{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030820872749465975, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00823924321025328, 'mean_word_length': 5.255725190839694, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conversion is Dead, Long Live Conversion!

1. Conversion, the Market and the Cold War 'Until recently, in both East and West, 'conversion' has been an easy slogan, perhaps best regarded now as an epiphenomenon of the Cold War. In the new post-Communist world the practical experience of demilitarization in Russia and other Eastern countries has induced greater realism.' This observation by the author in a work published in 1993 provoked some questioning, as did the use in the same work of the term 'post-conversion' (Cooper, 1993). Taking the experience of conversion in the former Soviet Union and post-Communist Russia as an example, the present contribution seeks to clarify, and justify, this critical stance in relation to the concept of 'conversion'. 'Conversion' had its origins in the postwar stand-off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Definitions of conversion have been legion, but that offered by Renner captures the predominant understanding during the Cold-War years: 'the retooling of existing facilities and the retraining of employees for the purpose of producing alternative, civilian products' (Renner, 1992, p. 36). l From the outset, advocacy of conversion was associated closely with the peace movement and was promoted as a component of the broader campaign against the arms race. It sought to demonstrate that a downsizing of the military effort could be undertaken with a minimum of economic and social disruption. In particular, advocates of conversion sought to calm fears that jobs would be lost as a result of reduced levels of military production. Thus advocacy of conversion often became a means of harnessing otherwise sceptical elements of the labour movement to the cause of 'peace'. But advocates of conversion frequently, albeit not always, had another goal in mind socialism. To market-led adjustment in conditions of reduced military expenditure was counterposed a planned transition to 'socially useful production', understood as production 'in the interests of society' rather than profit. This approach was exemplified by one of the bestknown campaigns for conversion, that of the shop stewards movement of the Lucas Aerospace company in Britain. Under the banner of 'socially useful production', this conversion effort became a vehicle for the promotion of new forms of socially aware trade unionism (Elliot & Wainwright, 1982). Notwithstanding a vigorous and imaginative propaganda campaign, the practical impact on the Lucas company of this attempt to plan conversion was very limited, although it did inspire similar efforts elsewhere and, as noted below, indirectly influenced thinking in Gorbachev's USSR. Other advocates of conversion, from liberal rather than socialist positions, also questioned the ability of the market to provide solutions and called for 'conversion planning' (e.g. Melman, 1988, pp. 21-35). In this debate, conversion was often counterposed to diversification the former being considered good, the latter, bad. This critical approach to diversification arose from its identification with market or profitability-led solutions: firms chose to diversify out of military production, often closing down facilities with attendant redundancies, and to buy into companies already established in civil markets.