The Discourses of Capitalism panel discussion



professors I think the way we agreed to do that is start I guess bring everything together and then we're going up to questions all right thank you for lucky respondent thank you for giving me the opportunity to actually read the book before it is released we can arrange that we don't just think about the dominoes but we bring in other perspectives as well we think about feminist critiques of oh is it primarily we think about it support that I've got support in many other places it's a story of only for its political economy and we invite our students to think critically about capitalism and we want our students to think about their relationship between theory and the making right way we invite our students to think about their own people know who is in making economics international in same thing the practices that we see on a daily basis I love because we encounter students carrying all this sense believes that Christian talks about the book right people come into the classroom and they associate capitalism with freedom they associate with opportunity they associate capital social mobility in similar ways as the people that interviews crystalline analyzes in kiss movement so our students have funded about the capital they believe that they can move upwards through the capitalist system but at the same time in life is to procure our students and that's the pleasure of the most person also have the other part of the equation of Kristin is looking about very hard to explain to students don't have to I mean you have to try very hard don't get me wrong about it you have to try really hard to tell them what exploitation looks like but their lived experience I love them to think about exploitation and a much more immediate way it would if they were somewhere else and that's something that makes this sounds slightly easier for us when we try to not do positive progressive transformation now as common sense and good sense our attention we need to engage the cautions with people about capitalism but we also need to pull out the good sense that people have about and that's an excellent in terms of like the representations and also talking about the presentation that every day in college right and I haven't quite explained what it was about of somebody but what the book does is that analyzes 312 interviews from participants Steve Lambert's art installation called capitalism in where people are asked to vote whether capitalism works for the moment right so people vote to enforce and if I understand correctly Christian got access to the interview through very meticulous analysis managed to pull out the themes and manage to identify common sense believes that people have about capitalism but also a good sensibilities that you can find in things in so regarding the new book of the book first of all let me say but this is a book fact nicely fits in with the political economy tradition and with a classically-trained and it also takes it one step further because it doesn't talk about economic representations are doesn't talk about economic education advertising it talks about the economic then ways of people think about the economy everything people think about the economy and the way that by doing that people cannot make but articles written in the present consumption of their future right so over the last few months you see things like the last presidential election tables or you see braixen or you see all these developments and you see a significant part of the political spectrum say oh people are stupid remark idiots people are things people are country right if people knew they wouldn't have them and I think that Christians thought theoretical but also political and we serve presenting what you make here is in some way try to pull out the good sense algorithms to try to identify the common sense to work with the common sense beliefs of you let's say let's understand why people hold these commercials let's understand why people think about the Walker saying think about capital is don't think about the numbers let's understand why people identify capital smooth freedom in the let's try to silence this and let's try to create counter hegemonic common sense new ways of understanding and let me just wrap up with examples as you will see in the book people identify commonly capitalism with freedom and maybe leave that talents both of these common-sense believes choosing both the Graham Shand framework but also using this plasma lytic framework this marks an trust so people identify capital smooth freedom well what's the freedom in having to share your capacity perform labor if you want to stay alive is it freedom to be able to sleep under the bridge of night if you're unwilling to participate in systemotics so because of all its movement the second thing about democracy right we identify people identify commonly capitalist with democracy right and then people forget our time we spend our lives right maybe no right we work in universities motors capital weights voltage people people do not ever say how their labor process is wrong and people do not say in how the major decisions are taken in enterprises the Dogon say out there serve us the fun but they are yo food is necessary for their own subsystems no borders in capital experience to decide whether the surplus of the firm is going to be spent to buy back the stock early whether it's going to be paid for bonuses for seniors whether it's going to go for advertising every fair if we need silence capitalism can a huge securities commotions benefit under pull out and tease out the good sense right if [Laughter] but from the moment I started we started with to begin the Communist Manifesto after we all had to confess what our economically needs were and everybody's saying conservative felt like oh definitely and I was reading the Communist Manifesto and everybody's saying it's just so it makes no sense that it's just you know it's not it's just how dictatorships before blah blah I was reading them thinking and Christian had a very similar experience and his undergraduate so that was really to me and then just in reading the interviews that he analyzed many of the phrases were faces that I've heard my entire life whether from my dad who loves to watch Fox News many of my friends that I went to college with because when I would bring up socialism or anything you know any challenge to capitalism suite and so in a lot of ways this was really exciting to read because it kind of gave me fodder to continue to challenge I thought this is what I can say you know that's how I can retaliate but I think it's really interesting because it's more complicated than just criticizing capitalism or you know trying to push because like Harry was talking about it brings in these ideas of common-sense first good things and as I was reading this I kept wondering how is it possible that these two things exist at the same time because even though my dad education was near to a firefighter always had a work a second job he very strongly believe in capitalism big solution and leaves them a lot of things that go around he says he still has the good sense not vote for Trump or to just sort of push back against a lot of Republican platforms that he recognizes not actually mean in his best interest and so because one of my main interests in linguistics is the way that language for some p5 entity I came to ask you myself okay so how's the possible that that means identity can have both of these things you know and you know push it references what structure this series in here and I think that idea of subjectivity where there is multiple identities that coexist and often in contact with one another there's this tension and they're always pushing back against each other so me that kept coming up again and again where I was saying okay this is how it happens and I think it's really important to recognize that because part of the art of persuasion is understanding where people come from and how those ideologies have been shaped and so for me what was really powerful when I went program is officers recognize my background I recognize why I was thinking things that I was thinking and in the acknowledging that they also said that's okay and I think that here's some new ways of thinking about it and for me not just completely opened up my world and so one of the things I loved about this but with that it's very caring it's you know it's nice going through these you know it takes the time to really idea and where they come from and in some ways to justify their reasons for thinking these ways because I think that they aren't justifiable reasons when you look at the way that our society has a shape as a structure the way don't you think so there's if I don't even want to say that there's criticism of the common sense it's just engagement in saying okay well here's maybe the good sense in just common sense and how we can then capitalize on that good sense as a way of persuading these people to perhaps things or believe or at least even just expose themselves to different Christian actually send me the manuscript I thought to myself damn it this is the book I wish I have so because he put the bar very high now for anybody who is dealing with this topic in applied linguistics you know to follow up on this kind of work I'm saying that because in applied linguistics I mean there has been tremendous progress in the direction of finally asking those important questions about power and the workings of power dominance hierarchies to post political questions about how language works in society how politics shape language and how advice first time in all the work that exists in this course in particularly critical discourse analysis I just exactly questions that were for many years absent because linguistics and applied linguistics was supposed to be I felt that only deals with language as if language we know functions in a vacuum with people with ideal speakers listeners write in an idea speech community where you know they're not affected by anything else for just omnibus languages communication so Christian I think does exactly that he does not succumb in this discourse centered analysis which is also something that we see a lot in compliant linguists so suddenly everything is discursive write everything in language but he brings all the issues home in his book because he grounds his discussion of language and this person how they function in capitalism through the lens of those everyday economists by talking about minimum wage unemployment the economy so he is really talking about very specific things he makes the material connection and this connection is variable in at least in our field not in your home or in political science is usually absent because we remain in the discursive language level so I think this is one of the main contributions of the book at least for the Linguistics so he doesn't feel that very important yeah the second thing the book has a Grampian theoretical framework perspective and this is important because the way Graham she thinks about intellectuals for example is an important discussion in a way explains Christians choice to analyze all those interviews where people talk about capitalism if it works for them I'm gonna make parentheses here so the installation says capitalist works for me so Christian does something tricky here I think in his book so the obstruction is that people know what capitalism is needs so when you answer the question capitalist works for me yes or no the assumption is that you know what capitalism is but this really prompts you to answer it Christians question what is capitalism in your mind right so I close the parentheses so going back to Graham she so Graham she says talking about in the lecture he says everybody every human being is an intellectual because everybody has the ability to think right everybody has a worldview everybody has an opinion about the world around them so what essentially differentiates intellectuals from non intellectuals is that is the division of labor because some people are actually paid to think and express their worldview like for example what we do will be a kind of right but I think what Christian again is doing in his book is exactly embracing this idea that everybody's intellectual because everybody has a low-res said these are not stupid people right who don't know what's happening to them actually I think the d-nice is revealing it's amazing you know all the layered identities and politics that you know coexist in there even the difference between how people identify themselves when they start talking and then what they really say so what the discourse is says about them so I think that's that's another important aspect I also like I don't know if this I think is the beginning of your third chapter here is a capitalist who loves to talk about itself and I'm thinking and we love critiquing it right until we don't have to deal with it anymore so that means that whatever we say about capitalism and whatever discourses we articulate these also we are company but by some type of practices political action activates they need also platform specific platform to be expressed and carried over I mean there we need to have a platform to carry the politics I personally it's very important another point I want to make also some the discourse is in plural so discourses of capitalism there's no often this misconception that this there's this giant hegemonic capitalist discourse that exists out there it's crushing us and then on the other side there are all these other less-common subjugated discourses but they kind of sit across from voices as if there is you know there are two poles and I think another important achievement of Christians book is exactly that it creates this misconception first of all there is not such a you know a huge hegemonic discourse that is so solid and so in venerable impenetrable as capital I hope he's pulled somewhere to say something interesting but I'm lost in my notes here but anyway if you make exactly the case that these discourses are porous essentially and they are penetrable and also on the other side of the fence it's not just one discourses there are many layered discourses that come with different kinds of identities agencies also agencies is also very important so it's this idea of discourses in the plural I think it's it is very important moving forward I also like the way Christian waves his personally experienced a is to be status his activist I think it's very important for those but with each in the academies you also broke the talk vibrant our academics we love to talk about cab that is but we never want to get our hands dirty or be part of a crowd that demonstrates or you know actually be out in the street I think we belong to both places and if we have to belong somewhere it had to be in the streets and not out here three times yeah chapter three is one of my favorite chapters personally because this is where Christian grounds this was to real life and material relations I think he does in a Marxist framework I think it's important to note that Christian weights marks and understands marks so he's not one of those in poster marks is that we very often find in the Academy so I particularly like chapter 3 because this is where you bring back Tea Party favorites in this whole idea of the carnival and I particularly like this parallel that you make between the carnival the Occupy movement and you know as a disciplic space is space where people can and discourses reconfigures social relations call into question you know what is happening so this is a chapter that particularly resonated with the world I also do and finally I once a chapter 7 the idea you know pedagogy hope when I go to blazing to all that I hope this is gonna be your next book because I was left wanting to read more about it and so in closing I think it's a very important for our disciplines but very important group generally and it also I think opens the path for such work more more work like that to be produced and legitimized because it's also very difficult to publish work that is critical it's publishers do not trust you you know with critical work they prefer to publish something that's very easy it's you know more mainstream it's not so knock you know so it takes courage you know to articulate this time and I was thinking that there are two Greeks in the panel talking about everyday Economist's because in Greece since 2008 each arm everybody became an everyday economist because suddenly this discourse economic discourse that was absolutely unknown until then penetrated everything our daily existence in my own work I looked into how this happened I used group monster economies he calls it economies like parties mother you know economies so I think it's it's interesting that both of us are on that now not to talk about everyday I want to thank you like I said it opens the path for more similar work to be produced okay well thank you Laura sorry it's just quickly I know the lights gonna be the rise so I'm just gonna be few minutes how do I we're not the most tech-savvy anyway mm-hm so as you can see here it's a cover of the book and it features how we had mentioned this to teachers the the artwork by the artist Steve Lampert so I'm just gonna give you a quick background on that some of you have heard it before but see Lampert had developed this around 2010 2011 I believe and he took it literally on the road so he took it to places such as hair Boston New York London Cedar Rapids Iowa he did take it to Los Angeles but unfortunately the wisdom of the city who made him to shove it on the street so it was stuck in some art gallery but so as penny ever was talking about yes passerby would vote on it and Steve and his crew participants to ask them what they thought just just the two quick charts I wanted to just show there this is from most charts are from of the economist David Ruchi here you know this is quite stark Ares you can see the actual productivity of course has risen enormously in the last 35 years or so and net wages real wages per may in fact per hour a manufactory thank you so you know this idea that there was that discourse now the Japanese workers with so much parkour working that Americans American workers were just lazy and so forth statistics test in fact and the other quick chart I just want to show gear was also taken from countries see the green line is the bottom fifty percent of wage earners here in the country and as a percentage refer to the last chapter you know the whole aim of the bloke was really to think about ways in which through what has been called public pedagogy but how do we actually need with people's ideas about discourses because survey after survey according to Institute's like the Pew Research Center have shown that the majority of Americans actually do not favor capital so if in fact the majority of our country does not favor capitalism why is capitalism still going on and so what are some of the strategies that we can develop where we get people to actually not only start questioning it explicitly but start enacting ways in which they can transform their own workplaces Barry would know the Congress work economist Gipson Graham they've carefully documented across the across many parts of the world there's actually including here there are many communities in which non capitalist economies already at work and so places like Cleveland for example the Hennessy post-industrial collapse they've had many workplaces which are called comes organized around on capital distribution and so what are the ways in which we can start to get that to become of a force throughout our economy and so yeah just kind of just wrapping it up in terms of what I was trying to do with the board was to introduce it to a larger audience this idea of the multiple ways in which people conceptualize this also find out the ways and test those I [Applause] so we say everyone is intellectual I like that point that you made here at Union Xavier but then when someone mixes fox news we all lack out the side of our Mountain how do we reconcile that can you make people were interviewed by Fox News or if the fox news cast no no we how do we how do we take a stance where we say that everyone is intellectual and everyone can participate in this conversation while simultaneously casting aspersions on the other side that's a great question yeah I mean you know aside from that kind of prototypical Fox like teenage conversations with taxi drivers and some of the most interesting conversations I've had are with taxi drivers become partly is because they're somewhat of kind of also amateur or anthropologists as it were because they get into conversations many of their passengers and it's interesting to hear you know there are tanks on quit so you know first Oh a couple months ago when I came back from a trip I had to separate taxi drivers both of whom were immigrants one was his father is Jewish and his mother's Muslim voted for Trump okay just recently another taxi driver he was originally from the Middle East but lived in Boston for 60 years it is a service with the US Army proudly an angstrom and so it's interesting how – you might think like okay one person who is mother's Muslim you think might default 90 days from the other person who's but so how is it that they came at different conclusions around them you know this idea about you know that people large populous or rust belt from Rust Belt people or just idiots I'll just do a quick thing in Laura's position last day the class was in fact it was an interview done by The Young Turks with this young man named Nick Smith who is making three dollars and 25 cents an hour at the Waffle House chain restaurant comes from a long line of coal miners his family hundred years of course don't call any jobs and this time they started talking to him and he self-identified as a redneck you know lily white trash and you'd start to think he'd be one of those typical the Fox view or viewers yet what he has to say about capitalism the fight for $15 an hour racism and so forth was probably the best smartest but smarter than any other academic I've heard talk about it so there you go I think it's just that kind of almost it's been called property poor representation in the media of so-called dumb populace into clinics keep on convincing us that most of us are because I find like the deeper that I'd go into like the farther away I get my upbringing as a working-class firefighter and I always tried to be mindful one of the you know scratch will say the question body individuals that we're against then to the the people that I guess I've left behind if you will and so it's funny to me because I went I when I studied abroad in London I was still at the point that I didn't know there was a negative connotation with Fox News I just thought as I didn't know that anything else existed and my sociology professor there she was statute she'd self-identified as communist and she was brilliant and she liked me kind of a joke on Fox News and all the Europeans heard about me and I was like I don't get it I'm like totally missing the foot here and I think that experience kind of for me is the the maquis there comes more out of the process of duty and that happens with new sources like that and it's not to say that there aren't little sources that don't do the same thing because I think there definitely are but I don't think that my dad I don't make fun of my dad for watching it because I understand why it is that I do hold a lot of resentment to like Bill O'Reilly some of the other people on there because there's very intentional turn it in fast ready going on and so for me I try to separate the people who are we're being swayed by those arguments because they sound like they are in their own interest and try to separate my engagement with them from and so that's kind of the way I approach my friend that idea I struggle with this is awesome actually he makes in the flesh and body the pleasure body individuals and kind of as a follow-up how would you respond to those that might suggest this that you've taken the flesh and body individuals and their insights and then brought them into the Academy I don't invert it and never move right you know my buddy Tara response would be I trying to well first first to speed Lambert through his interviews with them I'll give a showcase but here my mind was and I tried to write it in extremely accessible manner now grant against the publisher is an academic publisher but what I wanted to do was to help kind of disseminate this to Lord or law to use part of leeches yes part of the Disney academic audience but to show the academic audience that in fact you know these everyday people economists had quite sophisticated albeit complex and contradictory views of the economy so that was that part but also because of social media and such since would be reported here there and that's also part and parcel of the public pedagogy project where now we have the means to be able to disseminate it much wide more widely and invite larger audiences beyond a very small and academic one to really just right so some of the arguments and there like some of the arguments about their bargaining power about some of that was about experience we've experienced time in fashion and I actually literally save on some of those arguments are more sophisticated on some of the nominal destroyed unless he not sophisticated that though be not mainstream economies which is power one of the main stores of course is available the Great Depression the Great Depression was really great for keys but so in the 1920s and 1930s and they decided to pick up a case from that singularly eco Lisa tell stories where they talk about the Great Recession we're all heroes and wider color accessories yeah we all have to deal with that sometimes right then at the same time spite the police right there's a little obscure bonnets party too late these documents reflect their lived experiences and tell a good story about they since then instead of trying to rationalize it after the fact challenge and I think when you read this book I mean the engagement with interviews of interviews themselves it's all very personal it doesn't I lost it one of my teaching something like when reading resources that after collecting data the researchers analyzed it so objectively and it seems like that at all it feels very you feel as if you're just engaging in a conversation with these people and was trying to get so it strikes me what you said actually I was thinking about this question its how the language is used to be strained that happens right so people don't lose their jobs they choose not so my question to you is also talk about the role language plays in enforcing and propagating certain you know ideas like the ology is propaganda right and because you started from the question or you started by stating most Americans do not favor capitalism yet its teller out so how does what is the mechanism and what role does language information maybe we're keeping that mechanism alive yeah that's a great question you know part of it is as penny was talking about it's also and so you know because the and start my own business the other thing I would also say is that there's a very interesting book that just came just started reading it by science scholar named james martell and what's titled is the interpolated subject and so to Sara's work image if we're actually being interpolated right so this idea that capital society is trying to interpolate all of us as okay so interpolation was out to Sarah's idea that how ideology works in terms of appealing to us and so the way I explain it it would be in way he explains it actually is that using the metaphor if you're walking down the street and two cops say hey you you turn around talking to me you're pale you're in your eighth interpolated as a subject if the cops are actually addressing so in the same way the capitalism says to us hate you if we turn around say yes me but we're being held as slaves or subjects of capital okay so part of the complication of that though is that where is the agency for us to say hey don't talk to me literally don't talk to me or if the other handling such as he uses the example in the book of course the Declaration of the Rights of Man the patient revolutionaries they were not the ones who that Declaration of Rights we had were attended it was intended to of course the white you know upper-class and revolting against right monarchy and yet the Haitian revolutionaries got a hold of this and said hey this is us and it's like and they showed up so I think therein lies I think part of that idea of cultivating freedom actually I struggled in my I really like this rotational III I struggle you know with this idea of freedom now freedom works and capitals when I it's a very well crafted narrative and discourse so if you read the metal treatments for example free to choose which is the neoliberal manifesto and you see how freedom is defined there I mean it's it's cute but at the same time I mean it's appealing to people I mean people are made to feel like they're free and the way this is done through language and discourse I think it happens two different ways one of them is naturalness its natural length its natural you know we are free to choose it's a natural calculating I'm sorry interact support your point in the discussion of the replacement of Obamacare Ryan kept on saying that we're giving people freedom freedom to choose yeah it came up in my class today and I said yeah his notion of freedom is his freedom to choose to choose a health plan with a deductible of $25,000 and you don't have health that's not that's not freedom a really interesting thing is that in order to be free to choose you have to have an agenda of choice and the mode of choice so not only should you be able to have different options real options not have not the imaginary options but also you have to be able to navigate those options and that means maybe you need an educational capital cultural capital so maybe these options are out there for you but how are you going to reach so this is very important yes there might be choices but there really no choice if you cannot so but this is this is a very typical narrative over you know capitalist society of choice so one way this is done I think is through that natural mix of languages I said earlier second is this neutrality of language there's market so what we talk about the markets we given human qualities if you read the news is like oh the markets were in crisis today you know we have to ask the markets the audience are going are dancing today it's Marxist perishes yes so it's it's really interesting this I think like this human so suddenly the co-worker right identifies with this market because the market has that bones and so and it being said 10 says it it's happy and it's and it cares about and here is the power war or there's nothing you can do about it because the market is all-powerful and that's that's the part that really gets to me and when Mark started the importance that mark spoke without possessions and commodities creating this this once but you think I'm thinking about healthy wonderful opportunity of teaching at UMass Boston or any working-class college I went to City College and and we have here you know on the one hand I'm struck when I teach my classes that I have students get it right away oh because of their life experiences if you touch on it they see it very clearly and then we have students who who haven't had that experience yet who as you said still think they're going to go out there and make a million billion bucks and they're going to rule the world and it's that conflict which could be a constructive conflict if you tap into it it's actually that we have residents of dealing dealing with students who come at it from a sympathetic perspective tableau and say okay so we do need the freedom we do need the choice well nobody owns fans of the unintentional parts obviously these are grounds for opportunity you know their grounds for for people to benefit you know invest and then now these you know these that we efficiencies you know how do you counter them if they try to use your their reasoning the same reasoning to justify the valley maybe rhetorical you know I'm gonna use your argument against you to say this is why capitalism this is why you know that yes you know you know part of the thing was that and this is what Harry was referring to that I and it was very tricky for me because there's more to it as well which I'm glad to hear it what I did it okay but I did not want to okay so but it basically was like alright so what if we're talking about capitalism unless the economist Richard Wolffe says we can't assume that everyone's going to be talking about what may be by the same thing so that's what I started to do right in the first few pages of the book as said it's like what is capitalism and then I used the definition outline in the Markson tradition which was to actually say well this is exactly why we characterize the system as compost because what is the way it's the surplus labor that we produce is appropriate distributed someone but by doing that I was able then to kind of engage with what you just kind of said where people would make the argument about well you know well look look at all the benefits as capitalism has brought us do you really want to be in a country country like North Korea you know I have not been in North Korea and actually colleague in the field there's kind of conflicting research I don't know but you know just in terms of like if you call war images from the Soviet Union and again back you know people standing it waiting for food you know here we have this whole abundance you know society that argument in terms of like this is what capitalism has brought us the counter-argument it was like no this is what we have produced this is what we have actually made but yet none of it is ours and incredibly reckon so from the Manion I think but you showed the graph that you shared with us shows exactly that when I'm to Cuba last summer you need to be a lot of juggling of these mines and a lot of a lot of book you know you the brain surgeon turns taxi driver who says you know this is just this is the way I can advance in society you know who sees who is sympathetic to and understands the context in which they have developed but now kind of with this filtering interview embrace their own kind of like you know pretty pursuit of the tourist economy as a means of social mobility I guess I'm just thinking out loud here but I can't either that's the where do we reconcile where do you know I mean there's like you say did their own contradictory and their opposing in there and they're also maintained simultaneously synchronously like how if I guess we're coming at it from a sense of persuasiveness like like locally Laura mentioned we're trying to persuade what exactly are we trying to pursue I think that even there there is no and I think that whether its language or and so I don't know that so much I see in myself how you know when I go home I need leaving have like really conservative but I'm here I really gets us totally opposite but it's so easy for that for I still get very swayed by conservative argument sometimes where I'll see something and I'm like and I'm like no no what am I thinking this is not that I like to try to think about it more critically but at the same time and also the fact that I opened in that way kind of it gives me that like we talked about understanding and then it also makes it easier for me to engage in those conversations because I'm not so you know earnestly opposed to anything that might come from and all and so like with the fact that those two very different sort of ideology I don't necessarily eat salad we were subject to different chefs different relationships and so like depending on like my power is not situation to like what I'm home I'm very heartless because I you know I look at my parents as respected they know a lot more than I knew and so when they see something like and then you know when I like return to my very safe haven that mind remains wherever I like minded and thinking the same hey I didn't support me in the ways that I think in the way as the banks were knowledge I started thinking about it more like this response of many tons of fun and it's just because my power you know the brain you know it's and that's just how me more friendly oh so like might new couples and we're sort of like chuckles in the face off of the spot idea of meritocracy where if you worked really hard you'll be able to succeed right well the problem with capitalism they say okay with matter type say everyone has an equal chance to succeed the problem with that is that capitalism may be considered equal but it's not equitable it's not equitable not everyone has a fair chance because nowadays I mean privilege seems to be almost inherited so I really liked the comparison of kind of this triangle and you know the top 1% and I liked how doctrine I forget who you compare it but you compared surplus value with being the form of feudalism or the capitalistic system of being a form of feudalism how everyone kind of works for you know a certain amount during the week in how that wealth goes to the top and you only get Tuesday with small percent right electroporation that actually feudalism it was much more distinct under the corvée for the peasants that it was clearly marked off so went the Lord the estate would say three days of the week you work for me three days you work for yourself so it was quite clear what those days were but under capitalism the distinction is much more muddy so as I talked about it if you're working with the proverbial nine-to-five right those eight hours you're not you know just only a few of those hours are disturbing back your actual pay and then the rest that you're at all all of that is going into the owner so but that's not clear-cut it's not let go 10:45 you know now I'm I'm working for the man service maybe it's your product it doesn't match your wage right and it's like what you get paid for every output how are you exploit so the back of the envelope only nine three to six thousand just move but that's it based on piece of the following thing how much fun does the average water produce every hour right let's compare against everyone so the way that Foley does that is to divide the American city which is approximately 73 by 150 thousand hours which is 40 times 50 so a few more than average 40 hours a week for 15 hours for 50% of the people actually do you know you guys are coming into a church right you make specification how many 7 if we so that's again part of him right so it's not it's not completely consistent with Marcus area is this cash surplus because you have to make some subtractions there you know like take some sectors oh but but you know I think it drives home this argument of exploitation right like you do why the system make the body won't you out of this one what you get if that were the case that's well I think the comment is that all this the wealth distribution all the wealth is hand-painted top right the 1% but what the rich are getting richer the poor get to order it and with this we're creating was two-tier society great I guess like Mike Mike confusion with this is that okay well it's the 1% control you know the the most amount of pull the most amount of power how can we change a capitalistic system when the top 1% is in control we change we're going up so speak where is that right oh thank you all right well I'll try to link to actually Jamie and brings questions together so you know briefly public pedagogy is coming out of the whole tradition of critical pedagogy and so if you just mentioned yes public pedagogy it's this idea of what the learning that takes place outside the classroom right and so whether it's in public spaces or online that's also consider the provinces of public Paragon right you know this idea that you know if this it's interesting when we are in a historical moment where we feel that we see institutions to be permanent forever in fact they never have right things changed sometimes overnight sometimes they take a long time and so you know if we look at the whole long arc of history we see how these changes have suddenly right but part of it a lot of its well a lot of it has to do with on the ground through hard work right with people and so kind of going back to your question you know what I'm hoping is that this would just be my very small contribution to a larger collective project in which we get more and more people whether it's through on at first online or other social media to start talking more about this which has already happened he's seen a way we saw in 2011 with the Occupy movement now you know people criticize there were several people on the Left that criticized the Occupy movement because of the lack of organization I think that was an unfair critique because there has not been any organized movement on the left for quite some time and that was done strategically by the powers that be right since the 70s and 80s thanks to administration's of Ronald Reagan and so forth however that was a start and so I think also what we saw last year are the enthusiasm from candidacy of senator Sanders also indexed this so what we need to do them going forward is to using just public pedagogy it's just one tool but the country use it as a way to engage the everyday people that we might think of all these fox viewers we're in fact actually you know against capitalism and though they framed it in different ways and I'm going to romanticize part of the demographic at the Tea Party was because they knew the system was no longer working for them they just blamed it on other agents such as President Obama or the government rather than economic system itself resistor I forget the in the indivisible radio show the individual is there at the radio invisible is a document created by hoax I don't want to mischaracterize their involvement but they are folks who have worked in campaigns and they they saw what the Tea Party did and was effective and that it was a resistance you know they weren't trying to propose new policies they were trying to bring a bring about changes they were just stopping stopping stopping something and now where we are in our current political climate we're in the same situation where we can't we can't propose an alternative we just have presents well except it's like our revolution which is they are presenting I mean issues but you can't fastly to the other side too you know where your Huckabee's argument so like when we go to full inclusion mode or full snowflake know what I mean exactly and that's the issue so you know we're in this vacillating point where you go from where you mean us an exact to specific agenda focused agenda rather than feel-good simply you know I don't think anyone here and let's just quickly you know people like Richard Wolffe shoutout to Richard Bolles you know what he talks about in his project democracy at work it is really about that is where okay let's rarely spend most of our lives is that the workplace right and as Naomi was talking about with this we think we live in a democracy democratic society but we spend most of our lives in a workplace which is decidedly not democratic including it being recorded in the university so I think if with the focus here about you know organizing at the workplace to make our workplaces truly democratic you know that that is definitely one story I don't have the image the answers to everything with everything at that and that would be you know can I get back to the issue of public pedagogy sure I want to say that what Harry teaches when he teaches the course of Marxism yeah that's public pedagogy absolutely when he when he takes you know marches I think one of those great contributions is this notion and and that's why he organizes writing in that way is that we suffer from a veil of superficiality and it requires individuals to penetrate that to expose in fact that superficiality that surface and when you do it in the class it's amazing how the students respond when the winds ring I know that you do that in I think when I say in my class you know they Apple and it's making Wallace lady lady they make this recipe you know they why they put out to such a wonderful thing it's the profit is the thing now they thinking the profits on those work is in Foxconn in China who will make it you know ten cents an hour well of a sudden but something goes off in their heads and they don't see the world the same way anymore and I'm always amazed that the receptivity here with each of course of Marxism it's always over and rolled and so my parents generation would answer the question capitalism working for you and it would be interesting to see how once you've experienced the byproducts of Marxism in their extreme extreme variety would you do a choose capitalism because of all things what not right but I think it'd be interesting to go to other countries and ask that question and analyze the answers of people [Applause]




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *