Podcasts about The Communist Manifesto

Ahead of her new book What's So Great About the Great Books? coming out in April, Naomi Kanakia and I talked about literature from Herodotus to Tony Tulathimutte. We touched on Chaucer, Anglo-Saxon poetry, Scott Alexander, Shakespeare, William James, Helen deWitt, Marx and Engels, Walter Scott, Les Miserables, Jhootha Sach, the Mahabharata, and more. Naomi also talked about some of her working habits and the history and future of the Great Books movement. Naomi, of course, writes Woman of Letters here on Substack.TranscriptHenry Oliver: Today, I am talking with Naomi Kanakia. Naomi is a novelist, a literary critic, and most importantly she writes a Substack called Woman of Letters, and she has a new book coming out, What's So Great About the Great Books? Naomi, welcome.Naomi Kanakia: Thanks for having me on.Oliver: How is the internet changing the way that literature gets discussed and criticized, and what is that going to mean for the future of the Great Books?Kanakia: How is the internet changing it? I can really speak to only how it has changed it for me. I started off as a writer of young adult novels and science fiction, and there's these very active online fan cultures for those two things.I was reading the Great Books all through that time. I started in 2010 through today. In the 2010s, it really felt like there was not a lot of online discussion of classic literature. Maybe that was just me and I wasn't finding it, but it didn't necessarily feel like there was that community.I think because there are so many strong, public-facing institutions that discuss classic literature, like the NYRB, London Review of Books, a lot of journals, and universities, too. But now on Substack, there are a number of blogs—yours, mine, a number of other ones—that are devoted to classic literature. All of those have these commenters, a community of commenters. I also follow bloggers who have relatively small followings who are reading Tolstoy, reading Middlemarch, reading even much more esoteric things.I know that for me, becoming involved in this online culture has given me much more of an awareness that there are many people who are reading the classics on their own. I think that was always true, but now it does feel like it's more of a community.Oliver: We are recording this the day after the Washington Post book section has been removed. You don't see some sort of relationship between the way these literary institutions are changing online and the way the Great Books are going to be conceived of in the future? Because the Great Books came out of a an old-fashioned, saving-the-institutions kind of radical approach to university education. We're now moving into a world where all those old things seem to be going.Kanakia: Yes. I agree. The Great Books began in the University of Chicago and Columbia University. If you look into the history of the movement, it really was about university education and the idea that you would have a common core and all undergraduates would read these books. The idea that the Great Books were for the ordinary person was really an afterthought, at least for Mortimer Adler and those original Great Books guys. Now, the Great Books in the university have had a resurgence that we can discuss, but I do think there's a lot more life and vitality in the kind of public-facing humanities than there has been.I talked to Irina Dumitrescu, who writes for TLS (The Times Literary Supplement), LRB (The London Review of Books), a lot of these places, and she also said the same thing—that a lot of these journals are going into podcasts, and they're noticing a huge interest in the humanities and in the classics even at the same time as big institutions are really scaling back on those things. Humanities majors are dropping, classics majors are getting cut, book coverage at major periodicals is going down. It does seem like there are signals that are conflicting. I don't really know totally what to make of it. I do think there is some relation between those two things.Ted Gioia on Substack is always talking about how culture is stagnant, basically, and one of the symptoms of that is that “back list” really outsells “front list” for books. Even in 2010, 50 percent of the books that were sold were front-list titles, books that had been released in the last 18 months. Now it's something like only 35 percent of books or something like that are front-list titles. These could be completely wrong, but there's been a trend.I think the decrease in interest in front-list books is really what drives the loss of these book-review pages because they mostly review front-list books. So, I think that does imply that there's a lot of interest in old books. That's what our stagnant culture means.Oliver: Why do you think your own blog is popular with the rationalists?Kanakia: I don't know for certain. There was a story I wrote that was a joke. There are all these pop nonfiction books that aim to prove something that seems counterintuitive, so I wrote a parody of one of those where I aim to prove that reading is bad for you. This book has many scientific studies that show the more you read, the worse it is because it makes you very rigid.Scott Alexander, who is the archrationalist, really liked that, and he added me to his blog roll. Because of that, I got a thousand rationalist subscribers. I have found that rationalists at least somewhat interested in the classics. I think they are definitely interested in enduring sources of value. I've observed a fair amount of interest.Oliver: How much of a lay reader are you really? Because you read scholarship and critics and you can just quote John Gilroy in the middle of a piece or something.Kanakia: Yeah. That is a good question. I have definitely gotten more interested in secondary literature. In my book, I really talk about being a lay reader and personally having a nonacademic approach to literature. I do think that, over 15 years of being a lay reader, I have developed a lot of knowledge.I've also learned the kind of secondary literature that is really important. I think having historical context adds a lot and is invaluable. Right now I'm rereading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. When I first read it in 2010, I hardly knew anything about French history. I was even talking online with someone about how most people who read Les Miserables think it's set in the French Revolution. That's basically because Americans don't really know anything about French history.Everything makes just a lot more sense the more you know about the time because it was written for people in it. For people in 1860s France, who knew everything about their own recent history, that really adds a lot to it. I still don't tend to go that much into interpretive literature, literature that tries to do readings of the stories or tell me the meaning of the stories. I feel like I haven't really gotten that much out of that.Oliver: How long have you been learning Anglo-Saxon?Kanakia: I went through a big Anglo-Saxon phase. That was in 2010. It started because I started reading The Canterbury Tales in Middle English. There is a great app online called General Prologue created by one of your countrymen, Terry Richardson [NB it is Terry Jones], who loved Middle English. In this app, he recites the Middle English of the General Prologue. I started listening to this app, and I thought, I just really love the rhythms and the sounds of Middle English. And it's quite easy to learn. So then, I got really into that.And then I thought, but what about Anglo-Saxon? I'm very bad at languages. I studied Latin for seven years in middle school and high school. I never really got very far, but I thought, Anglo-Saxon has to be the easiest foreign language you can learn, right? So, I got into it.I cannot sight read Anglo-Saxon, but I really got into Anglo-Saxon poetry. I really liked the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Most people probably would not like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle because it's very repetitive, but that makes it great if you're a language learner because every entry is in this very repetitive structure. I just felt such a connection. I get in trouble when I say this kind of stuff, because I'm never quiet sure if it's 100 percent true. But it's certainly one of the oldest vernacular literatures in Europe. It's just so much older than most of the other medieval literature I've read. And it just was such a window into a different part of history I never knew about.Oliver: And you particularly like “The Dream of the Rood”?Kanakia: Yeah, “The Dream of the Rood” is my favorite Anglo-Saxon poem. “The Dream of the Rood” is a poem that is told from the point of view of Christ's cross. A man is having a dream. In this dream he encounters Christ's cross, and Christ's cross starts reciting to him basically the story of the crucifixion. At the end, the cross is buried. I don't know, it was just so haunting and powerful. Yeah, it was one of my favorites.Oliver: Why do you think Byron is a better poet than Alexander Pope?Kanakia: This is an argument I cannot get into. I think this is coming up because T. S. Eliot felt that Alexander Pope was a great poet because he really exemplified the spirit of the age. I don't know. I've tried to read Pope. It just doesn't do it for me. Whereas with Byron, I read Don Juan and found it entertaining. I enjoyed it. Then, his lyric poetry is just more entertaining to read. With Alexander Pope, I'm learning a lot about what kind of poetry people wrote in the 18th century, but the joy is not there.Oliver: Okay. Can we do a quick fire round where I say the name of a book and you just say what you think of it, whatever you think of it?Kanakia: Sure.Oliver: Okay. The Odyssey.Kanakia: The Odyssey. Oh, I love The Odyssey. It has a very strange structure, where it starts with Telemachus and then there's this flashback in the middle of it. It is much more readable than The Iliad; I'll say that.Oliver: Herodotus.Kanakia: Herodotus is wild. Going into Herodotus, I really thought it was about the Persian war, which it is, but it's mostly a general overview of everything that Herodotus knew, about anything. It's been a long time since I read it. I really appreciate the voice of Herodotus, how human it is, and the accumulation of facts. It was great.Oliver: I love the first half actually. The bit about the Persian war I'm less interested in, but the first half I think is fantastic. I particularly love the Egypt book.Kanakia: Oh yeah, the Egypt book is really good.Oliver: All those like giant beetles that are made of fire or whatever; I can't remember the details, but it's completely…Kanakia: The Greeks are also so fascinated by Egypt. They go down there like what is going on out there? Then, most of what we know about Egypt comes from this Hellenistic period, when the Greeks went to Egypt. Our Egyptian kings list comes from the Hellenistic period where some scholar decided to sort out what everybody was up to and put it all into order. That's why we have such an orderly story about Egypt. That's the story that the Greeks tried to tell themselves.Oliver: Marcus Aurelius.Kanakia: Marcus Aurelius. When I first read The Meditations, which I loved, obviously, I thought, “being the Roman emperor cannot be this hard.” It really was a black pill moment because I thought, “if the emperor of Rome is so unhappy, maybe human power really doesn't do it.”Knowing more about Marcus Aurelius, he did have quite a difficult life. He was at war for most of his—just stuck in the region in Germany for ages. He had various troubles, but yeah, it really was very stoic. It was, oh, I just have to do my duty. Very “heavy is the head that wears the crown” kind of stuff. I thought, “okay, I guess being Roman emperor is not so great.”Oliver: Omar Khayyam.Kanakia: Omar Khayyam. Okay, I've only read The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam by Edward Fitzgerald, which I loved, but I cannot formulate a strong opinion right now.Oliver: As You Like It.Kanakia: No opinions.Oliver: Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson.Kanakia: Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. I do have an opinion about this, which is that they should make a redacted version of Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. I normally am not a big believer in abridgements because I feel like whatever is there is there. But, Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, first of all, has a long portion before Boswell even meets Johnson. That portion drags; it's not that great. Then it has all these like letters that Johnson wrote, which also are not that great. What's really good is when Boswell just reports everything Johnson ever said, which is about half the book. You get a sense of Johnson's conversation and his personality, and that is very gripping. I've definitely thought that with a different presentation, this could still be popular. People would still read this.Oliver: The Communist Manifesto.Kanakia: The Communist Manifesto. It's very stirring. I love The Communist Manifesto. It has very haunting, powerful lines. I won't try to quote from it because I'll misquote them.Oliver: But it is remarkably well written.Kanakia: Oh yeah, it is a great work of literature.Oliver: Yeah.Kanakia: I read Capital [Das Kapital], which is not a great work of literature, and I would venture to say that it is not necessarily worth reading. It really feels like Marx's reputation is built on other political writings like The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and works like that, which really seem to have a lot more meat on the bone than Capital.Oliver: Pragmatism by William James.Kanakia: Pragmatism. I mean, I've mentioned that in my book. I love William James in general. I think William James was writing in this 19th-century environment where it seemed like some form of skepticism was the only rational solution. You couldn't have any source of value, and he really tried to cut through that with Pragmatism and was like, let's just believe the things that are good to believe. It is definitely at least useful to think, although someone else can always argue with you about what is useful to believe. But, as a personal guide for belief, I think it is still useful.Oliver: Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw.Kanakia: No strong opinions. It was a long time ago that I read Major Barbara.Oliver: Tell me what you like about James Fenimore Cooper.Kanakia: James Fenimore Cooper. Oh, this is great. I have basically a list of Great Books that I want to read, but four or five years ago, I thought, “what's in all the other books that I know the names of but that are not reputed, are not the kind of books you still read?”That was when I read Walter Scott, who I really love. And I just started reading all kinds of books that were kind of well known but have kind of fallen into literary disfavor. In almost every case, I felt like I got a lot out of these books. So, nowadays when I approach any realm of literature, I always look for those books.In 19th-century American literature, the biggest no-longer-read book is The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper, which was America's first bestseller. He was the first American novelist that had a high reputation in Europe. The Last of the Mohicans is kind of a historical romance, à la Walter Scott, but much more tightly written and much more tightly plotted.Cooper has written five novels, the Leatherstocking Tales, that are all centered around this very virtuous, rough-hewn frontiersman, Natty Bumppo. He has his best friend, Chingachgook, who is the last of the Mohicans. He's the last of his tribe. And the two of these guys are basically very sad and stoic. Chingachgook is distanced from his tribe. Chingachgook has a tribe of Native Americans that he hates—I want to say it's the Huron. He's always like, “they're the bad ones,” and he's always fighting them. Then, Natty Bumppo doesn't really love settled civilization. He's not precisely at war with it, but he does not like the settlers. They're kind of stuck in the middle. They have various adventures, and I just thought it was so haunting and powerful.I've been reading a lot of other 19th-century American literature, and virtually none of it treats Native Americans with this kind of respect. There's a lot of diversity in the Native American characters; there's really an attempt to show how their society works and the various ways that leadership and chiefship works among them. There's this very haunting moment in The Last of the Mohicans, where this aged chief, Tamenund, comes out and starts speaking. This is a chief who, in American mythology, was famous for being a friend to the white people. But, James Fenimore Cooper writing in the 1820s has Tamenund come out at 80 years old and say, “we have to fight; we have to fight the white people. That's our only option.” It was just such a powerful moment and such a powerful book.I was really, really enthused. I read all of these Leatherstocking Tales. It was also a very strange experience to read these books that are generally supposed to be very turgid and boring, and then I read them and was like, “I understand. I'm so transported.” I understand exactly why readers in the 1820s loved this.Oliver: Which Walter Scott books do you like?Kanakia: I love all the Walter Scott books I've read, but the one I liked best was Kenilworth. Have you ever read Kenilworth?Oliver: I don't know that one.Kanakia: Yeah, it's about Elizabeth I, who had a romantic relationship with one of her courtiers.Oliver: The Earl of Essex?Kanakia: Yeah. She really thought they were going to get married, but then it turned out he was secretly married. Basically, I guess the implication is that he killed his wife in order to marry Queen Elizabeth I. It's a novel all about him and that situation, and it just felt very tightly plotted. I really enjoyed it.Oliver: What did you think of Rejection?Kanakia: Rejection by Tony Tulathimutte? Initially when I read this book, I enjoyed it, but I was like, “life cannot possibly be this sad.” It's five or six stories about these people who just have nothing going on. Their lives are so miserable, they can't find anyone to sleep with, and they're just doomed to be alone forever. I was like, “life can't be this bad.” But now thinking back over it, it is one of the most memorable books I've read in the last year. It really sticks with you. I feel like my opinion of this book has gone up a lot in retrospect.Oliver: How antisemitic is the House of Mirth?Kanakia: That is a hotly debated question, which I mentioned in my book. I think there has been a good case made that Edith Wharton, the author of House of Mirth, who was from an old New York family, was herself fairly antisemitic and did not personally like Jewish people. What she portrays in this book is that this old New York society also was highly suspicious of Jewish people and was organized to keep Jewish people out.In this book there is a rich Jewish man, Simon Rosedale, and there's a poor woman, Lily Bart. Lily Bart's main thing is whether she's going to marry the poor guy, Lawrence Selden, or the rich guy, Percy Gryce. She can't choose. She doesn't want to be poor, but she also is always bored by the rich guys. Meanwhile, through the whole book, there's Simon Rosedale, who's always like, “you should marry me.” He's the rich Jewish guy. He's like, “you should marry me. I will give you lots of money. You can do whatever you want.”Everybody else kind of just sees her as a woman and as a wife; he really sees her as an ally in his social climbing. That's his main motivation. The book is relatively clear that he has a kind of respect for her that nobody else does. Then, over the course of the book, she also gains a lot more respect for him. Basically, late in the book, she decides to marry him, but she has fallen a lot in the world. He's like, “that particular deal is not available anymore,” but he does offer her another deal that—although she finds it not to her taste—is still pretty good.He basically is like, “I'll give you some money, you'll figure out how to rehabilitate your reputation, and later down the line, we can figure something out.” So, I think with a great author like Edith Wharton, there's power in these portrayals. I felt it hard to come away from it feeling like the book is like a really antisemitic book.Oliver: Now, you note that the Great Books movement started out as something quite socially aspirational. Do you think it's still like that?Kanakia: I do think so. Yeah. For me, that's 100 percent what it was because I majored in econ. I always felt kind of inadequate as a writer against people who had majored in English. Then I started off as a science fiction writer, young adult writer, and I was like, “I'm going to read all these Great Books and then I'll have read the books that everybody else has read.” In my mind, that's also what it was—that there was some upper crust or literary society that was reading all these Great Books.That's really what did it. I do think there's still an element of aspiration to it because it's a club that you can join, that anyone can join. It's very straightforward to be a Great Books reader, and so I think there's still something there. I think because the Great Books movement has such a democratic quality to it, it actually doesn't get you to the top socially, which has always been the true, always been the case. But, that's okay. As long as you end up higher than where you started, that's fine.Oliver: What makes a book great?Kanakia: I talk about it this in the book, and I go through many different authors' conceptions of what makes a book great or what constitutes a classic. I don't know that anyone has come up with a really satisfying answer. The Horatian formulation from Horace—that a book is great or an author is great if it has lasted for a hundred years—is the one that seems to be the most accurate. Like, any book that's still being read a hundred years after it was written has a greatness.I do think that T. S. Eliott's formulation—that a civilization at its height produces certain literature and that literature partakes of the greatness of the civilization and summarizes the greatness of the civilization—does seem to have some kind of truth to it.But it's hard, right? Because the greatest French novel is In Search of Lost Time, but I don't know that anyone would say that the France in the 1920s was at its height. It's not a prescriptive thing, but it does seem like the way we read many of these Great Books, like Moby Dick, it feels like you're like communing with the entire society that produced it. So, maybe there's something there.Oliver: Now, you've used a list from Clifton Fadiman.Kanakia: Yes.Oliver: Rather than from Mortimer Adler or Harold Bloom or several others. Why this list?Kanakia: Well, the best reason is that it's actually the list I've just been using for the last 15 years. I went to a science fiction convention in 2009, Readercon, and at this science fiction convention was Michael Dirda, who was a Washington Post book critic. He had recently come out with his book, Classics for Pleasure, which I also bought and liked. But he said that the list he had always used was this Clifton Fadiman book. And so when I decided to start reading the Great Books, I went and got that book. I have perused many other lists over time, but that was always the list that seemed best to me.It seemed to have like the best mix. There's considerable variation amongst these lists, but there's also a lot of overlap. So any of these lists is going to have Dickens on it, and Tolstoy, and stuff like that. So really, you're just thinking about, “aside from Dickens and Tolstoy and George Eliot and Walt Whitman and all these people, who are the other 50 authors that you're going be reading?”The Mortimer Adler list is very heavy on philosophy. It has Plotinus on it. It has all these scientific works. I don't know, it didn't speak to me as much. Whereas, this Clifton Fadiman and John Major list has all these Eastern works on it. It has The Tale of Genji, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Story of the Stone, and that just spoke to me a little bit more.Oliver: What modern books will be on a future Great Books list, whether it's from someone alive or someone since the war.Kanakia: Have you ever heard of Robert Caro?Oliver: Sure.Kanakia: Yeah. I think his Lyndon Johnson books are great books. They have changed the field of biography. They're so complete, they seem to summarize an entire era, epoch. They're highly rated, but I feel like they're underrated as literature.What else? I was actually a little bit surprised in this Clifton Fadiman-John Major book, which came out in 1999, that there are not more African Americans in their list. Like, Invisible Man definitely seemed like a huge missed work. You know, it's hard. You would definitely want a book that has undergone enough critical evaluation that people are pretty certain that it is great. A lot of things that are more recent have not undergone that evaluation yet, but Invisible Man has, as have some works by Martin Luther King.Oliver: What about The Autobiography of Malcolm X?Kanakia: I would have to reread. I feel like it hasn't been evaluated much as a literary document.Oliver: Helen DeWitt?Kanakia: It's hard to say. It's so idiosyncratic, The Last Samurai, but it is certainly one of the best novels of the last 25 years.Oliver: Yeah.Kanakia: It is hard to say, because there's nothing else quite like it. But I would love if The Last Samurai was on a list like this; that would be amazing.Oliver: If someone wants to try the Great Books, but they think that those sort of classic 19th-century novels are too difficult—because they're long and the sentences are weird or whatever—what else should they do? Where else should they start?Kanakia: Well, it depends on what they're into, or it depends on their personality type. I think like there are people who like very, very difficult literature. There are people who are very into James Joyce and Proust. I think for some people the cost-benefit is better. If they're going to be pouring over some book for a long time, they would prefer if it was overtly difficult.If they're not like that, then I would say, there are many Great Books that are more accessible. Hemingway is a good one and Grapes of Wrath is wonderful. The 19th-century American books tend to be written in a very different register than the English books. If you read Moby Dick, it feels like it's written in a completely different language than Charles Dickens, even though they're writing essentially at the same time.Oliver: Is there too much Freud on the list that you've used?Kanakia: Maybe. I know that Interpretation of Dreams is on that list, which I've tried to read and have decided life is too short. I didn't really buy it, but I have read a fair amount of Freud. My impression of Freud was always that I would read Freud and somehow it would just seem completely fanciful or far out, like wouldn't ring true. But then when I started reading Freud, it was more the opposite. I was like, oh yeah, this seems very, very true.Like this battle between like the id and the ego and the super ego, and this feeling that like the psyche is at war with itself. Human beings really desire to be singular and exceptional, but then you're constantly under assault by the reality principle, which is that you're insignificant. That all seemed completely true. But then he tries to cure this somehow, which does not seem a curable problem. And he also situates the problem in some early sexual development, which also did not necessarily ring true. But no, I wouldn't say there's too much. Freud is a lot of fun. People should read Freud.Oliver: Which of the Great Books have you really not liked?Kanakia: I do get asked this quite a bit. I would say the Great Book that I really felt like—at least in translation—was not that rewarding in an unabridged version was Don Quixote. Because at least half the length of Don Quixote is these like interpolated novellas that are really long and tedious. I felt Don Quixote was a big slog. But maybe someday I'll go back and reread it and love it. Who knows?Oliver: Now you wrote that the question of biography is totally divorced from the question of what art is and how it operates. What do you think of George Orwell's supposition that if Shakespeare came back tomorrow, and we found out he used to rape children that we should—we would not say, you know, it's fine to carry on to doing that because he might write another King Lear.Kanakia: Well, if we discovered that Shakespeare was raping children, he should go to prison for that. No. It's totally divorced in both senses. You don't get any credit in the court of law because you are the writer of King Lear. If I murdered someone and then I was hauled in front of a judge and they were like, oh, Naomi's a genius, I wouldn't get off for murder. Nor should I get off for murder.So in terms of like whether we would punish Shakespeare for his crime of raping children, I don't think King Lear should count at all, but it's never used that way. It's never should someone go to prison or not for their crimes, because they're a genius. It's always used the other way, which is should we read King Lear knowing that the author raped children, but I also feel like that is immaterial. If you read King Lear, you're not enabling someone to rape children.Oliver: There's an almost endless amount of discussion these days about the Great Books and education and the value of the humanities, and what's the future of it all. What is your short opinion on that?Kanakia: My short opinion is that the Great Books at least are going to be fine. The Great Books will continue to be read, and they would even survive the university. All these books predate the university and they will survive the university. I feel like the university has stewarded literature in its own way for a while now and has made certain choices in that stewardship. I think if that stewardship was given up to more voluntary associations that had less financial support, then I think the choices would probably be very different. But I still think the greatest works would survive.Oliver: Now this is a quote from the book: “I am glad that reactionaries love the Great Books. They've invited a Trojan horse into their own camp.” Tell us what you mean by that.Kanakia: Let's say you believed in Christian theocracy, that you thought America should be organized on explicitly Christian principles. And because you believe in Christian theocracy, you organize a school that teaches the Great Books. Many of these schools that are Christian schools that have Great Books programs will also teach Nietzsche. They definitely put some kind of spin on Nietzsche. But they will teach anti-Christ, and that is a counterpoint to Christian morality and Christian theology. There are many things that you'll read in the Great Books that are corrosive to various kinds of certainties.If someone who I think is bad starts educating themselves in the Great Books, I don't think that the Great Books are going to make them worse from my perspective. So it's good.Oliver: How did reading the Mahabharata change you?Kanakia: Oh yeah, so the Mahabharata is a Hindu epic from, let's say, the first century AD. I'm Indian and most Indians are familiar with the basic outline of the Mahabharata story because it's told in various retellings, and there's a TV serial that my parents would rent from the Indian store growing up and we would watch it tape by tape. So I'm very familiar with it. Like there's never been a time I have not known this story.But I was also familiar with the idea that there is a written version in Sanskrit that's extremely long. It is 10 times as long as the Iliad and the Odyssey combined. This Mahabharata story is not that long. I've read a version of it that's about 800 pages long. So how could something that's 10 times this long be the same? A new unabridged translation came out 10 years ago. So I started reading it, and it basically contains the entire Sanskrit Vedic worldview in it.I had never been exposed to this very coherently laid-out version of what I would call Hindu cosmology and ethics. Hindus don't really get taught those things in a very organized way. The book is basically about dharma, the principle of rightness and how this principle of rightness orders the universe and how it basically results in everybody getting their just deserts in various ways. As I was reading the book, I was like, this seems very true that there is some cosmic rebalancing here, and that everything does turn out more or less the way it should, which is not something that I can defend on a rational level.But just reading the book, it just made me feel like, yes, that is true. There is justice, the universe is organized by justice. It took me about a year to read the whole thing. I started waking up at 5:00 a.m. and reading for an hour each morning, and it just was a really magical, profound experience that brought me a lot closer to my grandmother's religious beliefs.Oliver: Is it ever possible to persuade someone with arguments that they should read literature, or is it just something that they have to have an inclination toward and then follow someone's example? Because I feel like we have so many columns and op-eds and “books are good because of X reason, and it's very important because of Y reason.” And like, who cares? No one cares. If you are persuaded, you take all that very seriously and you argue about what exactly are the precise reasons we should say. And if you're not persuaded, you don't even know this is happening.And what really persuades you is like, oh, Naomi sounds pretty compelling about the Mahabharata. That sounds cool. I'll try that. It's much more of a temperamental, feelingsy kind of thing. Is it possible to argue people into thinking about this differently? Or should we just be doing what we do and setting an example and hoping that people will follow.Kanakia: As to whether it's possible or not, I do not know. But I do think these columns are too ambitious. A thousand-word column and the imagined audience for this column is somebody who doesn't read books at all, who doesn't care about literature at all. And then in a thousand-word column, you're going to persuade them to care about literature. This is no good. It's so unnecessary.Whereas there's a much broader range of people who love to read books, but have never picked up Moby Dick or have never picked up Middlemarch, or who like maybe loved Middlemarch, but never thought maybe I should then go on and read Jane Austen and George Eliot.I think trying to shift people from “I don't read books at all; reading books is not something I do,” to being a Great Books card-carrying lover of literature is a lot. I really aim for a much lower result than that, which is to whatever extent people are interested in literature, they should pursue that interest. And as the rationalists would say, there's a lot of alpha in that; there's a lot to be gained from converting people who are somewhat interested into people who are very interested.Oliver: If there was a more widespread practice of humanism in education and the general culture, would that make America into a more liberal country in any way?Kanakia: What do you mean by humanism?Oliver: You know, the old-fashioned liberal arts approach, the revival of the literary journal culture, the sort of depolitical approach to literature, the way things used to be, as it were.Kanakia: It couldn't hurt. It couldn't hurt is my answer to that question.Oliver: Okay.Kanakia: What you're describing is basically the way I was educated. I went to Catholic school in DC at St. Anselm's Abbey School, in Northeast, DC, grade school. Highly recommend sending your little boys there. No complaints about the school. They talked about humanism all the time and all these civic virtues. I thought it was great. I don't know what people in other schools learn, but I really feel like it was a superior way of teaching.Now, you know, it was Catholic school, so a lot of people who graduated from my school are conservatives and don't really have the beliefs that I have, but that's okay.Oliver: Tell us about your reading habits.Kanakia: I read mostly ebooks. I really love ebooks because you can make the type bigger. I just read all the time. They vary. I don't wake up at 5:00 a.m. to read anymore. Sometimes if I feel like I'm not reading enough—because I write this blog, and the blog doesn't get written unless I'm reading. That's the engine, and so sometimes I set aside a day each week to read. But generally, the reading mostly takes care of itself.What I tend to get is very into a particular thing, and then I'll start reading more and more in that area. Recently, I was reading a lot of New Yorker stories. So I started reading more and more of these storywriters that have been published in the New Yorker and old anthologies of New Yorker stories. And then eventually I am done. I'm tired. It's time to move on.Oliver: But do you read several books at once? Do you make notes? Do you abandon books? How many hours a day do you read?Kanakia: Hours a day: Because my e-reader keeps these stats, I'd say 15 or 20 hours a week of reading. Nowadays because I write for the blog, I often think as I'm reading how I would frame a post about this. So I look for quotes, like what quote I would look at. I take different kinds of notes. I'll make more notes if I'm more confused by what is going on. Especially with nonfiction books, I'll try sometimes to make notes just to iron out what exactly I think is happening or what I think the argument is. But no, not much of a note taker.Oliver: What will you read next?Kanakia: What will I read next? Well, I've been thinking about getting back into Indian literature. Right now I'm reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. But there's an Indian novel called Jhootha Sach, which is a partition novel that is originally in Hindi. And it's also a thousand pages long, and is frequently compared to Les Miserables and War and Peace. So I'm thinking about tackling that finally.Oliver: Naomi Kanakia, thank you very much.Kanakia: Thanks for having me. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

The US is the Gold Standard as both the men and women's hockey teams took home gold medals in the Olympics. Why is Dom so ecstatic about the way the players were speaking after the game? 1215 - Side - all time bad idea 1220 - How did an unsanctioned student protest by Quakertown High School turn so violent? Are the kids kind of telling on themselves? 1230 - Former Bucks County Sheriff Fred Harran joins us today. What is his takeaway from the Quakertown protest? Is it a good idea for the county's police chief and county manager to be the same person? Should more officers have been wearing a vest or some sort of identification when corralling the unruly kids? How tough is it handcuffing somebody without any pain? Why should kids not emulate the protests they see on TV? 1250 - How boring is The Communist Manifesto? Your calls.

12 - The US is the Gold Standard as both the men and women's hockey teams took hom e gold medals in the Olympics. Why is Dom so ecstatic about the way the players were speaking after the game? 1215 - Side - all time bad idea 1220 - How did an unsanctioned student protest by Quakertown High School turn so violent? Are the kids kind of telling on themselves? 1230 - Former Bucks County Sheriff Fred Harran joins us today. What is his takeaway from the Quakertown protest? Is it a good idea for the county's police chief and county manager to be the same person? Should more officers have been wearing a vest or some sort of identification when corralling the unruly kids? How tough is it handcuffing somebody without any pain? Why should kids not emulate the protests they see on TV? 1250 - How boring is The Communist Manifesto? Your calls. 1 - Allante McAuley drops in as he has to move his meet and greet today because of inclement weather, but that he is still going door to door asking for signatures he needs to be the GOP Chair in Philadelphia. What is his plan to get out there today and the next few days before the next storm hits? What does the Philly GOP not understand about its voters? 115 - Is Gavin Newsom being racist as he's trying to pander to an African-American crowd? Is it a good look to be privileged and stupid? 120 - AOC tells her constituents how snow works. Is that a good look? 130 - Kirsten Fleming, Features Columnist at The New York Post, joins us today. How big of a headline maker is Mamdani? Is he really mandating that potential shovelers for the city need three forms of ID to get the job? Did Zohran learn his lessons about not clearing homeless encampments before big storms like we're going through today? What is Kirsten's takeaway of the patriotism shown by the US Men's Olympic Hockey Team? Will they be honored tomorrow night? With Bruce Springsteen announcing his latest tour, are fans really going to put up with his politics and his shtick as an arbiter of goodness? 150 - Dom Giordano Presents: Progressive Women Gone Wild! Your calls. 2 - Did our Intelligence help the Mexican Army and police take down the leader of the Cartels? 205 - Scott Presler joins us for his weekly segment yet again today. Why is restoring voter integrity so important not just for accuracy, but for the psyche of the American people? Why is funding DHS imperative as Mexican plunges into darkness after the killing of a cartel leader? Why are Democrats using scare tactics into thinking that voter ID laws are actually detrimental to elections when an overwhelming majority of Americans are for them? Will be be at the SOTU tomorrow? 220 - Dom's Money Melody! 235 - Why are some of the members of the Olympic Women's hockey team not going to the white House tomorrow? 240 - Your calls. Will Democrats clap for the US Men's hockey team? 250 - The Lightning Round!

First published in 1848, The Communist Manifesto is one of the most influential political and philosophical texts in modern history. Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it presents a materialist analysis of society, examining class struggle, capitalism, and the historical forces shaping economic and social relations. The manifesto outlines the theory of communism, critiques...

Chuck Todd takes a hard look at the state of American governance and institutional trust — or the lack of it. He starts by reflecting on the historical significance of three consecutive one-term presidents, ranking his top five most underrated commanders-in-chief and arguing that both Biden and Trump are unlikely to be viewed as consequential a century from now. From there, Todd pivots to a searing indictment of the current moment: from the Epstein reckoning exposing the government's inability to tell the truth, to DHS being treated as a political plaything by Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski, to the DOD endangering lives in the El Paso FAA incident with zero accountability, to Moderna alleging that HHS refused to even review an mRNA flu vaccine under RFK Jr.'s watch. He connects the dots across a pattern of institutional dishonesty — a Justice Department focused on narrative management, masked ICE agents no one can justify, a fired antitrust chief clearing the way for powerful interests, and a "hostage system" style of governing that holds federal paychecks as leverage — making the case that when the government lies this often, it forfeits the benefit of the doubt on everything, and that the Epstein scandal isn't just a story about one man, but a mirror reflecting a system designed to protect the powerful. Then, Gene Sperling — the only person to serve as Director of the National Economic Council under two presidents (Clinton and Obama), a senior advisor to President Biden who oversaw the American Rescue Plan, and a consultant and co-writer on NBC's The West Wing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a wide-ranging conversation. Sperling shares the wild story of how he ended up in Santa Monica, his brush with Aaron Sorkin's legal troubles, and his insider take on how real Washington compares to its fictional portrayals. The conversation then turns to Sperling's deep expertise on the economy, from his defense of the Biden administration's "soft landing" amid global post-Covid inflation to the political lessons of how rising prices have sunk presidencies on both sides of the aisle — including Biden's own re-election bid. The back half of the episode looks squarely at the future. Sperling, who says he's unlikely to serve in another Democratic administration, offers a forceful argument about what comes next: the rising threat of unchecked corporate and tech power, the urgent need for AI policy that puts working people first, and the lessons of globalization that policymakers can't afford to repeat. Drawing on themes from his book Economic Dignity, he makes the case that Americans are hungry for leaders who pair optimism with a real confrontation of economic injustice — and warns that a handful of AI and crypto companies, flush with lobbying dollars, could end up shaping the structure of the economy if left unchallenged. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the publishing of the Communist Manifesto and argues that while its critiques of the excesses of capitalism were correct… it’s revolutionary prescriptions led to the worst authoritarian states in modern history. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 03:30 We’ve had 3 straight one term presidents, deem them all failures 04:45 Inability to win reelection will always be seen as an asterisk 05:45 Top 5 most underrated presidents 06:00 James Polk was the only voluntary one term president 06:45 James Garfield was a fierce advocate for civil rights 07:30 George H.W. Bush was accomplished, but not a good politician 08:30 John Quincy Adams laid out modern American infrastructure 09:00 Jimmy Carter did many things that have aged well 10:15 In 100 years, Biden & Trump likely won’t be viewed as consequential 11:45 Biden & Trump can’t be evaluated fairly for many years 12:30 What does a real reckoning look like in the Trump era? 13:45 The institution least capable of reckoning with Epstein is the government 14:15 The private sector is forcing accountability, the government isn’t 15:15 Trust is the currency of government, and Trump’s doesn’t have it 16:15 The Justice Department is only worried about narrative management 17:30 The system looks like a club, designed to protect the powerful 18:45 Epstein is a test of whether the government can tell the truth 20:00 DHS shutting down, politicians using paychecks as leverage 20:30 We a governing via a “hostage system” 21:45 There isn’t a single good argument for masking ICE agents 22:15 The Democrats’ demands are not extreme, they’re common sense 23:15 Noem & Lewandowski treating DHS like their personal plaything 24:00 Pattern of government saying one thing, facts saying another 25:15 Whatever Noem says first, you can’t believe it. She gaslights the public 26:00 The government has lied too many times, gets no benefit of the doubt 26:45 El Paso FAA incident is case study for public distrusting institutions 27:45 DoD was lying to the FAA, FAA pulled the emergency brakes 29:00 DoD put lives in danger with no accountability 29:30 Moderna says HHS refused to review MRNA flu vaccine 30:15 The U.S. is not a stable country to develop & release products 31:00 Kennedy only offers crackpot theories & totally unfit for office 32:00 We can’t trust the government to tell us the truth about anything 32:30 DOJ fired antitrust chief, powerful interests get what they want 34:00 Epstein isn’t just a scandal, it’s a mirror 43:30 Gene Sperling joins the Chuck Toddcast 45:30 The wild story of how Gene ended up in Santa Monica 46:45 Aaron Sorkin couldn’t meet with Gene due to legal trouble 49:45 Real politics/news look nothing like “West Wing” or “The Newsroom” 51:00 The one truism about the West Wing is good people trying to do good 52:45 Politics is NOT like House of Cards 54:15 West Wing still remains viable, any chance of a reboot? 55:30 What’s the state of the economy? What do you look for? 56:15 Biden economy was strong growth, but high inflation 57:00 Biden achieved the “soft landing” they were trying for 58:15 Inflation was global and mostly due to Covid supply chain shocks 59:45 The American Rescue Plan had many positive effects 1:00:45 Every head of state poured money into economies during Covid 1:01:45 Covid was going to result in either inflation or recession 1:03:30 Obama couldn’t pass enough stimulus during Great Recession 1:04:30 A little extra stimulus can help offset future unknowns 1:05:15 Millennials’ future was permanently damaged by Great Recession 1:06:30 A generation had never seen high inflation until Covid 1:07:30 Anger over inflation sunk Biden’s re-election 1:08:30 Inflation is bipartisan, took down 3 different presidents 1:09:30 Inflation affects everyone, jobs & unemployment don’t 1:10:45 Every head of state suffered politically post pandemic 1:12:45 Will Biden baggage sink Pete Buttigieg, or is that overstated? 1:14:30 Biden’s conflict was empathy for suffering vs touting achievements 1:16:45 Biden had the tiniest of margins to pass major legislation 1:18:00 Gene is unlikely to work in a future Democratic administration 1:18:45 Pitchforks are being sharpened for corporations and big tech 1:19:30 Will worker rage fuel the next election? 1:20:30 Presidents that do well offer optimism, but confront economic injustice 1:22:00 People don’t want to feel like they are being extracted for profits 1:24:00 AI growth can’t come at the expense of working people 1:25:30 AI policy should be shaped around improving conditions for people 1:26:45 What lessons from globalization can be used to alleviate AI disruption? 1:28:30 Clinton believed in robust response to globalization 1:29:30 Clinton couldn’t implement strong safety net after losing congress 1:31:15 You have to have policies where people don’t feel left behind 1:33:00 We need to create and fund jobs that create dignity 1:33:45 We need to create an economic dignity floor for all Americans 1:35:45 When is a company too big to regulate? 1:38:00 If companies are disproportionately determining policies, they’re too big 1:38:45 Crypto & AI are getting what they want from huge lobbying money 1:39:30 A handful of AI companies could determine structure of the economy 1:41:45 The Trump White House has invited corporate influence 1:49:45 What if Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie ran on “accountability” ticket 1:51:00 A bipartisan ticket of “pox on both their houses” could be powerful 1:51:45 ToddCast Time Machine February 21st, 1848 1:52:00 Marx & Engels publish the communist manifesto 1:52:45 Monarchies were colliding with modern economic forces 1:54:15 Marx argued that capitalism is destabilizing if left unchecked 1:55:15 If the manifesto was called something else, how would we view it? 1:55:45 Marx doesn’t argue reform, says that capitalism will destroy itself 1:56:30 Communist states didn’t emerge until decades after manifesto 1:57:15 Manifesto gave dictators arguments to grab power 1:58:00 Marx talked in economics, dictators exploited his language 1:59:30 Communism took hold in places where industrialization fell behind 2:00:15 Manifesto gets invoked badly by both sides in American politics 2:01:00 Marx’s diagnosis was spot on, his solutions were questionable 2:02:30 Lack of regulation for AI will push people to radicalism 2:03:00 Ask Chuck 2:03:15 Does something seem off with the administration’s economic numbers? 2:07:30 Do we need a punchier title than “Gate” for political scandals? 2:10:00 Do we need to withhold congressional salaries during shutdowns? 2:14:00 Missing intellectuals like Rahm Emmanuel leading the country 2:16:00 What is the criteria for impeachment of cabinet members? 2:18:45 Favorite football/baseball players as a kid?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd takes a hard look at the state of American governance and institutional trust — or the lack of it. He starts by reflecting on the historical significance of three consecutive one-term presidents, ranking his top five most underrated commanders-in-chief and arguing that both Biden and Trump are unlikely to be viewed as consequential a century from now. From there, Todd pivots to a searing indictment of the current moment: from the Epstein reckoning exposing the government's inability to tell the truth, to DHS being treated as a political plaything by Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski, to the DOD endangering lives in the El Paso FAA incident with zero accountability, to Moderna alleging that HHS refused to even review an mRNA flu vaccine under RFK Jr.'s watch. He connects the dots across a pattern of institutional dishonesty — a Justice Department focused on narrative management, masked ICE agents no one can justify, a fired antitrust chief clearing the way for powerful interests, and a "hostage system" style of governing that holds federal paychecks as leverage — making the case that when the government lies this often, it forfeits the benefit of the doubt on everything, and that the Epstein scandal isn't just a story about one man, but a mirror reflecting a system designed to protect the powerful. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the publishing of the Communist Manifesto and argues that while its critiques of the excesses of capitalism were correct… it’s revolutionary prescriptions led to the worst authoritarian states in modern history. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:30 We’ve had 3 straight one term presidents, deem them all failures 03:45 Inability to win reelection will always be seen as an asterisk 04:45 Top 5 most underrated presidents 05:00 James Polk was the only voluntary one term president 05:45 James Garfield was a fierce advocate for civil rights 06:30 George H.W. Bush was accomplished, but not a good politician 07:30 John Quincy Adams laid out modern American infrastructure 08:00 Jimmy Carter did many things that have aged well 09:15 In 100 years, Biden & Trump likely won’t be viewed as consequential 10:45 Biden & Trump can’t be evaluated fairly for many years 11:30 What does a real reckoning look like in the Trump era? 12:45 The institution least capable of reckoning with Epstein is the government 13:15 The private sector is forcing accountability, the government isn’t 14:15 Trust is the currency of government, and Trump’s doesn’t have it 15:15 The Justice Department is only worried about narrative management 16:30 The system looks like a club, designed to protect the powerful 17:45 Epstein is a test of whether the government can tell the truth 19:00 DHS shutting down, politicians using paychecks as leverage 19:30 We a governing via a “hostage system” 20:45 There isn’t a single good argument for masking ICE agents 21:15 The Democrats’ demands are not extreme, they’re common sense 22:15 Noem & Lewandowski treating DHS like their personal plaything 23:00 Pattern of government saying one thing, facts saying another 24:15 Whatever Noem says first, you can’t believe it. She gaslights the public 25:00 The government has lied too many times, gets no benefit of the doubt 25:45 El Paso FAA incident is case study for public distrusting institutions 26:45 DoD was lying to the FAA, FAA pulled the emergency brakes 28:00 DoD put lives in danger with no accountability 28:30 Moderna says HHS refused to review MRNA flu vaccine 29:15 The U.S. is not a stable country to develop & release products 30:00 Kennedy only offers crackpot theories & totally unfit for office 31:00 We can’t trust the government to tell us the truth about anything 31:30 DOJ fired antitrust chief, powerful interests get what they want 33:00 Epstein isn’t just a scandal, it’s a mirror 42:15 What if Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie ran on “accountability” ticket 43:30 A bipartisan ticket of “pox on both their houses” could be powerful 44:15 ToddCast Time Machine February 21st, 1848 44:30 Marx & Engels publish the communist manifesto 45:15 Monarchies were colliding with modern economic forces 46:45 Marx argued that capitalism is destabilizing if left unchecked 47:45 If the manifesto was called something else, how would we view it? 48:15 Marx doesn’t argue reform, says that capitalism will destroy itself 49:00 Communist states didn’t emerge until decades after manifesto 49:45 Manifesto gave dictators arguments to grab power 50:30 Marx talked in economics, dictators exploited his language 52:00 Communism took hold in places where industrialization fell behind 52:45 Manifesto gets invoked badly by both sides in American politics 53:30 Marx’s diagnosis was spot on, his solutions were questionable 55:00 Lack of regulation for AI will push people to radicalism 55:30 Ask Chuck 55:45 Does something seem off with the administration’s economic numbers? 1:00:00 Do we need a punchier title than “Gate” for political scandals? 1:02:30 Do we need to withhold congressional salaries during shutdowns? 1:06:30 Missing intellectuals like Rahm Emmanuel leading the country 1:08:30 What is the criteria for impeachment of cabinet members? 1:11:15 Favorite football/baseball players as a kid?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Discourses Bullets, Ep. 143 As normal people who value ideological and logical consistency, we tend to find movements like the Red-Green Alliance (Communists and Islamists) and "Queers for Palestine" confusing. How can people with such different views and goals work together? Obviously, part of the answer is the simple one: they have a common enemy to defeat and can work out their differences after they solve that problem. Nevertheless, the answer to this question, at least from the Communist side, is written explicitly as a command on the last page of the Communist Manifesto. Communists will always take the side of any movement against the existing order of things, simple as that. Host James Lindsay explains this to you in this important episode of New Discourses Bullets. You don't want to miss it. Latest from New Discourses Press! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2026 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #Communist

The simplistic binary thinking of the Republican partisan - "Everyone who disagrees with Trump is a leftist/communist!" Ironically, the GOP is running the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto on a daily basis. And Trump is leading them even further LEFT. And our newest "economist", Dr. Oz, says "More work for the collective, tax slave!" Rubio, the Neo-Con darling of MAGA, cares deeply for the Iranian people! Not so much about Americans.    

MAO'S XENOPHOBIC REVOLUTION AND THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD Colleague Professor Sean McMeekin. Moving to China, McMeekin explains that Mao Zedong's ideology was a "bizarre melange" of Marxism, class envy, and intense xenophobia. Unlike European communists, Chinese communism was driven by a deep resentment of foreign imperialism. The conversation analyzes the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward, where Maoattempted to surpass British economic output by collectivizing agriculture and creating "industrial armies"—an idea taken directly from the Communist Manifesto and Stalin's Five-Year Plans. This experiment resulted in the death of 40 to 45 million people. McMeekin notes that Mao ignored warnings from Soviet advisors to avoid their past mistakes, driven instead by a competitive desire to outdo the Soviets and a "fantasmagorical" hatred of foreign influence. NUMBER 5

When Karl Marx unleashed his manifesto on the world it went largely unnoticed. Even countries with strict book laws let it pass because it was seen as absurd and something no one would read or be interested in.  Who was Karl Marx? Why did only a hand full of people show up at his funeral? Was Karl Marx a genius or a madman with the fever dream of the ultimate slacker?Email us at: downtherh@protonmail.com

When Karl Marx unleashed his "manifesto" on the world it went largely unnoticed. Even countries with strict book laws let it pass because it was seen as absurd and something no one would read or be interested in.Who was Karl Marx? Why did only a hand full of people show up at his funeral?Was Karl Marx a genius or a madman with the fever dream of the ultimate slacker?Email us at: downtherh@protonmail.com

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 19th century philosophers and social theorists, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, articulated in their work The Communist Manifesto. This episode examines the Marxist critique of other forms of Socialism articulated in the third part of the Communist manifesto, as well as the Marxist argument that only their program can adequately address the condition of the Proletariat To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find the Communist Manifesto free online here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 19th century philosophers and social theorists, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, articulated in their work The Communist Manifesto. This episode examines what Marx and Engels envision the role of the Communist Party to be in relation to leadership of, and the development of class consciousness in, the Proletariat. They also address some of the objections made against the Communist program, and set out what their particular goals are. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find the Communist Manifesto free online here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 19th century philosophers and social theorists, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, articulated in their work The Communist Manifesto. This episode examines Marx and Engel's description of the formation and emergence of the revolutionary class in industrial capitalism, the Proletariat To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find the Communist Manifesto free online here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 19th century philosophers and social theorists, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, articulated in their work The Communist Manifesto. This episode examines Marx and Engel's conception of class struggle and history in the Communist Manifesto, particularly the rise of the bourgeoisie from a minor class in earlier historical periods to the dominant class in the modern industrial period. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find the Communist Manifesto free online here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

“I've been fighting communism by teaching capitalism,” says Robert Kiyosaki, holding up a copy of Karl Marx's “Communist Manifesto” and a copy of his book “The Capitalist Manifesto.”Robert Kiyosaki became famous as the author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” a book that has sold 48 million copies worldwide since its 1997 publication.Kiyosaki maintains that in today's America, plagued by high inflation and a crumbling dollar, rich dads are getting ever richer while poor dads are getting poorer:“Food gets up in price, but the poor and middle class have to pay for it. So my apartment houses go up, but the poor middle class go homeless. And that's the seed of communism, that's the seed of revolt,” he says.In this episode, we dive into what he sees as the roots of America's economic woes and what young people can do in today's economy to build wealth and prosperity.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

This week on Crack the Book, we dive into a fascinating mix of political and philosophical texts from Ted Gioia's Immersive Humanities List: the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Communist Manifesto, and Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women.I revisit the Declaration with fresh eyes—its sharp list of grievances and its insistence on mutual respect still sparkle with clarity. The Constitution, shorter than I expected, impressed me with how firmly it centers the individual while still designing a workable government.From there we move to Marx and Engels, whose Manifesto frames history as a struggle between classes and calls for radical redistribution of power. Finally, I explore Wollstonecraft's early feminist argument for women's education and its importance for society's progress.Next week: a palate-cleansing turn to Jane Austen. Join me!LINKTed Gioia/The Honest Broker's 12-Month Immersive Humanities Course (paywalled!)My Amazon Book List (NOT an affiliate link)The Preamble, in case you need a refresher!CONNECTThe complete list of Crack the Book Episodes: https://cheryldrury.substack.com/p/crack-the-book-start-here?r=u3t2rTo read more of my writing, visit my Substack - https://www.cheryldrury.substack.com.Follow me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/cldrury/ LISTENSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5GpySInw1e8IqNQvXow7Lv?si=9ebd5508daa245bdApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crack-the-book/id1749793321 Captivate - https://crackthebook.captivate.fm

“. . . who, remembering that these (policies of high taxation and centralisation of credit) were the demands of the Manifesto (issued by Marx and Engels in 1848), can doubt our common inspiration.” -Professor Harold Laski, famous Fabian Socialist theoretician in his Appreciation of the Communist Manifesto for the Labour Party (1948)Communist Canada New World Order (Pierre Elliott Trudeau) February 22, 1977Fabian Socialist Penetration in OttawaTHE FABIAN SOCIALIST CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNIST ADVANCE BY ERIC D. BUTLE This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dwtruthwarrior.substack.com/subscribe

Harriet Langley-Swindon and Producer Martin speak to Chancellor Rachel Reeves about the similarities between this week's budget and the Communist Manifesto; Producer Martin goes undercover to expose two members of the House Of Lords who are willing to lobby - and more - for cash; Eshaan Akbar asks if Marjorie Taylor Green... is Woke?Thanks to Jon Blyth for singing up to our Patreon this week. He, like all our Patreons, will also hear an interview with a man who suffers from Replytis, a devastating condition that prevents you from shutting up online - but you can only hear that by going to Patreon.com/NonCensored and signing up for just £4/£8 month. You'd also get every episode early and without adverts, access to the full video of the interviews and podcasts, as well as bonus segments.All the cool kids are filling in this survey: http://bit.ly/noncensored-survey. You don't want to be an uncool kid, do you?With thanks to Rosie Holt, Brendan Murphy, Eshaan Akbar, Davina Bentley, Larry & Paul, Cody Dahler and Ed Morrish.Rosie's book, Why We Were Right, is available now.Brendan is currently on tour with his show, Buffy ReVamped.Eshaan has an hour-long special, The Pretender, available to watch on YouTube.Davina does sketches on Instagram, and is doing a work-in-progress at the Bill Murray in January, in a double bill with Rosie.Larry & Paul put their best work on their YouTube channel, these days.Ed also produces Sound Heap With John-Luke Roberts, another improvised sketch comedy podcast. Show photography is by Karla Gowlett and design is by Chris Barker. Original music is by Paddy Gervers and Rob Sell at Torch and Compass.NonCensored is a Lead Mojo production. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

HEADLINE: Mao Zedong, Xenophobia, and the Failure of the Great Leap Forward GUEST AUTHOR: Professor Sean McMeekin 50-WORD SUMMARY: Mao Zedong blended Marxism with fierce anti-imperialism and xenophobia, targeting the "global imperialistic system" and foreign influence. The Great Leap Forward combined elements from The Communist Manifesto, Stalin's collectivization, and competition with Khrushchev. This disastrous experiment, aiming to surpass Britain, led to chaos, famine, and the deaths of 40 to 45 million people.

"Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary." - Austrian Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1950) The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics was recently awarded to Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University, Philippe Aghion, who is affiliated with universities in France and the U.K., and Peter Howitt, a professor of economics at Brown University. Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt worked together for decades to develop and publish a model that makes it possible to better understand business growth - but not just any growth. The growth fueled by Creative Destruction. Creative Destruction was first described by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942 in response to ideas from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. In fact, Marx thought, and Schumpeter agreed, that it would lead to the end of capitalism… they just didn't agree on why. In this episode of the Art of Supply podcast, Kelly Barner covers: What Creative Destruction is, and why it is no ordinary form of growth How the idea is connected to the potential end of capitalism Why it is so fascinating that this idea is being highlighted at this moment in time, with the rise of AI right before us. Links: Kelly Barner on LinkedIn Art of Supply LinkedIn newsletter Art of Supply on AOP Subscribe to This Week in Procurement

Communism isn't just another economic theory—it's a calculated strategy to destroy traditional institutions and seize absolute power. Matt Shea and his Gen Z co-host expose the Communist Manifesto's explicit calls for abolishing family, religion, and national identity while highlighting how these destructive ideas are infiltrating modern society through seemingly progressive movements. ____________ VERITY METALS Convert your 401k or IRA into physical gold to protect your retirement from a volatile stock market and inflation. Your gold can be safely stored at a location of your choice, including your own business. https://converttogold.com ____________ FOLLOW US X: https://x.com/RepMattShea Telegram: https://t.me/patriotradious Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/patriotradious Podcast: https://mattshea.podbean.com #live #patriotradious #news #truth #america

New Sode Glitter Ledger; I must be the only person on God's Green Earth who is so deeply unimpressed with AI. Have you ever heard one of your peers or staff speak with authority on the topic without sounding like a complete pompous asshole with small anatomy and/or a  troubling complexion? Alas, I consider myself a deeply attractive pompous asshole with a kind stalker-like disposition . As such, I use ChatGPT like rest of my well bred waspy goldigging alcoholic materialistic sxually starved intellectuals for concoctions on how to seduce a Sheik or for how to leverage all of my alimony into a House in St St. Tropez. Otherwise, I see the AI use cases as a Communist Manifesto; good idea in practice, but everyone ends up #poor.  Perhaps automated workflows are uninteresting to yours truly because I have no workflow to automate. Ipso Facto; wake me when #AI can give my husband a uknowwhat and design a powerpoint that designs a plan to launder money for the lazy. I digress,, my guest today is a real Crypto Nigerian Prince, side ordered as a well dressed Zoologist turned Ava Labs Executive. Not to be confused with an Avalanche Foundation executive. Yes, Afeez Awowole. He is a sought after guest and heavily edited my questions because most were too personal and likely  indictable.  I was looking forward to learning how to cook the books beyond throwing my journals into boiling water. I asked him why #accounting is so boring. I asked how to talk about balance sheets with a hint of mortifying sexual tension. When I was high on quaaludes I took out a mortgage that I made on crayons to buy more #AVAX and could only eat chickpeas and prosecco for 3 weeks. ButI lost a stone so I am bullish. Furthermore, my ex had a penchant for the P-chain.#Avalanche is the less cute stepsister of #Solana with an Ivy League degree and a #vicodin problem. She has what it takes to succeed with meaningful useless institutional partnerships for real world assets that I cannot melt down into a bullet. Real world assets should not be on-chain and should be in a #vault. Although I have some assets onchain I lost them because it is too goddamn complicated to retrieve. But like #Jesus Christ rising on Easter, Avax too will rise. I digress, Awkle met during the early days of Facebook in Ireland, I was working as a cocktail waitress on the lam and he helped set up a sick album. I was desperately in love with him but he maintained that he couldn't marry a married woman . Instead he agreed to help me put my ConED on autopay and teach me the zoology of #Ocelots. He is deeply intelligent to the point of sinister intrigue. His accent is a country club pour of Miles Davis meets Michael Saylor meets Liam Neeson. If this Nigerian Prince says Avalanche will change the world then it's indeed time to take out a third mortgage in Cray Paux right in time for Halloween. #GlitterLedger #Avax #AutomateMyPChainSupport the show

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 180 After a long wait, we return to finish our exploration (https://newdiscourses.com/2025/07/the-communist-manifesto-volume-one/) of The Communist Manifesto (pdf: https://newdiscourses.com/2025/07/the-communist-manifesto-volume-one/) here on the New Discourses Podcast. In this episode, host James Lindsay takes you through the last chapter of the Manifesto itself and then continues to "The Principles of Communism," which Friedrich Engels wrote, originally as a "Communist Confession of Faith" in 1847, a year before the Manifesto was published with Karl Marx. He and Marx wrote it for the Communist League, which is given as an offshoot of the League of the Just, a revolutionary secret society made up of scattered French radicals and the remnant-in-exile of the Bavarian Illuminati. Join James for this clear look into the foundations of organized Communism and the principles upon which it was organized. Latest from New Discourses Press! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2025 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay

James Lindsay once exposed the woke left's insanity with a hoax. Now he's exposed part of the right for bashing liberty and even embracing Marxist ideas.To prove it, he sent a conservative magazine a revised version of "The Communist Manifesto." They published it! He calls them the “woke right" because they "behave like the tyrants of the woke left." In this podcast, Lindsay explains why they're a problem. We also discuss why capitalism is hated, and how normal people fall for dangerous ideas.

The Communist Manifesto is one of the most influential and divisive works of political philosophy. Yet it almost seems quaint and harmless in a modern world of global Capitalist reach, and more rhetorical than scientific compared to the more systematic and explanatory Capital. Is Marx's theory of capitalist greed and social upheaval still relevant in a post Cold War world? Or is this a harmless historical phenomenon, relevant only in its time?Additional readings include: Bakunin's God and the State, Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism, Sorel's Reflections on Violence, Chernyshevsky's What is to Be Done?, Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, and Morris' News from Nowhere. And while I suspect I should be able to find a better mechanical representation of political revolution in video game history, I'm stuck instead with Red Faction: Guerrilla, which is a smarter game then it first seems, but is still pretty dang dumb.If you would rather check out Professor Kozlowski's other online projects than immediately rise up against your oppressors (all you have to lose are your chains!), check out his website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠professorkozlowski.wordpress.com

Though various forms of Capitalism have existed since ancient times, Adam Smith in 1776, was the first to philosophize the concept of free markets. The Industrial Revolution gave Capitalism a massive boost but the exploitation of labor led Karl Marx to publish the Communist Manifesto in 1848 and Das Kapital in 1867.

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 170 It is long past time we take a look at the Communist Manifesto (instead of just sending it to dubious Woke Right outlets and getting them to publish it: https://newdiscourses.com/2024/12/a-communist-manifesto-for-christian-nationalists-testing-the-woke-right/). Obviously, this infamous document (pdf: https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf) is not the beginning point of Communism, but is the beginning point of organized Communism, particularly of the Marxist type, which we have recently (https://newdiscourses.com/2025/06/communism-is-not-atheist) and thoroughly discussed. In this long-overdue episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay takes you through the main body of the Manifesto of the Communist Party: preface, chapter one, and chapter two. In a subsequent episode (Volume Two in this mini-series) he will cover a later addition called "The Principles of Communism." There's a lot here, and you won't want to miss it. Latest book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2025 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #communism

When you're born into wealth, attend the best schools, and still manage to get kicked out of half of Europe, you might be Karl Marx, the bearded chaos merchant who thought capitalism sucked and spent most of his life borrowing rent money from his contemporary/co-writer/patron Friedrich Engels.In this episode of History's Greatest Idiots, we take a cold, sobering plunge into the life of the man who gave us The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, inspired countless revolutions, and yet somehow couldn't hold down a job or manage a budget to save his life (or his children's lives, sadly). From his toxic academic ego to the world's slowest writing habits and a bizarre refusal to bathe, Marx was less a revolutionary hero and more “guy who ruins the pub chat by quoting Hegel.”Join us as we explore how a man with brilliant ideas and disastrous follow-through became one of the most influential (and, in many ways, idiotic) figures in modern history.⁠https://www.patreon.com/HistorysGreatestIdiots⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/historysgreatestidiots⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Artist: Sarah Chey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.fiverr.com/sarahchey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Animation: Daniel Wilson⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/wilson_the_wilson/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Music: Andrew Wilson⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/andrews_electric_sheep⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://streamyard.com/pal/d/4675161203933184⁠

Send us a textAs Christians, how should we respond to those who sit on the far left?This episode was originally made available to my Patreon community on 27th May 2024.... I hope you find this helpful for context and application.Support the showTo listen to my monthly church history podcast, subscribe at; https://thehistoryofthechristianchurch.buzzsprout.com For an ad-free version of my podcasts plus the opportunity to enjoy hours of exclusive content and two bonus episodes a month whilst also helping keep the Bible Project Daily Podcast free for listeners everywhere support me at;|PatreonSupport me to continue making great content for listeners everywhere.https://thebibleproject.buzzsprout.com

Rogers for America with Lt. Steve Rogers – Some young people even think communism is not such a bad idea. President Trump has already sounded the alarm about what is occurring in New York City, and it is imperative that every American begin to sound the alarm about the clear and present danger of what is clearly an anti-American movement that can spread across America like never before in history...

Hi everyone! We are thrilled to announce that we will be performing live on August 7 at the Epiphany Center for the Arts in Chicago.This is a one-time only event and tickets are limited! Get yours here:https://epiphanychi.com/events/whats-left-of-philosophy-live-show-karl-marxs-communist-manifesto/Among other things, we're planning to talk about the Communist Manifesto. The event will be filmed and released as a special episode.We're really excited about this – it's going to be a fantastic time, and we hope to see you there! Thanks for all your support.leftofphilosophy.comMusic: “Bubble” by Sun Cuts | https://get.slip.stream/3wxjrv/

6/12/2025 PODCAST Episodes #1997 - #1999 GUESTS: Rep. Mike Kennedy, Brandon Weichert, Col. John Mills, Del Walmsley, Jim Pfaff, Rob Hersov + YOUR CALLS! at 1-888-480-JOHN (5646) and GETTR Live! @jfradioshow #GodzillaOfTruth #TruckingTheTruth   Want more of today's show? Episode #1997 USAID Taxpayer Money is funding Communist Revolution Episode #1998 Financial Freedom and the Trump Revolution Episode #1999 DNC Dusts off The Soviet Communist Manifesto   https://johnfredericksradio.libsyn.com/

Part 1 The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx SummaryThe Communist Manifesto: Summary Introduction: The Communist Manifesto, authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and published in 1848, serves as a political pamphlet that outlines the principles of communism and the authors' critique of capitalism. It is divided into four sections, each addressing different aspects of societal development, class struggles, and the concept of communism as a revolutionary response to pervasive inequality. Bourgeois and Proletarians: The manifesto begins by explaining the history of society as a history of class struggles. It delineates two primary classes: the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class who own the means of production) and the proletariat (the working class who sell their labor). The authors argue that the rise of the bourgeoisie during the industrial revolution has led to the oppression of the proletariat. They assert that the capitalist system is inherently exploitative, as the value generated by workers is appropriated by the capitalist class, resulting in vast profits for the bourgeoisie and impoverishment for the proletariat. Proletarians and Communists: In this section, Marx and Engels clarify the role of communists within the broader working-class movement. They emphasize that communists do not form a separate party but rather represent the interests of the proletariat as a whole. The manifesto asserts that communists aim to abolish private property, which they claim is the root of class division and exploitation. They advocate for the transformation of society through collective ownership of the means of production, establishing a classless society that prioritizes human needs over profit. Socialist and Communist Literature: Marx and Engels critique various contemporary socialist and communist literature, exposing their limitations and misconceptions. They criticize utopian socialism for being overly idealistic and lacking a practical political strategy. Instead, they call for a revolutionary approach to dismantle the capitalist system, arguing that the working class must unite to achieve their emancipation. Position of Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties: The final section addresses the political landscape of Europe at the time, discussing the various radical movements against the ruling class. Marx and Engels encourage the workers of the world to rally together in solidarity, emphasizing internationalism and the idea that workers of all nations have a common interest in overthrowing their oppressors. They conclude with a famous rallying cry: "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Conclusion: The Communist Manifesto is both a political document and a call to action. It articulates the grievances of the working class under capitalism, while advocating for revolutionary change. Marx and Engels' work has had a profound impact on political thought and movements across the globe, shaping the discourse on class struggle, socialism, and communism.Part 2 The Communist Manifesto AuthorKarl Marx, the German philosopher, economist, and political theorist, co-authored "The Communist Manifesto" with Friedrich Engels. This pivotal political document was first published in London on February 21, 1848. It lays out the principles of Communism and argues for class struggle as the engine of historical and social change. Other Notable Works by Karl Marx:Das Kapital (Capital: Critique of Political Economy) The first volume was published in 1867, and subsequent volumes were published posthumously by Friedrich Engels. "Das Kapital" is considered Marx's major work, in which he critiques the political economy and explores the nature of capitalism.The German Ideology (written in 1845-46, published posthumously in 1932) This work, co-authored...

J.D. Hayworth, former U.S. Congressman (R-AZ) and spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance (PRA), calls-in to the show to discuss his recent piece “Big pharma puts other countries first and America last. It’s time we change that” from The Washington Times. A listener call-in on reading the Communist Manifesto as a religious person.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Sep 27, 2023 In this crossover conversation, Jared from Millennials Are Killing Capitalism joins Breht to dive deep into Friedrich Engels' Principles of Communism—a crucial draft that laid the groundwork for the Communist Manifesto. Together, they unpack the text's key insights, from the historical development of class struggle to the revolutionary role of the proletariat. This episode explores Engels' clear, accessible articulation of communist principles, examines the dialectical materialist worldview that underpins the document, and connects these foundational ideas to today's struggles under late capitalism. Along the way, Jared and Breht reflect on the enduring relevance of Engels' thought, challenge liberal misreadings of Marxism, and offer a grounded, revolutionary take on what it means to fight for communism in the 21st century. Whether you're new to socialist theory or looking to revisit its roots, this episode provides both historical clarity and political urgency. ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio: https://revleftradio.com/ Outro Beat Prod. by flip da hood  

Jasper Bernes discusses worker self-organization, labor time accounting and the revolutionary potential of workers' councils.   Shownotes Jasper's personal website: https://jasperbernes.net/ Jasper at UC Berkeley: https://english.berkeley.edu/people/jasper-bernes Commune Magazine: https://communemag.com/ Bernes, J. (2025). The Future of Revolution: Communist Prospects from the Paris Commune to the George Floyd Uprising. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/977-the-future-of-revolution Bernes, J. (2020). Planning and Anarchy. South Atlantic Quarterly, 119(1), 53–73. https://jasperbernes.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1190053.pdf on Worker's councils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council on Council communism: https://libcom.org/article/council-communism-introduction on the Paris Commune: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune on Rosa Luxemburg and the Mass Strike: https://www.rosalux.de/en/news/id/43964/rosa-luxemburg-and-the-political-mass-strike Nunes, R. (2021). Neither Vertical nor Horizontal: A Theory of Political Organization. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/772-neither-vertical-nor-horizontal Find the quote “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” at the end of Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm Group of International Communists (1990) [German original 1930] Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution. https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/gik/1930/index.htm second, revised edition from 1935, published in English in 2020: https://arbeitszeit.noblogs.org/files/2023/04/GIC-Fundamental-Principles-2.-Ed.1935-1.pdf on Jan Appel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Appel on Labor Time Calculation/Accounting: https://arbeitszeit.noblogs.org/en-GB/basics/ Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ on Communization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communization Noys, B. (Ed.). (2012). Communization and its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles. Minor Compositions. https://files.libcom.org/files/Communization-and-its-Discontents-Contestation-Critique-and-Contemporary-Struggles.pdf on Gilles Dauvé: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Dauv%C3%A9 on the law of Value in Marx: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value on Paul Mattick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mattick Roth, G. (2014). Marxism in a Lost Century: A Biography of Paul Mattick. BRILL. https://files.libcom.org/files/Gary%20Roth%20-%20Marxism%20in%20a%20Lost%20Century%20-%20A%20Biography%20of%20Paul%20Mattick.pdf Mattick's introduction to the 1970 reprint of the German first edition of “Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution”: https://www.leftcommunism.org/spip.php?article359 on the Communist Party of Germany, founded in 1919: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany on Amadeo Bordiga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeo_Bordiga Bordiga on the distinction between the city and the countryside: https://peopleandnature.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bordiga-humansearth.pdf Raekstad, P. R., & Gradin, S. S. (2019). Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today. Polity. https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=prefigurative-politics-building-tomorrow-today--9781509535903 the Endnotes Journal: https://endnotes.org.uk/ on the German strand of the “Commons” debate and movement: https://commons-institut.org/theorie/was-sind-commons/ https://keimform.de/ Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1993). Waiting for the Revolution, or How to Smash Capitalism while Working at Home in Your Spare Time. Rethinking Marxism, 6(2), 10–24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08935699308658052 Purnell, D. (2021).  Becoming Abolitionists: Police, Protest, and the Pursuit of Freedom. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2894-becoming-abolitionists   Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S3E04 | Tim Platenkamp on Republican Socialism, General Planning and Parametric Control https://futurehistories-international.com/episodes/s03/e04-tim-platenkamp-on-republican-socialism-general-planning-and-parametric-control/ S02E58 | Søren Mau on Planning and Freedom https://futurehistories-international.com/episodes/s02/e58-soren-mau-on-planning-and-freedom/ S02E19 | David Laibman on Multilevel Democratic Iterative Coordination https://futurehistories-international.com/episodes/s02/e19-david-laibman-on-multilevel-democratic-iterative-coordination/ S02E10 | Aaron Benanav on Associational Socialism and Democratic Planning https://futurehistories-international.com/episodes/s02/e10-aaron-benanav-on-associational-socialism-and-democratic-planning/ S01E58 | Jasper Bernes on Planning and Anarchy https://futurehistories-international.com/episodes/s01/e58-jasper-bernes-on-planning-and-anarchy/   --- If you are interested in democratic economic planning, these resources might be of help: Democratic planning – an information website https://www.democratic-planning.com/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (eds.)(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. [for a review copy, please contact: amber.lanfranchi[at]bristol.ac.uk] https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/ --- Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #JasperBernes, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #FutureHistoriesInternational, #futurehistoriesinternational, #DemocraticPlanning, #DemocraticEconomicPlanning, #PoliticalEconomy, #History, #Revolution, #Revolutions, #RosaLuxemburg, #CouncilCommunism, #LaborTimeAccounting, #LaborTimeCalculation, #Capitalism, #Economics, #CouncilCommunism, #WorkersCouncils, #WorkerSelfOrganisation, #PoliceAbolition, #Communisation, #ParisCommune, #GroupOfInternationalCommunists

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Mar 6, 2023 In this insightful episode, bestselling author and acclaimed literary critic China Miéville joins Breht to explore his newest book, "A Spectre, Haunting: On The Communist Manifesto." Together, they examine the enduring literary power and historical significance of Marx and Engels' groundbreaking text, unpacking its vibrant prose and revolutionary fervor. They also delve into the historical circumstances surrounding its creation and discuss its growing contemporary relevance amid today's global challenges. A must-listen for those interested in literature, history, and the ongoing relevance of radical political thought. ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio HERE

We explore the profound influence of Marxist ideology on American society and how it continues to shape modern political discourse through divisive identity politics and constitutional erosion.• Karl Marx's philosophy established class warfare by pitting the bourgeoisie (business owners) against the proletariat (working class)• The Communist Manifesto contains ten planks that are recognizable in today's policies, including graduated income tax• Education has become a battleground for control with systematic removal of constitutional understanding from schools• Government officials actively encourage division rather than unity as a means of maintaining power• People are selectively taught historical figures who support collectivist narratives while those who warned against communism are ignored• The 16th Amendment fundamentally altered the citizen-government relationship by allowing direct federal taxation of individuals• Solutions begin at the state level where citizens must elect representatives who understand their constitutional obligations• The most effective defense against tyranny remains an educated citizenry who cannot be easily manipulatedRead "The Communist Manifesto" to recognize its principles in today's politics, and pick up a copy of the Constitution to understand your rights. Get educated, push back at the state level, and don't allow yourself to be categorized as part of a group rather than as an individual.Boundless Insights - with Aviva KlompasIn depth analysis of what's happening in Israel—and why it matters everywhere.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showDON'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY, PLUS, SAVE 15%: https://www.twc.health/elsa#ifounditonamazon https://a.co/ekT4dNOTRY AUDIBLE PLUS: https://amzn.to/3vb6Rw3Elsa's Books: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B01E1VFRFQDesign Like A Pro: https://canva.7eqqol.net/xg6Nv...

In Locust Radio episode #30, Tish Turl interviews fellow Locust comrade, Adam Turl, on their new book, Gothic Capitalism: Art Evicted from Heaven and Earth (Revol Press, May 2, 2025). You can order the book from Revol Press, Amazon, or find it at other booksellers.Artists, ideas, books, writers, artworks and other stuff discussed in this episode: Adam Turl, Gothic Capitalism: Art Evicted from Heaven and Earth (Revol Press 2025); Ernst Fischer, The Necessity of Art (Verso, 2020); Boris Groys, “The Weak Universalism,” e-flux (2010); Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1936); Walter Benjamin, “Theses on History” (1940); John Berger, Ways of Seeing (1972); Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative (2009); Mark Fisher, Flatline Constructs: Gothic Materialism and Cybernetic Theory-Fiction (2018); Donna Harraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto” (1985); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848); Rena Rädle & Vladan Jeremić; Joseph Beuys; John Heartfield; Anupam Roy; Richard Hamilton; R. Faze; Born Again Labor Museum; Amiri Baraka; Omnia Sol; Sister Wife Sex Strike; Dada; Judy Jordan; Bertolt Brecht; Claire Bishop; The Sublime; “Third Places;” Fluxus; Abstract Expressionism; The Sopranos; The Wire; Surrealism; Charlie Jane Anders; Emily St. John Mandel; Pier Paolo Pasolini, La Ricotta (1963) and The Hawks and the Sparrows (1966); Boots Riley; Federal Arts Project; Luis Buñuel, The Exterminating Angel (1962); The Artists Union; Voltaire, Candide (1759); Gabriel García Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967); Public Enemy, Fear of a Black Planet (1989); Beethoven, Symphony #9 (1822-1824); Sam Esmail, Leave the World Behind (2023); David Cronenberg, Videodrome (1983); Richard Seymour, Disaster Nationalism (2024)Produced by Tish Turl, Adam Turl, Omnia Sol and Alexander Billet. Theme by Omnia Sol, Drew Franzblau and Adam Turl. Hosts include Tish Turl, Laura Fair-Schulz and Adam Turl.

This week, I release my first novel, The Communist Manifesto: A Revolutionary Fairy Tale. The book is a dystopian fairy tale that takes the readers through a communist revolution. It presents a story that is violent, cruel, and deeply uncomfortable. But it is the truth. If you enjoy books like The Hunger Games, 1984 and Brave New World, you'll like this book. Except this one is based on things that have happened in real life. The first review is in on Amazon:In this video, I chat with Jennifire, who was one of the very first people to read a draft of the book to offer feedback. I'm honored by her endorsement.Curious to read more? Buy the book here in Paperback and Kindle. Read the first chapter here.If you enjoy it, I hope you'll leave a review! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit karlyn.substack.com/subscribe

The Manifesto recently turned 177 years old. We'll discuss it's historic importance, and why it's still relevant today.   Get a copy of the Manifesto here: https://www.versobooks.com/.../the-communist-manifestos...   Check out our new bi-weekly series, "The Crisis Papers" here: https://www.patreon.com/bitterlakepresents/shop   Thank you guys again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and everyone of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined, BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH!   Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents?   Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!)   THANKS Y'ALL   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9WtLyoP9QU8sxuIfxk3eg Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets​ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/ Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   Read Jason Myles in Sublation Magazine https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/jason-myles Read Jason Myles in Damage Magazine https://damagemag.com/2023/11/07/the-man-who-sold-the-world/

Patrick engages with a variety of fascinating topics, starting with his responses to listener emails, where he discusses the implications of Christian nationalism and the allure of communism, particularly among young students. Patrick addresses the false promises of communism and shines a light on the pervasive influence of media messaging, with a focus on historical context and current social media trends. The episode also features discussions on ideologies, media manipulation, and dynamics within the Church. Mary (Email) - Do you think The Communist Manifesto is appropriate for a 13-year-old to read? (00:40) Audio: KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's warning to America (1984) (11:16) Audio: This is Dangerous to our Democracy (17:29) Audio: Brought to you by Pfizer (24:01) Greg - What is a good book about Confession? I bring Communion to nursing homes and one of the residents is a fallen away Catholic. (27:42) Carmen - I worked for mainstream media and left it about 4 months ago. It is funny because everything is scripted by the producer. We HAVE to follow the script. (36:32) Margaret – I disagree with you. I think the priest should have given her communion. Why does Biden get communion if women in nursing homes don’t get to receive Jesus? (42:59) Kim - If you have been annulled in the Catholic Church 4 times, can you be a Eucharistic minister? (49:02)

IT HAS BEEN said of Karl Marx that he was a fine diagnostician, but a lousy prescriber. Obviously, Marx remains a super polarizing figure even today, a good 175 years after he set the world on fire with The Communist Manifesto. But, in light of what's been done in his name over the years since then, it's certainly fair to wonder if ideas like “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” and “the workers should own the means of production” can actually work in the real world. So it's ironic that the closest thing to Marx's ideal vision of society was a little utopian community of devout but antidogmatic Christians in Oregon — none of whose residents had probably ever heard of him.... (Aurora Mills, Clackamas County; 1850s, 1860s, 1870s) (For text and pictures, see https://offbeatoregon.com/2404c-1110a.aurora-colony-best-of-utopias-080.645.html)

February 21, 1848. In London, a small publishing house releases the first edition of a book that will change the world: The Communist Manifesto.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Adam Haman joins Bob to discuss the recent feuding among right-wingers about the "Woke Right," focusing on James Lindsay's recent hoax in which a Christian Nationalist website published a dressed-up excerpt from the Communist Manifesto.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this episode.James Lindsay's recent appearance on Michael Malice's podcast (which aired after Adam and Bob recorded), discussing the latest hoax. Lindsay's blog post explaining the recent affair.Dave Smith's recent critique of Lindsay.BMS ep 102 (Feb 2020) which analyzed the Grievance Studies hoax.The Haman Nature page.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 152 On December 3, 2024, James Lindsay revealed to the world that he had perpetrated a hoax (https://newdiscourses.co/2024/12/a-communist-manifesto-for-christian-nationalists-testing-the-woke-right/) against the nominally "Christian Nationalist" magazine American Reformer in which he had rewritten a significant portion of the Communist Manifesto to flatter their "Woke Right" ideology. In the ensuing days, the hoax has caused quite a stir on the conservative side of the internet, generating a completely unexpected response in which, in addition to deflecting from the hoax and bashing James, many ostensible conservatives launched into robust defenses of Marxist analysis, critical theory, and postmodernism. How good was the hoax, though, and what did it actually say? In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay reads through a rough side-by-side comparison text (https://newdiscourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CM-for-CN-Appendix-Docs.pdf) he prepared showing how close the hoax actually was so you can hear and decide for yourself. Join him and see if you agree that the hoax was good. New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #Hoax

The written work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels called “The Communist Manifesto” was released in 1848 and listed the ten steps towards creating a dictatorship of the proletariat, in theory. The actual doing is where the problems arise, as most of the ideas advocated for in the book are not practical, and in most cases, not even possible. This book showcases the desire for a two-tiered legal system where the virtuous are hunted down and eliminated from society while the dregs of humanity run rampant and with state immunity. The vision Marx had for the future is springing to life in modern day San Francisco with soft-on-crime policies, as well as Chicago where the mayor advocates for state-run grocery stores. What could possibly go wrong. The Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMm Anarchapulco 2024 Replay: www.Anarchapulco.com Promo Code: MACRO Sponsors: Chemical Free Body: https://www.chemicalfreebody.com Promo Code: MACRO C60 Purple Power: https://c60purplepower.com/ Promo Code: MACRO Wise Wolf Gold & Silver: www.Macroaggressions.gold True Hemp Science: https://truehempscience.com/ Haelan: https://haelan951.com/pages/macro Solar Power Lifestyle: https://solarpowerlifestyle.com/ Promo Code: MACRO LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com EMP Shield: www.EMPShield.com Promo Code: MACRO Christian Yordanov's Health Transformation Program: https://christianyordanov.com/macro/ Privacy Academy: https://privacyacademy.com/step/privacy-action-plan-checkout-2/?ref=5620 Coin Bit App: https://coinbitsapp.com/?ref=0SPP0gjuI68PjGU89wUv Macroaggressions Merch Store: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/macroaggressions?ref_id=22530 LinkTree: linktr.ee/macroaggressions Books: HYPOCRAZY: https://amzn.to/3VsPDp8 Controlled Demolition on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3ufZdzx The Octopus Of Global Control: Amazon: https://amzn.to/3VDWQ5c Barnes & Noble: https://bit.ly/39vdKeQ Online Connection: Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/Macroaggressions Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/macroaggressions_podcast/ Discord Link:  https://discord.gg/4mGzmcFexg Website: www.Macroaggressions.io Facebook: www.facebook.com/theoctopusofglobalcontrol Twitter: www.twitter.com/macroaggressio3 Twitter Handle: @macroaggressio3 Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-4728012 The Union Of The Unwanted LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/uotuw RSS FEED: https://uotuw.podbean.com/ Merch Store: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/union-of-the-unwanted?ref_id=22643&utm_campaign=22643&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source Brain Supreme: www.BrainSupreme.co

Vejas Liulevicius is a historian specializing in Germany and Eastern Europe, who has lectured extensively on Marxism and the rise, the reign, and the fall of Communism. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep444-sc See below for timestamps, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. CONTACT LEX: Feedback - give feedback to Lex: https://lexfridman.com/survey AMA - submit questions, videos or call-in: https://lexfridman.com/ama Hiring - join our team: https://lexfridman.com/hiring Other - other ways to get in touch: https://lexfridman.com/contact EPISODE LINKS: Vejas's Courses: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/vejas-gabriel-liulevicius Vejas's Books: https://amzn.to/4e3R1rz Vejas's Audible: https://adbl.co/4esRrHt SPONSORS: To support this podcast, check out our sponsors & get discounts: AG1: All-in-one daily nutrition drinks. Go to https://drinkag1.com/lex BetterHelp: Online therapy and counseling. Go to https://betterhelp.com/lex Notion: Note-taking and team collaboration. Go to https://notion.com/lex LMNT: Zero-sugar electrolyte drink mix. Go to https://drinkLMNT.com/lex Eight Sleep: Temp-controlled smart mattress. Go to https://eightsleep.com/lex OUTLINE: (00:00) - Introduction (08:48) - Marxism (36:33) - Anarchism (51:30) - The Communist Manifesto (1:00:29) - Communism in the Soviet Union (1:20:23) - Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin (1:30:11) - Stalin (1:37:26) - Holodomor (1:51:16) - The Great Terror (2:04:17) - Totalitarianism (2:15:19) - Response to Darryl Cooper (2:30:27) - Nazis vs Communists in Germany (2:36:50) - Mao (2:41:57) - Great Leap Forward (2:48:58) - China after Mao (2:54:30) - North Korea (2:58:34) - Communism in US (3:06:04) - Russia after Soviet Union (3:17:35) - Advice for Lex (3:25:17) - Book recommendations (3:28:16) - Advice for young people (3:35:08) - Hope PODCAST LINKS: - Podcast Website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast - Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr - Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 - RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ - Podcast Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 - Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/lexclips SOCIAL LINKS: - X: https://x.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://instagram.com/lexfridman - TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://facebook.com/lexfridman - Patreon: https://patreon.com/lexfridman - Telegram: https://t.me/lexfridman - Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman