Search

The Occasional Paper is intended as a resource document and is designed to provide teachers of Asian studies with an authoritative study of education in the People's Republic of China from 1949 to 1969 where educational effort focuses upon the needs of society rather than the individual. The first twenty years of the history of the People's Republic of China is categorized in terms of six distinct periods of educational reforms. Each of these six periods is analyzed by Dr. S. M. Hu according to its political emphases, educational policy and curriculum trends. The first period of 1949 to 1952 was a consolidation of the regime built, the second period of 1953 to 1957 concentrated on the Five-Year Plan with strong Soviet influence, the third period of 1958 to 1959 impressed the world with the movement of communes and the "Great Leap Forward," the fourth period of 1960 to 1963 proceeded cautiously with a "retrenchment" program, the fifth period of 1964 to 1965 marked by a sharp two-line Party struggle, and the sixth period of 1966 to 1969 alarmed the world with the "Great Cultural Revolution" which means to prepare a new breed of generation. (Author)

Interwar Europe, a hotbed of anti-Semitism. A prejudice and hatred which was characteristic of so many right-wing movements, particularly far-right ones. Meanwhile, left-wing movements called for international workers unity, regardless of race or nationality. But did they truly live up to the values of the slogan? This paper tries to answer this question by inspecting the Norwegian case of the Labour Party and its main party organ, the Worker Paper between 1929 and 1930. The thesis relies on a detailed qualitative analysis of the Worker Paper’s contents as well as a shorter quantitative one. Because of the complicated nature of left-wing anti-Semitism, the thesis operates with a distinction between explicit and implicit anti-Semitism, where the latter becomes of most relevance. Possible cases of anti-Semitism are through argument determined as either explicitly anti-Semitic, implicitly anti-Semitic or neither. This way the thesis not only informs of the anti-Semitism the Worker Paper engaged in but also helps to define the boundaries of anti-Semitism. Cases where the Worker Paper opposed anti-Semitism are also examined and this apparent contradiction is clarified. The thesis concludes that opposition to anti-Semitism was quite representative of its contents, yet anti-Semitism was less than that: Somewhat representative, although explicit anti-Semitism was very rare. The level of anti-Semitism is regarded as too deep for the Worker Paper to be labelled “anti-anti-Semitic” in the period, and should instead be considered ambivalent towards Jews but more on the side of anti-anti-Semitism than anti-Semitism.

In this introduction to the second part of the special issue on alternative economies published in Organization in 2017, I first briefly chart key fora where the debate has continued in the last two years, and then present the three additional contributions included here. Moving the conversation forward, I argue that, in order to evaluate the prefigurative potential of alternative organizations, we need to address more thoroughly the relation between alternatives and their outside. A productive place to ground this reflection is in the debate between post-capitalism and anti-capitalism. The main lines of this debate are reconstructed based on the keynote speeches delivered by Jodi Dean and Stephen Healy at the last Rethinking Marxism conference held in Amherst, Massachusetts, in September 2013. I conclude by claiming that post-capitalist immanence should be articulated with an anti-capitalist communist horizon, and advance the Open Marxist notion of de-mediation of social relations as key to do this. Although capitalist institutions (e.g. the market, the state) mediate all social relations, mediation is never definitive, as it always contains the possibility for its own negation, de-mediation. So conceived, de-mediation redefines our understanding of class struggle beyond the capital-labor relation in the workplace, into society as a whole, broadening the ethical and political scope of the organizational research agenda on alternatives to capitalism. I would like to thank Raza Mir and Yvonne Benschop for giving me the possibility to write this introduction and Ozan Alakavuklar, Marcos Barros, Marjan De Coster and Frederick Harry Pitts for their very valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this text. I retain full responsibility for any mistake or omission.