Podcasts about engels

Karl Marx legte mit seinem drei Teile umfassenden "Das Kapital" einen wichtigen Grundstein für die Entwicklung der kommunistischen Ideologie, sowie sozialistischer und kommunistischer Staatsformen im frühen 20. Jahrhundert. Doch kam die von Marx vorhergesagte "Revolution" viel später als angenommen und konnte auch die hohen in sie gesetzten Erwartungen nicht erfüllen. Andreas Peglau hat sich intensiv mit dem Marxismus - der Lehre, die "den Menschen" befreien soll, deren Vertreter aber zumeist gar nicht wissen wollen, was Menschen sind - auseinander gesetzt und ist live zu Gast, um darüber zu reflektieren, wie "Marx und Engels die reale Psyche in ihrer Lehre verdrängten".

In this episode, Alyson and Breht explore Friedrich Engels' Dialectics of Nature, a bold and underappreciated attempt to apply dialectical materialism to the natural sciences. Often dismissed or misunderstood, this unfinished work offers a sweeping view of reality - from physics and chemistry to evolution, human consciousness, and ecological breakdown - through the lens of Marxist philosophy. Together, they unpack Engels' central claim that nature itself unfolds dialectically: through contradiction, motion, transformation, and interconnection. They cover the three laws of dialectics, Engels' materialist account of human evolution, his critique of mechanistic science, vulgar materialism, and metaphysical thinking, and his early warnings about capitalism's ecological consequences. Along the way, they connect these insights to Marx's concept of species-being, and reflect on what this revolutionary worldview offers in the age of climate crisis, hyper-alienation, and late capitalist decay. Finally, Alyson and Breht have a fascinating open-ended discussion about the existential and spiritual implications of dialectical materialism as a worldview. Whether you're new to dialectical materialism or looking to deepen your understanding, this conversation reframes Engels' work as a profound contribution not just to Marxism, but to the philosophy of science itself. ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio or here: https://www.patreon.com/TheRedMenace Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio & Red Menace HERE

Capitalism and government go hand in hand – one feeding the other Some people think of economic history as a trifle dry, but how can you resist a book that includes quotes like these: “The love of money (as a possession) is… a somewhat disgusting morbidity.” (Keynes). “Capitalism is an economic system, but it's also so much more than that. It's become a sort of ideology, this all-encompassing force that rules over our lives and our minds.”  (Rund Abdelfatah) How many critics of Capitalism can you name? I bet you can only think of a very few. Marx and Engels, I suppose. Keynes. Maybe Thomas Picketty in recent years. But … Continue reading →

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Oct 23, 2023 UPSTREAM INTERVIEW W/ BREHT AND ALYSON:  What Is To Be Done? This is the question so profoundly posed by the Russian Revolutionary and Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, in his landmark text of the same name. Although it was written well over a century ago, this text, the questions it asked, and the paths forward that it provided, are just as relevant today as they were a hundred years ago. And just as urgent. What roles do spontaneity and disciplined organization have in leftist movements? Can we focus simply on economic reform, or do our actions need a larger political framework to structure, guide, and propel them?  Why does it feel like even though so many of us are motivated to work towards structural change, that things continue to get worse? Why does it seem like potential revolutionary struggles in the West always seem to stall and fail to move from a singular moment to a protracted movement?  These are old and familiar questions — a lot of ink has been spilled and speeches made exploring them — and in this Conversation, we've brought on two guests who've not only thought about these questions in depth, but who have some pretty compelling answers that draw from revolutionary theory and practice in both their personal lives and from the deep well of wisdom bequeathed by theorists Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao.  Breht O'Shea is the host of the podcast Revolutionary Left Radio and a co-host of Guerrilla History. He's been on the show multiple times so you may already be familiar with his voice. Alyson Escalate, who has also been on the show, is the co-host, along with Breht, of Red Menace, a podcast that explains and analyzes revolutionary theory and then applies its lessons to our contemporary conditions.  Further Resources: Red Menace – What Is To Be Done? - V.I. Lenin  Revolutionary Left Radio – Politics in Command: Analyzing the Error of Economism  Red Menace – The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fanon: On Violence and Spontaneity Red Menace – Understanding Settler Colonialism in Israel and the United States Revolutionary Left Radio on Instagram Upstream – Buddhism and Marxism with Breht O'Shea (In Conversation) Upstream – Trans Liberation and Solidarity with Alyson Escalante (In Conversation) Upstream – Revolutionary Leftism with Breht O'Shea (In Conversation)  

This is small snippet from a much larger episode coming soon wherein Alyson and Breht cover Friedrich Engel's famous text “Dialectics of Nature”, in which Engels argues for dialectical materialism as a scientifically grounded, philosophically rigorous, and holistic worldview—one that understands nature, society, and thought as deeply interconnected and constantly evolving. Find the clip used at the end of this teaser here: https://youtu.be/YbgnlkJPga4    

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

Der Bukarester Bürgermeister, Nicusor Dan, hat die Präsidentenwahl in Rumänien gewonnen. Er setzte sich gegen den Rechtsradikalen George Simion durch. Eine Wahl für Europa und liberale Demokratie, so Raimar Wagner von der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung. Engels, Silvia;Wagner, Raimar www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns Ministerpräsidentin Schwesig fordert, wirtschaftliche Probleme in Ostdeutschland schneller zu lösen. Oft handle die Politik erst, wenn auch Westdeutschland betroffen sei. Sie plädiert für eine regionale Wirtschaftsförderung. Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Der Bukarester Bürgermeister, Nicusor Dan, hat die Präsidentenwahl in Rumänien gewonnen. Er setzte sich gegen den Rechtsradikalen George Simion durch. Eine Wahl für Europa und liberale Demokratie, so Raimar Wagner von der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung. Engels, Silvia;Wagner, Raimar www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns Ministerpräsidentin Schwesig fordert, wirtschaftliche Probleme in Ostdeutschland schneller zu lösen. Oft handle die Politik erst, wenn auch Westdeutschland betroffen sei. Sie plädiert für eine regionale Wirtschaftsförderung. Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am Morgen

Kurz und bündig, interessant und informativ. Aber auch tröstlich und gelegentlich anstößig. Bunt wie das Leben sollen auch die Formen der christlichen Botschaft im Sender sein. Von Martin Engels.

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am Mittag

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

(1) Op het songfestival is Engels passé (2) Ontbreekwoord: iemand die altijd op het laatste nippertje afbelt (3) Hebben de Saoedi's Donald Trump gekocht? (4) Middagjournaal van Nico Dijkshoorn

Start Artist Song Time Album Year 0:00:57 Engels Finding Light 3:57 Engels 2025 FEATURED ALBUM 0:06:13 CEN-ProjekT Elias Blackwood 6:02 Carnival of Lost Souls 2025 0:13:27 CEN-ProjekT Victor Malveil 6:42 Carnival of Lost Souls 2025 0:21:05 CEN-ProjekT Isabella Thorn 5:23 Carnival of Lost Souls 2025 0:27:19 CEN-ProjekT Dante Blaze 5:42 Carnival of Lost Souls 2025 […]

In deze aflevering heb ik het over kleine stapjes. Waarom denken we vaak dat we alles in één keer moeten kunnen? En hoe komt het dat juist elke dag één klein ding doen je verder brengt dan al die grootse plannen? Ik deel ook mijn eigen struggles, met Italiaans en ik laat je zien hoe je je brein kunt helpen om uit de ‘freeze-stand' te komen en wel in beweging te komen. Klaar om te beginnen met kleine stappen die echt verschil maken? Ontdek hier hoe de challenge werkt: https://learnenglishwithtess.com/improve-grammar-2/joinWil je direct aan de slag?Download dan hieronder gratis mijn werkboek Mijn Persoonlijke Woordenschatbank, een praktische printable die je helpt om jouw eigen vocabulaire stap voor stap op te bouwen.https://learnenglishwithtess.com/series/joinLiever even sparren om te kijken wat geschikt is voor jou: klik hier: https://learnenglishwithtess.com/boek-discovery-callMijn e-mail adres: tess@learnenglishwithtess.comOf stuur een DM op Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tess_deweerd/

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am Abend

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am Abend

Drummer John Engels kreeg op 11 mei 2025 een Lifetime Achievement Edison uitgereikt door trompettist Jan van Duikeren. Hij was nog maar net begonnen aan zijn verjaardagsconcert ‘John Engels 90' in het Bimhuis in Amsterdam toen hij naar voren werd gehaald en het Edison-beeldje ontving. Deze Edison was nooit eerder aan iemand uitgereikt. In 2018 was John te gast bij het radio-programma "All That Jazzz" bij omroep 1Twente. Toen had All-That-Jazzz-presentator Willem Habers een gesprek met meesterdrummer John Engels over zijn carrière, zijn muziek en het leven in het algemeen. Uiteraard gelardeerd met veel muziek van John's keus.

Drummer John Engels kreeg op 11 mei 2025 een Lifetime Achievement Edison uitgereikt door trompettist Jan van Duikeren. Hij was nog maar net begonnen aan zijn verjaardagsconcert ‘John Engels 90' in het Bimhuis in Amsterdam toen hij naar voren werd gehaald en het Edison-beeldje ontving. Deze Edison was nooit eerder aan iemand uitgereikt. In 2018 was John te gast bij het radio-programma "All That Jazzz" bij omroep 1Twente. Toen had All-That-Jazzz-presentator Willem Habers een gesprek met meesterdrummer John Engels over zijn carrière, zijn muziek en het leven in het algemeen. Uiteraard gelardeerd met veel muziek van John's keus.

AI-luisterboeken moeten binnenkort volop te vinden zijn op boekenplatform Audible, meldt het platform zelf. Een select groepje uitgevers kan vanaf maandag hun boeken op Audible door AI laten inspreken in het Engels, Spaans, Frans of Italiaans. Niels Kooloos vertelt er meer over in deze Tech Update. Volgens Audible-baas Bob Carrigan zijn er voor elke 100 reguliere boeken maar 2 tot hooguit 5 luisterboeken beschikbaar. AI-luisterboeken zouden die kloof volgens hem makkelijk kunnen dichten. Het is de bedoeling dat de AI-functies van Audible in steeds meer talen beschikbaar komen. Zo moet het ook mogelijk worden om geschreven werken vlekkeloos te vertalen. Audible is ook in Nederland beschikbaar, maar nog niet officieel gelanceerd. Dat moet later mogelijk gemaakt worden met behulp van onder andere de aankomende AI-functies. Verder in deze Tech Update: Gemeenten kunnen dit jaar onverwacht bezoek krijgen van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Oct 11, 2018 In this episode, Alyson joins Breht to do a dive deep into Vladimir Lenin's State and Revolution, one of the most important texts in Marxist political theory. We break down Lenin's core arguments about the state as an instrument of class rule, the necessity of smashing the bourgeois state rather than reforming it, and the vision of a transitional workers' state on the path to communism. We also discuss the historical context of 1917, how Lenin draws from Marx and Engels, and why this work remains essential for understanding the nature of power, revolution, and socialist strategy today. This episode offers an accessible yet rigorous guide to one of Lenin's most influential works. ---------------------------------------------------- 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/  

John Cassidy, staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of Capitalism and Its Critics: A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI (Macmillan, 2025), traces the last three hundred years of global capitalism from its beginnings. 

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Informationen am Mittag

Kurz und bündig, interessant und informativ. Aber auch tröstlich und gelegentlich anstößig. Bunt wie das Leben sollen auch die Formen der christlichen Botschaft im Sender sein. Von Martin Engels.

Welcome to episode #428 of 20MT• Disappointment as Celtic again can't beat our big rivals• Idah gets the goal...but also frustrates?• Engels fleetingly shows us what he can do• Why can't Brendan find the wins in this fixture for now?and much moreand much moreTreat yourself or the 20MT listener in your life, as well as supporting the podcast with some 20MT merch at 20mt.bigcartel.com/You can help support the production of these podcasts, get AD FREE content as well as gaining access to over 1000 extra episodes at patreon.com/20MinuteTimsSign up for Celtic's Youth Development Lottery The Celtic Pools and help shape Celtic's future here - https://celticpools.securecollections.net/index.aspx?Agent=353920MT Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As normie conservatives casually throw around terms like "Bonapartist" to describe Trump's new administration, we've entered a peculiar moment where Marxist terminology has infiltrated mainstream political discourse—often without its theoretical underpinnings. This wide-ranging conversation explores the historical parallels between today's political landscape and 19th century France, when General Boulanger's right-wing populist movement tempted certain leftists into dangerous alliances. Donald Parkinson of Marxist Unity Group and Cosmonaut Magazine helps us clarify. We dissect the contradictory coalition behind Trump's second administration: an unlikely alliance between traditional middle American constituencies and Silicon Valley tech oligarchs that has fundamentally altered the movement's character. This creates a uniquely modern version of Bonapartism, where executive power operates independently from other ruling class factions, but with enthusiastic backing from tech billionaires rather than reluctant acceptance from established elites.The historical debate between Engels and Paul Lafargue proves remarkably relevant today. Engels vehemently opposed leftist alliances with Boulanger, insisting socialists must maintain political independence while defending democratic institutions against right-wing authoritarianism. Today's versions of this debate—from "MAGA communism" to various post-left tendencies—echo Lafargue's failed argument that riding right-wing populism would ultimately benefit socialism.As liberal institutions prove remarkably fragile against authoritarianism and traditional left strategies seem inadequate, we face fundamental questions about political strategy. How can socialists build independent politics without becoming either appendages to liberalism or useful idiots for the right? What does defending democratic rights look like when the constitutional order itself is crumbling? And how do we understand class politics when traditional definitions no longer map neatly onto social reality?This conversation offers essential historical context and strategic clarity for navigating our deteriorating political landscape—a moment when understanding the mistakes of the past might help us avoid repeating them.Send us a text Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival

Kurz und bündig, interessant und informativ. Aber auch tröstlich und gelegentlich anstößig. Bunt wie das Leben sollen auch die Formen der christlichen Botschaft im Sender sein. Von Martin Engels.

De 4 mei-herdenking is afgelopen jaren gepolitiseerd geraakt door verhitte debatten over wie we herdenken en op welke manier. Tegelijkertijd neemt de kennis over de Shoah onder jongeren af. Waarom is herdenken belangrijk?Die vraag beantwoordt schrijver en jurist Philippe Sands in een lezing in De Balie waarin hij dieper ingaat op vernietiging en ondergang in het Derde Rijk. Sands analyseert hoe de herinnering aan genocide de manier waarop we omgaan met hedendaagse conflicten en onrecht beïnvloedt. De Shoah, als een van de donkerste hoofdstukken in de geschiedenis, herinnert ons niet alleen aan de miljoenen slachtoffers, maar ook aan de gevaren van haat, vooroordelen en onbeperkte macht.Na afloop van de lezing in het Engels volgt een panelgesprek in het Nederlands met Arnon Grunberg, Judith Belinfante en Nico Schrijver en houdt ook Jaap Goudsmit een lezing.Philippe Sands (1960) is een Brits-Franse jurist, hoogleraar en auteur, gespecialiseerd mensenrechten en internationaal recht. Sands was betrokken bij verschillende internationale strafzaken, waaronder die van de Chileense juntaleider Pinochet. Sands schreef verschillende bekroonde boeken, waaronder Galicische wetten (2016) en The Ratline (2020), over internationaal recht, genocide en nazisme.Programmamaker: Eloïse KasiusModerator: Yoeri AlbrechtZie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

All comments and opinions are those of the individuals recorded; they do not reflect any official policy or position of the Department of Defense or U.S. government.Dr. Ben Zweibelson is an author, philosopher, and a retired Army Infantry Officer with multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ben lectures and publishes on military strategy, operational planning, design thinking, and war philosophy. His latest book, Reconceptualizing War, was released on April 30th. He has published two other books on the military design movement and innovation in defence applications. Ben earned the Army's Master Parachutist, Pathfinder, Air Assault, Expert and Combat Infantryman's Badges, the Ranger Tab, and was awarded four Bronze Stars in combat. He resides in Colorado Springs with his wife and children. His hobbies include getting injured doing jiu-jitsu, snowboarding, and CrossFit.A magnum opus, a tour de force—Dr. Ben Zweibelson's latest book, Reconceptualizing War, is all of these and more. I was fortunate enough to receive an advance copy, and it was a rich feast. If you've ever wondered what your favourite strategist, philosopher, or school of thought had to say about warfare, you're more than likely to find them in the pages of Reconceptualizing War. From Clausewitz to Kant, Tolstoy, Engels, Mao, the Futurists, Marcuse, or Deleuze and Guattari—and several dozen more—every time I wondered if a thinker was about to appear, there they were. I especially appreciated how Reconceptualizing War complemented the aims of my Hypervelocity podcast: going deeper to examine the philosophical underpinnings of conflict. The cover art goes hard too. Our conversation delves into the themes of reconceptualising war through various philosophical and theoretical lenses. Dr. Ben Zweibelson discusses the importance of social paradigms, the historical context of anti-fascism, and the evolution of ideological movements like Antifa. The dialogue also explores the theoretical connections between Kant, Clausewitz, and contemporary armed movements, as well as the implications of game theory and the future of warfare in the age of artificial intelligence.Chapters00:00 – Introduction to Reconceptualizing War02:44 – Theoretical Foundations: Burrell, Morgan, and Rapoport10:48 – Kant, Clausewitz, and Contemporary Movements17:01 – Antifa: Historical Context and Modern Implications26:03 – Understanding War: Paradigms and Frameworks37:48 – Radical Structuralism and Omnism in Warfare47:49 – The Marxist Vision of Utopia50:15 – The Enduring Nature of War52:04 – Game Theory and Warfare57:57 – Complexity Science and the Afghan Conflict01:06:28 – Radical Structuralism and Revolutionary Success01:14:56 – Détente and Radical Structuralism01:21:47 – Interpretivism and the Limitations of DiagramsAll comments and opinions are those of the individuals recorded; they do not reflect any official policy or position of the Department of Defense or U.S. government.

Consumer preferences and buying behaviors in the alcoholic beverage space are changing faster than you can pour a pint and say ‘cheers.' So, how do companies keep up? Erin Engels, Senior Vice President of Commercial Strategy, is helping lead those efforts with Breakthru Beverage Group. Breakthru is a leading North American beverage wholesaler, meaning they help thousands of brands land on store shelves, on restaurant menus and on the tap list at your favorite bars. In her role, Engels leads the development and implementation of Breakthru's commercial strategy. She creates short- and long-term initiatives that support both innovation and growth. In this episode, Engels shares how Breakthru stays nimble in the face of changing consumer demand, how a special team at her company identifies the next big brands, plus how you can gain employee and executive buy-in for effective long-term strategy. Table of contents • 1:15 Adapting to consumers drinking less • 4:20 Identifying winning brands and the Trident team • 5:59 What to do if a brand flops • 9:06 Developing effective long-term strategies • 12:23 Bringing an engineering background to business • 17:09 How AI is being used in the beverage space • 18:27 Doing business internationally • 19:21 "Be curious"

In deze aflevering ontdek je waarom wachten op ‘de perfecte zin' je tegenhoudt om echt beter Engels te leren spreken en wat er gebeurt als je toch gewoon begint.Klaar om te beginnen met kleine stappen die echt verschil maken? Ontdek hier hoe de challenge werkt: https://learnenglishwithtess.com/improve-grammar-2/joinWil je direct aan de slag?Download dan hieronder gratis mijn werkboek Mijn Persoonlijke Woordenschatbank, een praktische printable die je helpt om jouw eigen vocabulaire stap voor stap op te bouwen.https://learnenglishwithtess.com/series/joinLiever even sparren om te kijken wat geschikt is voor jou: klik hier: https://learnenglishwithtess.com/boek-discovery-callMijn e-mail adres: tess@learnenglishwithtess.comOf stuur een DM op Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tess_deweerd/

De landelijke overheid heeft afgelopen week op verschillende onderwerpen laten zien een onbetrouwbare partner te zijn. Zowel op het gebied van wonen als onderwijs worden afspraken geschonden, waardoor er onrust ontstaat – terwijl die afspraken juist zijn gemaakt om de rust te bewaren. Doordat die afspraken worden geschonden, denkt macro-econoom Arnoud Boot dat het tijd is om meer ruimte te maken voor private financiering. 'Hoe maken wij ons minder afhankelijk van de overheid als de politiek zich ook ideologisch met universiteiten gaat bemoeien?’ Op welke manier bemoeit de landelijke politiek zich met de universiteiten? Afgelopen week ging het in de Tweede Kamer ergens over details die eigenlijk niet eens zo belangrijk zijn, namelijk dat partijen als NSC, BBB en ook de VVD er in feite voor hebben gezorgd dat universiteiten voor een groot deel afscheid moeten nemen van de Engelse taal. Wat mij dwarszit, is niet dat wij geen programma’s in het Nederlands zouden moeten hebben. Ik heb het altijd buitengewoon storend gevonden dat mijn eigen faculteit en mijn eigen universiteit – economie en bedrijfskunde, één van de grootste opleidingen op dat gebied in het land – volledig Engelstalig onderwijs moest aanbieden. Ik geef les aan 900 studenten en dat moest de afgelopen 10 à 15 jaar volledig in het Engels gebeuren. Dat had gewoon in het Nederlands kunnen zijn. De overheid heeft gezegd: er moet meer balans komen. Dan is dit toch goed? Dit is geen balans. Het was voldoende geweest om te zeggen dat grote opleidingen in het Nederlands toegankelijk moeten zijn. Door bijvoorbeeld te bepalen dat in ieder geval 50 procent van het onderwijs in het Nederlands moet zijn. Dan weet je dat daar alleen Nederlandstalige studenten op afkomen, of studenten die de moeite nemen om zich hier te acclimatiseren. Daarnaast heb je dan dat Engelstalige deel en daar kun je een numerus fixus op zetten. Dat is cruciaal, want de groei van het aantal buitenlandse studenten was ook disproportioneel. Dat is door het financieringsmodel in feite door de overheid veroorzaakt. Want als ik het aantal buitenlandse studenten verdrievoudigde, kreeg ik een groter aandeel in de financiering die van het Rijk kwam. Dat is niet optimaal – dat kan niet – want alles barstte uit zijn voegen. Dus: het onderliggende probleem erken ik, maar de gekozen oplossing niet. Welke oplossing zie je dan wel? Nederland is achterdochtig tegenover private financiering – dat zou ervoor zorgen dat onderwijs en onderzoek gestuurd worden in een richting die niet in het maatschappelijk belang is. Mijn conclusie inmiddels is dat het opportunisme van de overheid om in te grijpen in de wetenschap, voortkomt uit de gedachte dat men de wetenschap niet vertrouwt. BBB, NSC en deels ook de VVD hebben iets tegen de intelligentsia. Die dieperliggende gevoelens gaan verder dan het besparen van een paar euro’s. Dat maakt de overheid een onbetrouwbare partner, en daar moeten we proberen los van te komen. In de Verenigde Staten zie je dat de rijkste universiteit ter wereld – Harvard – zelfs in strijd is geraakt met een overheid die zich te veel met het beleid bemoeit. Dus is de vraag: hoe maken wij ons minder afhankelijk van de overheid als de politiek zich ook ideologisch met universiteiten gaat bemoeien? Dat is één van de gevaarlijkste ontwikkelingen van dit moment. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nadia de Vries is schrijver en cultuurwetenschapper. Ze schreef het boek ‘Kleinzeer', een non-fictieve verkenning van kwetsbaarheid, en meerdere Engelstalige poëziebundels als ‘Dark Hour', ‘I Failed to Swoon' en ‘Know Thy Audience'. Haar debuutroman ‘De bakvis' haalde de longlist van de Boekenbon Literatuurprijs en de Libris Literatuur Prijs, en werd vertaald naar het Engels. Nu komt de Vries met haar tweede roman ‘Overgave op commando'. Het verhaal gaat over Schelvis, die probeert te ontsnappen aan een vastgelegd bestaan in een arbeidersdorp. Het boek stelt de vraag hoe vrij je echt bent in het kiezen van je eigen lot. Femke van der Laan gaat met Nadia de Vries in gesprek.

Se zvonește prin ziare că am publicat un nou episod! Nu știu ce să zic... Uite cum facem - mă mai interesez să văd dacă-i adevprat și vă zic, ok? Subiectul oricum ar fi fost: revoluția industrială și efectele ei sociale. Totul a început în secolul XVIII, când cineva s-a uitat la un fir de bumbac și a zis: „Hmm, dacă am face o mașină să-l țeasă mai repede?” Boom! A început prima revoluție industrială. Cu ajutorul războiului automat (power loom) și, mai ales, al motorului cu aburi, fabricile au început să fumege ca niște dragoni pe cafea. Oamenii au trecut de la tors cu mâna la „vrrr-vrrr” cu mașini. Bumbacul a devenit noul aur, iar trenurile cu aburi au început să țiuie prin peisaj. Dar stați, urmează partea și mai cool! Pe la sfârșitul secolului XIX, a venit a doua revoluție industrială, când cineva s-a uitat la un fulger și a zis: „Ce-ar fi să-l punem în priză?” Electricitatea a invadat orașele, iar chimia a explodat – la figurat, sperăm. Acum aveam becuri, telefoane și aspirină! Problema? Bogătanii au devenit și mai bogătani, săracii au devenit și mai săraci. Sărakilor! Invitați speciali: Jon Snow, CG, Captain Picard, prima victimă a societății industriale, Engels, tonkotsu ramen, Jacquard, Savery, Papin și mulți alții. Link-uri utile:☞ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/octavpopa ☞ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/podcastuldefilosofie☞ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/podcastuldefilosofie☞ Spotify, Apple: https://podcastfilosofie.buzzsprout.comSupport the showhttps://www.patreon.com/octavpopahttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC91fciphdkZyUquL3M5BiA

Can you really fake being insane—and get away with it? In this episode of PRETEND, host Javier Leiva sits down with forensic psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels to pull back the curtain on the high-stakes world of mental health evaluations in the criminal justice system. We explore how some criminals try to game the system, what psychologists look for when evaluating claims of mental illness, and why even experts can be fooled. Plus, we revisit infamous cases like Richard Speck, George Metesky (aka The Mad Bomber), Ted Bundy, and Ed Kemper to examine how psychology—and its blind spots—played a role in their investigations. Guest: Dr. Tristin Engels is a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, published author, and co-host of the podcast Killer Minds.

In deze aflevering vertel ik je waarom je andere dingen moet doen dan dat je op school deed en belangrijker nog: wat jij nu wel kunt doen om Engels te leren op een manier die past bij jou, je leven en je doelen.Klaar om te beginnen met kleine stappen die echt verschil maken? Ontdek hier hoe de challenge werkt: https://learnenglishwithtess.com/improve-grammar-2/joinWil je direct aan de slag?Download dan hieronder gratis mijn werkboek Mijn Persoonlijke Woordenschatbank, een praktische printable die je helpt om jouw eigen vocabulaire stap voor stap op te bouwen.https://learnenglishwithtess.com/series/joinLiever even sparren om te kijken wat geschikt is voor jou: klik hier: https://learnenglishwithtess.com/boek-discovery-callMijn e-mail adres: tess@learnenglishwithtess.comOf stuur een DM op Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tess_deweerd/

Engels, Silvia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Engels, Siliva www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Engels, Slivia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

Engels, Slivia www.deutschlandfunk.de, Interviews

In this lecture, Breht provides an accessible but rigorous introduction to the Marxist theory of history: historical materialism. Breht explains how historical materialism is dialectical materialism applied to the evolution of human societies over time, the role that the base-superstructure model has in understanding culture and ideology, the long march from hunter-gatherer communal societies to slave empires to feudal monarchies to capitalist republics and beyond - to socialist democracy and ultimately to the communist transcendence of class society altogether, marking humanities maturation beyond its predatory phase and into history proper. Throughout the lecture, Breht provides examples, explores nuances, and highlights the pitfalls of attempts to change the system without the theoretical and practical tools of Marxism.  This lecture is part of the Omaha-based political education program Socialist Night School Support 3 families in Gaza HERE ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Outro Beat Prod. by flip da hood

On this episode of The Sick Podcast, Eric Engels joins Tony Marinaro to discuss the Montreal Canadiens' 4-2 win over the Florida Panthers, Arber Xhekaj scratched from the lineup, Mike Matheson receiving an unjustifiable amount of hate, Nick Suzuki having a career-best season, Lane Hutson's meteoric rise to stardom, Oliver Kapanen and Jacob Fowler now eligible to play for the Canadiens and much more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this thought-provoking conversation, guest host Kelly Chase welcomes philosopher Kimberly Engels to Dreamland to explore the cutting edge of experiencer research. Engels, an associate professor at Molloy University

In this thought-provoking conversation, guest host Kelly Chase welcomes philosopher Kimberly Engels to Dreamland to explore the cutting edge of experiencer research. Engels, an associate professor at Molloy University

Day 1,128.Today, as reports allege Moscow lost 96 cruise missiles as a result of last week's strike on Russia's Engels airbase, we assess the latest bombardments of the past 24 hours, and the next defence summit of European leaders taking place in Paris today. Then, later, we discuss the gargantuan task of archiving source material relating to the war.Contributors:Francis Dearnley (Executive Editor for Audio). @FrancisDearnley on X.Dominic Nicholls (Associate Editor of Defence). @DomNicholls on X.James Crisp (Europe Editor). @JamesCrisp6 on X.With thanks to Maksym Demydenko of the Ukraine War Archive.Content Referenced:Learn more about the Ukraine War Archive:https://ukrainewararchive.org/eng/They are contactable at info@ukrainewararchive.org Telegraph Live Blog of the Paris Summit:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/27/russia-ukraine-peace-zelensky-putin-war-latest-news/Ukraine ceasefire on brink as EU refuses to lift Russia sanctions (James Crisp in The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/26/ukraine-ceasefire-brink-eu-refuses-lift-russia-sanctions/Brussels urges citizens to stockpile food in case of invasion (James Crisp in The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/26/eu-urges-citizens-to-stockpile-food-in-case-of-invasion/NOW AVAILABLE IN NEW LANGUAGES:The Telegraph has launched translated versions of Ukraine: The Latest in Ukrainian and Russian, making its reporting accessible to audiences on both sides of the battle lines and across the wider region, including Central Asia and the Caucasus. Just search Україна: Останні Новини (Ukr) and Украина: Последние Новости (Ru) on your on your preferred podcast app to find them, or click the links below.Listen here: https://linktr.ee/ukrainethelatestLearn more about the tech: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/24/ukraine-the-latest-podcast-russian-ukrainian-ai-translation/Subscribe: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to episode #421 of 20MT•Celtic advance to another Hampden semi with a win over poor Hibs•Can we sign Schlupp permanently?•Who has the edge for these games?•Engels will finally get his chance to impressand much moreTreat yourself or the 20MT listener in your life, as well as supporting the podcast with some 20MT merch at 20mt.bigcartel.com/You can help support the production of these podcasts, as well as gaining access to over 1000 extra episodes at patreon.com/20MinuteTimsSign up for Celtic's Youth Development Lottery The Celtic Pools and help shape Celtic's future here - https://celticpools.securecollections.net/index.aspx?Agent=353920MT Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.