I'm guessing that it's somebody bizarre that you would never guess would say such things, like, I dunno, Pay Buchanan. But I can't think of anyone so I would say it was closest to Anthony Giddens, at least in the first quote (though less in the third) but then he's not famous enough. How about Roberto Unger?
In message <02d701bee2cf$3503c620$b2f38482 at nsn2>, Nathan Newman
<nathan.newman at yale.edu> writes
>Pop quiz. These words are by a famous living thinker. Can you name him?--
>NN
>===========================
>
>"While in the past the "class question was especially highlighted as the
>center of this issue, in more recent times it is the "world" question that
>is emphasized. Thus, not only the sphere of class is taken into
>consideration but also the world sphere of inequality and injustice and, as
>a consequence, not only the class dimension but also the world dimension of
>the tasks involved in the path towards the achievement of justice in the
>modern world. A complete analysis of the situation of the world today shows
>in an even deeper and fuller way the meaning of the previous analysis of
>social injustices; and it is the meaning that must be given today to efforts
>to build justice on earth, not concealing thereby unjust structures but
>demanding that they be examined and transformed on a more universal scale."
>------------------------------------------------------
>"Understood in this case not as a capacity or aptitude for work, but rather
>as a whole set of instruments which man uses in his work, technology is
>undoubtedly man's ally. It facilitates his work, perfects, accelerates and
>augments it. It leads to an increase in the quantity of things produced by
>work, and in many cases improves their quality. However, it is also a fact
>that, in some instances, technology can cease to be man's ally and become
>almost his enemy, as when the mechanization of work "supplants" him, taking
>away all personal satisfaction and the incentive to creativity and
>responsibility, when it deprives many workers of their previous employment,
>or when, through exalting the machine, it reduces man to the status of its
>slave."
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>"property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve
>work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production.
>Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the
>form of "capital" in opposition to "labor"-- and even to practice
>exploitation of labor--is contrary to the very nature of these means and
>their possession. They cannot be possessed against labor, they cannot even
>be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to
>their possession--whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of
>public or collective ownership--is that they should serve labor, and thus,
>by serving labor, that they should make possible the achievement of the
>first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods
>and the right to common use of them."
>
>
>
>
-- Jim heartfield