Link to Anna’s review of Social Class in the 21st Century (2015) by Mike Savage:
“Social Class in the 21st Century“
Online copy of the Introduction to the book:
“The Great British Class Survey and the Return of Class Today”
Tag: Economics
John Patrick Leary – Flint’s Bottom Line
Link to an article by John Patrick Leary:
Bonus links: “Flint: A Tale of Two Cities” and “A Pediatrician General Motors and the Flint Water Crisis” and “The Poisoning of Flint”
Tony Bates – Book Review: The Future of the Professions
Link to a review by Tony Bates of The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts (2015) by Richard and Daniel Susskind:
“Book Review: The Future of the Professions (Including Teaching)”
Bonus links: Forces of Production and “Edutopia” and Homo academicus and Making Money
Walden Bello – Why Wall Street Won Round One and We Might Win the Next
Link to an article by Walden Bello:
Elaine Coburn – Economics as Ideology: Challenging Expert Political Power
Pete Dolack – They Make Millions Per Employee and Cry They Don’t Make Enough
Link to an article by Pete Dolack:
“They Make Millions Per Employee and Cry They Don’t Make Enough”
Renaud Lambert – Making Money, Not Things
Link to an article by Renaud Lambert:
“Making Money, Not Things: Why Is South America’s Left in Retreat?”
Aaron Leonard – Interview: Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All
Link to an interview with Costas Lapavitsas (author of Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All) by Aaron Leonard:
Steve Rushton – Sea Change in Spanish Politics As Citizens Reclaim the City
Link to an article by Steve Rushton:
“Sea Change in Spanish Politics As Citizens Reclaim the City”
A Critique of Michael Schwalbe’s “Brief for Equality”
Professor Michael Schwalbe wrote an essay entitled “A Brief for Equality.” The basic thrust of his argument is a good one: liberal insistence that egalitarianism is too extreme is really about maintaining certain inequalities, which are not morally justified. However, there is a curious flaw in his argument. He writes:
“equality would produce a flourishing of creativity and constructive diversity. The cultivation of talent that is possible now for only the privileged few would be possible for all. What’s more, an equal sharing of resources would by no means hinder the appreciation of virtuosity. There would in fact be more virtuosity and accomplishment to appreciate.”
Why is this a logical flaw? Well, there are different types of capital (as a sociologist, Schwalbe should be well aware of these concepts; though they appear in fiction too). Yet his brief is written only in regard to economic capital. He asserts that a better society flows from equality of economic capital. But he then praises an inequality of cultural capital (virtuosity, accomplishment). Why is it that the liberal position that relies on a core of (economic) inequality is wrong but Schwalbe’s reliance on a core of (cultural) inequality is better? He does not address this point about second level (cultural) hierarchies. This seems to be a flaw in his underlying theory — by failing to account for different types of capital, and associated hierarchies, his argument lacks persuasiveness. Really, this is perhaps a pure expression of ideology, revealing the disavowed assumptions behind his argument. It is somewhat customary for academics to have more cultural capital than economic capital. So does Schwalbe’s argument really amount to self-interested promotion of the type of capital that he possesses over that which he does not possess? And will inequality of cultural capital simply reproduce inequalities of economic capital over time? These are the lingering doubts clouding his argument, which is far more self-interested than it admits.