Podcast appearances and mentions of John Stuart Mill

Hannes Kuch zu Marktsozialismus, demokratischem Ethos und warum Sozialismus und Liberalismus einander brauchen. Shownotes persönliche Website (enthält eine Liste aktueller Publikationen und Vorträge): https://www.hanneskuch.de/ Hannes Kuch an der Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main: https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/49564280/Kuch__Hannes zum Institute for Economic Democracy: https://ied.si/en/ Kuch, H. (2023). Wirtschaft, Demokratie und liberaler Sozialismus. Campus Verlag. https://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/publikationsdetails/ifs-hannes-kuch-wirtschaft-demokratie-und-liberaler-sozialismus.html Kuch, H. (2019). Liberaler Sozialismus. Information Philosophie, 3, 80–84. https://www.academia.edu/41070448/Liberaler_Sozialismus Buchsymposium zum Buch in der aktuellen Ausgabe der Zeitschrift für praktische Philosophie: https://www.praktische-philosophie.org/zfpp/issue/view/25 zum Liberalismus und der Differenzierung zwischen philosophischem, politischem und wirtschaftlichem Liberalismus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalismus auch zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Sozialismus: McManus, M. (2024). The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Political-Theory-of-Liberal-Socialism/McManus/p/book/9781032647234?srsltid=AfmBOor_mrQnvikAjMm4btCi2sxOn5AIo2Z0YbKAGxzkDliS23zPOfpj McManus, M. (Hrsg.). (2021). Liberalism and Socialism. Mortal Enemies or Embittered Kin? Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-79537-5 zu John Rawls: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls O'Neill, M., & Williamson, T. (Hrsg.). (2012). Property-Owning Democracy. Rawls and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley-vch.de/de/fachgebiete/geistes-und-sozialwissenschaften/property-owning-democracy-978-1-4443-3410-4 Einführungsvideo zum Konzept der „Property-Owning Democracy“: https://youtu.be/NSNpnv2EI8I?si=jLgznaNvPcRQEcoa zu Jürgen Habermas: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas zu Kapitalflucht: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitalflucht zum „Faktum der Vernunft“ in Kants „Kritik der praktischen Vernunft“: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritik_der_praktischen_Vernunft#Faktum_der_Vernunft zu John Stuart Mill: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill Jörke, D., & Salomon, D. (2025). Erziehung zum Bourgeois. Zur Funktion der Genossenschaftsidee bei John Stuart Mill. ZPTh – Zeitschrift Für Politische Theorie, 15(2–2024), 181–199. https://budrich-journals.de/index.php/zpth/article/view/45608 zu Genossenschaften: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genossenschaft Polanyi, K. (1973). The Great Transformation. Politische und ökonomische Ursprünge von Gesellschaften und Wirtschaftssystemen. Suhrkamp. https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/karl-polanyi-the-great-transformation-t-9783518278604 zum Marktsozialismus in Jugoslawien: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeiterselbstverwaltung Niji, Y. (2014). Hegels Lehre von der Korporation. Hegel-Jahrbuch, 2014(1), 288-295. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/hgjb-2014-0147/pdf#APA für einen Überblick über verschiedene Planungsmodelle (inklusive der erwähnten): https://www.democratic-planning.com/info/models/ zu „participatory economy“ (dem Modell von Robin Hahnel und Michael Albert): https://participatoryeconomy.org/ zu den Institutionen dieses Modells (inklusive der Föderationen der Räte): https://participatoryeconomy.org/the-model/overview/#institutions Hahnel, R. (2021). Democratic Economic Planning. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Democratic-Economic-Planning/Hahnel/p/book/9781032003320 Cockshott, W. P., & Cottrell, A. (1993). Towards a New Socialism. Spokesman. https://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf Devine, P. (2022). Democracy and Economic Planning. The Political Economy of a Self-Governing Society. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Democracy-And-Economic-Planning-The-Political-Economy-Of-A-Self-governing-Society/Devine/p/book/9780367153120?srsltid=AfmBOorSJ0icTHoQKME544efzuce-9m5Py1YvimTC1pYGormKwc5scbl Hayek, F. A. von. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-use-knowledge-society.pdf Groos, J., & Morozov, E. (2025). Discovery Beyond Competition - Evgeny Morozov in conversation with Jan Groos. In J. Groos & C. Sorg (Hrsg.), Creative Construction. Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction Grünberg, M. (2023). The Planning Daemon. Future Desire and Communal Production. Historical Materialism, 31(4), 115–159. https://brill.com/view/journals/hima/31/4/article-p115_4.xml Video zu “Employee-Ownership”  mit Interviews von Mitarbeitenden des „Institute for Economic Democracy”: https://youtu.be/rSc6OqSPq2E?si=WbksAY12FOG9BU7g     Thematisch angrenzende Folgen S03E37 | Frieder Vogelmann zu demokratischer Öffentlichkeit https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e37-frieder-vogelmann-zu-demokratischer-oeffentlichkeit/ S03E28 | Sylke van Dyk zu alternativer Gouvernementalität https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e28-silke-van-dyk-zu-alternativer-gouvernementalitaet/ S03E21 | Christoph Sorg zu Finanzwirtschaft als Planung https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e21-christoph-sorg-zu-finanzwirtschaft-als-planung/ S02E52 | Henrike Kohpeiss zu bürgerlicher Kälte https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e52-henrike-kohpeiss-zu-buergerlicher-kaelte/ S02E44 | Evgeny Morozov on Discovery beyond Competition https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e44-evgeny-morozov-on-discovery-beyond-competition/ S02E42 | Max Grünberg zum Planungsdämon https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e42-max-gruenberg-zum-planungsdaemon/ S02E33 | Pat Devine on Negotiated Coordination https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e33-pat-devine-on-negotiated-coordination/ S02E22 | Robin Hahnel on Parecon (Part 2) https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e22-robin-hahnel-on-parecon-part-2/ S02E21 | Robin Hahnel on Parecon (Part 1) https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e21-robin-hahnel-on-parecon-part1/ S01E11 | Frieder Vogelmann zu alternativen Regierungskünsten https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s01/e11-frieder-vogelmann-zu-alternativen-regierungskuensten/   --- Bei weiterem Interesse am Thema demokratische Wirtschaftsplanung können diese Ressourcen hilfreich sein: Demokratische Planung – eine Infoseite https://www.demokratische-planung.de/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (Hrsg.).(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (Hrsg.). (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/   ---   Future Histories Kontakt & Unterstützung Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories   Schreibt mir unter: office@futurehistories.today Diskutiert mit mir auf Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast auf Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/futurehistories.bsky.social auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ auf Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories   Webseite mit allen Folgen: www.futurehistories.today English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #HannesKuch, #JanGroos, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #Interview, #Liberalismus, #Sozialismus, #Markt, #Marktsozialismus, #Kapitalismus, #Neoliberalismus, #Ökonomie, #PolitischeÖkonomie, #Demokratie, #DemokratischeWirtschaftsplanung, #DemokratischePlanwirtschaft, #Planwirtschaft, #Planungsdebatte, #PostkapitalistischeProduktionsweise, #AlternativeWirtschaft, #Utopie, #Transformation, #Postkapitalismus, #PostKapitalismus, #ÖkonomischePlanung

Today we have Dr. Matthew McManus on to discuss his book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism. It turns out that there is an extensive tradition of socialism emerging out of classical liberal theory in the 19th century that is clearly relevant for today. What can modern leftists learn from John Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, John Rawls, and many others? Listen to find out.

John Stuart Mill ist ein richtiger „Klassiker“ zum Thema Meinungsfreiheit. Er argumentiert, dass es die Welt insgesamt besser macht, wenn möglichst alle Menschen möglichst ungehindert ihre Meinung sagen dürfen, egal wie absurd oder abwegig diese Meinung ist. Er will zeigen: Selbst wenn meine Meinung die „herrschende“ ist, selbst dann wäre es besser für mich selbst, wenn abweichende Meinungen erlaubt sind. In der heutigen Episode erkläre ich sein Argument in Grundzügen und ordne es danach – ganz kurz – kritisch ein. Literatur: John Stuart Mill, Über die Freiheit, Stuttgart 2010

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an essay about individual freedom and its limits. Mill argues that people should be free to think, speak, and act as they wish, as long as they don't harm others. He believes this freedom leads to progress and happiness. Governments and society shouldn't control people's choices unless those choices hurt someone else. On Liberty is pertinent to contemporary debates about free speech, personal rights, and social control and so retains its relevance, perhaps more urgently than ever. Mill's work is key to a proper understanding of the balance between freedom and responsibility, in a world where the exercise of power and the use of new technologies threaten liberty around the world.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

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

पिछले कुछ दिनों से भारत और पाकिस्तान के बीच हो रहे टकराव को आप सभी ने देखा ही होगा। इससे जुड़ी खबरें और अफवाहों से भी हम सभी वाकिफ हैं। ऐसे माहौल में क्यों न इस विषय को थोड़ी शांति से और अकादमिक दृष्टिकोण से देखा जाए?आज हमारे साथ पुलियाबाज़ी पर जुड़ रहे हैं अतुल मिश्रा, जो शिव नादर इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ एमिनेंस में इंटरनैशनल रिलेशन्स के प्रोफेसर हैं। उनकी किताब भारत और पाकिस्तान के रिश्तों को पार्टिशन और संप्रभुता के नज़रिये से समझने की कोशिश करती है। यह हमारे लिए तो बहुत ही दिलचस्प चर्चा रही और एक अलग ही दृष्टिकोण से हमने भारत और पाकिस्तान के रिश्तों को समझा। तो आज की चर्चा जरूर सुनिए।We discuss:* A framework to understand international relations in South Asia* Understanding the current India-Pak conflict from the framework of partition* What is Sovereignty?* How did minority politics emerge in India?* The internationalisation of Hindu-Muslim community relations* Was partition inevitable?* Alternatives to partition* The process of minoritization post independence* The Theory of Hostage Minorities* Nehru's Discovery of India* Territorial aspect of SovereigntyAlso, please note that Puliyabaazi is now available on Youtube with video.Read:Book | The Sovereign Lives of India and Pakistan: Post-Partition Statehood in South Asia by Atul MishraAtul's column on Hindustan TimesArticle | The Many Imaginations of Partition: Lost ideas for India and the neighbourhood by Atul MishraNotes:At 5:26, Atul meant to say "सबसे बड़े जो समूह है उनके अंतर संबंधों को आप पाकिस्तान को ध्यान में रखे बिना आप समझ नहीं सकते।"Reference for Jinnah's quote mentioned by Atul at 01:15:17. The speech was made at Kanpur on 30 March 1941. Source: Jinnah His Successes, Failures and Role in History by Ishtiaq AhmedOne correction: John Stuart Mill makes his argument that India is unfit for self-governance in his book Considerations on Representative Government (1961). Khyati incorrectly mentions it as the 1880s. In the 1880s, Mill's argument was used by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to oppose devolution of British power to Indians.Related episodes:पाकिस्तानी मिलिट्री के अनगिनत कारोबार। Pakistan's Military Inc ft. Ayesha Siddiqaपाकिस्तान का आर्थिक सफ़र। Understanding Pakistan's Economic Challenges ft. Uzair YounusTippaNi | भारत-पाक संबंध खाई से रसातल तकIf you have any questions for the guest or feedback for us, please comment here or write to us at puliyabaazi@gmail.com. If you like our work, please subscribe and share this Puliyabaazi with your friends, family and colleagues.Website: https://puliyabaazi.inGuest: @atulm01Hosts: @saurabhchandra @pranaykotas @thescribblebeeTwitter: @puliyabaaziInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.puliyabaazi.in

On this May Day edition of Parallax Views w/ J.G. Michael, political theorist Matt McManus joins us to unpack The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, his groundbreaking new book. We explore: Liberal Socialism Defined: Why liberal rights and socialist economics aren't mutually exclusive—and how methodological collectivism and normative individualism unite them. Historical Roots: From Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine's radical democracy to John Stuart Mill's social liberalism, contrasted with Edmund Burke and Ludwig von Mises. Core Principles: A developmental ethic over mere inquiry, economic democracy within a liberal framework, and, for some, extending democratic values into the family. Key Influences: John Rawls's Theory of Justice, Samuel Moyn's critique of Cold War liberalism and the relationship between Samuel Moyn's book LIBERALISM AGAINST ITSELF: COLD WAR INTELLECTUALS AND THE MAKING OF OUR TIMES and Matt's book, and a speculative look at Richard Rorty's pragmatic liberalism in relation to Liberal Socialism. Global & Anti-Colonial Critiques: Addressing charges of Eurocentrism and imperialist bias by anti-colonial and Global South critiques of Liberal Socialism. Critiques from the Left & Right: Responses to neoliberal, libertarian, and Marxist-Leninist objections, and why caricaturing Marx misses his nuanced view of liberal institutions. If you're interested in the crossroads of political philosophy, the future of democratic socialism, and reclaiming a tradition of freedom and equality, tune in to this deep dive with Matt McManus.

T.S. Eliot claimed that he learned his prose style from reading F.H. Bradley, and the poet wrote his PhD on the English philosopher at Harvard. Bradley's life was remarkably unremarkable, as he spent his entire career as a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, where his only obligation was not to get married. Yet in over fifty years of slow, meticulous writing he articulated a series of unusual and arresting ideas that attacked Kantian and utilitarian notions of duty and morality. In this episode, Jonathan and James look at Bradley's polemic against John Stuart Mill, ‘My Station and Its Duties', and other essays in Ethical Studies, which challenge the idea of morality as a product of calm reasoning arrived at by mature, rational minds. For Bradley, morality is a characteristic of communities, determined by people's differing needs at various stages in their lives, and the universal need for self-realisation can only be achieved through those communities.Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and all our other Close Readings series, subscribe:Directly in Apple Podcasts: https://lrb.me/applecrcipIn other podcast apps: https://lrb.me/closereadingscipRead more in the LRB:Frank Kermode on Eliot and Bradley:https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v10/n17/frank-kermode/feast-of-st-thomas Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. - John Stuart MillThe resource from Henrik Karlsson: https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/unfoldingPart 2: “Becoming perceptive”Part 3: “Rationality is an underrated way to be authentic”Donate to the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund: www.pcrf.netGET AN OCCASIONAL PERSONAL EMAIL FROM ME: www.makeyourdamnbedpodcast.comTUNE IN ON INSTAGRAM FOR COOL CONTENT: www.instagram.com/mydbpodcastOR BE A REAL GEM + TUNE IN ON PATREON: www.patreon.com/MYDBpodcastOR WATCH ON YOUTUBE: www.youtube.com/juliemerica The opinions expressed by Julie Merica and Make Your Damn Bed Podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only. Make Your Damn Bed podcast is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Get bonus content on PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/make-your-damn-bed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For centuries, the work ethic was used to justify inequality, but it also fueled a powerful movement for justice. In the final part of this series, Elizabeth Anderson and Dart Lindsley explore the progressive work ethic, a vision of labor rooted in dignity, equality, and shared prosperity. They trace how thinkers like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, the Ricardian Socialists, and Karl Marx inspired reforms in education, labor rights, and social insurance, laying the foundation for social democracy. The conversation then turns to the neoliberal revival of the conservative work ethic, where leaders like Reagan and Thatcher redefined work to cut protections, concentrate power, and suppress wages. This isn't just history—it's a framework for how we treat work today.Elizabeth Anderson is a political philosopher known for her work on democracy, economic justice, and the ethics of work. Her latest book, Hijacked, explores how the work ethic was distorted by neoliberalism to undermine workers and how it can be reclaimed to support fairness and dignity in the workplace.In this episode, Dart and Elizabeth discuss:- How the progressive work ethic reshaped labor- Why Smith and Mill saw work as freedom, not control- How Marx and the Ricardian socialists fought for justice- The rise of worker protections and education- How neoliberalism shifted power to corporations- The fall of social democracy and its effects today- Reclaiming work as a source of dignity and fairness- And other topics…Professor Elizabeth Anderson specializes in moral and political philosophy, feminist theory, social epistemology, and the philosophy of economics. She holds the positions of Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's & Gender Studies, and Max Shaye Professor of Public Philosophy at the University of Michigan. A MacArthur “Genius” Fellow, Elizabeth has written extensively on democracy, labor, and economic justice, including her latest book, Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back. Resources Mentioned:Hijacked, by Elizabeth Anderson: https://www.amazon.com/Hijacked-Neoliberalism-against-Workers-Lectures/dp/1009275437The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith: https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128Principles of Political Economy, by John Stuart Mill: https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Political-Economy-John-Stuart/dp/0678014531An Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Malthus: https://www.amazon.com/Principle-Population-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0192837478Connect with Elizabeth:Profile: https://lsa.umich.edu/philosophy/people/faculty/eandersn.html Work with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

The work ethic began as a religious principle before evolving into an economic theory. But by the 18th and 19th centuries, it had taken on a new role: a justification for social inequality. Thinkers like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill saw work as a path to dignity and opportunity, while economists like Thomas Malthus and Nassau Senior argued that keeping wages low and limiting aid would encourage self-reliance. This perspective had real consequences, especially during the Irish Potato Famine, when relief efforts were deliberately restricted under the belief that hardship would force people to work. In Part 2 of this series, Elizabeth and Dart explore how the work ethic shifted from a moral belief to an economic tool.In this episode, Dart and Elizabeth discuss:- How the work ethic became a tool for control- Work as dignity vs. work as discipline- The idea that poverty keeps workers in line- The fear of rising wages and worker power- The Irish Potato Famine as a test of forced labor policies- How unemployment became a moral failure- Reclaiming work as a source of empowerment- And other topics...Professor Elizabeth Anderson specializes in moral and political philosophy, feminist theory, social epistemology, and the philosophy of economics. She holds the positions of Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women's & Gender Studies, and Max Shaye Professor of Public Philosophy at the University of Michigan. A MacArthur “Genius” Fellow, Elizabeth has written extensively on democracy, labor, and economic justice, including her latest book, Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic Against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back. Resources Mentioned:Hijacked, by Elizabeth Anderson:  https://www.amazon.com/Hijacked-Neoliberalism-against-Workers-Lectures/dp/1009275437The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith: https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Nations-Adam-Smith/dp/1505577128Principles of Political Economy, by John Stuart Mill: https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Political-Economy-John-Stuart/dp/0678014531An Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Malthus: https://www.amazon.com/Principle-Population-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0192837478Connect with Elizabeth:Profile: https://lsa.umich.edu/philosophy/people/faculty/eandersn.htmlWork with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

Watch here: https://youtu.be/0jUZKIoyDPY  In this episode of Liberalism in Question, Rob sits down with historian and journalist Simon Heffer to explore the rich and complex history of liberalism. From the intellectual breakthroughs of the Scottish Enlightenment to the enduring influence of Adam Smith, we trace the evolution of liberal thought and its impact on modern society. How did thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill shape the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government? What challenges has liberalism faced over the centuries, and how has it adapted? Join us for a deep dive into the historical roots of classical liberalism.

Mill's 'Autobiography' was considered too shocking to publish while he was alive. Behind his musings on many of the philosophical and political preoccupations of his time lie the confessions of a deeply repressed man who knows that he's deeply repressed, coming to terms with the uncompromising educational experiment his father subjected him to as a child – described by Isaiah Berlin as ‘an appalling success'. In this episode Jonathan and James discuss Mill's startlingly honest account of this experience and the breakdown that ensued in his 20s, and the boldness of his life and thought from his views on socialism and the rights of women to his unwavering devotion to his wife, Harriet Taylor, the co-author of 'On Liberty' and other works.Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and all our other Close Readings series, subscribe:Directly in Apple Podcasts: https://lrb.me/applecrcipIn other podcast apps: https://lrb.me/closereadingscipFurther reading in the LRB:Sissela Bok on Mill's 'Autobiography':https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v06/n06/sissela-bok/his-father-s-childrenAlasdair MacIntyre: Mill's Forgotten Victoryhttps://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v02/n20/alasdair-macintyre/john-stuart-mill-s-forgotten-victoryPanbkaj Mishra: Bland Fanaticshttps://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n23/pankaj-mishra/bland-fanaticsNext EpisodeF.H. Bradley's 'My Station and Its Duties' can be found online here:https://archive.org/details/ethicalstudies0000brad/page/160/mode/2up Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Watch here: https://youtu.be/TgeMnPeo-Tc In this episode of Liberalism in Question, Rob sits down with historian and journalist Simon Heffer to explore the rich and complex history of liberalism. From the intellectual breakthroughs of the Scottish Enlightenment to the enduring influence of Adam Smith, we trace the evolution of liberal thought and its impact on modern society. How did thinkers like David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill shape the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government? What challenges has liberalism faced over the centuries, and how has it adapted? Join us for a deep dive into the historical roots of classical liberalism.

durée : 00:58:14 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli - John Locke, Adam Smith, Benjamin Constant et John Stuart Mill sont considérés comme les fondateurs de la pensée libérale. Leurs divergences et les nuances au sein même de leurs théories indiquent que le libéralisme n'est pas une philosophie homogène. Mais quelles étaient vraiment leurs thèses ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Claude Gautier Professeur de philosophie à l'École Normale Supérieure de Lyon; Arnaud Skornicki Maître de conférences en science politique à l'université Paris Ouest Nanterre.

Send us a textWe begin a NEW season here at Varn Vlog after 4 years of recording. The episode explores the complexities of liberal socialism, emphasizing its potential to bridge the ideals of liberalism and socialism through mutual values like equality and freedom with Dr. Matt McManus. The discussion engages with historical perspectives, critiques from Marxists, and contemporary applicability, ultimately fostering a deeper understanding of the past and future of these interconnected ideologies through a discussion's of McManus's recent book on liberal socialism • Examination of the definitions of liberalism and socialism • Discussion on skepticism surrounding liberal socialism • Core principles of moral equality, liberty, and solidarity • Historical influences of John Stuart Mill on socialist thought • Critiques of Marx on the limitations of liberalism • Global perspectives on capitalism and socialism • Future potential of liberal socialism in modern discourse Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan

Chcete-li podpořit tuto i další Konference Svobodného přístavu, prosím, pošlete dobrovolný příspěvek v krypto či korunách! BTC: 34xD6RUfqvjfbDRtahNqX3Ecf6iRSH9dNG LTC: LKcFtAi7U2dUaAiKspVpg3AFmmJzKiBiPr Číslo účtu: 2201359764/2010; variabilní symbol: 5 -------- Čtvrtým přednášejícím „Konference Svobodného přístavu 2025: Kulturní války včera, dnes a zítra“ byl Vláďa Krupa se svou přednáškou „Historie kulturních válek“. Politická agitace od masového rozšiřování volebního práva probíhá nejen přímými metodami, jako jsou předvolební kampaně nebo reklamní spoty, ale také prostřednictvím nepřímých vlivů, které mají dlouhodobý a často nenápadný dopad na veřejné mínění. Těmito nepřímými metodami jsou například romány, písně, divadelní hry, filmy a další formy masově konzumované kultury. Tyto kulturní vlivy často formují politické názory lidí, kteří se straní přímým politickým poselstvím. Příklad vlivu těchto kulturních metod je proces, který probíhal ve Velké Británii 19. století. Tam se kombinací literárních vlivů a programů Fabiánské společnosti podařilo přetvořit étos klasického liberalismu na evoluční socialismus. Klíčovými postavami této změny byli například John Stuart Mill, Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb nebo autoři jako Carlyle, Ruskin a Kingsley. Tento proces přeměny veřejného mínění z vnímání státní moci jako brzdícího faktoru pokroku na vnímání státu jako záruky svobody a motoru pokroku byl do značné míry dosažen právě nenásilnou cestou kulturních vlivů. Vladimír Krupa je spoluzakladatel českého Mises institutu, organizace zaměřující se na šíření myšlenek rakouské ekonomické školy a svobody jednotlivce. Jako významný překladatel a autor článků se dlouhodobě věnuje tématům hospodářských dějin a peněžní historie, což mu umožňuje pohled na kulturní války z unikátního ekonomického a historického úhlu.

Dr. Kegan Chandler (  @Dr_Kegan_Chandler  ) has a PhD in religious studies from the University of Cape Town. He specialized in the study of Asian religions. We talk about religion, Christianity, and Unitarianism in Japan. We mention Elisabetta Porcu, Shintoism, Buddhism, Tom Holland, Martin Scorsese, Ogyu Sorai, Commodore Matthew Perry, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, Leroy Lansing Janes, Ebina Danjo, Kanamori Michitomo, Harada Tasuku, Arthur Knapp, Origen of AlexandriaKegan's youtube channel - https://www.youtube.com/@Dr_Kegan_Chandler Kegan talking about Constantine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXIj5OH40IAKegan on Hermes and the Gospel of John - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7auX3o9Z20

Circular reasoning is normally condemned by philosophers, but in his 1841 essay ‘Circles', Emerson proposes that not getting anywhere is precisely what we need to do to find out where we already are. In this episode, Jonathan and James consider Emerson's use of the circle to demonstrate an idealistic philosophy rooted in the natural world, in which individuals are bounded by self-created horizons, and the extent to which this fits with Transcendentalist notions of progress and independence. They also discuss what his other essays, including ‘Self-Reliance', ‘Art' and ‘Nature', have to say about the importance of thinking one's own thoughts, and why Emerson had such a powerful influence on writers as varied as Nietzsche, Saul Bellow and Louisa May Alcott.Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and all our other Close Readings series, subscribe:Directly in Apple Podcasts: https://lrb.me/applecrcipIn other podcast apps: https://lrb.me/closereadingscipRead 'Circles' here:https://emersoncentral.com/texts/essays-first-series/circles/Read more in the LRB:Tony Tanner on the life of Emerson:https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v17/n10/tony-tanner/arctic-habitsColin Burrow on the American canon:https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v41/n22/colin-burrow/the-magic-bloomschtickNext episode: John Stuart Mill's Autobiography Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our intuitions are never wrong… right? In episode 124 of Overthink, Ellie and David wonder what intuition actually is. Is it a gut feeling, a rational insight, or just a generalization from past experience? They talk about the role intuition has played in early modern philosophy (in the works of Descartes, Hume, and Mill), in phenomenology (in the philosophies of Husserl and Nishida), and in the philosophy of science (in the writings of Bachelard). They also call into question the use of intuitions in contemporary analytic philosophy while also highlighting analytic critiques of the use of intuition in philosophical discourse. So, the question is: Can we trust our intuitions or not? Are they reliable sources of knowledge, or do they just reveal our implicit biases and cultural stereotypes? Plus, in the bonus, they dive into the limits of intuition. They take a look at John Stuart Mill's rebellion against intuition, the ableism involved in many analytic intuitions, and Foucault's concept of historical epistemes.Works Discussed:Maria Rosa Antognazza and Marco Segala, “Intuition in the history of philosophy (what's in it for philosophers today?)”Gaston Bachelard, Rational MaterialismGaston Bachelard, The Philosophy of NoGaston Bachelard, The Rationalist CompromiseImmanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure ReasonJohn Stuart Mill, A System of LogicMoti Mizrahi, “Your Appeals to Intuition Have No Power Here!”Nishida Kitaro, Intuition and Reflection in Self-ConsciousnessSupport the showPatreon | patreon.com/overthinkpodcast Website | overthinkpodcast.comInstagram & Twitter | @overthink_podEmail | dearoverthink@gmail.comYouTube | Overthink podcast

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.public.newsGreat Britain seems like a free nation. In recent years, there have been mass protests against everything from Israel's war with Hamas to fossil fuels. Newspaper editorialists denounce the government in strong terms daily. The nation draws upon hundreds of years of demands for free speech from intellectual giants, including John Milton, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, and George Orwell.But today, Britain appears to be descending into tyranny. In 2023, Britain's parliament passed the Public Order Act and Online Safety Act to crack down on protests and online content and then failed to pass the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act that same year. Then, last summer, the Keir Starmer Labor government appears to have deliberately spread disinformation about the high-profile killings of three little girls to justify censorship and repression of anti-mass migration protesters and rioters.

Unde se termină libertatea mea și unde începe libertatea celuilalt? Mill introduce 'principiul vătămării' care este atât de cunoscut în filosofia politică încât a devenit clișeu pe care îl spun toți suporterii înaintea meciurilor amicale sau din preliminarii: poți face ce vrei tu câtă vreme nu mă rănești pe mine. Sună bine, dar care sunt problemele acestui principiu? Octăvelu Capul Chelu' explică. "Despre libertate" (On Liberty) de John Stuart Mill este o lucrare fundamentală a liberalismului clasic, publicată în 1859. Mill susține că libertatea individuală trebuie protejată de stat și de presiunea socială, atâta timp cât acțiunile unei persoane nu dăunează altora (principiul vătămării). Unul dintre aspectele centrale este libertatea de gândire și exprimare. Mill argumentează că toate opiniile, indiferent cât de controversate, trebuie să fie libere pentru a permite progresul și confruntarea ideilor. Cenzura limitează descoperirea adevărului și dezvoltarea intelectuală. Un alt punct cheie este pericolul „tiraniei majorității”, adică impunerea de către societate a normelor dominante asupra indivizilor. Mill avertizează că nu doar guvernul poate restricționa libertatea, ci și opinia publică. Societatea nu ar trebui să impună un mod unic de viață dacă acesta nu afectează direct alte persoane. Mill respinge intervenția statului în aspecte private precum obiceiurile personale, moralitatea sau stilul de viață. Totuși, guvernul are rolul de a proteja cetățenii de violență, fraudă și exploatare. Educația și accesul la informație sunt esențiale pentru ca oamenii să ia decizii raționale. Lucrarea a influențat profund gândirea modernă despre drepturile omului, democrație și libertatea de exprimare, fiind o referință importantă pentru sistemele politice liberale de azi.☞ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/octavpopa ☞ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/podcastuldefilosofie☞ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/podcastuldefilosofie☞ Spotify, Apple: https://podcastfilosofie.buzzsprout.comSupport the showhttps://www.patreon.com/octavpopahttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC91fciphdkZyUquL3M5BiA

The co-hosts are joined by Professor Sandra Peart to discuss her many and varied contributions to the history of economic thought. Professor Peart is Dean and E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Professor in Leadership Studies and President of the Jepson Scholars Foundation at the University of Richmond. She is also the most recently named Distinguished Fellow of the History of Economics Society, which the Society confers on those who have contributed a lifetime of study to the history of economics. Topics include Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, James Buchanan, and, of course, her esteemed co-author, David Levy. 

In an era where even toothpaste shopping can trigger an existential crisis, intellectual historian Sophia Rosenfeld explore how we became both imprisoned and freed by endless options. Her new book The Age of Choice traces our evolution from a world where nobility bragged about not having any choices to one where choice itself has become our modern religion. From voting booths to gender identity, from Amazon's infinite scroll to dating apps' endless swipes, Rosenfeld reveals how "freedom of choice" conquered modern life - and why having too many options might be making us less free than we'd like to think.Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from our conversation with Rosenfeld:* Choice wasn't always central to freedom: Historically, especially among nobility, freedom was associated with not having to make choices. The modern equation of freedom with endless choice is a relatively recent development that emerged alongside consumer capitalism and democracy.* The transformation of choice from moral to preferential: There's been a fundamental shift from viewing choice primarily as a moral decision (like Hercules choosing between right and wrong paths) to seeing it as an expression of personal preference (like choosing between toothpaste brands). The mere act of having choice became morally significant, rather than actually making the "right" choice.* Democracy's evolution transformed voting: The shift to secret ballots in the late 19th century marked a crucial change in how we exercise democratic choice, moving from communal decision-making to private, individual choice - a change that philosophers like John Stuart Mill actually opposed, fearing it would reduce democracy to consumer-style selection.* Choice can work against collective good: While individual choice is celebrated as freedom, it can actually hinder addressing collective challenges like climate change or public health, where limiting individual choices might better serve the common good.* The paradox of modern choice: While we've extended choice into previously unthinkable areas (gender identity, sexuality, family relationships), many people are simultaneously seeking ways to reduce choice overload - from AI recommendations to personal shoppers - suggesting we may have reached the limits of how much choice we can handle.Sophia Rosenfeld is Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History and Chair of the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania, where she teaches European and American intellectual and cultural history with a special emphasis on the Enlightenment, the trans-Atlantic Age of Revolutions, and the legacy of the eighteenth century for modern democracy. Her newest book, to be published by Princeton University Press in February 2025, is entitled The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern Life. It explores how, between the 17th century and the present, the idea and practice of making choices from menus of options came to shape so many aspects of our existences, from consumer culture to human rights, and with what consequences. She is also the author of A Revolution in Language: The Problem of Signs in Late Eighteenth-Century France (Stanford, 2001); Common Sense: A Political History (Harvard, 2011), which won the Mark Lynton History Prize and the Society for the History of the Early American Republic Book Prize; and Democracy and Truth: A Short History (Penn Press, 2019). Her articles and essays have appeared in leading scholarly journals, including the American Historical Review, the Journal of Modern History, French Historical Studies, and the William and Mary Quarterly, as well as publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Dissent, and, frequently, The Nation. From 2013 to 2017, she co-edited the journal Modern Intellectual History. In 2022, A Cultural History of Ideas, a 6 volume book series covering antiquity to the present for which she was co-general editor with Peter Struck, appeared with Bloomsbury and won the Association of American Publishers' award for best reference work in the humanities. Her writing has been or is being translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, Hindi, Korean, and Chinese. Rosenfeld received her B.A. from Princeton University and her Ph.D. from Harvard University. She has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, the Mellon Foundation, both the Remarque Institute and the Center for Ballet and the Arts at NYU, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Paris, and the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as visiting professorships at the University of Virginia School of Law and the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris). Prior to arriving at Penn in January 2017, she was Professor of History at Yale University and, before that, the University of Virginia. She also served a three-year term from 2018 to 2021 as Vice President of the American Historical Association, where she was in charge of the Research Division. In 2022, she held the Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the North at the Library of Congress, and she was also named by the French government Officier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Académiques. Among her other ongoing interests are the history of free speech, dissent, and censorship; the history of aesthetics (including dance); the history of political language; political theory (contemporary and historical); the history of epistemology; the history of information and misinformation; the history of the emotions and senses; the history of feminism; universities and democracy; and experimental historical methods.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On 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

Should we care about the personal lives of influential thinkers? In Marx's case, probably! In this episode, we discuss two more articles from Thomas Sowell: one evaluating John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, and the other giving a detailed description of Karl Marx. We also talk about Donald Trump's second inauguration and what it means for the country!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinionsGive us your opinions here!

In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Is the free speech conversation too simplistic?  Peter Ives thinks so. He is the author of “Rethinking Free Speech,” a new book that seeks to provide a more nuanced analysis of the free speech debate within various domains, from government to campus to social media. Ives is a professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg. He researches and writes on the politics of “global English," bridging the disciplines of language policy, political theory, and the influential ideas of Antonio Gramsci. Enjoying our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:25 The Harper's Letter 05:18 Neil Young vs. Joe Rogan 08:15 Free speech culture 09:53 John Stuart Mill 12:53 Alexander Meiklejohn 17:05 Ives's critique of Jacob Mchangama's “History of Free Speech” book 17:53 Ives's definition of free speech 19:38 First Amendment vs. Canadian Charter of Rights 21:25 Hate speech 25:22 Canadian Charter and Canadian universities 34:19 White supremacy and hate speech 40:14 Speech-action distinction 46:04 Free speech absolutism 48:49 Marketplace of ideas 01:05:40 Solutions for better public discourse 01:13:02 Outro  Show notes: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” Harper's Magazine (2020) “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1859) “Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media” Jacob Mchangama (2022) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) Canadian Criminal Code (1985) Bill C-63 - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act (2024) McKinney v. University of Guelph (1990) “When is speech violence?” The New York Times (2017) Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996)

Yascha Mounk and Richard Reeves discuss why most young men aren't becoming reactionary. Richard Reeves is the founder and president of the American Institute for Boys and Men. He is the author of Dream Hoarders and, most recently, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It (which was recently included by Barack Obama on his summer reading list). In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Richard Reeves discuss whether young men propelled Donald Trump to victory in the 2024 election; how we can supply boys and men with new sources of meaning; and the enduring relevance of John Stuart Mill. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community  Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're discussing John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic (1843), specifically from Book III, "Of Induction," ch. 8, "Of the Four Methods of Experimental Inquiry." What is induction, and why is it part of logic? Science doesn't just observe regularities, but tries to isolate what is connected with what through a combination of experiments and observations. Read along with us, starting on p. 278, i.e. PDF p. 284. To get future parts, subscribe at patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the tract on Liberty, Mill is advocating the rights of the individual as against Society at the very opening of an era that was rapidly coming to the conclusion that the individual had no absolute rights against Society. The eighteenth century view is that individuals existed first, each with their own special claims and...

Ben Burgis welcomes back major friend of the pod Matt to talk his new book: "The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism," in which he "presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills." Buy the book here: https://www.routledge.com/The-Political-Theory-of-Liberal-Socialism/McManus/p/book/9781032647234?srsltid=AfmBOopS7HP7ywGhn4LB27-wBYa_vGV9tmNts-t-GIdllMV_bajrCsQrFollow Matt on Twitter: @MattPolProfFollow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.com

******Support the channel****** Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao   ******Follow me on****** Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/ The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT   This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/   Dr. Matthew McManus is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan. He is the author of books like The Emergence of Postmodernity, The Political Right and Equality, and The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism.   In this episode, we focus on The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism. We start by talking about liberalism, socialism, and liberal socialism. We then get into the historical origins of liberal socialism, with Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft, and then go through the main figures that have contributed to liberal socialism, including John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and John Rawls. We discuss how liberal socialism relates to social democracy, communism, and neoliberalism. We talk about the shortcomings of liberal socialism, and Black liberal socialism. Finally, we discuss the future of liberal socialism. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, STARRY, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, BENJAMIN GELBART, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, AND TED FARRIS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN, AND CHRISTINE GLASS! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Join the #McConnellCenter as we host Dr. Aurelein Craiutu for a conversation regarding John Stuart Mill's book On Liberty. Aurelian Craiutu (Ph.D. Princeton, 1999) is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington, and Adjunct Professor in the Lilly Family School of Philanthropic Studies at IUPUI, Indianapolis.  We all know we need to read more and there are literally millions of books on shelves with new ones printed every day. How do we sort through all the possibilities to find the book that is just right for us now? Well, the McConnell Center is bringing authors and experts to inspire us to read impactful and entertaining books that might be on our shelves or in our e-readers, but which we haven't yet picked up. We hope you learn a lot in the following podcast and we hope you might be inspired to pick up one or more of the books we are highlighting this year at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center. Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center

Today's bad idea is about how ideas get adopted, argued over and rejected: David talks to political philosopher Alan Finlayson about what's wrong with seeing this as a competitive marketplace. From St. Paul to Citizens United, from John Stuart Mill to Jordan Peterson, what happens when ideas get turned into commodities? Who wins and who loses? And what is an ‘ideological entrepreneur'? Looking for Christmas presents? We have a special Xmas gift offer: give a subscription to PPF+ and your recipient will also receive a personally inscribed copy of David's new book The History of Ideas. Find out more https://www.ppfideas.com/gifts To sign up for the latest edition of our free fortnightly newsletter, out tomorrow, join our mailing list https://www.ppfideas.com/newsletters Next Bad Idea: Modernisation! Past Present Future is part of the Airwave podcast network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We explore the complex moral landscape of abortion through the perspectives of two philosophical giants, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, as simulated by AI. Mill defends abortion from a utilitarian standpoint, emphasizing individual autonomy and the consequences of our actions, while Kant objects to abortion from a deontological approach, focusing on inherent human dignity and universal moral laws. Join us as we delve into intense discussions on autonomy, moral duties, and the ethical implications of difficult choices, including thought experiments involving moral blackmail and the value of life at different stages. [00:00] Introduction and Special Guest Announcement [00:28] John Stuart Mill's Thought Experiment [02:13] Utilitarian Perspective on Sarah's Dilemma [05:57] Infanticide and Utilitarianism [07:21] Harm Principle and Moral Community [12:01] Free Speech and Moral Boundaries [18:35] Immanuel Kant's Perspective [19:36] Kant vs. Mill on Abortion [24:03] Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Principles [35:16] Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics [42:32] Conclusion

Você que acompanha o Café Brasil sabe que estamos passando por um período de intensa polarização política e deve ter ficado preocupado como eu fiquei, com a privação de liberdade. De repente, eu me vi impedido de seguir alguns canais que passaram a ser censurados por motivos políticos. Além disso eu queria acessar séries e filmes dos Estados Unidos e Europa que ainda não estão disponíveis aqui no Brasil. Então eu fui procurar um VPN. VPN significa Virtual Private Network ou Rede Privada Virtual. As pessoas recorrem a VPNs para acessar conteúdos restritos de outros países, contornar bloqueios locais e encontrar melhores ofertas de produtos e serviços online. Além disso, VPNs protegem contra vigilância digital, assegurando liberdade de expressão e navegação segura. Sabe o que eu fiz? Eu assinei a NordVPN, com a qual passei a acessar o mundo todo sem deixar traços e com liberdade absoluta. Muito fácil, cara! E ainda ganhei a oportunidade de comprar passagens aéreas mais baratas, como se eu tivesse fora do Brasil, cara. É sensacional. E aqui a melhor parte. Se você acessar nordvpn.com/cafebrasil, eu vou repetir: nordvpn.com/cafebrasil, vai obter um ótimo desconto no seu plano. E além disso mais quatro meses adicionais grátis. Experimente! Se você não gostar, a NordVPN oferece reembolso total em 30 dias sem perguntas. De novo: nordvpn.com/cafebrasil. Comece sua jornada de navegação segura hoje mesmo. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) foi um importante filósofo e economista britânico, conhecido por suas ideias sobre liberdade e utilitarismo. Seu livro mais famoso, On Liberty – Sobre Liberdade - publicado em 1859, defende a importância da liberdade individual e os limites da interferência do Estado. Mesmo sendo um livro antigo, On Liberty mostra que as ideias de Mill continuam atuais.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vast economic inequality is actually a very old problem, and many of the world's greatest thinkers have had something to say about it—including Jesus and Plato, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill and others. They had ideas on how to take on the oligarchies of their time that we can learn from today. David Lay Williams discusses his new book "The Greatest of All Plagues."

First Amendment scholar and philosopher Tara Smith offers a comprehensive analysis of free speech, situating her work within the broader intellectual landscape. She examines the perspectives of historical figures like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill while addressing contemporary issues such as social media speech, “cancel culture,” and religious exemptions. Smith's approach involves dissecting key concepts like censorship and freedom, exploring the crucial distinction between speech and action. Tara Smith is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, where she has taught since 1989. A specialist in moral, legal, and political philosophy, she is author of the books Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System (Cambridge University Press, 2015), Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (Cambridge, 2006), Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality (Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), and Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Rowman and Littlefield 1995). Smith's scholarly articles span such subjects as rights conflicts, the morality of money, everyday justice, forgiveness, friendship, pride, moral perfection, and the value of spectator sports. Shermer and Smith discuss the First Amendment, the definition of freedom, the nature of rights, and how freedoms are won or lost. The conversation explores contemporary issues such as social media censorship, hate speech, and the blurring lines between speech and action. It also delves into legal concepts like libel, slander, and compelled speech. Historical context is provided through references to influential figures like Oliver Wendell Holmes and his introduction of the clear and present danger test in First Amendment law.

Professor and author Matt McManus returns to the show to discuss his newest book, "The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism". Together they explore the major themes of the book, hash out the disagreements they have between revolutionary Marxism and democratic socialism, explore critical thinkers like Karl Marx, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, and John Rawls, wrestle with the questions of revolution and communism as the ultimate goal of socialism, and much more. "Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them." Check out our other episodes with Matt HERE Outro Song: "Best of All Possible Worlds" by Ajj feat: Kool Keith & Kimya Dawson Support Rev Left HERE Follow us on IG HERE

Is the principle of free speech being weaponized to legitimize harmful ideologies like racism, sexism, and transphobia? What happens when the sanctity of free speech collides with the complexities of societal power dynamics? In today's episode, we navigate this intricate terrain with Anthony Leaker, a senior lecturer in culture and critical theory at the University of Brighton, and the author of "Against Free Speech." John Tomasi and Anthony's conversation revolves around the contentious and often polarized discussions surrounding free speech on university campuses.Anthony challenges liberal ideals and advocates for a nuanced interrogation of free speech, particularly how it has been historically weaponized to maintain power imbalances. Through a thought-provoking dialogue, Anthony and John explore how free speech and reason, historically viewed as pillars of liberal democracy, can sometimes obscure deep-seated structural inequalities. In This Episode:The defense of free speech versus power imbalancesHistorical critiques from John Stuart Mill and Herbert MarcuseThe role of social media and algorithms in perpetuating power structuresContextual application of free speech in various settingsThe legitimacy and impact of deplatforming on campusThe narrative of students' sensitivity and grievancesAffirmative action and ideological imbalances in universities About Anthony:Anthony Leaker is a principal lecturer in cultural and critical theory at the University of Brighton. His academic work primarily focuses on political philosophy, critical theory, and issues surrounding free speech and its societal implications. Leaker is best known for his book Against Free Speech (2020), where he argues that the traditional liberal defense of free speech is often co-opted to serve right-wing political agendas and justify the marginalization of oppressed groups.In Against Free Speech, Leaker critiques the way free speech is invoked in modern political debates, particularly how it has been used to legitimize reactionary movements and suppress marginalized voices. He explores contemporary events such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Brexit, and the rise of Donald Trump to analyze how free speech is frequently framed as a neutral right, when in reality, it can be a tool of power structures. Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

Seth and Luke discuss the religious nature of politics and explore John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" as it relates to the nature of limited vs unlimited government. Should Christians care about politics? Why? How do you know if you care too much or too little?

What happens when philosopher Ayn Rand's theories meet free speech? Tara Smith and Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute explore Rand's Objectivist philosophy, its emphasis on reason and individual rights, and how it applies to contemporary free speech issues.  Smith and Onkar are contributors to a new book, “The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom.” Listeners may be particularly interested in their argument that John Stuart Mill, widely regarded as a free speech hero, actually opposed individual rights. Tara Smith is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas at Austin and holds the Anthem Foundation Fellowship in the study of Objectivism. Onkar Ghate is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on Objectivism.   Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:51 What is Objectivism? 06:19 Where do Objectivism and free speech intersect? 09:07 Did Rand censor her rivals? 13:54 Government investigations of communists and Nazis 18:12 Brazilian Supreme Court banning X 20:50 Rand's USSR upbringing 24:39 Who was in Rand's “Collective” group? 35:12 What is jawboning? 40:01 The freedom to criticize on social media 46:02 Critiques of John Stuart Mill 59:49 Addressing a critique of FIRE 01:09:01 Outro    Transcript is HERE   Show notes: “Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings: Free Speech on Campus” (2016) Letters of Ayn Rand (1995) “Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right” (2009) “Brandenburg v. Ohio” (1969) “NRA v. Vullo” (2023) “Murthy v. Missouri” (2024) “Moody v. NetChoice” and “NetChoice v. Paxton” (2024)

How has 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill influenced America's conception of free speech and the First Amendment? In their new book, “The Supreme Court and the Philosopher: How John Stuart Mill Shaped U.S. Free Speech Protections,” co-authors Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma look at how the Supreme Court has increasingly aligned its interpretation of free expression with Mill's philosophy, as articulated in “On Liberty.” Eric Kasper is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he serves as the director of the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies. Troy Kozma is a professor of philosophy and the academic chair at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire - Barron County. Timestamps 00:00 Intro 02:26 Book's origin 06:51 Who is John Stuart Mill? 10:09 What is the “harm principle”? 16:30 Early Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment 26:25 What was Justice Holmes' dissent in Abrams v. U.S.? 30:28 Why did Justice Brandeis join Holmes' dissents? 36:10 What are loyalty oaths? 40:36 Justice Black's nuanced view of the First Amendment 43:33 What were Mill's views on race and education? 50:42 Private beliefs vs. public service? 52:40 Commercial speech 55:51 Where do we stand today? 1:03:32 Outro Transcript is HERE