Crisis of Capitalism, Crisis of Governance: Re-reading Karl Polanyi in the 21st Century
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ย. 2011
- Prof Nancy Fraser, Henry A. and Louise Loeb Professor of Political and Social Science and Department Chair at the New School for Social Research in New York, delivers her keynote speech titled 'Crisis of Capitalism, Crisis of Governance: Re-reading of Karl Polanyi in the 21st Century' at the University of Warwick's Critical Governance conference.
The University of Warwick is focused on uncovering endless possibilities. For our students. For our academics. For the world.
Our curiosity moves us to constantly redefine what possible means. We’re breaking the boundaries that determine the way we eat, how we think, when life begins and much, much more.
Our research is pioneering. Our teaching and learning reaches the high standards expected from a world-leading university. We work effectively with business to achieve major commercial and social impact.
This is Warwick. We deliver excellence with purpose. And we invite you to explore the possibilities that are open to you.
To view more of our latest videos, check out:
/ uniwarwick
Discover the range of courses we offer:
warwick.ac.uk/study
Book onto our upcoming Open Days:
warwick.ac.uk/study/undergrad...
Find more information about the support and wellbeing services we have available:
warwick.ac.uk/study/undergrad...
To check out the opportunities available through our Students' Union visit:
www.warwicksu.com
Don't forget to follow us on social media to stay up to date with campus news and events.
Instagram: @universityofwarwick
Facebook:/warwickuniversity
Twitter @warwickuni
best summary I will remember always =]
I liked Nancy Fraser's discussion and her elaborations of Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation. Yet, it should be noted that Polanyi does allow in his concept of "double movement" for the protective movement to come either from the top down, e.g., the state; or from the bottom up, e.g. labour unions, social movements or socialist parties. Fraser therefore sounds unfair when she repeatedly states that Polanyi "failed" to do this or that, i.e., discuss HER emancipation agenda in the specific terms that she defines it. She could just have acknowledged that Polanyi did provided us with a great framework about the dynamics involved in trying to impose the market as a self-regulating mechanism, and society's protective response; and then say that some elaborations are needed. In her attempt to sound original, she sounded unfair instead. I do not quite like her term of "triple movement" because it presumes that Polanyi did not allow for the emergence of emancipatory movements from the bottom up, from the exploited and dominated classes, groups and communities. He did. Nevertheless, Nancy Fraser offers some very interesting venues toward elaboration of Palnayi's framework.
Very comprehensive lecture.
Thanks for answering. I think Fraser actually suggests that our regulations reflect the interests of the dominant elements of society, not that we are unregulated. Where you and Fraser would differ is probably in the policy approach to addressing the problems identified, but I think there is a lot for you to appreciate in her critique.
Thank you for being the only one talking about this guy IN ENGLISH.
good talk
Anyone who could help: do you know where i could find a transcript of this lecture?
I don't think Polany meant the term "protection" as Professor Fraser ascribes to him. Gender inequities and cast systems are not protections of the kind Polyani writes about. An embedded market under such regimes is not truly embedded any more than slavery and fascism would be.
Great upload thanks!
Unfettered emancipation against domination kills competition and merit, and destroys the concept of 'market', the very basis of capitalism. Be careful what you ask for.
What did you see in here that contradicts your ideas on libertariansim? A libertarian critique using this video would suggest that free markets could provide solutions to state oppression. Very compatible with Ayn Rand, if you wanted to argue it that way. Also, no one said anything specifically about the US being a free market in this video.
What I don't think you understand is why "free market" theory, "free market" capitalism or classical liberalism was not possible. Polanyi touches on why the "free market" theory couldn't, in reality, create a functioning global industrial capitalist system. Micheal Perelman's book "The Invention Of Capitalism" further exposes why the state/state intervention was/is necessary for capitalism to function.
Seems that she misses the essence of Polanyi's position completely. Rather than trying to understand what his "message" is, she creates some kind of "strawman" and attacks that strawman.
O Estado sempre salva o capitalismo.
"Capitalism is rendered impossible by the state". Quite the opposite- you've never even read Polanyi nor do you even understand the basic point of his book "The Great Transformation". The industrial property based market system could have never arisen without coercion via the state nor can it be maintained without state intervention which is exactly why classical liberals had to turn against free market ideology. Read "The Invention Of Capitalism" and get back to me. Or start with Polanyi.
Hello kRudAres,
Capitalism - the idea that "capital" (human and/or goods) are free and move between people without the "coercive" hand of a forceful taxing-ruler - is a concept we still have to experience one day.
People coerced into doing good (study! sit! eat! marry her! etc) when very young - often grow up as adults loaded with this belief that if there isn't a strong coercive statist intervention forcing them into good, that good cannot happen. Capitalism is rendered impossible by the state.
Hello Anastasi,
Thank you for your comment. I find Prof Fraser's presentation & lecture insulting and dishonest (at best). I made a full video where I address your question "what do I see that contradicts the ideas of libertarianism" - for the answer is "everything". From the very first letter of the title of the lecture all the way to the last second of the lecture. The idea that we "lack" regulations today is totally obscene and intellectually very disturbing.
watch?v=YgPU8qZnRZM
Me thinks the poor woman has totally missed the point and would perhaps greatly profit from reading the text, again, of course....
Lots of fancy language.
Why is this woman reading a text at university ? what a waste of money that degree