The article introduces feminist political economy as an analytical tool or interpretative frame for exploring current economic crisis. In the beginning of the article, the authors focus on the wider context of feminist theories and approaches to capitalism within their development. The point is to show that contemporary feminist critiques of global capitalism tie in with the earlier tradition of feminist thought. In the next part, the authors introduce the theoretical grounds and basic theses of feminist political economy through the work of V. Spike Peterson and J. K. Gibson-Graham. The last part of the article focuses on specific issues linked to the current crisis of global capitalism and on the questions raised by this approach. The main questions are: how can we describe the crisis and what solutions can we search for? Is it a crisis of the hegemonic capitalist mode of production, a crisis of the capitalocentrist order, or just a crisis of certain institutions? Is the current economic crisis only a negative phenomenon, or does it open the way to establishing alternative paradigms to that of the global hegemony of capitalism?, Veronika Šprincová, Miroslav Jašurek., Obsahuje bibliografii, and Anglické resumé
The following text introduces Josef Guttmann’s critical analyses of Soviet society as a new class society that substantially differs from both socialism and capitalism. Between 1937 and 1944, Guttmann published three essays whose novelty has been largely overlooked in existing scholarship, although the essays represent the very first Czechoslovak analyses of their kind. The overall political, intellectual, and biographical context of Guttmann’s theoretical contributions is sketched out in this introductory text as well, and Guttmann’s subsequent articles on the topic are discussed as well. Following this introduction, the author provides an annotated Czech translation of Guttmann’s most elaborated essay, which was published in Dwight Macdonald’s radical journal politics under the title “The Soviet Union: A New Class Society.” Focusing on the Soviet economy, Guttmann tried to demonstrate how much Soviet society was plagued by oppression, inequality, unfreedom, and acute economic contradictions. Far from embodying the Marxist idea of socialist society as a free association of direct producers, Soviet society was based on a historically new mode of production in which the bureaucracy established itself as a new ruling class. Following this introduction, we print a revised and annotated edition of Guttmann’s “The Soviet Union: A New Class Society.” and Pavel Siostrzonek (ed.)
Politické teorie obvykle vymezují určitý soubor institucí jakožto normativně a fakticky optimálnízáklad uspořádání společnosti; ospravedlňují specifickou směsici nepolitických „smithovských“ a politických„hobbesosvkých“ institucionálních pravidel.Různé politické teorie se však ve svých argumentech častovzájemně míjí natolik, že se jejich argumenty zdají být zcela nesouměřitelné. Tento článek se pokouší zmírnittento problém vzájemné nesouměřitelnosti tím, že vymezuje „homogenizovaný společný prostor“, vekterém by se mohly teorie potkávat a vzájemně slyšet. Přestože tento rámec vychází primárně z (neo)liberálnípolitické teorie, je značně obecný a otevřený. Základním podmínkou souměřitelnosti argumentace různých teorií je jejich zakotvení v rámci, který se vyznačuje symetrickými předpoklady ohledně lidskéhochování – neboli rozdíly mezi teoriemi by měly být důsledkem další argumentace, a nikoli odlišných výchozíchpředpokladů. Předkládaný rámec rozlišující „společenskou gramatiku“ a „estetické ohledy“ nabízí třidiskuzní rozhraní – (1) normativní otázku toho, jaké hodnoty by měly být zařazeny mezi společenskougramatiku; (2) normativní otázku, které další hodnoty jsou významné natolik, aby případně převážily nadgramatickými pravidly; (3) faktickou otázku toho, které instituce jsou „nezbytné a vhodné“ k dosaženínormativně relevantních hodnot. „Férovost“ předkládaného justifikačního rámce se odvíjí od jeho otevřenostivůči neopomenutelným hodnotám všech diskutovaných teorií a od rovnosti zbraní ztělesněnou požadavkem na symetrické výchozí předpoklady. and Political theories, in their normative flavor, usually suggest certain institutional setting to be appropriate and proper for the society; they justify some specific mixture of private “Smithian” and public “Hobbesean” institutional arrangements.Unfortunately, political theories often miss each other’s arguments so dramatically that their argumentations are hardly commensurate. The article attempts to overcome mutual misunderstandings by introducing a “common space” where various concerns of various theories could meet. Although designed along the neoliberal lines, the presented framework is fairly generalizable and open. The underlying idea is that for the arguments to be commensurate they have to be embedded within a framework of symmetrical factual and normative assumptions about human behavior – i.e. the divergence between theories should stem from further argumentation, and not solely from divergent starting points. The presented framework of “social grammar” and “aesthetic concerns” offers three interfaces for discussion – (1) normative question of which values are to be incorporated into social grammar; (2) normative question of which aesthetic values are important enough to prevail over social grammar; and (3) factual question of which institutional setting is “necessary and proper” for achievement of stipulated values. While the factual question is the least ideological in nature, it also precedes normative differences so far as “should
implies can”. Fairness of such a framework derives from its openness to indispensable values of considered theories and equality of weapons ensured by symmetrical assumptions.
This article sets out a theoretical framework for the political economy of the private rental sector, with a particular focus on the question of inequality. It brings together three existing bodies of research. First, macro-accounts of social stratification and wealth inequality. Second, Marxian critiques of the antagonism between accumulation and social reproduction. Third, qualitative accounts of tenants’ experiences of housing inequality. The article synthesises these three literatures to put forward a political economy approach which can capture the multi-dimensional and multi-scale nature of both ‘housing’ and ‘home’ in the private rental sector. In so doing, it contributes to recent research on ‘generation rent’, in particular the related class and generational inequalities, as well as wider debates on the political economy of housing.