LEFT OUT: Erik Olin Wright on understanding class-a Marxian perspective
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 เม.ย. 2018
- In this episode, we sat down with the Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright, who has taught at the University Wisconsin for over four decades.
We talk about the different understandings of class, how class shapes individual identities, and how it affects struggles to organize the shop floor and much more.
Erik Olin Wright website: ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/
** Follow Left Out on our new Twitter account: / leftoutpodcast
** Please donate to Left Out on Patreon to receive exclusive content and access to engaging with our future guests. Your small donations keep this alive: / leftout
Shop the Democracy at Work store: bit.ly/2JkxIfy
I love the added complexity Erik brings to the traditional worker/capitalist divide to help us see how we are often implicated in both poles. The point about differentiating between class location and class identity is insightful. Thanks!
Great commentary. Luv the intro soundtrack ;)
yeah! What is this?
Finished reading Das Kapital a few months back. For my reference I had termed these ideas XXX Culture: Exploitation, Extortion, and Exclusion. This was a very good interview, and great insight.
Interesting interview, thank you.
I am sure this man has been surveilled for a long time.
thanks for this content
RIP Professor Wright.
Great, can we have a list of topics covered in this discussion?
Thanks for the great interview! (On a side note: also cool, that Willem Dafoe -with a wig- did pose for the photo!)
XD
Be interesting to hear separate discussion with small/medium business people on how they are really his allies.
BTW this a view self long held. So also looking at his other publications at the link provided
.
It's brilliant how Bilbo's writing expanded to philosophy.
RIP
Anyone know what the intro is from???
This entire dialogue felt like an introduction to a reference of a definition within the context of the lecture which doesn't happen.
I'm not sure if the subject format is disjointed somehow...? Exhaustively over clarified every point.
Good faith feedback, i promise
How can I find the intro soundtrack?
Thanks for this excellent discussion. I will look up "Envisioning Real Utopias" as a result of listening to this useful exposition. I am wondering how many Marxian critics are interested in looking at a template for dealing with dysfunctional institutional systems and linking that with the goal of achieving equal justice for all? That is the summary version of Goal 16 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.
One of the most egregiously alienating effects of out-of-control neoliberalism over the past 3 decades has been the deregulation of banking and investment. What has replaced British Common Law of Contract standards and Criminal Code rules against any hint of deception in making banking and investment offers, has been a toxin called SRO - self regulating organization. This pathology has enabled financial institutions the absurd right to define anything they wish to be "suitable" and it destroys the adherence to any requirement for good faith practices. This subject has been given a lot of coverage on the Facebook pages of "Investment System Fraud" and the "Small Investor Protection Association". After over a decade of being directly involved with this horror story, I feel that enough evidence has been amassed to abolish SRO and to replace it with authentic rule of law. If not abolish, then at least rein it in to be what it was originally intended: industry self policing. If the industry is willing to make the 2 standards referenced above to be their supreme regulative tools, then possibly SRO has a future as a reformed practice.
Marxist engagement in this praxis of building a popular cadre for the 17 SGDs would be a real example of possible social solidarity, in the evolution of economic democracy. If there are any readers of this comment who wish to take this further, please consider the comment section of the Sanders Institute TH-cam channel. th-cam.com/channels/MrRWT88JkbVs2rbVlr9K2Q.htmldiscussion
Oh my god, Rob Tyner's still alive! (And he's a Marxist Intellectual! Awesome.)
That guy had a remarkable talent for taking relatively simple concepts and making them seem obscure. Bravo!
And I’m a “leftist” who is very sympathetic to Marxism
His writing is still some the most clear and concise that I have come across. Unfortunately, he was not a great public speaker.
No More Nuclear Weapons
The consequences of a terrorist nuclear attack
A small and primitive 1-kiloton fission bomb (with a yield of about one-fifteenth of the one dropped on Hiroshima, and certainly much less sophisticated; detonated in any large capital city of the developed world, would cause an unprecedented catastrophic scenario.
An estimate of direct effects in the attack’s location includes a death toll of 7,300-to-23,000 people and 12,600-to-57,000 people injured, depending on the target’s geography and population density. Total physical destruction of the city’s infrastructure, due to the blast (shock wave) and thermal radiation, would cover a radius of about 500 meters from the point of detonation (also known as ground zero), while ionizing radiation greater than 5 Sieverts - compatible with the deadly acute radiation syndrome - would expand within an 850-meter radius. From the environmental point of view, such an area would be unusable for years. In addition, radioactive fallout would expand in an area of about 300 square kilometers, depending on meteorological conditions.
But the consequences would go far beyond the effects in the target country, however, and promptly propagate worldwide. Global and national security, economy and finance, international governance and its framework, national political systems, and the behavior of governments and individuals would all be put under severe trial. The severity of the effects at a national level, however, would depend on the countries’ level of development, geopolitical location, and resilience.
Global security and regional/national defense schemes would be strongly affected. An increase in global distrust would spark rising tensions among countries and blocs, that could even lead to the brink of nuclear weapons use by states (if, for instance, a sponsor country is identified). The consequences of such a shocking scenario would include a decrease in states’ self-control, an escalation of present conflicts and the emergence of new ones, accompanied by an increase in military unilateralism and military expenditures.
Regarding the economic and financial impacts, a severe global economic depression would rise from the attack, likely lasting for years. Its duration would be strongly dependent on the course of the crisis. The main results of such a crisis would include a 2 percent fall of growth in global Gross Domestic Product, and a 4 percent decline of international trade in the two years following the attack. In the case of developing and less-developed countries, the economic impacts would also include a shortage of high-technology products such as medicines, as well as a fall in foreign direct investment and a severe decline of international humanitarian aid toward low-income countries. We expect an increase of unemployment and poverty in all countries. Global poverty would raise about 4 percent after the attack, which implies that at least 30 million more people would be living in extreme poverty, in addition to the current estimated 767 million.
In the area of international relations, we would expect a breakdown of key doctrines involving politics, security, and relations among states. These international tensions could lead to a collapse of the nuclear order as we know it today, with a consequent setback of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation commitments. In other words, the whole system based on the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty would be put under severe trial. After the attack, there would be a re-assessment of existing security doctrines, and a deep review of concepts such as nuclear deterrence, no-first-use, proportionality, and negative security assurances.
Finally, the behavior of governments and individuals would also change radically. Internal chaos fueled by the media and social networks would threaten governance at all levels, with greater impact on those countries with weak institutional frameworks. Social turbulence would emerge in most countries, with consequent attempts by governments to impose restrictions on personal freedoms to preserve order - possibly by declaring a state of siege or state of emergency - and legislation would surely become tougher on human rights. There would also be a significant increase in social fragmentation - with a deepening of antagonistic views, mistrust, and intolerance, both within countries and towards others - and a resurgence of large-scale social movements fostered by ideological interests and easily mobilized through social media.
People have the right, and duty to, work. It is that simple. Some people will be good at some jobs and others will be good at whatever they do. You are forgetting our chemical responses within our bodies. We have to filter out this bad behavior that we have been enduring for so long. It will take several generations to illuminate this chemical in balance. We first have to illuminate our directors. The most detrimental drug use is the monetary system followed by religion. That is a more difficult subject but eventually it will be illuminated. There is no God but our consciousness. The birth of consciousness is our greatest achievement.
Guitarpima....vengeance is mine sayeth Yahuah.
Be careful, denigrate religion and you risk losing religious allies, like me.
enjoyed the pseudo intellectual bs as well as the posturing,lmao
It takes too long to say what could be said in 5 minutes.
In 50 years all he’s discovered is that there’s a middle class?