect.

Keywords

Globalization Capital Labour Industrial relations Marxist perspective Industry 4.0 Working-class politics 

References

  1. Aglietta, Michel. 1979, 1999. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsley, Claire. 2018. The New Working Class: How to Win Hearts, Minds and Votes. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amin, Ash. 1994. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, Margaret. 2003. Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banaji, Jairus, and Rohini Hensman. 1990. Beyond Multinationalism: Management Policy and Bargaining Relationship in International Companies. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Buhr, Daniel. 2017. Social Innovation Policy for Industry 4.0. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  7. Chamberlain, N.W. 1967. Union Challenge to Management Control. New York: Archon Books.Google Scholar
  8. Custers, Peter. 1995. “The Race Between Ford and Toyota: The Struggle for World Dominance.” Economic and Political Weekly 30(47): M151–58.Google Scholar
  9. Dunn, Bill. 2004. Global Restructuring and the Power of Labour. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunn, Stephen. 1990. “Root Metaphor in the Old and New Industrial Relations.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 28(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gopalakrishnan, R. 2013. “The Next Leadership Challenge—Employee Engagement.” Business Standard, January 25. https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/r-gopalakrishnan-the-next-leadership-challenge-employee-engagement-112080200032_1.html. Accessed on 2 May 2018.
  13. Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harding, Neil. 1983. Lenin’s Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic and Socialist Revolutions. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyman, Richard. 1975. Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeannet, J.P., and H.D. Hennessey. 2005. Global Marketing Strategies, 6th edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Kotz, David M. 2017. “Social Structure of Accumulation Theory, Marxist Theory, and System Transformation.” Review of Radical Political Economics 49(4): 534–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemke, Thomas. 2012. Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Lenin, V.I. 1990. What Is to Be Done? London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  20. Liker, Jeffrey K. 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Mallet, Serge. 1975. The New Working Class. Nottingham: Spokesman Books.Google Scholar
  22. Natarajan, Ganesh. 2018. “Industry 4.0: Digitising the Shop Floor.” Business Standard XIX(72): 8.Google Scholar
  23. O’Connor, James. 1984. Accumulation Crisis. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Patnaik, Prabhat. 1999. A World to Win: Essays on the Communist Manifesto. New Delhi: LeftWord Books.Google Scholar
  25. Piore, Michael, and Charles Sabel. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Saxer, Marc. 2017. The Future of Work in Asia: How Can India Create Livelihoods in the Digital Age? New Delhi: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  27. Service, Robert. 2010. Lenin: A Biography. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  28. Turner, Jonathan H. 1999 [1987]. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Womack, James P., Daniel T. Jones, and Daniel Roos. 1991. The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Janardhan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations