I'm very very let me tell it again VERY glad to watch this video (like some others) - all those bibliographical citations and references - solid and PERFECT!
I think the difference isn't the level of analysis. While Gramsci studies the superstructure (culture and reproduction of capitalism), Cox get the marxist theory to a systemic level. Gramsci doesn't talk about states, he refers to cultural revolution to break the political superstructure reflexed on the nation-state system. So they both take states to a smaller focus and think about society on itself.
The ratio average of wealth between the poorest and richest people of $2000 - $3.4m is revelatory. Thank you. The question is - how do we even begin to right the inequality of this trend. I understand that in USA deregulation made by congress to benefit the rich starting with President Reagan was a big reason for the big jump in inequality. Also the US congress deregulations for investment banks in the 2000's which lead to the the 2008 global financial crisis was another push for the rich vs poor inequality. So maybe to right some of the inequality it needs to start with regulating banks and setting higher taxes for the rich? At the end of the day a privately run and owned business that makes billions of dollars from customers is not wrong but a result of consumer demand, which ultimately is what makes capitalism - capitalism. But the love of money is the root of all evil and so with much wealth also comes much responsibility. How does a billionaire spend his money? Or is it all locked up in 'assets'? If it is all in assets like property doesn't that then help those who need to live in houses? Maybe the answer is more to do with keeping the ratio of income more reasonable - so with private CEO's making more than politicians we can see the inequality immediately but because it is private it makes it difficult for governments to step on private business' toes in this regard too. But that seems to be an answer to stop the gross inequality in wages with private business'. Government's may need to regulate top end salaries within their countries to try to bring equality within the private business sectors.
@@NoahZerbe How does Critical Theory explain society in religion sphere? Do you know that? I've been search this question's answer everywhere, but I did not find anything.
Why is the focus on wealth inequality and not raising people out of true poverty - i.e., no longer starving to death or dying from curable disease. Equality could take the form of everyone starving equally for example. Is that less of a problem than fewer people starving, but some having more money?
Well said. That's what Communism is. If everyone is equally crap, Communism has been achieved so why bother improving anything? And then your state is ripe for corruption to take over.
Posing the hypothetical Society A has everyone equally destitute, diseased, famined and miserable versus Society B having a few ultra rich fat cats, some well off, many who hate their job, but no one's starving: I doubt you could find a marxist/communist/anarchist/twitchstreamer/etc. who would choose Society A. My understanding is that they value equality in and of itself highly, but it's not everything. You could probably even pose a less extreme hypothetical and they might not choose the most equal society as best.
That is not the goal, wealth distribution does not mean an equal spreading of capital. It is rather a focus on the economic downfalls that led to this inequality in the first place and how to reverse them.
I'm very very let me tell it again VERY glad to watch this video (like some others) - all those bibliographical citations and references - solid and PERFECT!
It help me a lot to study constructivism in IRs. Thank you
Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much! Great presentations and introductions
12:35 it is the mode of production that impel them
Can you please upload the presentation. It really great.
Just a quick question: can we call Gramsci's theory of hegemony as state-level while Cox's theory as systemic-level?
I think the difference isn't the level of analysis. While Gramsci studies the superstructure (culture and reproduction of capitalism), Cox get the marxist theory to a systemic level. Gramsci doesn't talk about states, he refers to cultural revolution to break the political superstructure reflexed on the nation-state system. So they both take states to a smaller focus and think about society on itself.
The ratio average of wealth between the poorest and richest people of $2000 - $3.4m is revelatory. Thank you. The question is - how do we even begin to right the inequality of this trend. I understand that in USA deregulation made by congress to benefit the rich starting with President Reagan was a big reason for the big jump in inequality. Also the US congress deregulations for investment banks in the 2000's which lead to the the 2008 global financial crisis was another push for the rich vs poor inequality. So maybe to right some of the inequality it needs to start with regulating banks and setting higher taxes for the rich? At the end of the day a privately run and owned business that makes billions of dollars from customers is not wrong but a result of consumer demand, which ultimately is what makes capitalism - capitalism. But the love of money is the root of all evil and so with much wealth also comes much responsibility. How does a billionaire spend his money? Or is it all locked up in 'assets'? If it is all in assets like property doesn't that then help those who need to live in houses? Maybe the answer is more to do with keeping the ratio of income more reasonable - so with private CEO's making more than politicians we can see the inequality immediately but because it is private it makes it difficult for governments to step on private business' toes in this regard too. But that seems to be an answer to stop the gross inequality in wages with private business'. Government's may need to regulate top end salaries within their countries to try to bring equality within the private business sectors.
Thanks a lot. It's helpful for my midterm exam
@@NoahZerbe May I ask a question about Critical Theory, if you do not mind
@@NoahZerbe How does Critical Theory explain society in religion sphere? Do you know that? I've been search this question's answer everywhere, but I did not find anything.
@@NoahZerbe Thanks, Sir
Why is the focus on wealth inequality and not raising people out of true poverty - i.e., no longer starving to death or dying from curable disease. Equality could take the form of everyone starving equally for example. Is that less of a problem than fewer people starving, but some having more money?
The focus is not on wealth inequality, your first mistake was thinking it is.
@@mornthunder3280 Whatever.
Well said. That's what Communism is. If everyone is equally crap, Communism has been achieved so why bother improving anything? And then your state is ripe for corruption to take over.
Posing the hypothetical Society A has everyone equally destitute, diseased, famined and miserable versus Society B having a few ultra rich fat cats, some well off, many who hate their job, but no one's starving: I doubt you could find a marxist/communist/anarchist/twitchstreamer/etc. who would choose Society A. My understanding is that they value equality in and of itself highly, but it's not everything. You could probably even pose a less extreme hypothetical and they might not choose the most equal society as best.
That is not the goal, wealth distribution does not mean an equal spreading of capital. It is rather a focus on the economic downfalls that led to this inequality in the first place and how to reverse them.
19:43
Great content, thank you, sharing.
❤
15:09
10:53
Extreme poverty threshold is now $1.9
Yes, and I suspect that figure will continue to rise in light of increasing inflation, particularly in energy and food prices.
James Lindsay gives a better explanation.
Check frankfurt school wikipedia page and early life of scholars😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Move to Mars and build a nice communist world
james hollis
16:45