Podcasts about jacobin magazine

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

“I thought I was going to die and feared for my life”. Former GOP Presidential Candidate, John Castro experienced a chilling twist of fate. He found himself locked in a federal cell with Jeffrey McKellop, a Trump Supporter. McKellop is a January 6 rioter and former Green Beret from Virginia. Castro alleges that the intent behind this placement was far from accidental. According to him, there was a nefarious plan in motion: McKellop was to take him out. But what unfolded was not an assassination—it was an unlikely alliance.McKellop, captivated by Castro's story, found empathy where enmity was expected. The two formed a bond, one born in the crucible of confinement. Castro claims that McKellop was once a tool of political vengeance. He was moved by conscience. Donald Trump eventually pardoned him himself.But Castro's legal troubles didn't end behind bars.He asserts that he was blindsided during his trial—cornered into a conviction through manipulation and legal sleight-of-hand. One of the government's key witnesses, Linda Rivera, allegedly provided false testimony, manipulated by undisclosed forces. Even more disturbing, Castro claims that federal attorneys were aware of the deception and chose silence over justice.In a move to reclaim his narrative, Castro filed a motion on Monday May 12, 2025, to strike Rivera's testimony. This action forms the basis of his appeal as he seeks to overturn what he calls a wrongful conviction.In response to the unfolding legal drama, we have published a detailed Book and Op-Ed, to tell Castro's story. There is also a companion article chronicling Castro's full motion. It is available in The Neoliberal Journals (see link in reference below). It has been sent to be published in The Jamaica Gleaner and The Jacobin Magazine. It highlights his harrowing experiences and the questions it raises about the integrity of the justice system itself.This is not merely a legal battle—it is a political epic. And history, as it often does, is watching.Full Motion: https://theneoliberal.com/john-anthony-castro-files-motion-to-strike-it-was-rigged-from-the-start/Written ByRev. Renaldo C. McKenzie, Author of NeoliberalismDonate to US: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=USSJLFU2HRVAQThe NeoLiberal CORPORATIONHttps://theneoliberal.comSubscribe for free: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal

Kristen Ghodsee revisits her discussion about arguments for socialism with Bowdoin College professor of philosophy, Scott R. Sehon. This conversation focuses on the role of esteem and how it is increasingly commodified in a capitalist society. Mentioned in this podcast:Article in the Wall Street Journal: "$1 Trillion of Wealth Was Created for the 19 Richest U.S. Households Last Year"Interview in Jacobin Magazine: "Tradwives are the harbinger of systemic breakdown"Book by Scott R. Sehon: Socialism: A Logical IntroductionKristen Ghodsee's "Birthday Mediations" newsletter, April 26, 2025Send us a textThanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon-type account and receives no funding. There are no ads and there is no monetization. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word, share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links.Check out Kristen Ghodsee's recent books: Everyday Utopia Red Valkyries Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism Second World, Second Sex Subscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's free, episodic newsletter at: https://kristenghodsee.substack.comLearn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com Kristen R. Ghodsee is the award-winning author of twelve books and a professor and chair of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

It's a small world. The great David Rieff came to my San Francisco studio today for in person interview about his new anti-woke polemic Desire and Fate. And half way through our conversation, he brought up Daniel Bessner's This Is America piece which Bessner discussed on yesterday's show. I'm not sure what that tells us about wokeness, a subject which Rieff and I aren't in agreement. For him, it's the thing-in-itself which make sense of our current cultural malaise. Thus Desire and Fate, his attempt (with a great intro from John Banville) to wake us up from Wokeness. For me, it's a distraction. I've included the full transcript below. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS * Rieff views "woke" ideology as primarily American and post-Protestant in nature, rather than stemming solely from French philosophy, emphasizing its connections to self-invention and subjective identity.* He argues that woke culture threatens high culture but not capitalism, noting that corporations have readily embraced a "baudlerized" version of identity politics that avoids class discussions.* Rieff sees woke culture as connected to the wellness movement, with both sharing a preoccupation with "psychic safety" and the metaphorical transformation of experience in which "words” become a form of “violence."* He suggests young people's material insecurity contributes to their focus on identity, as those facing bleak economic prospects turn inward when they "can't make their way in the world."* Rieff characterizes woke ideology as "apocalyptic but not pessimistic," contrasting it with his own genuine pessimism which he considers more realistic about human nature and more cheerful in its acceptance of life's limitations. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, as we digest Trump 2.0, we don't talk that much these days about woke and woke ideology. There was a civil war amongst progressives, I think, on the woke front in 2023 and 2024, but with Donald Trump 2.0 and his various escapades, let's just talk these days about woke. We have a new book, however, on the threat of woke by my guest, David Rieff. It's called Desire and Fate. He wrote it in 2023, came out in late 2024. David's visiting the Bay Area. He's an itinerant man traveling from the East Coast to Latin America and Europe. David, welcome to Keen on America. Do you regret writing this book given what's happened in the last few months in the United States?David Rieff: No, not at all, because I think that the road to moral and intellectual hell is trying to censor yourself according to what you think is useful. There's a famous story of Jean Paul Sartre that he said to the stupefaction of a journalist late in his life that he'd always known about the gulag, and the journalist pretty surprised said, well, why didn't you say anything? And Sartre said so as not to demoralize the French working class. And my own view is, you know, you say what you have to say about this and if I give some aid and comfort to people I don't like, well, so be it. Having said that, I also think a lot of these woke ideas have their, for all of Trump's and Trump's people's fierce opposition to woke, some of the identity politics, particularly around Jewish identity seems to me not that very different from woke. Strangely they seem to have taken, for example, there's a lot of the talk about anti-semitism on college campuses involves student safety which is a great woke trope that you feel unsafe and what people mean by that is not literally they're going to get shot or beaten up, they mean that they feel psychically unsafe. It's part of the kind of metaphorization of experience that unfortunately the United States is now completely in the grips of. But the same thing on the other side, people like Barry Weiss, for example, at the Free Press there, they talk in the same language of psychic safety. So I'm not sure there's, I think there are more similarities than either side is comfortable with.Andrew Keen: You describe Woke, David, as a cultural revolution and you associated in the beginning of the book with something called Lumpen-Rousseauism. As we joked before we went live, I'm not sure if there's anything in Rousseau which isn't Lumpen. But what exactly is this cultural revolution? And can we blame it on bad French philosophy or Swiss French?David Rieff: Well, Swiss-French philosophy, you know exactly. There is a funny anecdote, as I'm sure you know, that Rousseau made a visit to Edinburgh to see Hume and there's something in Hume's diaries where he talks about Rousseau pacing up and down in front of the fire and suddenly exclaiming, but David Hume is not a bad man. And Hume notes in his acerbic way, Rousseau was like walking around without his skin on. And I think some of the woke sensitivity stuff is very much people walking around without their skin on. They can't stand the idea of being offended. I don't see it as much - of course, the influence of that version of cultural relativism that the French like Deleuze and Guattari and other people put forward is part of the story, but I actually see it as much more of a post-Protestant thing. This idea, in that sense, some kind of strange combination of maybe some French philosophy, but also of the wellness movement, of this notion that health, including psychic health, was the ultimate good in a secular society. And then the other part, which again, it seems to be more American than French, which is this idea, and this is particularly true in the trans movement, that you can be anything you want to be. And so that if you feel yourself to be a different gender, well, that's who you are. And what matters is your own subjective sense of these things, and it's up to you. The outside world has no say in it, it's what you feel. And that in a sense, what I mean by post-Protestant is that, I mean, what's the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? The fundamental difference is, it seems to me, that in Roman Catholic tradition, you need the priest to intercede with God, whereas in Protestant tradition, it is, except for the Anglicans, but for most of Protestantism, it's you and God. And in that sense it seems to me there are more of what I see in woke than this notion that some of the right-wing people like Chris Rufo and others have that this is cultural French cultural Marxism making its insidious way through the institutions.Andrew Keen: It's interesting you talk about the Protestant ethic and you mentioned Hume's remark about Rousseau not having his skin on. Do you think that Protestantism enabled people to grow thick skins?David Rieff: I mean, the Calvinist idea certainly did. In fact, there were all these ideas in Protestant culture, at least that's the classical interpretation of deferred gratification. Capitalism was supposed to be the work ethic, all of that stuff that Weber talks about. But I think it got in the modern version. It became something else. It stopped being about those forms of disciplines and started to be about self-invention. And in a sense, there's something very American about that because after all you know it's the Great Gatsby. It's what's the famous sentence of F. Scott Fitzgerald's: there are no second acts in American lives.Andrew Keen: This is the most incorrect thing anyone's ever said about America. I'm not sure if he meant it to be incorrect, did he? I don't know.David Rieff: I think what's true is that you get the American idea, you get to reinvent yourself. And this notion of the dream, the dream become reality. And many years ago when I was spending a lot of time in LA in the late 80s, early 90s, at LAX, there was a sign from the then mayor, Tom Bradley, about how, you know, if you can dream it, it can be true. And I think there's a lot in identitarian woke idea which is that we can - we're not constricted by history or reality. In fact, it's all the present and the future. And so to me again, woke seems to me much more recognizable as something American and by extension post-Protestant in the sense that you see the places where woke is most powerful are in the other, what the encampment kids would call settler colonies, Australia and Canada. And now in the UK of course, where it seems to me by DI or EDI as they call it over there is in many ways stronger in Britain even than it was in the US before Trump.Andrew Keen: Does it really matter though, David? I mean, that's my question. Does it matter? I mean it might matter if you have the good or the bad fortune to teach at a small, expensive liberal arts college. It might matter with some of your dinner parties in Tribeca or here in San Francisco, but for most people, who cares?David Rieff: It doesn't matter. I think it matters to culture and so what you think culture is worth, because a lot of the point of this book was to say there's nothing about woke that threatens capitalism, that threatens the neo-liberal order. I mean it's turning out that Donald Trump is a great deal bigger threat to the neoliberal order. Woke was to the contrary - woke is about talking about everything but class. And so a kind of baudlerized, de-radicalized version of woke became perfectly fine with corporate America. That's why this wonderful old line hard lefty Adolph Reed Jr. says somewhere that woke is about diversifying the ruling class. But I do think it's a threat to high culture because it's about equity. It's about representation. And so elite culture, which I have no shame in proclaiming my loyalty to, can't survive the woke onslaught. And it hasn't, in my view. If you look at just the kinds of books that are being written, the kinds of plays that are been put on, even the opera, the new operas that are being commissioned, they're all about representing the marginalized. They're about speaking for your group, whatever that group is, and doing away with various forms of cultural hierarchy. And I'm with Schoenberg: if it's for everybody, if it's art, Schoenberg said it's not for everybody, and if it's for everybody it's not art. And I think woke destroys that. Woke can live with schlock. I'm sorry, high culture can live with schlock, it always has, it always will. What it can't live with is kitsch. And by which I mean kitsch in Milan Kundera's definition, which is to have opinions that you feel better about yourself for holding. And that I think is inimical to culture. And I think woke is very destructive of those traditions. I mean, in the most obvious sense, it's destructive of the Western tradition, but you know, the high arts in places like Japan or Bengal, I don't think it's any more sympathetic to those things than it is to Shakespeare or John Donne or whatever. So yeah, I think it's a danger in that sense. Is it a danger to the peace of the world? No, of course not.Andrew Keen: Even in cultural terms, as you explain, it is an orthodoxy. If you want to work with the dominant cultural institutions, the newspapers, the universities, the publishing houses, you have to play by those rules, but the great artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians have never done that, so all it provides, I mean you brought up Kundera, all it provides is something that independent artists, creative people will sneer at, will make fun of, as you have in this new book.David Rieff: Well, I hope they'll make fun of it. But on the other hand, I'm an old guy who has the means to sneer. I don't have to please an editor. Someone will publish my books one way or another, whatever ones I have left to write. But if you're 25 years old, maybe you're going to sneer with your pals in the pub, but you're gonna have to toe the line if you want to be published in whatever the obvious mainstream place is and you're going to be attacked on social media. I think a lot of people who are very, young people who are skeptical of this are just so afraid of being attacked by their peers on various social media that they keep quiet. I don't know that it's true that, I'd sort of push back on that. I think non-conformists will out. I hope it's true. But I wonder, I mean, these traditions, once they die, they're very hard to rebuild. And, without going full T.S. Eliot on you, once you don't think you're part of the past, once the idea is that basically, pretty much anything that came before our modern contemporary sense of morality and fairness and right opinion is to be rejected and that, for example, the moral character of the artist should determine whether or not the art should be paid attention to - I don't know how you come back from that or if you come back from that. I'm not convinced you do. No, other arts will be around. And I mean, if I were writing a critical review of my own book, I'd say, look, this culture, this high culture that you, David Rieff, are writing an elegy for, eulogizing or memorializing was going to die anyway, and we're at the beginning of another Gutenbergian epoch, just as Gutenberg, we're sort of 20 years into Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and these other art forms will come, and they won't be like anything else. And that may be true.Andrew Keen: True, it may be true. In a sense then, to extend that critique, are you going full T.S. Eliot in this book?David Rieff: Yeah, I think Eliot was right. But it's not just Eliot, there are people who would be for the wokesters more acceptable like Mandelstam, for example, who said you're part of a conversation that's been going on long before you were born, that's going to be going on after you are, and I think that's what art is. I think the idea that we make some completely new thing is a childish fantasy. I think you belong to a tradition. There are periods - look, this is, I don't find much writing in English in prose fiction very interesting. I have to say I read the books that people talk about because I'm trying to understand what's going on but it doesn't interest me very much, but again, there have been periods of great mediocrity. Think of a period in the late 17th century in England when probably the best poet was this completely, rightly, justifiably forgotten figure, Colley Cibber. You had the great restoration period and then it all collapsed, so maybe it'll be that way. And also, as I say, maybe it's just as with the print revolution, that this new culture of social media will produce completely different forms. I mean, everything is mortal, not just us, but cultures and civilizations and all the rest of it. So I can imagine that, but this is the time I live in and the tradition I come from and I'm sorry it's gone, and I think what's replacing it is for the most part worse.Andrew Keen: You're critical in the book of what you, I'm quoting here, you talk about going from the grand inquisitor to the grand therapist. But you're very critical of the broader American therapeutic culture of acute sensitivity, the thin skin nature of, I guess, the Rousseau in this, whatever, it's lumpen Rousseauanism. So how do you interpret that without psychologizing, or are you psychologizing in the book? How are you making sense of our condition? In other words, can one critique criticize therapeutic culture without becoming oneself therapeutic?David Rieff: You mean the sort of Pogo line, we've met the enemy and it is us. Well, I suppose there's some truth to that. I don't know how much. I think that woke is in some important sense a subset of the wellness movement. And the wellness movement after all has tens and tens of millions of people who are in one sense or another influenced by it. And I think health, including psychic health, and we've moved from wellness as corporal health to wellness as being both soma and psyche. So, I mean, if that's psychologizing, I certainly think it's drawing the parallel or seeing woke in some ways as one of the children of the god of wellness. And that to me, I don't know how therapeutic that is. I think it's just that once you feel, I'm interested in what people feel. I'm not necessarily so interested in, I mean, I've got lots of opinions, but what I think I'm better at than having opinions is trying to understand why people think what they think. And I do think that once health becomes the ultimate good in a secular society and once death becomes the absolutely unacceptable other, and once you have the idea that there's no real distinction of any great validity between psychic and physical wellness, well then of course sensitivity to everything becomes almost an inevitable reaction.Andrew Keen: I was reading the book and I've been thinking about a lot of movements in America which are trying to bring people together, dealing with America, this divided America, as if it's a marriage in crisis. So some of the most effective or interesting, I think, thinkers on this, like Arlie Hochschild in Berkeley, use the language of therapy to bring or to try to bring America back together, even groups like the Braver Angels. Can therapy have any value or that therapeutic culture in a place like America where people are so bitterly divided, so hateful towards one another?David Rieff: Well, it's always been a country where, on the one hand, people have been, as you say, incredibly good at hatred and also a country of people who often construe themselves as misfits and heretics from the Puritans forward. And on the other hand, you have that small-town American idea, which sometimes I think is as important to woke and DI as as anything else which is that famous saying of small town America of all those years ago which was if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. And to some extent that is, I think, a very powerful ancestor of these movements. Whether they're making any headway - of course I hope they are, but Hochschild is a very interesting figure, but I don't, it seems to me it's going all the other way, that people are increasingly only talking to each other.Andrew Keen: What this movement seems to want to do is get beyond - I use this word carefully, I'm not sure if they use it but I'm going to use it - ideology and that we're all prisoners of ideology. Is woke ideology or is it a kind of post-ideology?David Rieff: Well, it's a redemptive idea, a restorative idea. It's an idea that in that sense, there's a notion that it's time for the victims, for the first to be last and the last to be first. I mean, on some level, it is as simple as that. On another level, as I say, I do think it has a lot to do with metaphorization of experience, that people say silence is violence and words are violence and at that point what's violence? I mean there is a kind of level to me where people have gotten trapped in the kind of web of their own metaphors and now are living by them or living shackled to them or whatever image you're hoping for. But I don't know what it means to get beyond ideology. What, all men will be brothers, as in the Beethoven-Schiller symphony? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's the way things are going.Andrew Keen: Is the problem then, and I'm thinking out loud here, is the problem politics or not enough politics?David Rieff: Oh, I think the problem is that now we don't know, we've decided that everything is part, the personal is the political, as the feminists said, 50, 60 years ago. So the personal's political, so the political is the personal. So you have to live the exemplary moral life, or at least the life that doesn't offend anybody or that conforms to whatever the dominant views of what good opinions are, right opinions are. I think what we're in right now is much more the realm of kind of a new set of moral codes, much more than ideology in the kind of discrete sense of politics.Andrew Keen: Now let's come back to this idea of being thin-skinned. Why are people so thin-skinned?David Rieff: Because, I mean, there are lots of things to say about that. One thing, of course, that might be worth saying, is that the young generations, people who are between, let's say, 15 and 30, they're in real material trouble. It's gonna be very hard for them to own a house. It's hard for them to be independent and unless the baby boomers like myself will just transfer every penny to them, which doesn't seem very likely frankly, they're going to live considerably worse than generations before. So if you can't make your way in the world then maybe you make your way yourself or you work on yourself in that sort of therapeutic sense. You worry about your own identity because the only place you have in the world in some way is yourself, is that work, that obsession. I do think some of these material questions are important. There's a guy you may know who's not at all woke, a guy who teaches at the University of Washington called Danny Bessner. And I just did a show with him this morning. He's a smart guy and we have a kind of ironic correspondence over email and DM. And I once said to him, why are you so bitter about everything? And he said, you want to know why? Because I have two children and the likelihood is I'll never get a teaching job that won't require a three hour commute in order for me to live anywhere that I can afford to live. And I thought, and he couldn't be further from woke, he's a kind of Jacobin guy, Jacobin Magazine guy, and if he's left at all, it's kind of old left, but I think a lot of people feel that, that they feel their practical future, it looks pretty grim.Andrew Keen: But David, coming back to the idea of art, they're all suited to the world of art. They don't have to buy a big house and live in the suburbs. They can become poets. They can become filmmakers. They can put their stuff up on YouTube. They can record their music online. There are so many possibilities.David Rieff: It's hard to monetize that. Maybe now you're beginning to sound like the people you don't like. Now you're getting to sound like a capitalist.Andrew Keen: So what? Well, I don't care if I sound like a capitalist. You're not going to starve to death.David Rieff: Well, you might not like, I mean, it's fine to be a barista at 24. It's not so fine at 44. And are these people going to ever get out of this thing? I don't know. I wonder. Look, when I was starting as a writer, as long as you were incredibly diligent, and worked really hard, you could cobble together at least a basic living by accepting every assignment and people paid you bits and bobs of money, but put together, you could make a living. Now, the only way to make money, unless you're lucky enough to be on staff of a few remaining media outlets that remain, is you have to become an impresario, you have become an entrepreneur of your own stuff. And again, sure, do lots of people manage that? Yeah, but not as many as could have worked in that other system, and look at the fate of most newspapers, all folding. Look at the universities. We can talk about woke and how woke destroyed, in my view anyway, a lot of the humanities. But there's also a level in which people didn't want to study these things. So we're looking at the last generation in a lot places of a lot of these humanities departments and not just the ones that are associated with, I don't know, white supremacy or the white male past or whatever, but just the humanities full stop. So I know if that sounds like, maybe it sounds like a capitalist, but maybe it also sounds like you know there was a time when the poets - you know very well, poets never made a living, poets taught in universities. That's the way American poets made their money, including pretty famous poets like Eric Wolcott or Joseph Brodsky or writers, Toni Morrison taught at Princeton all those years, Joyce Carol Oates still alive, she still does. Most of these people couldn't make a living of their work and so the university provided that living.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Barry Weiss earlier. She's making a fortune as an anti-woke journalist. And Free Press seems to be thriving. Yascha Mounk's Persuasion is doing pretty well. Andrew Sullivan, another good example, making a fortune off of Substack. It seems as if the people willing to take risks, Barry Weiss leaving the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan leaving everything he's ever joined - that's...David Rieff: Look, are there going to be people who thrive in this new environment? Sure. And Barry Weiss turns out to be this kind of genius entrepreneur. She deserves full credit for that. Although even Barry Weiss, the paradox for me of Barry Weiss is, a lot of her early activism was saying that she felt unsafe with these anti-Israeli teachers at Columbia. So in a sense, she was using some of the same language as the woke use, psychic safety, because she didn't mean Joseph Massad was gonna come out from the blackboard and shoot her in the eye. She meant that she was offended and used the language of safety to describe that. And so in that sense, again, as I was saying to you earlier, I think there are more similarities here. And Trump, I think this is a genuine counterrevolution that Trump is trying to mount. I'm not very interested in the fascism, non-fascism debate. I'm rather skeptical of it.Andrew Keen: As Danny Bessner is. Yeah, I thought Danny's piece about that was brilliant.David Rieff: We just did a show about it today, that piece about why that's all rubbish. I was tempted, I wrote to a friend that guy you may know David Bell teaches French history -Andrew Keen: He's coming on the show next week. Well, you see, it's just a little community of like-minded people.David Rieff: There you go. Well, I wrote to David.Andrew Keen: And you mentioned his father in the book, Daniel.David Rieff: Yeah, well, his father is sort of one of the tutelary idols of the book. I had his father and I read his father and I learned an enormous amount. I think that book about the cultural contradictions of capitalism is one of the great prescient books about our times. But I wrote to David, I said, I actually sent him the Bessner piece which he was quite ambivalent about. But I said well, I'm not really convinced by the fascism of Trump, maybe just because Hitler read books, unlike Donald Trump. But it's a genuine counterrevolution. And what element will change the landscape in terms of DI and woke and identitarianism is not clear. These people are incredibly ambitious. They really mean to change this country, transform it.Andrew Keen: But from the book, David, Trump's attempts to cleanse, if that's the right word, the university, I would have thought you'd have rather admired that, all these-David Rieff: I agree with some of it.Andrew Keen: All these idiots writing the same article for 30 years about something that no one has any interest in.David Rieff: I look, my problem with Trump is that I do support a lot of that. I think some of the stuff that Christopher Rufo, one of the leading ideologues of this administration has uncovered about university programs and all of this crap, I think it's great that they're not paying for it anymore. The trouble is - you asked me before, is it that important? Is culture important compared to destroying the NATO alliance, blowing up the global trade regime? No. I don't think. So yeah, I like a lot of what they're doing about the university, I don't like, and I am very fiercely opposed to this crackdown on speech. That seems to be grotesque and revolting, but are they canceling supporting transgender theater in Galway? Yeah, I think it's great that they're canceling all that stuff. And so I'm not, that's my problem with Trump, is that some of that stuff I'm quite unashamedly happy about, but it's not nearly worth all the damage he's doing to this country and the world.Andrew Keen: Being very generous with your time, David. Finally, in the book you describe woke as, and I thought this was a very sharp way of describing it, describe it as being apocalyptic but not pessimistic. What did you mean by that? And then what is the opposite of woke? Would it be not apocalyptic, but cheerful?David Rieff: Well, I think genuine pessimists are cheerful, I would put myself among those. The model is Samuel Beckett, who just thinks things are so horrible that why not be cheerful about them, and even express one's pessimism in a relatively cheerful way. You remember the famous story that Thomas McCarthy used to tell about walking in the Luxembourg Gardens with Beckett and McCarthy says to him, great day, it's such a beautiful day, Sam. Beckett says, yeah, beautiful day. McCarthy says, makes you glad to be alive. And Beckett said, oh, I wouldn't go that far. And so, the genuine pessimist is quite cheerful. But coming back to woke, it's apocalyptic in the sense that everything is always at stake. But somehow it's also got this reformist idea that cultural revolution will cleanse away the sins of the supremacist patriarchal past and we'll head for the sunny uplands. I think I'm much too much of a pessimist to think that's possible in any regime, let alone this rather primitive cultural revolution called woke.Andrew Keen: But what would the opposite be?David Rieff: The opposite would be probably some sense that the best we're going to do is make our peace with the trash nature of existence, that life is finite in contrast with the wellness people who probably have a tendency towards the apocalyptic because death is an insult to them. So everything is staving off the bad news and that's where you get this idea that you can, like a lot of revolutions, you can change the nature of people. Look, the communist, Che Guevara talked about the new man. Well, I wonder if he thought it was so new when he was in Bolivia. I think these are - people need utopias, this is one of them, MAGA is another utopia by the way, and people don't seem to be able to do without them and that's - I wish it were otherwise but it isn't.Andrew Keen: I'm guessing the woke people would be offended by the idea of death, are they?David Rieff: Well, I think the woke people, in this synchronicity, people and a lot of people, they're insulted - how can this happen to me, wonderful me? And this is those jokes in the old days when the British could still be savage before they had to have, you know, Henry the Fifth be played by a black actor - why me? Well, why not you? That's just so alien to and it's probably alien to the American idea. You're supposed to - it's supposed to work out and the truth is it doesn't work out. But La Rochefoucauld says somewhere no one can stare for too long at death or the sun and maybe I'm asking too much.Andrew Keen: Maybe only Americans can find death unacceptable to use one of your words.David Rieff: Yes, perhaps.Andrew Keen: Well, David Rieff, congratulations on the new book. Fascinating, troubling, controversial as always. Desire and Fate. I know you're writing a book about Oppenheimer, very different kind of subject. We'll get you back on the show to talk Oppenheimer, where I guess there's not going to be a lot of Lumpen-Rousseauism.David Rieff: Very little, very little love and Rousseau in the quantum mechanics world, but thanks for having me.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

Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation and founding editor of Jacobin Magazine, with his democratic socialist take on the week's top stories including Sen. Cory Booker's centrist record vs his progressive filibuster, what's next for Bernie and AOC, and the politics of former President Obama.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

Apps wie Tinder, Hinge, Bumble oder Grindr haben das Dating revolutioniert. In den letzten Monaten gerät aber das Geschäftsmodell hinter vielen Apps ins Stottern. Ein Blick in die ökonomische Theorie und auf ein Quasi-Monopol am Dating-Markt.**********An dieser Folge waren beteiligt: Gesprächspartner: Yair Antler, lehrt und forscht als Verhaltensökonom an der Uni Tel Aviv Gesprächspartner: Sebastian, erzählt von seinen Erfahrungen mit der Dating-App Grindr Hosts: Marcus Wolf und Gregor Lischka**********Die Quellen zur Folge:Yair Antler über die ewige Suche und den “cognitive Bias” (11/2019) und das "Dating App Paradox" (06/2024)Jacobin Magazine (02/2025) über die Sammelklage gegen die Match GroupMorgan Stanley (04/2023): Why Investors Still Swipe Rights for Dating Apps TikTok-Auszüge von @maadi_city und @sarslandShareholder Call (02/2025) der Match Group**********Weitere Beiträge zum Thema:Kneipensterben: Wie einige trotzdem überlebenClubsterben: Zahl der Clubs in Hamburg sinktJob-Mangel im Gastrogewerbe - Bessere Arbeitsbedingungen könnten helfen**********Habt ihr auch manchmal einen WTF-Moment, wenn es um Wirtschaft und Finanzen geht? Wir freuen uns über eure Themenvorschläge und Feedback an whatthewirtschaft@deutschlandfunknova.de.**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

This week Dr. Nathan Kalman-Lamb and Dr. Derek Silva drop in to talk about 1993's The Program, starring James Caan, Omar Epps, and Halle Berry. This movie was way ahead of its time in its discussions of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), concussions, and race and sexual dynamics on campus. We talk about all of this and the cost to college athletes to play the game. About our guests:Nathan Kalman-Lamb's  scholarly work sits at the intersection of social theory and the sociology of sport, with a particular focus on labor, racism, and exploitation. His most recent book Game Misconduct: Injury, Fandom, and the Business of Sport, based on qualitative interviews with former professional hockey players and fans of the sport, uses Marxist-Feminist social reproduction theory to explore how the political economy of sports like hockey is predicated on an affective transfer from athletic workers to fans through the physical sacrifice that is fundamental to these 'games.'Derek Silva's areas of interest include sociocultural studies of sport, critical sociology and criminology, labour, racism, and inequality. My work can be found in the peer-reviewed journals Critical Sociology, Punishment and Society, Crime, Media, Culture, Sociology of Sport Journal, Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Policing & Society, Annals of Leisure Research, Social Science & Medicine – Qualitative Research in Health, Sociological Forum, Race & Class, Educational Gerontology, and in media outlets such as TIME Magazine, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, The Daily Beast, The Chronicle of Higher Education, ​Jacobin Magazine, and The Baffler Magazine. 

This week, Paul and Goldy sit down with journalist Kurt Hackbarth to discuss the recent electoral success of Mexico's Morena party and their progressive economic agenda. The conversation explores how Morena's focus on middle-out policies, such as significant minimum wage increases and sweeping social safety net programs and reforms, has lifted millions out of poverty and challenged decades of neoliberal orthodoxy. Hackbarth also highlights the effective communication strategies employed by Morena's leaders, particularly their innovative use of social media, and the importance of staying connected to the base while appealing to a broad spectrum of voters, offering insights into what U.S. Democrats can learn from Mexico's left-leaning Morena party. Kurt Hackbarth is a writer, playwright, and freelance journalist who contributes to Jacobin Magazine and co-founded the independent media project “MexElects.” His writing often explores the complexities of global affairs and the impact of neoliberalism on society. Social Media: @KurtHackbarth Further reading:  Jacobin Magazine- Mexico's Lessons for the International Left Soberanía: The Mexican Politics Podcast Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: The Pitch

Featuring Michael Denning on Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order, collectively authored by Stuart Hall and his colleagues at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham. Hall's method of Marxist conjunctural analysis applied to the generalized crisis that paved the way for neoliberalism's rise; a model for how we should ask questions about our world that will provide us with knowledge we need to change it. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Check out our vast archives and newsletters thedigradio.com Support Atlantic Mills Tenants Union Legal Fund https://bit.ly/4jg4D61 Buy Dead Cities and Other Tales at haymarketbooks.com Donate to Jacobin Magazine at jacobin.com/donate

Featuring Michael Denning on Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order, collectively authored by Stuart Hall and his colleagues at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham. Hall's method of Marxist conjunctural analysis applied to the generalized crisis that paved the way for neoliberalism's rise; a model for how we should ask questions about our world that will provide us with knowledge we need to change it. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Check out our vast archives and newsletters thedigradio.com Support Atlantic Mills Tenants Union Legal Fund https://bit.ly/4jg4D61 Buy Dead Cities and Other Tales at haymarketbooks.org Donate to Jacobin Magazine at jacobin.com/donate

The wildfires in Los Angeles county have brought a multitude of difficult and prevailing questions to the forefront of the region as well as the system of capitalism. Joining host Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast is Jacobin Magazine columnist Ben Burgis to discuss writer Mike Davis and how his book, “The Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster,” (February 1998) serves as a kind of prognosis for everything going wrong in Los Angeles today. The two dissect the multitude of issues at play in the wildfire disasters: the conceit of real estate developers testing the limits of nature, the passive and active exploitation of the working class to make and now handle the disaster, the greed of for-profit insurance companies cancelling policies, and the decisions by a major county like Los Angeles in foregoing budgets to handle these inevitable disasters. Burgis asks, “If the public is just frankly going to be on the hook for it, do we, in fact, need to be building this densely in areas this prone to fire? I think at the very least, that's something that should be a question for public discussion in a way that it's just not.”

In this podcast, Alan MacLeod discusses his recent books and journalism. Dr. Macleod completed his PhD in Sociology at Glasgow University  focusing on research interests of social media, Internet subcultures, propaganda, fake news, and Latin American politics. He is a prolific journalist and has contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and MintPress News. His most recent books include: “Bad News from Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting,” which examines how Western media has reported on Venezuela since the election of President Hugo Chavez in 1998 including coverage that is often distorted and contributes to the spread of misinformation and "fake news" in support or the US imperialism and hegemony.   "Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent"  is a collaborative volume that updates Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model for the modern media landscape. The book explores how the original ideas from their 1988 book, "Manufacturing Consent," remain relevant today.   Order the books: Bad News from Venezuela https://www.kingsbookstore.com/book/9781032178752 Propaganda in the Information Age https://www.kingsbookstore.com/book/9781138366404 Alan MacLeods Social Media: Instagram: @alan.r.macleod X: @AlanRMacLeod MintPress News: https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/alan-macleod/   Greg's Blog: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/ Pat's Substack: https://patcummings.substack.com/about   AlanMacLeod#MintPressNews#BadNewsfromVenezuela#PropagandaInformationAge#Venezuela#FakeNews#Misreporting#MediaBias#HugoChavez#Neoliberalism#WesternMedia#Journalism#PropagandaModel#Chavismo#MediaStudies#LatinAmerican#NoamChomsky#EdwardHerman#Disinformation#Cambridge#Analytica#SyrianCivilWar#Russiagate#MediaFilters#egirls#LunchBagLujan#Jolani#PhillipCross#8200#PatCummings#PatrickCummings#GregGodels#ZZBlog#ComingFromLeftField#ComingFromLeftFieldPodcast#zzblog#mltoday

As political attention pivots towards the potential return of Donald Trump, the deeper and more pervasive economic reality of bipartisan austerity persists for most working Americans. Our guest today, Clara Mattei, argues that austerity's fundamental purpose is not merely economic constraint but an assault on labor itself, embedding a “capitalist realist” resignation into our collective consciousness. In her recent article for Jacobin Magazine, Mattei writes, “When the US state, like most states, increases military spending or rescues banks while simultaneously cutting spending on health care, education, transportation, public housing, or unemployment benefits, it structurally transfers resources from the working majority to the 1 percent of the population that subsists mainly off capital ownership (i.e., stock dividends, rents, and interest).” This reveals austerity as a project not of restraint, but rather a reallocation of resources “in favor of the economic and financial elite and to the detriment of the majority of the population.” As we navigate a landscape where many struggle to afford medical care, are forced to send children to overcrowded, underfunded schools, and endure bureaucracy's inefficiencies, defense and corporate profits continue to soar. In light of the election results, will we see new tax breaks for the 1% thinly veiled as fiscal “belt-tightening” while the public funds genocidal wars? Can we the people understand how this all functions and begin to organize to push back?    Well, I don't have the answers to these questions, but maybe our guest today can help to get us on the right track, please welcome Clara Mattei!   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/   Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/author/Pascal%20Robert

The Resistance Roundtable show interviews Branko Marcetic who discusses his recent Jacobin Magazine articles on Biden's horrific Gaza policy; and the apparent decision by the Harris campaign to keep Tim Walz off the campaign trail. Interview by Scott Harris, Richard Hill and Ruthanne Baumgartner, Oct. 12, 2024

Neil Meyer, contributing writer to Jacobin Magazine, discusses his recent article spelling out a strategy for progressives to steer a Harris-Walz administration to the left should they win on Nov. 5 (https://jacobin.com/2024/09/harris-sanders-labor-dsa-strategy). Neil also co-edits The Left Noes Newsletter (https://www.left-notes.com/). Panel: Scott Harris, Ruthanne Baumgartner and Richard Hill Sept. 14, 2024

Scott interviews Branko Marcetic about what's happening with the war in Ukraine. They discuss the recent Russian proposals to move the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiation table and the West's ongoing refusal. They also take a step back and review all the missed opportunities to bring the war to an end that would have left Ukraine better off with more leverage than surely will have in any future peace process. Discussed on the show: “Putin may be at the door. Why is Biden ignoring the bell?” (Responsible Statecraft) Debate - Should the U.S. Fund Ukraine War Again? Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Download Episode. Scott interviews Branko Marcetic about what's happening with the war in Ukraine. They discuss the recent Russian proposals to move the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiation table and the West's ongoing refusal. They also take a step back and review all the missed opportunities to bring the war to an end that would have left Ukraine better off with more leverage than surely will have in any future peace process. Discussed on the show: “Putin may be at the door. Why is Biden ignoring the bell?” (Responsible Statecraft) Debate - Should the U.S. Fund Ukraine War Again? Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY

 Download Episode. Scott interviews Branko Marcetic about what's happening with the war in Ukraine. They discuss the recent Russian proposals to move the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiation table and the West's ongoing refusal. They also take a step back and review all the missed opportunities to bring the war to an end that would have left Ukraine better off with more leverage than surely will have in any future peace process. Discussed on the show: “Putin may be at the door. Why is Biden ignoring the bell?” (Responsible Statecraft) Debate - Should the U.S. Fund Ukraine War Again? Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Roberts and Robers Brokerage Incorporated; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; Libertas Bella; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY

See Luca's video "The Red Dance" here: https://vimeo.com/911016046 Read Luca in Jacobin Magazine here: https://jacobinlat.com/2024/05/16/la-izquierda-colombiana-tiene-motivos-de-sobra-para-condenar-a-israel/   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 programming, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH!   Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLa...   Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!)   THANKS Y'ALL   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9W... Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets​ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolu... Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   Read Jason Myles in Sublation Magazine https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/...   Read Jason Myles in Damage Magazine https://damagemag.com/2023/11/07/the-...   Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/aut...          

Support the show and get the postgame and Sunday Show episodes at patreon.com/leftreckoning Hey friends. Today Matt & David will be talking about Greg Abbott's pardoning of Daniel Perry, who was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers for shooting and killing BLM protester Garrett Foster. Then we are joined by @ryan_zickgraf columnist at Compact Magazine to talk about his new piece in Jacobin Magazine on "White Rural Rage" - https://jacobin.com/2024/05/white-rural-rage-elitist-liberals MERCH 4 SALE - https://leftreckoning.com/store ------- Get our booklist here: https://bookshop.org/lists/left-reckoning-big-book-list/ Left Reckoning goes live Tuesdays @ 7 Central. Along with the main show, there is a Griscom stream every Thursday afternoon. To get access to all the bonus episodes, including more Hitchens conversations & deep dives into radical US history, Lenin, James Connolly & more support the show at patreon.com/leftreckoning - for just $5 you help make the public show possible and get double the bonus content. Support us on patreon.com/LeftReckoning Twitter: @LeftReckoning - @mattlech - @davidgriscom Instagram: @LeftReckoning Check out our Twitch streams at Twitch.tv/LeftReckoning

Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Professor Deneen rose to prominence with his 2018 book Why Liberalism Failed. It drew a readership from the entire spectrum of American politics; from Cornel West, Jacobin Magazine and President Obama to the likes of Jonah Goldberg and George Will. The book drew praise and criticism alike as well as throwing a wrench in the smooth workings of the left-right divide of American intellectual life. He is a noted student of American democracy and shares many perspectives with one of its most noted observers and commenters, Alexis de Tocqueville. He visits our podcast to talk about his latest book, Regime Change - Towards a Postliberal future.A conservative who rejects both the dogma of Republican Party “freemarket” corporatism as well as libertarian atomism he instead advances the argument for a common good conservatism. Being branded simultaneously dangerous radical and nefarious reactionary Professor Deneen traces the common good doctrine back to the very foundations of America and ties it to a wider European tradition. If our post-liberal future is to have a chance it is time to slaughter sacred cows and do battle against all both the current political regime and the nihilism of those who say that nothing can be done. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Read Ayyaz Mallick in Jacobin Magazine here: https://jacobin.com/author/ayyaz-mallick   Intercept Article: https://theintercept.com/.../imran-khan-pakistan-cypher.../   Chaos recently unfolded when the Pakistan parliament convened after its recent election. Supporters of ousted and imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his PTI party members were protesting for the release of Khan and that the elections were a sham.   Khan, during his time in office took a vehemently neutral stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The US didn't like this. In an August article from the Intercept, it looks like the U.S. was involved in the ouster of Khan in favor of a more Western friendly regime.   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/   Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/author/Pascal%20Robert

Indian American Muslim Council's Safa Ahmed on her Jacobin Magazine article, "The US Hindu Right Is Still Whitewashing the Gujarat Pogrom." "Rotten History" follows the interview. Check out Safa's article here: https://jacobin.com/2024/03/hindutva-us-right-gujarat-pogrom-modi Help keep This Is Hell! completely listener supported and access weekly bonus episodes by subscribing to our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thisishell

Indian American Muslim Council's Safa Ahmed on her Jacobin Magazine article, "The US Hindu Right Is Still Whitewashing the Gujarat Pogrom." "Rotten History" follows the interview. Check out Safa's article here: https://jacobin.com/2024/03/hindutva-us-right-gujarat-pogrom-modi Help keep This Is Hell! completely listener supported and access weekly bonus episodes by subscribing to our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thisishell

This week we're joined by freelance journalist Garrison Lovely to discuss his latest article in Jacobin Magazine 'Can humanity survive AI?' Whos behind AI? Where is the development of AI going? What does this mean for workers? and what can a socialist future look like with AI? These and more are the questions we discuss out, as well as the grim future that awaits us if steps aren't taken to combat the billionaires who run these AI systems You can read more of Garrisons writings at his substack! You can follow Garrison and keep up with his writings on twitter ---- Save the Date: On March 9th we will be taking part in the ⁠Dublin Radical Bookfair⁠. This is an exciting day with stalls from progressive bookshops, publishers, magazines, campaign groups, unions, artists and more. There will also be some drop-in talks and workshops throughout the day organised by different groups, some exhibits and a chance to meet some of your favourite radical authors as well as catch up with us at our stall. The event takes place in the Teachers Club at 36 Parnell Square in Dublin from 12pm to 5pm and is free, so don't miss it!  ---- Rupture Radio is a weekly podcast looking at news, politics and culture from a socialist perspective. It is produced by members of the RISE network within People before Profit, and is linked to Rupture - Ireland's Eco-Socialist Quarterly. Check out the magazine at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠rupture.ie ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Anyone who would like to support the podcast can do so on our Patreon. Sign up today at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/ruptureradio⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Any comments or queries please send them to LeftInsidePod@gmail.com or get in touch on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. See you next week, cheers! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ruptureradio/message

Are Liberalism and Marxism Compatible? Part 2 is available on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OneDime⁠ In this episode of 1Dime Radio, I am joined by Matt McManus, political theorist and professor at the University of Michigan who is currently writing a book titled “The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism” and has been the author of various books such as “Postmodern Conservatism” and is a frequent contributor to Jacobin Magazine. He is also a co-ost of the Academic Edgelords podcast. I first found Matt through the Diet Soap Media podcast and the PlasticPills podcast. In this discussion, Matt and I discuss the mixed relationship between radical liberal thought and the socialist left. Matt advocates for a kind of “Liberal socialism,” and I ask some critical questions to examine Liberalism's compatibility with socialist ideals and bring up some common Marxist criticisms, arguments, and objections to liberal ideas. This discussion encompasses the ideological framework, key principles, and potential contradictions of Marxist and Liberal perspectives on freedom, property, law, individual rights, and democracy, drawing from the works of influential figures like Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls. In part 2, we discuss the controversial challenges involving democracy, legitimacy, and liberty in the socialist transition that communist and social democrat regimes have historically faced.  Follow Matt McManus on Social Media: ⁠⁠https://twitter.com/MattPolProf?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor⁠⁠Read More with Speechify: https://speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime Email 1dimeman@gmail.com for inquiries My Twitter: https://twitter.com/1DimeOfficial Check out the main channel 1Dime videos if you haven't already: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@1Dimee/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Be sure to give 1Dime Radio a 5-star rating if you get value from this podcast!

Forrest, J. Andrew World, Conan Neutron, Kristina Oakes talk to Jacobin and FilmSuck Film Critic Eileen Jones about John Huston's 1948 adventure film Treasure of the Sierra Madre starring Humphrey Bogart. #sierramadre #treasure #johnhuston #humphreybogart #maltese #maltesefalcon #casablanca #jacobin Follow the show Letterboxd HQ: letterboxd.com/movienightextra And we now have a Movie Night Extravaganza discord community Eileen Jones writes for Jacobin Magazine as a Film Columnist https://jacobin.com/author/eileen-jones She also co-hosts FilmSuck Podcast https://www.patreon.com/filmsuck

There have been many moments of labor upsurge in America, including the influx of members into the Knights of Labor in 1886, the dramatic growth of unions during and in the immediate aftermath of World War I, and the great public sector unionism surge of the 1960s and 70s, but none matches the scale of the 1930s, when millions of workers were unionized under the aegis of the great labor federation, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or CIO. If we're looking to get millions of private-sector workers into the labor movement, there's really one time to look to, and that is the ascendant period of the CIO. In Organize the Unorganized, a forthcoming podcast from the Center for Work & Democracy at Arizona State University and Jacobin Magazine, we'll be telling the story of the CIO through the voices of prominent labor historians, including Jeremy Brecher, Robert Cherny, Dorothy Sue Cobble, Lizabeth Cohen, David Brody, Melvyn Dubofsky, Steve Fraser, Rick Halpern, William P. Jones, Nelson Lichtenstein, Erik Loomis, Ruth Milkman, Daniel Nelson, Bryan Palmer, Lisa Phillips, Ahmed White, and Jim Young. These interviews have been spliced together into an account of the rise, importance, and legacy of the CIO. In addition to being released on soundcloud.com/organizetheunorganized, these episodes will also be released on Jacobin magazine's podcast feed. Jacobin will also be publishing the individual interview transcriptions while the podcast is running.

Dr. Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, discusses the onslaught against freedom of speech and inquiry in Florida and the academy, in general. Luke Savage, staff reporter with Jacobin Magazine, offers his perspective on how the corporate media is -- and should be -- covering the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Panel: Ruthanne Baumgartner, Scott Harris and Richard Hill

What is the legacy of the Enlightenment in political struggles today and how are socialists and Marxists to relate to the Enlightenment? Must we rely on first principles and an a priori theory of knowledge in our understanding of capitalism and exploitation? Or must we proceed on the basis of an appeal to empiricism and experience primarily in our understanding of social struggles? What is the role of philosophy in our political practice? How do we know that the political causes we champion are just or right? We welcome Marxist thinkers Landon Frim and Max Tomba for a debate on Marxism and the Radical Enlightenment to help us get at the heart of these questions, and much more! For background reading, please see Max Tomba's Introduction to his book Insurgent Universality (download here) and Landon Frim's "Reason is Red" essay (download here). Max Tomba is Chair and Professor of at the History of Consciousness in the Politics Department at UC Santa Cruz. His research examines time and temporalities, Marxism, critical theory (especially the first generation of the Frankfurt School), and modern and contemporary political thought. He is the author of several books, and most recently Insurgent Universality. An Alternative Legacy of Modernity, with Oxford University Press, published in 2019, which was the co-winner of the 2021 David and Elaine Spitz Prize for the best book in liberal and/or democratic theory published in 2019.  Landon Frim is Associate Professor in Philosophy at Florida Gulf Coast University and he is a specialist in Spinoza, enlightenment rationalism and he has written in popular outlets including Jacobin Magazine, The New Republic, Salvage Magazine, and Inside Higher Ed. With Harrison Fluss, Landon wrote Prometheus and Gaia: Technology, Ecology and Anti-Humanism which is an examination of the ideological positions of Futurism and Eco-Pessimism. You can catch a great interview I conducted with Landon and Harrison Fluss on the Zer0 Books YouTube channel and on the Emancipations podcast.

Her new book is out now from MacMillan Press: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250269621/dirtbag Amber A'Lee Frost is a writer and co-host of Chapo Trap House. Find her writing in Jacobin Magazine, Catalyst, Damage Magazine, The Baffler, American Affairs and many others. IG: https://instagram.com/amberaleefrost

As the Radical Thoughts Podcast is no longer active, I am making these old bonus episodes from Patreon publicly available so that listeners don't have to pay for an inactive podcast. - Patrick In this bonus episode, Patrick sits down with David Broder, a historian of French and Italian political history and European Editor for Jacobin Magazine, to talk about the politics of post-war Italy. Hear us discuss the relationship between the Action Party and the Communist Party, interpretations of Antonio Gramsci, and the effect of the Historic Compromise.

Søren Mau on how communism can produce freedom through planning.   Future Histories International Find all English episodes of Future Histories here: https://futurehistories-international.com/ and subscribe to the Future Histories International RSS-Feed (English episodes only)   Shownotes Søren Mau: https://sorenmau.com/  Søren auf Twitter: https://twitter.com/sorenmau?lang=de  Mau, Søren. 2019. Mute Compulsion. A Theory of the Economic Power of Capital. Vero Books.: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2759-mute-compulsion  Mau, Søren. 2023. Stummer Zwang. Eine marxistische  Analyse der Macht im Kapitalismus. Karl Diets.: https://dietzberlin.de/produkt/stummer-zwang/   Further Shownotes Mau, Søren. 2023. Communism is Freedom. Verso Books.: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/communism-is-freedom Mau, Søren. 2023. Kommunismus ist Freiheit. Jacobin Magazine: https://jacobin.de/artikel/kommunismus-ist-freiheit-demokratie-zukunftsvision-kooperation-ressourcen-soren-mau Pat Devine (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Devine Karl Marx (Monoskop): https://monoskop.org/Karl_Marx Marx, Karl. A contribution to the critique of political economy. 1904. Chicago. International Library Publishing Co. (PDF): https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Contribution_to_the_Critique_of_Political_Economy.pdf Marx's critique of capitalism (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism Marx, Karl. 1932. The German Ideology. Moscow. Progress Publishers. (PDF): https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital. A critique of political economy. Volume 1. English edition 1887. Moscow. Progress Publishers (PDF): https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf Robert Brenner (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brenner Political economy (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy Value Theory (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics) Aaron Benanav (Website): https://www.aaronbenanav.com/ Benanav, Aaron. 2020. Automation and the Future of Work. London: Verso 2020: https://www.versobooks.com/books/3717-automation-and-the-future-of-work Benanav, Aaron. 2021. Automatisierung und die Zukunft der Arbeit. Berlin: Suhrkamp: https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/aaron-benanav-automatisierung-und-die-zukunft-der-arbeit-t-9783518127704 Benanav, Aaron. 2020. How to Make a Pencil. Logic Magazine, 12 (Open Access): https://logicmag.io/commons/how-to-make-a-pencil/ Devine, Pat. 1988. Democracy and economic planning: the political economy of a self-governing society. New York: Routledge.: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429033117/democracy-economic-planning-pat-devine Devine, Pat. 2002. Participatory Planning Through Negotiated Coordination. In: Science & Society, Vol. 66, No. 1.No. 1. New York: Guilford Publications, 72-85: https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/epdfplus/10.1521/siso.66.1.72.21001 Devine, Pat. 2022. Negotiated Coordination and Socialist Democracy. In Laibman, David and Campbell, Al. (Ed.), (En)Visioning Socialism IV: Raising the Future in Our Imaginations Before Raising It in Reality. In Science & Society, Vol. 86, No. 2. New York: Guilford Publications.: https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/10.1521/siso.2022.86.2.140 David Laibman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Laibman Louis Althusser (Monoskop): https://monoskop.org/Louis_Althusser Althuser, Louis. Marxism and Humanism. In: Marxist Internet Archive. First appeared in the Cahiers de l'I.S.E.A., June 1964.: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1964/marxism-humanism.htm   Further Future Histories Episodes on related topics S02E33 | Pat Devine on Negotiated Coordination: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e33-pat-devine-on-negotiated-coordination/ S02E19 | David Laibman on Multilevel Democratic Iterative Coordination: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e19-david-laibman-on-multilevel-democratic-iterative-coordination/ S02E10 | Aaron Benanav on Associational Socialism and Democratic Planning: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e10-aaron-benanav-on-associational-socialism-and-democratic-planning/ S01E58 | Jasper Bernes on Planning and Anarchy: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e58-jasper-bernes-on-planning-and-anarchy/ (German) S01E51 | Timo Daum zur unsichtbaren Hand des Plans: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e51-timo-daum-zur-unsichtbaren-hand-des-plans/ (German) S02E14 | Jakob Heyer zu Grundproblemen einer postkapitalistischen Produktionsweise (Part1): https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e14-jakob-heyer-zu-grundproblemen-einer-postkapitalistischen-produktionsweise-teil-1/ (German) S02E15 | Jakob Heyer zu Grundproblemen einer postkapitalistischen Produktionsweise (Part 2): https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e15-jakob-heyer-zu-grundproblemen-einer-postkapitalistischen-produktionsweise-teil-2/ If you like Future Histories, you can help with your support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories? Write me at office@futurehistories.today and join the discussion on Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast or on Mastodon: @FutureHistories@mstdn.social or on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/FutureHistories/ or on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfRFz38oh9RH73-pWcME6yw www.futurehistories.today Episode Keywords: #SørenMau, #JanGroos, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #Interview, #Freedom, #Communism, #Democracy, #PlannedEconomy, #Necessity, #Organisation, #Work, #EconomicPower, #MuteCompulsion, #StummerZwang, #CommunismIsFreedom, #VersoBooks, #Verso, #DemocraticPlanning

This year marked 60 years since the March on Washington, and there is a bipartisan acceptance of the event as a monumental step forward for Black Americans for the struggle for civil rights. While Martin Luther King's iconic  speech for many is understood as a call for collective understanding to get beyond racial differences and come together as one united nation, that wasn't the ultimate goal of the march. It's organizers had a Socialist Democratic vision of massive economic redistribution of wealth. The March on Washington for jobs and freedom became a victory for the Civil Rights movement and its leaders, but was it truly a success? Read Paul's piece in Jacobin Magazine here: https://jacobin.com/2023/08/march-on-washington-anniversary-civil-rights-economic-inequality   About TIR Thank you for supporting the show! Remember to like and subscribe on YouTube. Also, consider supporting us on   Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents   Check out our official merch store at https://www.thisisrevolutionpodcast.com/   Also follow us on... https://podcasts.apple.com/.../this-is.../id1524576360 www.youtube.com/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/ Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   Follow the TIR Crüe on Twitter: @TIRShowOakland @djenebajalan @DrKuba2 @probert06 @StefanBertramL @MarcusHereMeow   Read Jason: https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/jason-myles   Read Pascal: https://www.newsweek.com/black-political-elite-serving...

It's been a hot summer in more ways than one. From strikes in Hollywood to United Auto Workers voting in favor of strikes, the push for better working conditions isn't showing signs of cooling down. It's been years since we've seen this kind of burst of workplace organizing, and it recalls some of the most famous moments of labor history. We couldn't think of a better voice than our guest this week to help us unpack everything that's been going on. Alex Press is a staff writer for Jacobin Magazine where she covers labor. Her work has appeared in outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post, just to name a few. She was a union organizer before becoming a reporter. Press joins WITHpod to discuss what has contributed to this current wave, pandemic induced changes to how people think about labor, shifts in power during this moment and the outlook ahead.

Branko Marcetic joined Antiwar Radio this week to talk about two articles he wrote recently. The first concerns the ousting of former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan in a no-confidence vote. U.S. officials and their friends in the media had said, emphatically, that the American government had no role in his removal. But a recently published cable appears to contradict that claim. Scott and Marcetic discuss. They then turn to the second article which examines the U.S. government's apparent plan to extend the war in Ukraine, despite the failures of the counteroffensive. Discussed on the show: “Imran Khan's Ouster Is a Story of US Power and Propaganda” (Jacobin) “U.S.-Israel Plot Against Pakistan: A Desperate Imran Khan's Big, Bad Conspiracy Theory” (Haaretz) “Are US officials signaling a new ‘forever war' in Ukraine?” (Responsible Statecraft) Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Download Episode. Branko Marcetic joined Antiwar Radio this week to talk about two articles he wrote recently. The first concerns the ousting of former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan in a no-confidence vote. U.S. officials and their friends in the media had said, emphatically, that the American government had no role in his removal. But a recently published cable appears to contradict that claim. Scott and Marcetic discuss. They then turn to the second article which examines the U.S. government's apparent plan to extend the war in Ukraine, despite the failures of the counteroffensive. Discussed on the show: “Imran Khan's Ouster Is a Story of US Power and Propaganda” (Jacobin) “U.S.-Israel Plot Against Pakistan: A Desperate Imran Khan's Big, Bad Conspiracy Theory” (Haaretz) “Are US officials signaling a new ‘forever war' in Ukraine?” (Responsible Statecraft) Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY

For this week's free episode, the cast of Riley, Milo, Hussein, and Alice speak with (now three-time!) guest Alex N. Press, the labour correspondent for Jacobin Magazine, about two of her recent stories. In one, a ‘flexible work' app is assigning people gigs that lead them directly across a picket line. In another, studio executives in Hollywood are dreaming up ways to digitize an actor's likeness and use them in AI-generated content, for free, forever. And in the face of Spencer Confidential not actually getting 11 billion downloads, we ask: is the Silicon Valley-ification of Hollywood just intent on destroying the concept of movies? Check out Alex's articles here! https://jacobin.com/2023/07/southern-california-hotel-workers-strike-automated-management-unite-here https://jacobin.com/2023/07/hollywood-writers-actors-strike-studios-streaming If you want access to our Patreon bonus episodes, early releases of free episodes, and powerful Discord server, sign up here: https://www.patreon.com/trashfuture *STREAM ALERT* Check out our Twitch stream, which airs 9-11 pm UK time every Monday and Thursday, at the following link: https://www.twitch.tv/trashfuturepodcast *WEB DESIGN ALERT* Tom Allen is a friend of the show (and the designer behind our website). If you need web design help, reach out to him here:  https://www.tomallen.media/ *MILO ALERT* Check out Milo's upcoming live shows here: https://www.miloedwards.co.uk/live-shows Trashfuture are: Riley (@raaleh), Milo (@Milo_Edwards), Hussein (@HKesvani), Nate (@inthesedeserts), and Alice (@AliceAvizandum)

On the eve of a possible UPS strike in the United States, Kristen Ghodsee reads a 1968 introduction to Alexandra Kollontai's 1921 pamphlet written in support of the Workers Opposition. This was a fundamental critique of Bolshevism from within the Party ranks, which was squashed and ended Kollontai's political career in the USSR.Mentioned in this episode: Total Liberation Podcast with Mexie (Livestream), “Building Utopia with Dr. Kristen Ghodsee,” July 7, 2023Upstream Podcast, “Everyday Utopia and Radical Imagination with Kristen Ghodsee,” June 19, 2023RevolutionZ, “Diverse Utopias with Kristen Ghodsee,” June 18, 2023“Gender Oppression isn't inherent in human nature,” Jacobin Magazine, June 23, 2023More recent writing from Kristen Ghodsee:“Living Communally Can Make Us Less Lonely,” The Nation, June 28, 2023“The Ukrainian Utopia that almost Existed,” The Washington Post, June 23, 2023“To Smash the Patriarchy, We Need to Get Specific About What It Means,” Jacobin Magazine, June 10, 2023Also check out these upcoming events, all information will be posted here:Online - City Lights Bookstore, July 19 (6:00pm Pacific Time)Online - How To Academy, August 3 (6:00pm GMT)Online - Second Life Book Club, August 9 (12:00pm Pacific Time)In person - Society for Ethical Culture Sunday Platform, August 13 (11:00am EDT)In person - Half King Reading Series, August 15, (7:00pm EDT)Thanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

Today on the show we've brought on Alex Press, a staff writer at Jacobin Magazine, to explore labor power — specifically, looking at how the strengthening of the labor movement through unions, strikes, and other workplace actions, are serving as a response to not only the harms inflicted by neoliberalism, but also, how these institutions and actions can serve as direct responses to climate change-fueled disasters.  It's been said that one of the best disaster responses is an organized workplace. In this episode, we'll explore what we mean by that, take stock of the current labor landscape in the United States, and discuss how unions, strikes, and other forms of labor power can serve as ways to strengthen our collective and solidarity-focused muscles in a world of neoliberal capitalism. Resources: In Obama's Working, There is No Way Out, Alex Press's piece in Jacobin Citations Needed — News Brief: 2000s Zombie Neoliberalism Lives On in Obama's New Netflix Doc The Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee Follow The Response on Twitter and Instagram for updates, memes, and more. Our entire catalog of documentaries and interviews can be found at theresponsepodcast.org — or wherever you get your podcasts. Want to help spread the word? Please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify — it makes a huge difference in reaching new people who may otherwise not hear about this show. The Response is published by Shareable.

Support the show and get the sunday members show at patreon.com/leftreckoning We are joined this week by Nick French (@NickFrenchNYC) assistant editor at Jacobin Magazine, to talk about the right's claim that 'wokeism' is just secret Marxism, and why if you are worried about oppression you should be a Marxist. Read Nick's piece here: https://jacobin.com/2023/04/cultural-marxism-woke-capitalism-conservatives-oppression

Journalist David Sirota talks about why Biden's debt ceiling "victory" is actually a failure. But first Ajamu Baraka talks about war, imperialism and why the United States of America is a "gangster state." Ajamu Baraka is human rights defender whose experience spans four decades of domestic and international education and activism, with roots are in the Black Liberation Movement and anti-apartheid and Central American solidarity struggles. He was the Founding Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) from July 2004 until June 2011. Before that, Baraka worked with Amnesty International USA where he was the Southern Regional Director and also directed Amnesty's National Program to Abolish the Death Penalty. In 1998, Baraka was one of 300 human rights defenders from around the world who were brought together at the first International Summit of Human Rights Defenders commemorating the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2001, Baraka received the “Abolitionist of the Year” award from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. The following year, Baraka received the “Human Rights Guardian” award from the National Center for Human Rights Education. Baraka has also served on the boards of various national and international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International (USA), the Center for Constitutional Rights, Africa Action, and the Mississippi Workers' Center for Human Rights. He's a national organizer for Black Alliance For Peace and was the Green Party nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2016. His writing has appeared in Black Agenda Report, Common Dreams, Dissident Voice, Pambazuka News, and CounterPunch. Link to The Black Alliance For Peace website - https://blackallianceforpeace.com/ Link to The Black Alliance For Peace Zone of Peace campaign - https://blackallianceforpeace.com/zoneofpeace DAVID SIROTA is an award-winning journalist and bestselling author living in Denver, Colorado. He was nominated for an Academy Award for his work helping Adam McKay create the story for the blockbuster film DON'T LOOK UP. Sirota is the founder and editor of The Lever, an editor at large at Jacobin Magazine and a columnist at The Guardian. He served as Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign speechwriter in 2020. He also created Audible's financial crisis podcast series MELTDOWN, which was named one of the best podcasts of the year by The Atlantic and Uproxx. Link to The Lever - https://www.levernews.com/ Get your Katie Halper Show Merch here! https://katiehalper.myspreadshop.com/all Eventbrite link for the live taping with Briahna Joy Gray in NYC on June 10, 2023! https://www.eventbrite.com/e/katie-halper-show-live-with-briahna-joy-gray-tickets-643828447217 ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media & to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Follow Katie on Twitter: @kthalps Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/rkEk75Emhy

The Writers Guild of America, which has over 11-thousand members, is entering week its third week of a work stoppage.  This is the first strike in 15 years, and comes at a time when the TV and film industry has seen some major changes in recent years. Amongst their demands, writers are seeking higher wages, better residuals, and assurances on the use of AI. First we hear from Monice Mitchell Simms, TV writer, screenwriter, author, producer and a member of the Writers Guild of America, who has been on the picket lines in Los Angeles. Then we speak with Alex Press, labor reporter and staff writer at Jacobin Magazine

On this week's episode of The Audit, Dave and Josh go back to school with Denis Prager's enormous library of children's educational content! The American right's obsession with attacking teachers and public education in recent years has given us PragerU Kids, a streaming hub of “pro-America” kids programming intent on battling the evil woke agendas “infiltrating classrooms, culture, and social media.” As a guest, the two brought in a real teacher: Betsy Long, a public school educator in Los Angeles who has written about education politics in Jacobin Magazine. As a union leader, Betsy led her school site in the recent teacher strike that won record-breaking wage increases. The team discusses various “educational” PragerU Kids videos:Amy Coney Barrett Crafting Game ShowVenezuela: Vivi's Life under Socialism (Animated)Otto's Tales: Remember the Ladies (Storytime)Otto's Tales: The American Trinity with Dennis Prager (Storytime)The National Anthemwith Candace Owens (Storytime)If you'd like to support this show, head over to www.levernews.com/audit/ and leave a tip for Dave and Josh. To listen to Lever Premium Podcasts, and all the other benefits of a paid subscription, click here. A transcript of this episode is available here.

Some topics are too vast, too vital for us to cover on our own. Today, we address one such topic. We invited Jacobin Magazine's Meagan Day and Branko Marcetic for a roundtable discussion of EMPIRE RECORDS (1995). We proffer some theories about why this attempt to hit the Gen X zeitgeist actually resonated more strongly with millennials, and how its depiction of alt-culture proved life-changing for at least one of the panelists. Our previous symposium on "You've Got Mail" - https://soundcloud.com/michael-and-us/176-youve-got-mail-a-michael-us-symposium-w-meagan-day-and-branko-marcetic Meagan at the Oxford Union - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEnqmgVaOjc&ab_channel=OxfordUnion

Scott talks with Branko Marcetic about some cables he recently dug up that show U.S. officials and western governments voicing concern about Russia's reaction to NATO expansion going back to the 1990s. Marcetic's work adds to the evidence that shatters the argument that anyone connecting NATO expansion to the February invasion is either an amplifier or victim of a Russian disinformation operation. Scott and Marcetic go over what he found and zoom out to examine the broader context. Discussed on the show: “Diplomatic Cables Show Russia Saw NATO Expansion as a Red Line” (ACURA) “Ignoring Gorbachev's Warnings” (Current Affairs) “‘Now or Never': The Immediate Origins of Putin's Preventative War on Ukraine” (Journal of Military and Strategic Studies) Retired General Wesely Clark saying the US cannot let nuclear weapons deter its efforts Branko Marcetic is a writer for Jacobin Magazine, a fellow at In These Times, and host of the 1/200 podcast. He is the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. Follow him on Twitter @BMarchetich. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon to listen to this bonus episode, and all of our bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/knowyourenemySam is joined by David Broder — the Europe editor of Jacobin Magazine and author of First They Took Rome: How the Populist Right Conquered Italy and the forthcoming book, Mussolini's Grandchildren: Fascism in Contemporary Italy — to discuss the recent victory of Giorgia Meloni in Italian general elections. Meloni's Brothers for Italy party descends directly from the neo-fascist parties of post-war Italy. We discuss the ways in which her victory is continuous and discontinuous with the recent history of right-wing populism in Italy — from Silvio Berlusconi to Matteo Salvini. And David explains how Meloni has incorporated fascist nostalgia and historical revision into a 21st century, identitarian nationalism, which draws heavily on conservative economics, anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ politics, and "great replacement" nativist conspiracy. Further reading: David Broder, "Italy's drift to the far right began long before the rise of Giorgia Meloni," Guardian, Sept. 2022. Natasha Lennard, "It's a Girl (Fascist!)," The Intercept, Sept. 2022.Adam Tooze, "Who is going to vote for Italy's right-wing coalition?," Chartbook, Sept 2022. 

The Peekskill Riots surrounded a concert by singer and activist Paul Robeson. His stances on political and civil rights issues and his communist affiliations catalyzed protests that were fueled with an undercurrent of racism and antisemitism. Research: American Civil Liberties Union. “Violence in Peekskill: A Report on the Violations of Civil Liberties at Two Paul Robeson Concerts near Peekskill, NY.” 1949. By LANSING WARREN Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. "Paris 'Peace Congress' Assails U. S. and Atlantic Pact, Upholds Soviet: MEETING AT 'PEACE CONGRESS' IN PARIS CONGRESS IN PARIS ASSAILS U. S. POLICY." New York Times (1923-), Apr 21 1949, p. 1. ProQuest. Web. 31 Aug. 2022 . Congress, House, Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of the Unauthorized Use of U.S. Passports, 84th Congress, Part 3, June 12, 1956; in Thirty Years of Treason: Excerpts from Hearings Before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1938–1968, Eric Bentley, ed. (New York: Viking Press, 1971), 770. Courtney, Steve. “Peekskill's days of infamy: The Robeson riots of 1949.” The Reporter Dispatch, September 5, 1982. http://www.bencourtney.com/peekskillriots/ Democracy “VIDEO: Pete Seeger Recalls the 1949 Peekskill Riot Where He And Paul Robeson Were Attacked.” 1/31/2014. https://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/31/video_pete_seeger_recalls_the_1949 Dorinson, Joseph. “Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson: Athletes and Activists at Armageddon.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies , Winter 1999, Vol. 66, No. 1, Paul Robeson. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27774174 Horne, Field. "Peekskill riots." Encyclopedia of New York State, edited by Peter R. Eisenstadt and Laura-Eve Moss, Syracuse UP, 2005, p. 1190. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A194197875/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=25d15b16. Accessed 30 Aug. 2022. Horne, Gerald. “Paul Robeson: The Artist as Revolutionary.” Pluto Press. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt19b9jxj.9 Hudson River Maritime Museum. “Paul Robeson and the Peekskill Riots.” 1/18/2021. https://www.hrmm.org/history-blog/paul-robeson-and-the-peekskill-riots Huggins, Nathan Irvin. "Paul Robeson." The Nation, vol. 248, no. 11, 20 Mar. 1989, pp. 383+. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A7424117/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=6617e02c. Accessed 30 Aug. 2022. Karp, Jonathan D. “Performing Black-Jewish Symbiosis: The ‘Hassidic Chant' of Paul Robeson.” American Jewish History, Volume 91, Number 1, March 2003. https://doi.org/10.1353/ajh.2004.0032 "Remembering Peekskill." Jacobin Magazine, 22 June 2017, p. NA. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A675159334/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=459a974b. Accessed 30 Aug. 2022. Robeson, Paul. “The Negro people and the Soviet Union.” 1950. https://palmm.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A4785 Salkin, Jeffrey K. “Inside The 1949 Westchester KKK Attack Where Rioters Chanted ‘We're Hitler's Boys'” Forward. 8/26/2019. https://forward.com/culture/113279/peekskill-riots-1949-westchester-kkk-fascist-attack-jewish-black-attendees/ Shea, Rich. “Paul Robeson Football Star.” Rutgers Today. 3/13/2019. https://www.rutgers.edu/news/paul-robeson-football-star Smith, Ronald A. “The Paul Robeson—Jackie Robinson Saga and a Political Collision.” Journal of Sport History , Summer 1979, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Summer 1979). Via JSTOR. : https://www.jstor.org/stable/43608951 Walwik, Joseph. “Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies Vol. 66, No. 1, Paul Robeson (1898-1976)—A Centennial Symposium (Winter 1999).” Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27774178 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ben Burgis is a columnist for Jacobin Magazine, an adjunct philosophy professor at Morehouse College, and the host of the podcast and YouTube show “Give Them An Argument.” He's the author of several books including “Christopher Hitchens: What He Got Right, How He Went Wrong, and Why He Still Matters” and “Canceling Comedians While the World Burns: A Critique of the Contemporary Left.”