Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Introduction to the Transaction Edition -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Chapter 1: Marx and Engels on the State and Politics -- Marx and Engels on the State -- Marxism and Utopianism -- Marx and Engels on Revolution and Reform -- Chapter 2: Marxism and Reformism -- The Early Debates: Bernstein and Social Democratic Orthodoxy -- Lenin and the "Renegade" Kautsky -- Marxism and Politics after Lenin -- Marxism versus Reformism? -- Conclusion -- Chapter 3: The State as the Instrument of the Capitalist Class -- The State in Capitalist Society: Miliband -- "Corporate Liberalism": Domhoff -- Marxist Criticisms of "Instrumentalism" -- Chapter 4: Structural Functionalism Revisited (1): Structuralism -- Althusserian "Structuralism" -- Poulantzas's Theory of the Capitalist State -- From "Cohesion" to "Class Struggle" -- Althusser's "Orrery" -- "Theoretical Practice," Scientific Explanation, and Dogma: A Critique of Poulantzas -- Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 5: Structural Functionalism Revisited (2): Accumulation versus Legitimation -- State Functions and System (In)Stability -- State "Functions" as Marxist Dogma -- The Unexamined Presuppositions of Marxism and the Appeal of Structural Functionalism -- Chapter 6: The State and the Class Struggle: Dynamics Restored? -- Chapter 7: Conclusion:From the Marxist Theory of the Stateto the State of Marxist Theory -- Marxist Theories of the State: A Summary -- Marxism: Creeping Embourgeoisement? -- Marx and the Marxist Theory of the State: Some Continuities -- Marxism: The "Immanentist" Core -- Bibliography -- Name Index -- Subject Index

This article criticises the multiplicity of meanings that have been attached to the term 'flexicurity' and the largely rhetorical, depoliticising uses to which it has been put by EU-level policy makers and analysts. It then proceeds to examine the two cases in which the underlying idea of flexicurity – that social protection and economic performance can be mutually reinforcing – has been most unambiguously pursued: the Swedish 'Rehn-Meidner' plan and the Danish 'Golden Triangle'. This analysis suggests that a major factor in the relative success of these policies in these two Scandinavian countries has been the presence of 'encompassing organisations' (Olson 1982) on both sides of the bargaining table. The article ends with some considerations of the implications of this analysis for the much-discussed transferability of the Scandinavian experience to other national settings.

Michael Burawoy certainly seems to have the requisite organizational and marketing savvy to be a successful 'public sociologist.' Preaching from a few well-chosen pulpits, the ASA Presidency first among them, he has almost singlehandedly created a multinational cottage industry busily debating his ideas about the future of our discipline. The responses have been as varied as they have been numerous. While many have been quite critical, the criticisms have originated from a bewildering range of often entirely opposite positions on the ideological-philosophical spectrum, as well as from every imaginable position in between. Burawoy himself takes this multiplicity of position-takings to be evidence for the plausibility of his own ideas about different kinds of sociology and the possibility of a fruitful, collaborative division of labour between them (Burawoy 2007: 246). But we suspect it is more likely simply an expression of the depth and the breadth of our discord concerning the basic question of what we want with our discipline .