Varieties of contestation: The comparative and critical political economy of ‘excessive’ demand

Abstract

This paper agrees with much of the current criticism, especially from Marxist perspectives, which argues that the varieties of capitalism (VoC) approach overemphasises the degree of harmony and mutual benefit, as well as the absence of class tension and exploitation, within contemporary capitalist relations. It also, however, criticises many of these Marxist critiques on the grounds that they too willingly accept that relations of domination and exploitation are constitutive of contemporary capitalism. In contrast, the present paper draws on alternative positions within the heterodox Marxist tradition to highlight the contestation that invariably disrupts attempts to structure relations of exploitation and domination. Rather than varieties of capitalism, or varieties in capitalism, therefore, we might be better served by seeking to map varieties of contestation. These arguments are developed with reference to empirical sketches of patterns of contestation in Japan and the UK. These are two countries typically considered alternative types of market economy, but instead considered here to evince contrasting patterns of contestation.

Resisting Japan's Neoliberal Model of Capitalism: Intensification and Change in Contemporary Patterns of Class Struggle

“…In doing so, he argues that capital itself is forced to change and transform as a result of its antagonistic confrontation with labour, and that it is the resistance of living labour that in part determines the development of capital (2003: 13, 155). Similar approaches highlight the importance of focusing on acts of contention (Bailey and Shibata 2014;Papadopoulos et al 2008;Tsianos et al 2012). Adopting these insights, this study explores the instances, extent and form of disobedience, resistance, disruption and dissent in Japan, and the impact that such acts have had upon the politics of liberalization.…”

“…In doing so, he argues that capital itself is forced to change and transform as a result of its antagonistic confrontation with labour, and that it is the resistance of living labour that in part determines the development of capital (2003: 13, 155). Similar approaches highlight the importance of focusing on acts of contention (Bailey and Shibata ; Papadopoulos et al . 2008; Tsianos et al .…”

International Political Economy of Labour and Gramsci’s methodology of the subaltern

“…Recently, various IPE scholars have proposed to, and in contrast to ‘top-down’ domination-focused approaches, develop a ‘bottom-up’ disruption-oriented IPE (see Bailey et al, 2017, 2018; Bailey and Shibata, 2014; Huke et al, 2015). According to Huke et al (2015: 731), this approach, which draws on autonomist Marxism, 2 highlights ‘action, contestation and disruption by labour’ to address ‘the inherent instability of attempts to contain resistance and insubordination, and the disruptive effect such practices always-already have upon would-be relations of domination’.…”

“…Notwithstanding the importance of voicing the daily-life subversive capacity of the worker, the propositions advanced hitherto are, nevertheless, distant from providing a convincing framework against ‘top-down’ IPE approaches. In overemphasising the autonomy of workers (Bailey et al, 2017: 20–23, 2018: 14–18; Bailey and Shibata, 2014: 241–244; Huke et al, 2015: 731–734), these authors have analytically obviated the limitations and contradictions that working-class struggles embody – namely, that working-class empowerment does not occur in absolute terms but in relative terms to different fractions of capital and the working class – and thus, they have tended to overweight the challenges that grass-root contemporary struggles have posed to the ruling class.…”

International Political Economy of Labour and collective bargaining in the automotive industry

“…In this sense, micro-corporatist strategies, rather than being explained only from the disadvantageous ‘structural position’ that workers hold in their material reproduction, can also be explained as conscious (albeit ‘partial’) defence of short-term interests for which other feasible alternative strategies exist (Bieler, 2015). In the absence of strong transnational labour movements, national or local forms of radical action have been portrayed as a temporary solution (Bailey and Shibata, 2014; Bailey et al., 2018). Yet, it is also crucial to note, that empowering the workforce at the national or local scale may lead to some sort of social compromise with the native ruling classes so as to reproduce their labour-power in the world market (e.g.…”