Podcast appearances and mentions of perry anderson

A campanha para a segunda volta das presidenciais portuguesas termina esta sexta-feira, com um país dividido; entre a promessa de ordem e a defesa da democracia. A historiadora e investigadora, Raquel Varela, alerta para a ameaça representada por André Ventura, líder do partido de extrema-direita, critica a cumplicidade mediática e questiona o apoio da direita a António José Seguro, candidato apoiado pelo PS. Para a historiadora, o voto pode travar o pior, mas não cura a “pneumonia” do sistema. A campanha para a segunda volta das eleições presidenciais termina esta sexta-feira, 6 de Fevereiro, e chega ao fim com um traço comum: falou-se menos de propostas e mais de um retrato do país. Nesta segunda volta, António José Seguro procurou apresentar-se como candidato da estabilidade institucional, enquanto André Ventura tentou ocupar o lugar do choque político. Pelo meio, o debate tornou-se mais emocional do que racional, mais centrado no medo e na raiva do que numa ideia clara do futuro. É a partir desse retrato que Raquel Varela, historiadora e investigadora, faz a sua leitura. “Eu acho que nós temos que fazer perguntas porque, normalmente, são muito melhores do que as respostas”, afirma, antes de justificar porquê. “Não devemos tentar respostas fáceis, não é? (…) às vezes é preciso fazer perguntas muito difíceis a nós próprios.” A pergunta que coloca, diz, é desconfortável e obriga a rever certezas: “Porque é que a maioria dos quadros de direita do país ou do centro direita, grande parte deles apoiam António José Seguro?” Raquel Varela sublinha que esta questão entra em choque com hipóteses que vinham a ser formuladas. “Isto é um contrassenso face àquilo que pessoas, como eu tinham dito há meses e há anos”, diz, referindo-se à ideia de que as classes dirigentes portuguesas estariam a apoiar “alguma solução de tipo fascista ou bonapartista”, isto é, “alguma forma de restrição dos direitos, liberdades e garantias”. E acrescenta, sem fugir à revisão: “Como é que eu posso responder a esta pergunta difícil (…) que me mobiliza também aquilo que eu pensava? Estava errada.” Para a historiadora, a própria análise política exige aceitar a possibilidade do erro: “Nós erramos em ciências sociais são apostas, são hipóteses.” A dúvida sobre a estratégia das classes dirigentes não altera, porém, a certeza sobre André Ventura. “Não tenho dúvidas absolutamente nenhumas de que André Ventura representa uma ameaça à democracia”, afirma. E reforça a caracterização: “Mais do que uma ameaça à democracia, é um partido de caráter fascista.” Raquel Varela aponta ainda o que considera ser o início de um processo mais amplo: “É uma ameaça aos direitos do trabalho e a violência contra os imigrantes é só o início da violência contra os trabalhadores em geral”, referindo o caso norte-americano: “Como se viu com o ICE e a milícia de Donald Trump nos Estados Unidos.” Raquel Varela enquadra esse crescimento com uma crítica directa ao papel da comunicação social. “André Ventura tem sido levado ao colo por grande parte dos jornais que são detidos por empresas em Portugal”, afirma. E inclui também órgãos “dependentes do Estado”, como a televisão pública. A historiadora considera que isso é um tema interno da própria profissão: “Isso também é um debate a ter dentro do jornalismo em Portugal”, e acrescenta que o jornalismo vive “uma fase mais crítica (…) com menos capacidade de dar espaço ao dissenso.” Mas a questão decisiva, insiste, está no movimento defensivo das elites em direcção a António José Seguro. Raquel Varela descreve esse movimento como revelador. “Nós vimos agora (…) históricos da direita, do ultraliberalismo (…) e agora apoiam António José Seguro”, afirma. E dá exemplos: “Cavaco Silva apoia António José Seguro, Paulo Portas apoia António José Seguro.” A pergunta regressa: “Nós temos que perguntar porquê.” A resposta que formula, por agora, é que as classes dirigentes portuguesas “estão com enormes dificuldades em governar”. Esse medo, diz, é o medo de perder o controlo político do país. “Estas eleições revelam um grande medo das classes dirigentes perderem a mão”, afirma. E clarifica o sentido dessa expressão. “Não é perderem a mão no sentido de que vai haver um fascista a governar o país, é perderem a mão no sentido em que as classes trabalhadoras e médias perdem a paciência.” Para sustentar a leitura, Raquel Varela recorda um facto recente: um governo de direita “acabou de enfrentar uma greve geral com 3 milhões de trabalhadores”. A historiadora defende que o papel do Presidente da República não pode ser visto como decorativo num contexto destes. “Se nós temos na presidência da República alguém que não faz o contrapeso a isto, que não tem alguma capacidade de diálogo com o mundo do trabalho, nós podemos ter uma situação de tipo Donald Trump”, afirma. A comparação surge acompanhada de uma observação que, para si, revela o efeito paradoxal da radicalização do poder. “O Donald Trump fez mais pela greve geral nos Estados Unidos do que qualquer esquerda nos últimos 50 anos, porque hoje em dia fala-se em greve geral nos Estados Unidos.” A investigadora descreve o clima político como uma mobilização de afectos defensivos. “Estes afectos tristes que estão a ser mobilizados e que implicam muito medo”, diz, recuperando uma expressão do ensaísta Perry Anderson. E coloca a crise no centro do regime: “A crise de representação é das classes trabalhadoras médias e das classes dirigentes. Há uma rotura entre representantes e representados.” Para Raquel Varela, é essa rotura que explica por que razão uma campanha presidencial se transformou num confronto entre medos. Para tornar essa crise concreta, Raquel Varela recorda uma reportagem que fez esta semana em Leiria, Marinha Grande e Vieira de Leiria, depois de ventos ciclónicos terem destruído casas e infra-estruturas. A historiadora diz que a população queria ser ouvida. “Demos por nós com as pessoas a virem atrás de nós a dizer: ‘Eu quero falar'.” E as frases repetiam-se com força política. “Somos contribuintes, não somos cidadãos. Existem dois países, um país lá e nós aqui.” O “nós aqui”, sublinha, é “100 km de Lisboa” e não um lugar distante do mapa. Raquel Varela descreve o que considera ter sido “o colapso completo do Estado”. “Uma semana depois não havia sequer um sistema de construção público capaz de ter ido tapar os telhados das pessoas”, afirma. O detalhe que destaca é, para si, simbólico: “Estão a ser tapados com lonas, lonas da Iniciativa Liberal e do Chega, que é metafórico do que é que estes partidos da privatização têm a dizer às pessoas.” A falha, insiste, não foi falta de solidariedade, mas falta de capacidade material. “O que as pessoas precisam é de gruas, de guindastes, de camiões, de pedreiros, de eletricistas, de alta atenção, de respostas rápidas.” No mesmo terreno, diz, viu-se a fragilidade do populismo. “As pessoas desprezaram as políticas de André Ventura a distribuir garrafas de água”, observa. E percebeu que “isto não vai lá com comunicação.” A realidade expôs ainda um contraste decisivo em relação ao discurso anti-imigração. “Se não fossem os pedreiros brasileiros do Nepal e do Bangladesh nem lonas tinham conseguido pôr.” Uma senhora, conta, deixou uma frase que considera reveladora: “Quem está a votar no André Ventura devia ter vergonha.” E colocou uma pergunta que, para Raquel Varela, funciona como lição histórica: “Como é que vocês acham que a Alemanha e a Suíça foram reconstruídas depois da guerra? Não foi com imigrantes?” Raquel Varela aponta também responsabilidades aos partidos de esquerda. “Penso que há uma enorme responsabilidade nos partidos de esquerda que tiveram muito medo de ser radicais”, afirma. E explica o que entende por esse medo: “Tiveram muito medo de questionar o sistema, de questionar este balcão de negócios privados que é o estado.” Na sua leitura, a esquerda seguiu políticas que considera destrutivas. “Foram atrás das políticas da União Europeia de elevação da dívida pública, de destruição do emprego público e assistencialistas.” O resultado, diz, foi uma esquerda reduzida a uma diferença mínima. “A diferença hoje em dia entre a esquerda e a direita que teve no governo é se há mais ou menos assistencialismo. Isso não faz uma política de esquerda.” A faltarem dois dias para a segunda volta das eleições, Raquel Varela recusa a ideia de que a escolha resolva o problema. “Eu acho que sobreviveu uma vez mais”, afirma, referindo-se à democracia. E deixa claro o sentido de um voto em António José Seguro contra André Ventura. “Quem quer que vá votar a António José Seguro contra André Ventura tem que saber que está a votar para impedir André Ventura de chegar, não está a votar para criar um sistema político e social que nos impeça os André Venturas desta vida.” A metáfora final fecha a sua leitura: “É o idêntico a tomar uns antipiréticos numa pneumonia”, um gesto que pode ser necessário no imediato, mas que exige um passo seguinte: “ir rapidamente resolver o problema da pneumonia.”

This episode of The Common Reader podcast is a little different. I spoke to both Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin about literature, politics, and the future of the academic humanities. Questions included: what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets? Can we leave politics out of literary discussion? Should we leave it out? If we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it? What is academic Marxism? We also talked about whether Stephen Greenblatt is too ideological and why universities are necessary to literary culture, academics on Substack. Julianne writes Life and Letters. Jeffrey writes Avenues of the Americas. Here is Julianne's interview in The Republic of Letters. Transcript (AI generated, will contain some errors)Henry Oliver (00:00)Today I am talking to Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin.Jeffrey is a professor of English literature and comparative literature at Rutgers University. He specializes in the 20th and 21st century and he writes the sub stack, Avenues of America. Julianne probably needs no introduction to a sub stack audience. She writes Life and Letters, one of my favorite sub stacks. She's a professor of English at Duke University, where as well as specializing in early modern poetry, she is interested in sociological and demographic studies of literature.and we are going to have a big conversation about literature and markets, politics, what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets, can we leave politics out of literary discussion, should we leave it out, if we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it, and also maybe what is academic Marxism and what should it be and why is it so confusing? Jeffrey and Julianne, hello.Julianne (00:59)Hi.Jeffrey Lawrence (01:01)Hi, thanks for having us.Julianne (01:02)Yeah, thank you.Henry Oliver (01:04)I am going to start by referencing an interview that you did, Julianne, for Republic of Letters, which everyone has been reading. And you said, I've printed it out wrong, so I can't read the whole quote. But you said something like, you joined Substack because you wanted people to talk with and because you felt a lack of debate in your academic field. There are lots of good things about scholarship being slow and careful, but it also needs to be animated by debate and conversation.and a sense of the stakes of what we're doing, and that is eroding in the academy. So I want you both to talk about that. Why is that happening? How much of a problem is it? How much is Substack or the internet more generally the solution? What should we be doing? Why don't we go to Julianne first, because it's your quote.Julianne (01:54)Sure, I mean, won't go on too long ⁓ since I have already spoken about this, but my sense within English departments is, you know, they're becoming smaller, fewer people are taking our classes, we have much less of a role in public conversation and public debate, except as kind of a stalking horse for certain types of arguments. And certainly, if you are an early modernist, it's very hard to locate a kind of a...Henry Oliver (02:14)YouJulianne (02:25)discrete set of debates within early modern literature because there is so little public salience to literary fields. And I think this is happening in all literature. It's especially pronounced if you're working in the earlier periods. So my sense in joining SUBSTAC was that perhaps there will be debates by people who are not already so deep within the particular professional and disciplinary structures of a field that they canfind new points of connection between literature and public life along different ⁓ axes that we have maybe not explored adequately within English departments and are maybe becoming harder to explore as English departments contract and recede from public life.Henry Oliver (03:04)Mm-hmm.So we're bringing Milton back to the people and also finding out why they care about him at all. ⁓ What do you think about it, Geoff?Julianne (03:16)Well, hopefully. I mean, that's the goal.Jeffrey Lawrence (03:21)Great, ⁓ so I actually restacked that specific quote from Julianne because it resonated so much with me. Yeah, I mean, my sense is that as someone who works on 20th and 21st century literature, there is more crossover there, I would say, between sort of academic scholarship and public debate. But I really wanna just echo what Julianne said there, that ⁓ I have gotten the feeling that withinlet's call it like the legacy media. There are particular arguments that come from academia that are pushed forward and that become representative of the field of 20th and 21st century literature as a whole. And those kind of come to stand in for academic debate more generally. And I think it becomes very difficult. One of the things that I was noticing so much isthat the people who had access to those legacy journals, are places like the Atlantic, the New York Times, that those began to dominate the debates and people just aren't recognizing that in scholarships. So one of the things I particularly like about Substack is that I feel like although it has some of the same problems as social media more generally about kind of like who gets to participate and algorithmic culture and all of that sort of stuff.I did feel like the ideological diversity both left and right compared to the sort of a kind of monoculture, mono, you know, sort of academic argument that I found over and over in these legacy magazines, that Substack was the place where a lot of these debates are happening. And I only joined maybe four or five months ago, but for me,⁓ sort of just in terms of my relationship to the Academy, it's really changed my sense of what can be said and what's being said by academics.Henry Oliver (05:17)feels to me like in some way humanities academia needs deregulating because there's all sorts of things people can't feel like they can't say and can't do. But it's such a tangled mess that the easiest thing is for you all to just go to Substack and do it there and just try and avoid the bureaucracy because it's gone too far. But when you're on Substack...I feel like you're often faced with people saying, these English literature academics, it's all woke BS. They don't know anything. They've killed this, right? You're simultaneously in a kind of semi hostile environment. How do you, how does that seem to you?Julianne (05:56)Yeah, mean, that's certainly true. I think that we are avatars on Substack for a kind of authority that we feel in our own lives we do not possess in any way. So we're in this position where, you know, at least I feel this, I'm responding to comments that are, you know, very much, by people who very much feel that they're attacking authority figures. And I'm, you know, I'm just a person on the internet, you know, talking with them when I'm on Substack. What I like about it is precisely that it levels any kind of authority structures insofar as they exist, which is debatable at this phase. But that's not always the reality on Substack. I also feel there's an additional thing, again, as an early modernist, where you feel like, you you don't have...Henry Oliver (06:27)Yeah.Julianne (06:52)there's not a lot of interest by people who are kind of on the left in contemporary politics in the Renaissance. It's seen as kind of a conservative, canonical thing to study. And there's a lot of pushback. even within English departments, there's a lot of pushback ⁓ surrounding the idea that people should study Shakespeare or study Milton. It's seen as kind of old and fussy and conservative. And then at the same time, you go on the internet and you're the kind of ⁓ exemplar.Henry Oliver (06:59)Mmm. Yeah.Mmm.Julianne (07:22)of woke cultural discourse. So you feel like as a Renaissance scholar, you can't win. You're nobody's idea of what people should be doing intellectually or culturally.Henry Oliver (07:25)HahahaDo you think, someone asked me this the other day about why academics write in this funny way and why no one reads their books and all this. That was the way they phrased it. And I said, I think what you're saying is like, why is there no AC Bradley today? Because Shakespeare in tragedy, so I don't remember the number, of like quarter of a million copies or something that to us just feels like an insane number.Is there some legitimate criticism there that A.C. Bradley wrote in a way that, you know, your grandmother could understand? And a lot of what comes out of the Academy today is much more cut off from the ordinary reading experience.Julianne (08:18)Yeah, I mean, think that's not debatable. think there have been quantitative studies, ⁓ DH studies that have shown that academic prose has become more difficult. I think it's much more a consequence of how literary culture has become this sort of narrow and marginalized field that is preserved within academic debate and academic structures of argument and disciplinarity. Stephen Greenblatt certainly tries to benew A.C. Bradley and he does reach readers outside of academia but his audience is you know especially as a share of the population is not A.C. Bradley's audience and I don't think that's a fault of his prose. Well that's true.Henry Oliver (08:59)might be the fault of some of his ideas.Well, Jeff, I want to come to you on that. A.C. Bradley was not politically ideological. Maybe he's a crazy Hegelian and he's insane on that level. But is the problem that Stephen Greenblatt's just obviously kind of a bit cranky in some ideological way, is this a general problem of the modern humanities academia?Jeffrey Lawrence (09:24)Yeah, I mean, I tend to see the problem as it's kind of being a dual problem. One, I think, is the fact that we are facing in a lot of the academy a kind of scarcity politics. there are very, if you look at just academic hiring since the financial crisis in 2008, there's just much less of it that's happening. And so I think, I mean, part of what I see is this sense that there are certainI mean, we could say certain ideological lines that over the past 10 years, but even let's say over the past 15 years ⁓ have been the ones that have become dominant in the academy. And I think my problem is not that people connect politics to literature. I think that that's something that we all do to a certain degree. think the part of the problem is that we are now entering a situation in whichif you deviate from a particular political line, which I have sort of identified with the Democratic Party, because I think you can follow a foul of it to the right, you can also follow a foul of it to the left, then you are seen as someone who is saying something that is not in line with the contemporary academy. And I think it used to be that when there were many jobs and many different departments that you could go to,Henry Oliver (10:28)Mm, mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (10:48)there were fewer consequences for making those types of statements that were out of sync with the dominant. And now I think it's it's become very, very punitive. And this is also reinforced again by the fact that what public scholarship we do have tends to be in line with this because the institutions that are kind of the elite, I would say Ivy league.institutions are also the ones that are feeding people into ⁓ sort of that public legacy discourse.Henry Oliver (11:23)Let's talk about politics and literature because I don't like making literature political as such. But whenever I read, Julianne's probably read the Lisa Liebes substack. I don't know if you've got to that yet, Jeff. She's like, there should be no politics at all and it's all aesthetics, which I kind of sympathize with. But then it just makes me think like, well, what about Edmund Spenser?Like there's a certain extent to which a lot of poetry is political and we have to be political when we talk about it, otherwise we're just ignoring a big part of it. ⁓ So how do we solve that problem? Like are we like badly trained in thinking about politics in the humanities academy or is it like what's going on?have we got to a point where you can say there should be no politics about explicitly political writers?Julianne (12:19)Do you want to begin, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (12:20)Yeah, I mean, I can just say briefly because I mean, I teach courses, a number of courses that are about politics and literature. I actually think, I mean, I started doing this in 2016, right after Trump's election. I taught Steve Bannon's film about the financial crisis alongside ⁓ the Big Short and a couple of kind of like trying to show kind of like the left and right responses. I mean, that's not literature, that's film, but many of thethe literary works that we look at in those courses. There are conservatives, there are more classic liberals, there are Marxists. I mean, my personal feeling is that we need to talk about politics and literature, that it is a fair, it is a reasonable object of study. The problem, I think, is partially when you act as if certain...certain political writers or certain topics are simply out of bounds for study. And so there was actually a post by Dan Silver today about why I teach conservative thinkers and a response from the points John Baskin saying, who would think that you wouldn't teach conservative thinkers in a sociology course? But I do think that it's become par for the course thatHenry Oliver (13:20)Mmm.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Jeffrey Lawrence (13:37)teaching someone, whether you're on the right and you're teaching someone who's a Marxist or you're a Marxist and you're teaching conservatives, that somehow this is kind an ethical failure. And I think that's a real problem of not assuming that what you're teaching is kind of necessarily what you believe in or talking about politics means necessarily taking an ideological stance.Julianne (14:04)Yeah, I think that's completely right. I think there's this very pervasive confusion between ⁓ talking about the politics of literature andarticulating an authoritative political perspective on that literature. Almost everybody who studies literature, especially in a historical context or in a contemporary context, honestly, is going to be talking about politics. Spencer, course, right? Milton. ⁓ How do you talk about somebody who was a literal revolutionary who wrote in favor of regicide and not talk about politics? You have to talk about politics.Henry Oliver (14:31)YouJulianne (14:37)⁓ But then there's become this confusion where people assume that if you are talking about the politics of literature, you have not just a political, but actually an ethical ⁓ teaching that you are imparting by way of that literature. And that if you're not doing that, you're somehow not talking about literature, you're not teaching the literature. That's the confusion that has been so devastating to us and I think so devastating to literary study.Henry Oliver (15:03)So what's the alternative? What should we be doing instead?Julianne (15:07)I I think that we should be talking about the politics of literature while acknowledging that literature raises political debates, not endless debates. know, there's not any given author is going to raise, you know, a certain salient set of questions that we can talk about, that we can debate and acknowledging that people historically have had different responses to these, that it has been used in different ways in different moments and that it is still used in different ways today. That doesn't mean that as intellectuals and scholars, we won't have our own positions that may inform our scholarshipin our writing and even our teaching, it just means that our positions do not shut down conversation and do not exhaust the range of possible positions.Henry Oliver (15:48)Yeah, and we should say, we're saying about, you you should teach conservative thought and stuff. I don't think either of you would identify as being on the right or conservative. So you're saying that from a, from that position. ⁓ How do we, how do we get out of this then? How do we leave politics at the door? Because when I read modern ⁓ literary scholarship, to me, it's either like very useful because it's not political.Julianne (16:01)Yeah.Henry Oliver (16:17)Or I just, as I did with that book that we all, or that Jeff and I, sort of disagreed about. I just find it almost unreadable because it's not scholarship anymore. It's just partisanship. How do we move past this? Like, what's the solution?Jeffrey Lawrence (16:33)I mean, if I can jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that, you know, allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really meanJulianne (16:33)I mean, if I could jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really mean,Henry Oliver (16:36)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:03)like people who I know on the left because they're not toeing a particular line are also not welcome or are also kind of meat pushback in contemporary humanities departments that I think we need to get rid of that. And my thought about the Adam Kelly book, ⁓ the New Sincerity book is that to me, I think that what he's trying to do in that bookHenry Oliver (17:10)Yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:31)is to understand neoliberalism as an economic and political philosophy that has effects on culture and to try to understand how authors themselves are dealing with that in their prose.To me, that is somewhat different from the way that neoliberalism is occasionally bandied about in the academy, where it doesn't just, it isn't just another word for saying, okay, this is the Chicago school or the Austrian school, and we're gonna kind of take it seriously as a mode of thought. if just saying like, neoliberalism is like our ontological condition in the 21st century, and therefore everything is.necessarily an expression of neoliberalism and we don't need to necessarily define it. So I mean, I think that may be where the disagreement extends is that I think that ⁓ Adam Kelly is trying to sort of be precise about that politics in order to understand how contemporary writers generally on the left are using it. Whereas I think that the kind of more wishy washy version of that isHenry Oliver (18:37)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (18:44)You know, just to say that neoliberalism is the air that we breathe. And there, I think I agree with you that it's just not super helpful.Henry Oliver (18:49)Mmm.Yeah, my problem with the book was that he would not tell you what did Hayek think or say. He would say Hayek was a cheerleader for the free market. Or he would not tell you what is the Gary Becker view of human capital. He would say human capital is an ideology that infuses itself into every aspect of your life so that you can no longer be separate from the market. And it's all this stuff, and it's like, well, that's nothing to do with Hayek and Gary Becker. ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (19:19)Can I just,just one thing on that, is that, I mean, I did go back and I mean, he has these moments where he's talking specifically about Hayek and the road to serfdom and saying, I think that this is a worldview in which, he'll quote Hayek talking about the problem with representative democracy and say, the real moral choices are choices that are made in the market.To me, I think that that is to engage to a certain degree with the thought. It is true, I think, as often happens in scholarship that you have the people who are defining a phenomenon from the perspective that you may be interested in. So there are a number of people from the left who are criticizing neoliberalism. I see him as engaging a little bit more than you do.Henry Oliver (20:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (20:11)in that in that direct thought and particularly compared to other humanities scholars who do I think what you're saying which is to just do that. So that's where I think I see him as doing.Henry Oliver (20:18)sure, yeah.I guess you could summy critique up as being like, if this is the good version, things are worse than I thought. Yeah. Yeah. So from here, let's go to the question of what is academic Marxism?Jeffrey Lawrence (20:27)Okay, well.Henry Oliver (20:35)Because I think a lot of people think that there's a lot of Marxism in the academy and that if they're not woke, they're Marxists or maybe they're both, right? And ⁓ personally, I spend a lot of time trying to work out what these Marxists think and it's quite confusing. And there seem to be lots of, and Julianne, you and I have talked about this, all the different, some Marxists aren't Marxists, as it were. tell us, give us a quick overview of how Marxist things really are.Julianne (21:04)Yeah, I mean it's a very complicated question to answer.because Marxism is too, well, debatably a living tradition. ⁓ And there's a huge amount of disagreement about what constitutes Marxism, ⁓ what is a legitimate form of Marxism, what is not, where do the boundaries lie, what is reconcilable with other schools of thought, what is not. But I think the big picture is that beginning, even in the 60s, Marxism moved into academia. This is a story that is told very inflectionallyHenry Oliver (21:11)youJulianne (21:37)and Perry Anderson's considerations on Western Marxism, where he argues that in the West, Marxism becomes alienated from actual political, economic, and social movements. It moves into academia. And as a result, it becomes much more philosophical, much more abstruse, much less concerned with the traditional concerns of Marxism, labor and the politics of labor and the politics and economics of labor. And that this continues and is accelerated, in fact, in the Cold War. So what you get atthe same time, you have something called the cultural turn in history and in sociology, ⁓ the rise of what is, debatably called identity politics. so Marxism remains a current within that, but it's far less of an influential current as time goes by. ⁓ And I think that many, many people...use the word Marxism and would say that there are Marxist influences in their work, but they're not viewing it as a kind of systematic approach to economics or to economic history. And so at that point, I do think you have to ask, well, what does Marxism actually mean? There are certainly people that work with, you know, ideas that they refer to as Marxist, but that have implications that to my mind are entirely antithetical to Marxism. And so I kind of feelas somebody who does work within what I would call the historical materialist tradition.⁓ in a very sort of straightforwardly economic sense, know, are markets becoming more efficient in Renaissance England? Those kinds of questions. How much does bread cost? How much do books cost? Those kinds of questions. ⁓ If you're interested in that tradition within Marxist thought, you feel that it's actually really incredibly peripheral within academia in comparison to, say, the politics of gender ⁓ or other considerations of that kind. And there's just not always sensitivityHenry Oliver (23:16)Mm-hmm.Julianne (23:35)to whether these different schools of thought actually cohere in any meaningful or deep way. What would you say, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (23:44)Yeah, that's, I mean, just to pick up on that, think that that's really helpful in that trajectory, which I also, know, the Perry Anderson, a lot of people who have talked about how Marxism.moves into the academy after the 1960s, I think it is just really important to say it becomes a different thing. And I think part of the confusion, Henry, may also be that it's like, so the Christopher Ruffo version of this is it's like, it's all Marxism, it's all everywhere. But then I think that becomes, it's so broad a definition of Marxism that what we're really talking about is aof progressive politics or sort of an amalgam of different ideas that may have some roots in Marxism of previous periods, but really don't, as Julianne is saying, really don't align with like Marxist thought or Marxian thought as such. And also as someone who does take that tradition very seriously, I think a lot about Silvia Federici, who's a feminist, know, a Marxist feminist. Like these are people who are absolutely steeped.in a Marxist political tradition. And in some ways, these are figures that may be very important to the contemporary tradition. But if you actually read what they're writing, it's like, it's an extremely watered down version that we get in the academy in part, and I'll just end with this, in part because to Julianne's point, I think it like when Marxism also becomesHenry Oliver (24:59)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (25:10)a kind of one discourse among many that you are using in what are often very bourgeois institutions, then it becomes a kind of intellectual tool and sometimes even an intellectual weapon, as many of these things are, where the question of how it relates to practical politics, working class politics,politics outside of the academy becomes sort of secondary. And so then really we're not talking about someone who's a Marxist as in they're like fighting for the working class. You're talking about someone who's just using Marx as a tool, which is fine, but that certainly shouldn't give them any sort of like, you know, moral high ground when speaking from the position of the left is my view.Henry Oliver (25:53)Is there some inherent aspect of literature that means it has been more amenable to Marxist study of any description than it has been to, you know, ⁓systems of thought that come more from a kind of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek tradition. Because it's very striking to me how few liberals and libertarians they're currently, publicly currently, I know a lot of them keep it to themselves, some of them have said as much to me. ⁓ But is there some good literary reason for this? Or is it just an institutional ⁓ problem?Julianne (26:33)That's an interesting question. ⁓ I mean, there are sort of traditional reasons for this in thatMarxism from, you know, in Marxist writing from very early on was interested in the relationship between culture and historical change. So there's a very, even by the time you get to the beginning of the 20th century, there's already a very well developed materialist tradition for thinking about cultural change and cultural transformation over the long run in a way that I don't think is true ⁓ of rival ideologies. Not that there isn't great literary work, but that there's not the sameHenry Oliver (27:09)Sure, sure, sure.Julianne (27:11)kind of sense of a methodological tradition. So there's a lot of momentum there.⁓ But in terms of more intrinsic reasons, I don't know. I mean, it doesn't seem obvious. Certainly at other times and places, we haven't had the situation that we have now. I often find myself thinking of, know, Piketty's arguments, which this does not pertain to Marxism, but this does pertain to the ⁓ difference between the political parties in the US, which is just that ⁓ education has become the means of differentiating between two rival elites, you know, not...Henry Oliver (27:27)Mm.Julianne (27:47)a difference between a working class and an elite, but two rival elites that are actually distinguished by the university itself. So as long as the university plays that structural role, it seems unlikely that its politics are going to drift to the other side, because that is actually precisely what the university has become. ⁓ I don't know, what do you think, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (28:06)Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question. I mean, I share the sense that, I mean, I think that there is an extraordinary ⁓ Marxist literary tradition that goes back to, you know, sort of Lukacs and these debates, Adorno, Horkheimer. These are critics that are important to me, cultural studies with people like Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. I mean, they very much, I think, were, though,Henry Oliver (28:20)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (28:30)That was a kind of insurgent force, we could say, within the academy that has now become, I would say, almost entirely dominant. I personally, mean, one of the things when I was writing my first book was on US and Latin American literature. I was very interested in a certain liberal tradition that comes from, you know, John Dewey. We would now say that, I mean, it's not the liberalism of, you know, Milton Friedman and von Hayek, but it is,Dewey, think, was for many people the most important philosopher, aesthetic philosopher of the early part of the 20th century. And he was a sort of radical liberal who thought a lot about the liberal tradition. I people like Lionel Trilling with the liberal imagination, these were, I think, writers who were very important.Henry Oliver (29:16)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (29:19)in a particular moment. And I guess, you this is, you may see this as a dodge, I, Henry, but I definitely feel like these are books that are really important to my formation and whether or not I associate with a certain particular strain of contemporary ⁓ liberalism, I don't tend to think of myself necessarily in those terms. And so,Henry Oliver (29:26)HahahaJeffrey Lawrence (29:43)I think we really should be reading those because those types of people, people like John Dewey, people like Lionel Trilling, know, Philip Rav, these kind of mid-century intellectuals, they were really engaging in major debates and they were foundational for the field, even if now I think there may be some desire to take distance from them.Henry Oliver (30:07)It's the bigger problem that we should just get back to more for literature as literature.And once we allow a kind of methodological approach from one tradition or another, we're just no longer really studying literature. We're using literature to, like I had a professor once and they said an essay about Anglo-Saxon poetry with some Harold Bloom quote saying, none of this is any good. It's like the great age before the flood, that kind of thing. And I basically wrote an essay saying, yes, that's correct. And she did not like that. And I said, look, I bet you don't actually love anyof this poetry. I bet you don't care about any of this. You know, I just sort of... And she said, that's not the point. The point is that we can use it to impose the... You we can use it as a way of dealing with the ideas we want to deal with and having methodological... And I was just like, I'm never coming back. You know, goodbye. And that to me is kind of... Is that the more foundational problem, right? Some people want to take a kind of...Northrop Frye, Christopher Ricks, literature as literature approach, and some people want to have an extra literary methodology. Be it Freudian, be it feminist, be it identity politics, be it whatever. And that is the bigger sort of division here, and is the solution to just say Shakespeare is Shakespeare and you can keep the other stuff for your other classes.Julianne (31:33)Well, I don't know because, I mean, in terms of what actually goes into the classroom, I think that's a different question. I don't teach very much theory in the classroom. ⁓ But I don't think that we can just say that because the ability to say, you know, these are great works, this is part of a canon, it came with its own set of ideological commitments that are now...Henry Oliver (31:40)Show. Show, show, show.Julianne (31:57)sort of vanishing, right? So we need some kind of framework for making sense of why we read literary history at all, what its coherence is, what its shape is, what its structure is. A lot of those frameworks were implicit. didn't, you know, they were articulated, they didn't need to be articulated every single time because they were so woven into the whole system of education. As that becomes increasingly untrue, I think we do find ourselves in a position where we need to explain why we care about this object literature at all.in the first place. And I don't think just saying, you know, literature for literature's sake without situating it within some kind of wider account of culture really works. I don't know that situating it within some wider account of culture really works either in terms of persuading anyone, but I don't think you can say to people, look, Shakespeare is Shakespeare, we have to read him because he's great. I think you need to...Jeffrey Lawrence (32:45)Mm-hmm.Henry Oliver (32:45)HahahaJulianne (32:53)have an argument about the place that Shakespeare has in culture ought to have ⁓ because that is increasingly not true.Henry Oliver (33:02)So I mostly agree, but it is very striking to me. I mean, I sort of half agree. It is very striking to me that the just read it because it's great argument is winning a lot of ⁓ admirers on the internet, while some version of what you've just said is sort of dying in the academy. And I'm not saying that therefore that's a decisive factor and we should just do this. But in terms of getting people interested,that does see something on the internet among the new humanities culture on Substack and other places, does just seem to be resistant to these methodologies and ideology, right? Do you see what I'm saying? ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (33:43)Can I, I mean, yeah, Imean, I would say, and we may just disagree on this, but I agree with Julianne that, I mean, the ideological context of a work, the historical context of work seems incredibly important. I saw Henry, yeah, yeah. And so I think that there, yeah, yeah, but I think that's not, I mean, I think we can't totally gloss over that because all three of us have had long educational sort of,Henry Oliver (33:58)sure, yeah. We're all historicists, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:11)a long educational formation that has allowed us to even have this conversation, let alone read these works. I, you you, you, I think you had a post about this on, on Austin about like, you know, sort of there, there are certain things that are helpful for you to know in order, once you're going into work. I think that that's different from the thing that you're pointing to and where I think I would agree with you, which is that when, when methodology becomes the TrumpHenry Oliver (34:15)Yes.Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:41)card over literature. think that that is that is an important cultural shift. And I think we are now at the point in which this is my formulation for it. It's like if you're just going to read literature for, you know, for a particular political thing, for Marxism, let's say, in order to understand, you know, sort of like a Marxist conception of society, why not just read Marxism?Henry Oliver (34:42)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:11)like Marxist theory. mean, so I do think that that is a real problem and the failure, and to be fair to humanities scholars, this is, has been a big debate over the past five or 10 years. I think it's just more contested in the academic space than it is on Substack, where I think Substack is kind of demonstrating to my mind also that some of the more frank, I, I sweat, some of the more BS, yeah.Henry Oliver (35:11)Yes.Say what you want.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:39)Some of the more b******t arguments that I see about like, ⁓ well, there aren't X people, like there aren't white men who are writing and reading, and then you just see the tremendous number of people who are reading, they may just feel alienated from certain ways of doing things. And that, I think, that's a wide range of people. And I think it's a wide range of people who are turned off by certain things in the academy.Henry Oliver (35:49)yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (36:07)I think a lot of that though has to do with a general problem that we need people in literary studies who deeply care about literature, regardless of what ideological thing, you know, where they're coming from. And if you are always just interested in the methodology that you're bringing to it, as opposed to literature, then this is going to be a long-term problem because people are going to start asking, why is it that we are reading literature?Henry Oliver (36:34)To what extent is that the basic problem that the universities have right now? To me that just seems to be it's that, right?Julianne (36:39)I think that's a huge problem. Yeah, I think it's a huge problem.Yeah, it's a huge problem. guess, you know, while sort of agreeing with you and definitely agreeing with Jeff, I guess what I would say to sort of refine what I was saying earlier is, no, I don't think you should study the methodologies instead of studying literature. Of course not.⁓ But the questions that the methodologies ask are really basic to the questions that we need to ask about the study of literature. So it's not that you should be studying Marxism or feminism or this or that instead of studying literature, but I don't think you can...totally do away with the questions of, what is this thing? What is its role in culture? What does it mean? Why do we study it over long, long periods of time? ⁓ It is, it has become very hard to make that, that case. And it's not that I think making that case explicitly is going to win converts as opposed to talking about the literature itself. In the end, it's going to be the literature itself, if it's going to be anything at all. But to have an account of the meaning of what we're doing, even for our own sakes, we do need to be thinking about questions like what is this thing?and why, right, which are supposed to be questions that methods help us ask.Jeffrey Lawrence (37:53)And can I just add to that kind of the, I mean, a word that we haven't used so far is specialization. And I think to a certain degree, like what may unite us in this conversation is a sense too, that like, that literature is not just like this particular corner that you're studying and that you're interested in because it's your field. And so,Henry Oliver (38:13)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:16)Those type of turf battles, I think, are also really important to this. The sense that your topic is the thing that you specifically focus on and the difficulty of communicating that is an issue. And also just the sense that, like, I mean, my sense is you can be interested in history and sociology. Julianne and I are both interested in that. And also literature, so that it doesn't, I mean, part of it is, I think, restoring the notion that a kind of broadHenry Oliver (38:19)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:46)like intellectual training is not a liability, but is actually something that you need in order to understand literature and that heightens your appreciation.Henry Oliver (38:57)Somewhere in one of Iris Murdoch's interviews, she talks about the state of literary undergraduates today, because obviously she was married to John Bailey and had a lot of, and this is like in the 80s or something, ⁓ and she said, well, they're not interested in just reading the literature and understanding the history of it anymore. They want to have all these crazy theories.It's very striking when you see stuff like that from 50 years ago. Did the cannon wars ever end? Did we ever change the arguments? In some ways, is this not just the Harold Bloom thing? It's still going, right? And one route out that I think you've identified is just ⁓ be broader. Just read more outside your own area.The people who everyone loves on Twitter, like CS Lewis and Harold Bloom, are the ones who weren't in their public facing work. They weren't narrow specialists. CS Lewis would do everything from some random Latin medieval writer to Jane Austen. And in a way, is that what we need? We just need to have more of that appreciation of the long history of literature.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:10)I mean, just one thing, then Julianna, I'd be curious to like from like a ⁓ 20th and 21st century perspective. Like I agree with that, but I also think that like that was Toni Morrison as well. I mean, talking about the classics, mean, part of the problem I think is that we have these readings of figures that become then sort of symbolic or totemic of.Henry Oliver (40:23)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:33)like a contemporary, you know, whatever that may be, an identity category or whatever it may be. Whereas if you actually read Toni Morrison, absolutely voracious, absolutely thinking about like, you know, the classics, you know, thinking through Greek drama, ⁓ know, Faulkner, you know, ⁓ master's thesis on the outsider in Faulkner and Virginia Woolf. I mean, I think some of this also has to dowith something that has happened very specifically in the past 10 years of also subjecting figures of the past who were interested in that more Catholic notion of culture to these kind of like very selective readings. I mean, it's true of James Baldwin. I thought about this a lot. Like a lot of these figures who just didn't want to be boxed in in a particular identity way get then taken up asHenry Oliver (41:11)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:26)kind of figures for that when actually, mean, in some ways they were, you know, I'm sure Toni Morrison and Harold Bloom wouldn't have agreed on everything, but there was actually, I mean, but really there is actually more alignment there than like the 2025 reading of them would give credit for.Henry Oliver (41:40)Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:47)Yeah, don't know, Julianne, if yeah.Julianne (41:49)Yeah, no, mean, I obviously I agree so, so entirely with.everything you're saying, but especially with your comments about longer literary histories, more capacious reading, know, longer, wider. Obviously you read cross linguistically and do work cross linguistically. So both broader and longer literary histories, much more than kind of a focus on methodology. Part of the reason I'm defending methodology here is because methodology, if used well, forces you outside of disciplinary specialization or can, has that capacity. In my field, the problem is not thatpeople are adhering to big sweeping methodologies anymore. In my field, the problem is that the big questions have almost disappeared, replaced by, in many cases, extremely excellent, detailed, narrow, pointillist empiricist work. I think that work is...valuable and it's foundational, but you can't have a field that just has that. You have to have something that makes the field cohere. You have to have questions that the field coheres around. know, and increasingly, I'm a historicist. I got into this because I love this kind of like, ⁓ you know,tell me everything about this particular edition of the Fairy Queen. ⁓ I love that kind of thing. ⁓ And yet at the same time, there is part of me that is starting to wonder.Henry Oliver (43:09)YouJeffrey Lawrence (43:10)YouJulianne (43:17)is it actually more relevant even for being a Renaissance literary scholar to have read every single person writing in England in 1592 and then maybe instead of Dante or going the other way, right? Instead of...Richardson or Voltaire. Like maybe we should be reading more Voltaire instead of every non-entity. And I'm guilty of this because my whole project is every non-entity who published a book in 1592. So this is very much self-critique. But that more capacious sense, and that more capacious sense exactly as Jeff says, is very much aligned with how writers themselves, especially great writers, approach literature. I teach Toni Morrison in my Shakespeare class sometimes because she has a short play on Desdemona.Jeffrey Lawrence (43:47)If you ⁓Henry Oliver (44:06)So we're obviously all going to await your blog about the different editions of the Fairy Queen and your favorite things about each of them. Just give us some examples of what the big questions would be and what these empirical questions that people are. Just make it sort of concrete for us what you're talking about there.Julianne (44:11)Hawell i mean there are a lot of people who have big ideas ⁓that maybe make their way into their own work, that show up in the introduction of their own work, but that are not defining the field in a meaningful way. There are a few debates that think are actually happening within my field that are interesting, like the extent to which ⁓ Renaissance literature should be understood on national versus international lines. I think that's quite an active one that's very interesting. ⁓ But I think a lot of books written in the Renaissance, and I don't wantHenry Oliver (44:39)Mm-hmm.Julianne (45:03)topoint to any one book because these are all you know good books and books that I like but a lot of books will be have a very narrow date range a set there you know the typical organization of a book in literary studies is to have a sort of thematic topic not always thematics sometimes it'sbook historical or cultural, but ⁓ often it will be a thematic topic. Say a topic like ⁓ shame in Renaissance literature, right? So you'll take shame in Renaissance literature. This is fictional. This isn't anybody's book. If it is accidentally somebody's book, I apologize. Shame in Renaissance literature, okay? And then you'll have this ⁓ contextualizing introduction where you might bring in a bit of Foucault and you might bring in various other theorists.Henry Oliver (45:23)Mm-hmm.Sure, sure,Jeffrey Lawrence (45:39)YouJulianne (45:52)But you will also go very, very deeply into, say, sermons, right, the sermon literature. And then you'll have five chapters. you know, one will be like Shakespeare play, and then maybe one will be Spencer. And then maybe one will be somebody, you know, more marginal or be Ben Johnson or there'll be Webster, you know. ⁓ And then you will put them, you know, this is the method of New Hizorizis. You'll put them beside legal documents and you'll put them beside sermons and you'll put them beside other very, very contextualized and often very well contextualized.works from the period. But you won't write a book that is like, you know, literature and shame, you know, across three centuries ⁓ that would then maybe potentially think about, you know, is there a fundamentally different way that drama versus the novel represent shame? Does this help us understand long range debates about interiority? And again, it's not that nobody ever does this. It's that the feelI feel English literature used to be more aligned over around these kind of shared long-term questions and debates and they're much less aligned around them now because of specialization and because of the sort of dynamic of know decline and and narrowing of prospects that Jeff has mentioned.Henry Oliver (47:11)A lot of people complain about the administrators, the way funding is done, the way you can only get funding for certain types of work, career structures, all these structural factors that make life either difficult as an academic or just force you into certain decisions and activities. ⁓ To what extent is writing on Substack actually going to be a beneficial solution?to get around those problems and to what extent is it just going to be a sort of useful addition and is going to be very stimulating for you all but might not, you know, might not actually change things. What's your sense of that?Jeffrey Lawrence (47:54)This was something I've thought about this a lot because I wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education. think Julianne and I have both write or have written for the Chronicle and something that was on the public humanities and I very specifically this is 2022 or 2023 said like, sub stack is not going to be the solution. Partially and my point there was something that I still believe to a certain extent which is thatas someone who has worked in different public humanities ⁓ programs, as someone who knows to a certain degree the publishing industry in the US and Latin America and has done work on that, I think that it's hard to ⁓ exaggerate the degree to which funding for this type of research, it's just really expensive and the existing funding models that exist for something like Substack or I mean any other sort of ⁓platform economy, even public humanities projects, it's just really hard to do. So I'm much more in favor. So I think Substack is really important as a venue. I think that as a potential model for, you know, a sustainable model for doing academic scholarship, I see a lot more limitations. And that's why I've said, I mean, I think in some ways, if the types of conversations that happen on Substack,could be then imported back into our fields. Like, I don't think we should just destroy the institutions and get rid of these departments. I think that there needs to be a sort of infusion of these types of debates that are happening on Substack in the university, because the universities have funding, you know, have funding. And I think it's partially about fighting for that, this kind of holistic thing that we've been talking about up to this point.Julianne (49:49)Yeah, I completely agree. That's my view as well. I don't think that Substack's funding model would actually be good for scholarship. I'm not saying that you couldn't get a few people making it viable, but for a scholarship as a whole, I think it would be terrible for scholarship as a whole. At the same time, for the reasons we've been discussing here, we need to be talking with other people and not just with people in our subfield of a subfield of a subfield. And Substack is great for that.Henry Oliver (50:18)I sometimes think that if you can draw a distinction between scholarship and criticism, the academy can keep the scholarship and the criticism needs to come outside. You can all still write it, right? But it needs to be done in a way that is free of all the institutional incentives and constraints and just all that problem and you can all just be free to say other things online.Jeffrey Lawrence (50:43)I mean, just very quickly on that, I mean, I do think that in my personal case, because I came to Substack partially because I had a very bad experience with a kind of ⁓ a piece that I had pitched to like a venue that was, you know, sort of like progressive venue where I felt like I was saying things about contemporary author that everyone else was saying, right? It was a kind of public secret, a kind of critique of this writer.And I felt like it was not going to be published in any of those venues and in the Academy itself, that would be a problem. And not because this was something that even, you know, sort of ⁓ departed so much from things that people would say, but just because of kind of like the power structures. And since I've been on Substack, I've had multiple people, particularly with the first Substack piece that I wrote, but with other ones as well.Henry Oliver (51:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (51:35)people in academia telling me, thank you for saying this. And also I'm reading your sub stack as an academic right now. But I also, do think that there remains, I mean, it's changing, but I do think that there's speaking of shame, like there are people who they're just not sure as graduate students.what they can say and what they can't say. And I think that's a real issue. So I agree, criticism is important, but even for scholarships too, I think that there need to be taboos that are broken in order for scholarship, as Julianne said, to kind of like return to that more sort of vibrant feel that it once had.Julianne (52:20)Yeah, I think that's right. Obviously those taboos are less present in my field than in yours because the contemporary stakes are much less clear. ⁓ And sometimes I'm jealous of people who work in the contemporary field because there are stakes. And then I hear things like what you just said and I'm no longer so jealous. But yeah, no, do think that...Henry Oliver (52:35)YouJeffrey Lawrence (52:35)YouJulianne (52:46)People, even beyond what you would think that they would plausibly need to be, people are very cautious and graduate students especially are very cautious and even having the example of people saying things publicly is incredibly important and helpful.Henry Oliver (53:02)It's interesting how many PhD students there are on Substack. There are several English literature PhD students and I find it amazing actually that they're writing a Substack ⁓ rather than writing something academic. This to me is a very clear signal of something is changing, right? Something important is changing.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:28)I would say it's pragmatic too. I mean, I don't think that there's any reason people shouldn't graduate students. I don't think that they necessarily need to have a substack, but I also, I just think that there's a kind of recognition that, you know, especially at this moment, mean, frankly, with a lot of this does have to do with the Trump administration and kind of the way that it's been directed very specifically at, you know, sort of the humanities andHenry Oliver (53:47)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:53)So I do think that there's a kind of sense that the hiring isn't happening. And so it's like, well, why am I going to invest in this very small possibility of getting an, an academic job or even better yet, I'm going to build my own audience. I'm going to talk about these things because that's going to empower me at the moment in which I'm actually looking for jobs. So I, I, I'm like, I agree with you that I think it's just like, ⁓ it's a pretty astonishing thing.in the sense of the sort of initiative, but it also kind of makes sense given the world that exists.Julianne (54:30)Yeah, mean, you know, our graduate students are not.coming in, I'm sure yours are the same way, they're not coming in thinking they're going to get jobs ⁓ anymore. So they're coming in thinking, I have six years to build the kind of intellectual life to become the kind of writer and the kind of thinker that I want to be. And that's the priority, much more than anything sort of pragmatic about what they might do in terms of future career prospects, because most of them have absolutely no idea. It's much more about how can I find an intellectual community? How can I become the kindintellectual I want to be. And if academia is not going to be their home long term for that, it cannot be in academia. It has to be elsewhere. In addition, now that there are fewer conferences, journals, you know, are delayed by years. That was another thing that got me on Substack is I wrote a review.And I wrote the review as soon as I got the book. I wrote the review that I was asked to review. Then like, you know, six weeks, sent it back. ⁓ It took four years for the review to appear in that journal. And I was like, why, how can we possibly have a conversation when this journal has just been sitting on this copy edited review until they could find a slot for it in their, you know, in this day and age? How can that be the case? You know, so I think, you know, that's also part of what's going on.Henry Oliver (55:49)Yes.So are you running introduction to sub-stack classes for your graduate students? This is not yet, yes.Julianne (55:59)No, not yet, not yet.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:00)Yeah, yeah. I mean,interestingly, we had an event with Lincoln Michelle, who's a very popular at Rutgers, who's a very popular Substack writer. I mean, that was one of our, was a hugely well attended event. I mean, I do think, and it doesn't necessarily need to be just Substack, but I think public intellectual work, think graduate students and also undergraduates, they want to understand this because they know ⁓Henry Oliver (56:08)Mm-mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:29)precisely what Julianne said, that it's not gonna work for them to just stay in their lane and keep the blinders on and keep going. Even if they want a career in academia, they know that they need to be involved in these other things. so, I mean, to the extent that I think we can do that in our institutions and give them a sense of what's going on, I mean, definitely we're thinking about that at Rutgers.Henry Oliver (56:55)If the humanities goes into some sort of terminal decline and there are fewer departments and the student numbers never recover and all these blah blah blah, all these bad things, ⁓ does it matter?Julianne (57:08)Well, for what? mean...Jeffrey Lawrence (57:10)Ha ha.Henry Oliver (57:10)Well, because everyone talksabout it like, the humanities are dying, this is terrible. And I'm like, what's the problem? We had like English literature was the number one subject for undergraduates, and now it's not, right? What is the actual problem if the humanities are in this terminal decline? No, I get that it's all bad for you. Yeah, no, for all of you, of course, right? But like, what's the what's the actual problem here? Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (57:27)You mean besides the jobs of, mean, because part of that, right, right, Yeah, for us. But for society.Henry Oliver (57:38)Obviously when someone doesn't have a job or can't get a job, like of course, of course. But can you give us a succinct explanation of why people who are not involved in it should care about the decline of the humanities or should recognize that it's something that we don't want to happen in some way?Julianne (57:56)I mean, I think the sort of simplest thing is that we still do have, it's fading, but we still do have some shared cultural literary heritage ⁓ or basis. Yeah, I don't use the word heritage since it's a kind of nationally charged word, but some kind of shared basis that allows us to talk with each other about literature. ⁓ And most of this, think, is predicated not on the university, but on the high school canon.Henry Oliver (58:11)Sure.Julianne (58:25)is an extension of that. So I think our number one thing should be the high school curriculum. ⁓ But then our number two thing should be ⁓ ensuring that people have some kind of foundation in, you know, a...as wide a range as we can give them of literary texts that they get in university because that is the basis of a shared literary culture. I don't think you get, you know, I don't think you get a wider literary culture where people can talk about things, ⁓ you know, like 18th century books or, you know, 19th or 20th century books across the world ⁓ without having some kind of institutional basis, having some kind of shared institutional structure that people have passed through. Otherwise, what you will get is people, you know, picking up thingsyou know, a bit here, a bit there. Some of them will be so unfamiliar that they will be put off by it. Some of them maybe won't. ⁓ But you won't get anything like a common culture. And for me, that's sort of intrinsically good. But there is also this kind of idealistic ⁓ democratic aspect to this that you got in the mid-20th century in the post-war expansion of higher education and also the expansion of public education. This idea that you would have a citizenship thatbe participating in intellectual, philosophical, and political culture at a very high level. I don't see how you get that without having some kind of shared institutional basis for it.Jeffrey Lawrence (59:50)Yeah, mean, would just, yeah, I think everything and then maybe the only like word that I would use that you didn't use there is just kind of like literacy. mean, cultural literacy, but actual literacy, because I do think that beyond the culture wars, like the one thing that I think I'd like across the political spectrum is that there is this sense that a certain ability to read and to engage in civic life is declining.⁓ And so, yeah, I mean, I think that reading all sorts of texts is important and having cultural literacy is important to having an informed citizenry. So that to me seems like the reason for doing it. But as Julianne says, and maybe this doesn't totally answer the question, because I do think some of these are perhaps like for us at the college level, it's a little bit downstream of these sort of.broader issues, which is one more reason I think that making the case about why we should care about literature is also on us. It shouldn't just be assumed, as you're saying, Henry, that because we want jobs that this is good for everyone. I think we need to make that case.Henry Oliver (1:01:05)Will you be making that case on Substack?Jeffrey Lawrence (1:01:09)Yeah, mean, don't know, I mean, I think, you know, sort of more and more, I do think that, you know, that we need to be doing this. I mean, for me, everything that's happened over the past couple of years, I think the way my sense of kind of like the failure of a certain liberal project after the Trump election, you know, last year was really important to me in saying there is a way that we're going about the assumptions that we have aboutHenry Oliver (1:01:10)HahahaJulianne (1:01:11)ThankJeffrey Lawrence (1:01:38)literacy and what we should be doing and the role of academic scholarship. I mean, that I feel like was a turning point, at least personally for me. And I think engaging in places like Substack, but just generally in like public culture, to me, seems like it's just like it is the one avenue that we have. So yes, I guess.Henry Oliver (1:02:00)If your colleagues are listening and you both want to say something to them to encourage them onto Substack, what would you say?Julianne (1:02:10)Jeff, your colleagues, ⁓ do they subscribe to your Substack? Because one of the things that has happened is at first nobody, you know, I told a couple friends, but nobody else knew about this. But now more and more members of my department have subscribed to my Substack, which feels like, which does make it feel sort of high stakes in a different way. Has that happened to you?Henry Oliver (1:02:28)YouJeffrey Lawrence (1:02:32)I'm still pretty under the radar. ⁓ I have some colleagues, I know that there's some graduate students who also read it, ⁓ I mean, and colleague is a small thing. I'm more like, you my colleagues, have a great relationship with my department. I talk to them and sort of, but I think it's more like colleagues in general in terms of the academy that is important.Right? mean, and it again, I don't think it necessarily has to be sub-stacked, but it just shouldn't be Twitter. mean, I think that the long form writing that one finds in the debates for me, at least this is where it's happening right now. And so that would be my pitch is that I just think that the debates that are happening are better than they are anywhere else on the internet.Henry Oliver (1:03:18)Thank you both. I thought this was very interesting and I hope it encourages more of your peers to come and join us on Substack This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

What if the renewed fascination with Domenico Losurdo says more about our appetite for stability than about Marxism's future? We sit down with Ross Wolfe to unpack how a Verso‑to‑Monthly Review pipeline, a revived faith in China's statecraft, and the polemical stretching of “Western Marxism” built a Dengist common sense on the contemporary left. The story runs through publishing politics, bad categories, and a philosophical move that recodes the twentieth century's defeats as proof that the state must be forever.We press on the scholarship: where Losurdo distorts Perry Anderson, ignores Russell Jacoby's tighter frame, and sidelines entire currents like British Marxism, the Situationists, and Johnson–Forest. We reopen the Italian debates—Operaismo, Tronti, Althusser—and ask whether Sartre's and workerist priorities were really blind to anti‑colonial struggle or simply refused to romanticize models that never fit advanced capitalism. From there, we tackle the hinge: Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Does it license a permanent state, or did Marx and Lenin get it right that the state's existence tracks class antagonism and should wither as class society is abolished?The conversation widens to strategy. We examine the labor‑aristocracy thesis, the quiet third‑worldism that relieves organizers of responsibility at home, and the way China's present contradictions—major trade with Israel, BRICS diplomacy, GDP slowdown, regional rivalries—undercut claims that socialism can be national. If history “could only go this way,” what is left to change? We make the case for rebuilding class independence and international coordination in the core and periphery alike, not lowering horizons to match yesterday's outcomes.Subscribe, share, and leave a review to keep these long‑form dives alive. Then tell us: should the left reclaim the withering of the state—or retire it?Send us a text Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic

Qu'est-il resté du marxisme après la révolution russe et la bureaucratisation galopante et autoritaire de l'URSS ? Dans un ouvrage classique de l'histoire des idées intitulé Sur le marxisme occidental paru en 1976, l'historien anglais Perry Anderson dresse le portrait intellectuel du marxisme des années 1920 aux années 1970 (Lukacs, Sartre, Adorno, Althusser, Lefevbre, Gramsci, etc.), caractérisé notamment par sa situation géographique, celle de l'Europe de l'Ouest ou des États-Unis, et par son éloignement de la pratique révolutionnaire au profit d'un académisme marqué. On va revenir sur ce livre et ses thèses à l'occasion de sa reparution récente en poche aux Éditions sociales. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

We celebrate 500 episodes of Aufhebunga Bunga with a cold, hard look at the decay around us. Alex and George plus contributing editors Lee Jones and Alex Gourevitch wrangle with four principal questions: What does it mean to say our era is one of decay or decline? How does this relate to the non-death of neoliberalism – its intellectual destitution, its practical weakening, but also its mutation and perpetuation? How does neoliberal decay relate to the decline of a unipolar world under total US hegemony, and the decline of the liberal globalist order? To what extent is the decay of representative democracy cause or consequence of the above? And finally, as we have been asking since we started this podcast in 2017: what comes next? For all Bungacast content, subscribe at patreon.com/bungacast, and for our monthly newsletter, click here. Readings: Geopolitics at the End of the End of History, Lee Jones, The Northern Star Technofeudalism vs Total Capitalism, Alex Hochuli, American Affairs (forthcoming, late August) Regime Change in the West, Perry Anderson, London Review of Books Changing the Regime, Building the Nation, Phil Cunliffe, The Northern Star An Audacious Book, Roberto Schwarz (review of Robert Kurz's 1991 Collapse of Modernisation), Meditations Journal The new historical simultaneity, Robert Kurz, Libcom Past landmark episodes 100: What was the end of history?  200: Which country crystallises world-history from 1900-2020? 300: The threat of nuclear annihilation 400: The political oppositions of the next decade

In You Can't Please All (Verso), a sort of sequel to his seminal 1987 memoir Street-fighting Years, Tariq Ali continues the story of a life lived flamboyantly and magnificently on the Left. Pen portraits of friends and comrades such as Edward Said, Derek Jarman, Richard Ingrams, Benazir Bhutto, Mary-Kay Wilmers, E.P. Thompson, Perry Anderson and Robin Blackburn are combined with reflections on his work as a novelist, playwright and film-maker, and as an activist in the War on the War on Terror. Ali was in conversation about his life and work with Oliver Eagleton, associate editor of New Left Review and author of The Starmer Project.

On Perry Anderson's "Internationalism: A Breviary". [For the full episode subscribe at patreon.com/bungacast] We kick off the second block/theme of the 2024/25 Reading Club on Nations & Internationalism in the 21st Century by looking at a 2002 essay which charts nationalism against internationalism from the Atlantic revolutions through to the age of globalisation. It is particularly apposite to revisit this text in light of an acceleration in de-globalisation brought on by the second Trump presidency. What are the cultural aspects of "internationalism"? While nationalism can be good or bad, internationalism is usually seen as positive. Is this still the case? How has internationalism accompanied, seperated from or stood against nationalism throughout the latter's history? How is internationalism different from cosmopolitanism today, if at all? How could we update Anderson's charting of internationalism along 5 coordinates: capital, geography, philosophy, nation-definition, and class relations? Internationalism: A Breviary, Perry Anderson, New Left Review

Depois do primeiro episódio em que ouvimos falar sobre livros portugueses que contribuíram para o processo revolucionário do 25 de Abril, vamos agora focar a nossa atenção na literatura anticolonial, cujos contornos são mais internacionais, mas mais difíceis de definir. A lista de livros a discutir começa pelas obras do jornalista Basil Davidson da década de 1950, do antropólogo norte-americano Marvin Harris, Portugal's African "Wards" - A First-Hand Report on Labor and Education in Moçambique (1958) e de James Duffy, Portuguese Africa (1959). A esta configuração anglo-americana pertencem, igualmente: o livro do jornalista português António de Figueiredo, que terá sido ajudado, tanto por Harris como por Davidson, na publicação do seu livro intitulado Portugal and its Empire: the Truth (1961); bem como o de Perry Anderson, Portugal and the End of Ultra-Colonialism (1962). Do lado francês, a revista Présence Africaine acolheu nacionalistas angolanos nas suas lutas pela independência, como foi o caso de Mário Pinto de Andrade e do escritor Castro Soromenho. O Padre Robert Davezies, conhecido por ter denunciado as atrocidades da Guerra da Argélia, emprestou a sua voz à causa de Angola, num primeiro livro Les Angolais (1965), a que se seguiu La Guerre d'Angola (1968). São também lembrados os textos de dois combatentes pela libertação da Guiné e de Moçambique: é o caso de Amilcar Cabral, que escreveu a introdução à obra de Basil Davidson, The Liberation of Guiné: Aspects of an African Revolution (1969), bem como de Eduardo Mondlane, The Struggle for Mozambique (1969). Nesta sequência, é ainda considerada a intervenção do Padre Hastings na denúncia do massacre de Wiriamu, ocorrido em 1972. São ainda referidas obras mais dispersas e até de certa forma híbridas, como é o caso de ‘Negritude e humanismo’, um opúsculo publicado pela Casa dos Estudantes do Império em 1964, de Alfredo Margarido. O escritor e investigador construiu uma articulação rara entre produção literária e investigação histórica e antropológica. Esta última tinha, aliás, raízes na criatividade dos surrealistas, representados na passagem de Cruzeiro Seixas por Angola, iniciada na década de 1950. Paralelamente, a tradução portuguesa de Os condenados da terra de Frantz Fanon, com prefácio de Jean-Paul Sartre, aponta para um outro facto editorial conseguido na contra-corrente da censura, em meados da década de 1960. O debate é moderado por Isabel Castro Henriques e conta com a participação de Aurora Santos, Bernardo Cruz, José Augusto Pereira, Manuela Ribeiro Sanches, Nuno Domingos e Víctor Barros. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the late Dmitri Furman's account of post-Soviet Russia. Patreon Exclusive: for the Reading Club, join for $12/mo and get access to ALL Bungacast content, incl. 4 exclusive, original episodes a month We continue our discussions along this year's themes (rise and fall of nations; Russia past and present) by tackling Imitation Democracy: The Development of Russia's Post-Soviet Political System. Why has there been a revival in interest in the late Soviet and early post-Soviet period? And in the global 1990s in general? What does it really mean to be without-alternative? Why didn't democracy take hold in Russia? And why did it become an "imitation democracy" and not something else? How was Yeltsin a disaster? And what was Putin's appeal? Does 'Putinism' actually exist? Is it interesting or novel in any way? What happened after Furman's death and Russia's turn to "violent parody of the West"? Readings: Imitation Democracy: The Development of Russia's Post-Soviet Political System, Dmitri Furman, Verso Imitation Democracies: The Post-Soviet Penumbra, Dmitri Furman, New Left Review (pdf) Imitation Democracy: Perry Anderson writes about Dmitri Furman's analysis of Russia's post-communism, Perry Anderson, London Review of Books Listening Links: /114/ Reading Club: The Light That Failed - on the end of the "Age of Imitation" /270/ Russia vs the West ft. Richard Sakwa - on the endgame to war in Ukraine; and /271/ Russia vs the West (2) ft. Richard Sakwa - on the post-Soviet landscape /410/ Reading Club: Deutscher's Stalin - On Isaac Deutscher's classic Stalin: A Political Biography /421/ Who Are the Wrong Ukrainians? ft. Volodymyr Ishchenko - on post-Soviet Ukraine, from Maidan to war   Music: Éva Csepregi, "O.K. Gorbacsov", Hungaroton , WEA, High Fashion Music, Dureco

When Immanuel Wallerstein died in 2019, he was one of the most influential thinkers about the crisis-ridden development of global capitalism. People who might never have read one of his books will still find themselves referring to the core and the periphery of the capitalist world-system.Gregory Williams joins Long Reads to take a deeper look today at Wallerstein's life and work as a radical intellectual. Gregory is a professor of political science and international relations at Simmons University in Boston. He's also the author of Contesting the Global Order: The Radical Political Economy of Perry Anderson and Immanuel Wallerstein.Read Gregory's piece for Jacobin, "Immanuel Wallerstein's Work Can Help Us Understand the Deepening Crises of Capitalism" here: https://jacobin.com/2023/12/immanuel-wallerstein-world-systems-theory-development-cycles-capitalism-crisis-historyLong Reads is a Jacobin podcast looking in-depth at political topics and thinkers, both contemporary and historical, with the magazine's longform writers. Hosted by features editor Daniel Finn. Produced by Conor Gillies, music by Knxwledge. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

La palabra posmodernidad o posmoderno ha terminado por adquirir tantas definiciones y significados, alude a tantas corrientes y contextos que en ocasiones resulta extremadamente confusa. Sin embargo es un concepto clave para comprender nuestro tiempo y en especial para la gente que se dedica al arte o la literatura. Gracias a la historia sobre el origen de la posmodernidad que Perry Anderson escribió a finales del siglo pasado podemos comprender de forma muy clara de qué estamos hablando cuando hablamos de posmodernidad.

Rev. Perry Anderson talks about our need to discern and keep focused on the truth. Watch this episode on our YouTube channel:https://youtu.be/b_28vj7iO0A

Well we held off as long as we could, but we're back to discussing transition debate stuff. This time we attempt to take on Japan's unique path to capitalism and its equally unique brand of "feudalism." Reading: "Japanese Feudalism" from Lineages of the Absolutist State (1974) by Perry Anderson and "The Prussia of the East?"(1991) by Perry Anderson Send us a question, comment or valid concern: auxiliarystatements(at)gmail.com DISCORD: https://discord.gg/xXDUMZ2a

In this episode we get the Perry Anderson treatment and ask if we philosophers are the problem with how Western Marxism has evolved over time. We discuss what Anderson calls the formal and thematic shifts that happened within this theoretical tradition once the philosophers got in the driver's seat. Partly ethnographic, partly analytical, and a little more meta-philosophical than usual. We hope you'll indulge us this once as we ask ourselves what the hell we're doing. leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphilReferences:Perry Anderson, Considerations on Western Marxism (London: Verso Books, 1979).Music:Vintage Memories by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com

On violence and the lack of political resolution.   Regular guest Alex Gourevitch joins us to discuss why the Israel/Palestine conflict is so intractable – and why it draws so much attention. Alex then explains why, lamentably, there is no side worth choosing.   We then delve into various key points:  why Hamas was becoming irrelevant and how the 7 October attack was an attempt to combat that;  why violence is necessary but the Palestinians are in a catch-22;  how the West is implicated in the violence and callousness on show;  why the Palestinians are the most oppressed and forgotten people;  why Hamas is not an anticolonial freedom struggle; and  what is the right way to compare this to Ukraine. Links: No end in sight: Israel's search for a Gaza strategy, Lawrence Freedman, FT (attached) The House of Zion, Perry Anderson, NLR Whither Palestine, David Polansky, Strange Frequencies  

Adam Tooze returns to PTO to respond to the many excellent questions sent in by listeners. Become a £5 supporter on patreon to get access to this and other episodes of PTO Extra! Go to patreon.com/poltheoryother to sign up. We talked about Perry Anderson's take on Adam's work in the New Left Review, why Adam - despite his engagement with Marxist thought and frequent appearances in left media and events - defines himself as a left liberal rather than a socialist. We also talked about his view of the significance of the US inflation reduction act, and the dire state of the UK economy. We went on to talk about the economic and social crisis in Lebanon and why Adam thinks the situation in the country and the broader region does not get the attention it deserves.

Adam Tooze returns to PTO to respond to the many excellent questions sent in by listeners. Become a £5 supporter on patreon to get access to this and other episodes of PTO Extra! Go to patreon.com/poltheoryother to sign up. We talked about Perry Anderson's take on Adam's work in the New Left Review, why Adam - despite his engagement with Marxist thought and frequent appearances in left media and events - defines himself as a left liberal rather than a socialist. We also talked about his view of the significance of the US inflation reduction act, and the dire state of the UK economy. We went on to talk about the economic and social crisis in Lebanon and why Adam thinks the situation in the country and the broader region does not get the attention it deserves.

Adam Tooze returns to PTO to respond to the many excellent questions sent in by listeners. Become a £5 supporter on patreon to get access to this and other episodes of PTO Extra! Go to patreon.com/poltheoryother to sign up. We talked about Perry Anderson's take on Adam's work in the New Left Review, why Adam - despite his engagement with Marxist thought and frequent appearances in left media and events - defines himself as a left liberal rather than a socialist. We also talked about his view of the significance of the US inflation reduction act, and the dire state of the UK economy. We went on to talk about the economic and social crisis in Lebanon and why Adam thinks the situation in the country and the broader region does not get the attention it deserves.

Annette en Mathieu hebben het over de spannende verkiezingsstrijd in Turkije, die op het scherpst van de snede wordt gevoerd. Wat betekent het voor Europa, mocht Erdogan straks van het politieke toneel verdwijnen? En op welke manier staat het Eurovisiesongfestival symbool voor de relatie tussen de EU en het Turkije onder Erdogan? Tips uit deze aflevering: - Kom gezellig naar Café Europa Live in Den Haag in Nieuwspoort op 5 juli https://www.haagschcollege.nl/... - Mathieu raadt het boek 'The New Old World' aan van Perry Anderson. https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/f/th... - Annette tipt de serie Van de Schoonheid en de troost, van Wim Kayzer: https://www.vpro.nl/programmas... - Chef redactie Freek raadt ‘Erdogan in een notendop aan' van Joost Lagendijk https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/f/er... Muziek uit deze aflevering: - Sertab Erener won in 2003 het Songfestival voor Turkije, met het nummer Everyway that I can https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - Conchita Wurst met haar versie van Everyway that I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Over Café Europa: - Mathieu Segers en Annette van Soest bespreken om de week de achtergronden bij het Europese nieuws. Han Dirk Hekking - Europaverslaggever FD en Derk Marseille - correspondent in Duitsland voor oa BNR Nieuwsradio zijn terugkerende stamgasten - Annette van Soest is presentator en journalist oa voor Haagsch College en BNR Nieuwsradio - Mathieu Segers is hoogleraar hedendaagse Europese geschiedenis en Europese integratie aan Maastricht University - Freek Ewals is de oprichter en programmamaker van Haagsch College en doet de redactie van Café Europa Café Europa is een initiatief van Haagsch College en Studio Europa Maastricht

Con su autor, Alberto Santamaría, acompañado de Brais Fernández y Montserrat Galcerán. La publicación en 1923 de Historia y conciencia de clase produjo una gran conmoción en el mundo comunista. Su autor era un intelectual devenido en revolucionario llamado György Lukács, que, entre otras cosas, había ejercido como comisario de Cultura durante la efímera República socialista húngara en 1919. Convertido en ?revolucionario profesional?, su libro fue rechazado por el aparato de la III Internacional, convirtiéndose en una herejía subterránea?. Pese a ello, ha ejercido una influencia constante en la teoría marxista, convirtiéndose en uno de los textos fundacionales del calificado por Perry Anderson como marxismo occidental. ¿Cómo llega un intelectual del campo burgués al campo de la revolución proletaria? ¿Cuáles son las repercusiones y las líneas maestras de Historia y conciencia de clase? En este libro, Alberto Santamaría realiza un apasionante recorrido por la conversión al marxismo de Lukács, así como una aproximación a sus principales tesis teóricas esbozadas en aquellos años.

In Different Speeds, Same Furies, Perry Anderson measures the achievement of Anthony Powell’s Dance to the Music of Time against Proust’s more celebrated In Search of Lost Time – and finds Powell to be superior in certain key respects. Anderson discusses why a comparison between two writers at once so similar and dissimilar sheds new light on their greatest work, and literary construction more generally. He was joined by novelist and LRB contributing editor John Lanchester, for whom both writers have been lifelong touchstones. Find more events at the Bookshop: lrb.me/events Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode, historian Dr. Ivan Kurilla from European University in St. Petersburg shares about his research on the rich and little-known history of US-Russia relations since the 18th century. Dr. Kurilla explains how the US and Russia are "constitutive others" that have developed historically within the same political language, were both projections of the Greater Europe, and at times shared similar social and political upheaval and transformation. Please visit European University's website at https://eusp.org/ for more on their program for international students (as described by Dr. Kurilla in the episode) held now in Yerevan, Armenia. https://eusp.org/en/news/eusp-revamped-international-programs-explore-what-is-happening-in-russia-and-eurasia-today ABOUT THE GUEST Ivan Kurilla is a Professor of History and International Relations at European University, St. Petersburg. His primary field of interest is the history of U.S.-Russian relations, especially during the American antebellum and Civil War periods. In addition, he has organized workshops, published articles, and edited volumes on the use of history, historical memory, and historical politics in Russia and the post-Soviet space. Dr. Kurilla has also published articles on relations between the state and society in contemporary Russia. His articles have been published in the leading Russian historical journals, as well as in the Journal of American History, Demokratizatsiya, Journal of Cold War Studies, Problems of Post-Communism, and Nationalities Papers. In 2010 he translated into Russian the classic monograph by Perry Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State. Dr. Kurilla serves on the editorial board of Amerikanskii ezhegodnik (American Yearbook) of Moscow's Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a member of the council of the Russian Society for U.S. History Studies and a member of the council of the Free Historical Society. PRODUCER'S NOTE: This episode was recorded on November 12th, 2022 at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, Illinois during the ASEEES 2022 Convention. If you have questions, comments, or would like to be a guest on the show, please email slavxradio@utexas.edu and we will be in touch! CREDITS Host/Assistant Producer: Misha Simanovskyy (@MSimanovskyy) Associate Producer: Lera Toropin (@earlportion) Associate Producer: Cullan Bendig (@cullanwithana) Associate Producer: Taylor Ham Associate Producer: Sergio Glajar Social Media Manager: Eliza Fisher Supervising Producer: Katherine Birch Recording, Editing, and Sound Design: Michelle Daniel Music Producer: Charlie Harper (@charlieharpermusic) www.charlieharpermusic.com (Main Theme by Charlie Harper and additional background music by Makaih Beats, Mindseye, Paradigm, Chad Crouch, Uncanny) Executive Producer & Creator: Michelle Daniel (@MSDaniel) DISCLAIMER: Texas Podcast Network is brought to you by The University of Texas at Austin. Podcasts are produced by faculty members and staffers at UT Austin who work with University Communications to craft content that adheres to journalistic best practices. The University of Texas at Austin offers these podcasts at no charge. Podcasts appearing on the network and this webpage represent the views of the hosts, not of The University of Texas at Austin. https://files.fireside.fm/file/fireside-uploads/images/9/9a59b135-7876-4254-b600-3839b3aa3ab1/P1EKcswq.png Special Guest: Ivan Kurilla.

On the global left after the Cold War. [Patreon Exclusive] Has the left declined, been defeated, or is it dead? Is the continuity with the Old and New Lefts of the 20th century, or should we understand 1989 as marking a definitive break? We use a long essay by Swedish Marxist sociologist Göran Therborn in the latest New Left Review as a plank to examine these questions. Therborn tries to present a synoptic analysis of where the left is, globally speaking, almost a quarter of the way into the 21st century. Is he right that the old dialectics of industrialism and colonialism are no longer operative - and that no new dialectic has emerged?  And is trying to present a "balance sheet" a valid approach in the first place?   FILL OUT OUR 2022 LISTENER SURVEY: tinyurl.com/bunga2022survey Links: The World and the Left, Göran Therborn, New Left Review (2022) Renewals, Perry Anderson, New Left Review (2000) /37/ The Ghosts of May ‘68 ft. Catherine Liu, Bungacast OK BUNGER! The Problem of Generations, ep. 3 (Boomers), Bungacast

What is Marxism? Is Capitalism really that bad? Does communism have anything to say about the climate struggle? Can we really hope for a transformed communist future? Rayne and Mika chat with their favourite lecturer, Associate Professor Dr. Chamsy el-Ojeili. Chamsy is a sociologist and lecturer in the School of Social and Cultural Studies at Te Herenaga Waka - Victoria University Wellington. Mika, Rayne, and Chamsy chat about capitalism, ecosocialism, and what Marxism says about our contemporary struggles. Chamsy offers honesty and hope in being both a Christian and a communist. Show notes Council communism Rutger Bregman, Humankind: A Hopeful History (2020) Participatory Budgeting Alasdair MacIntyre, Marxism and Christianity (1971) Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Holy Family (1844) Ernst Bloch, Heritage of Our Times (1935) Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope (1954) Terry Eagleton, Why Marx Was Right (2011) Perry Anderson, Considerations on Western Marxism (1976) The Magnificast – Christian socialist podcast The Dig Radio – Jacobin podcast New Left Review journal Counterfutures journal Brian Zahnd, When Everything's on Fire (2021) David Bentley Hart, Tradition and Apocalypse (2022) Enzo Traverso, Fire and Blood: The European Civil War, 1914-1945 (2007) Definitions… Bourgeoisie: a social class comprised of people who own the means of production (factories, land, raw materials, machinery, etc) and therefore own most of society's capital and wealth. The interests of the bourgeoises (aka ruling or capitalist class) are centred on increasing profits. Proletariat: a social class comprised of workers without access to the means of production, and therefore are dependent on exchanging labour power for a wage. Marx believed the working class is fundamentally exploited and oppressed to produce profits for the capitalist class, and will ultimately overthrow the bourgeoisie creating a classless society. Gramsci: Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker, 1891–1937. He moved beyond the classic Marxist materialist approach to consider the place of ideas, culture, morality, feelings, and values in shaping collective will and influencing social reform. Fukuyama: Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1992. He believed liberalism had won the struggle for power through the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. He claimed that history has ended with global, liberal, democratic capitalism as the final form of economic, social, and political governance. -- This podcast is associated with Chaplaincy VUW. Feedback to aldridrayn@myvuw.ac.nz

Perry Anderson, Partner; Todd Cawley, Partner and Lake Speed Jr., Tribologist. Hosted by Brad Gillie from SiriusXM ch 90, Late Shift. Presented by ARP, Inc. & Performance Plus Global Logistics.

Outside of the frenzied headlines about woke warriors cancelling Jane Austen and stately homes, we're living in a period of renewed consideration of Britain's colonial history. The British Empire began before the English Civil War, and shaped our country for 400 years. At its height, it covered almost a quarter of the entire world's population. Beyond statues and street names, how is the empire still shaping our lives today? Ayeisha is joined by Dr Kojo Koram, lecturer in law at Birkbeck and author of Uncommon Wealth: Britain and the Aftermath of Empire. - Grab a copy of the book here: https://www.hachette.co.uk/titles/kojo-koram/uncommon-wealth/9781529338652/ - Further reading from Perry Anderson here: https://www.versobooks.com/authors/81-perry-anderson - And from Tom Nairn here: https://www.versobooks.com/authors/821-tom-nairn - More from Kojo here: https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745342047/empires-endgame/ ----- Researched by Margaret Welsh. Produced by Becky Malone. Music by Poddington Bear under Creative Commons license. Enjoying the show? Tweet us your comments and questions @NEF! The New Economics Podcast is brought to you by the New Economics Foundation. Find out more at www.neweconomics.org

This week Dan & Jack return from their COVID hiatus to finish up Perry Anderson's C L A S S I C text and talk feudalism. Specifically, what was it, where did it come from, how did it differ from place to place and what caused its seemingly inevitable crisis and collapse. Reading - Part 2 - ''Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism'' (1974) by Perry Anderson

. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/anarkademia/message

DISCORD: https://discord.gg/Ym8Bwmaz LINKTREE: https://linktr.ee/AuxiliaryStatementsPodcast This week Jack and Dan cover the first half of Anderson's classic book on the transition to feudalism. They cover the rise of the slave mode of production in Antiquity from its initial emergence as a solution to class struggle in Greece to its peak during thee Roman Empire. Whilst this mode of production allowed the ancient states to reach stunning cultural heights it was also wracked with internal contradictions that would be its undoing. The eventual crisis was one of an under supply of slaves and whilst the eventual demise of Western Roman Empire was a protracted affair, when the invaders came, their fate was sealed by weaknesses stemming from the mode of production. According to Anderson a new synthesis developed over the next several centuries, a synthesis of two political economies in crisis and decay. It was the melding of Roman and Germanic ways of life that gave rise to the feudal mode of production. Reading - Part 1 - ''Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism'' (1974) by Perry Anderson

We're back from our summer break with David, Helen and Adam Tooze exploring what the pandemic has revealed about politics, economics and the new world order. From Covid crisis to China crisis to climate crisis: how does it all fit together? And what comes next? Adam's new book is Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World's Economy. Plus David talks about his new book based on series one of History of Ideas: Confronting Leviathan. Talking Points:The term ‘lockdown' can be misleading. Many aspects of the response were not top-down.Most of the reduction in mobility predated government mandate.The financial markets made huge moves and central banks then had to step in.The popular response cannot be separated from the actions of the state.The term ‘shutdown' better captures the pandemic's impact on the economy.Huge parts of the productive economy literally ground to a halt. It seems like central banks learned something from the last crisis.Is there still a realistic prospect of normalization? Adam and Helen are skeptical. Is there such thing as democratic money?If so, then democracy has changed.The condition of possibility for the freedom of action of central bankers is a political vacuum.Parts of the left see an opportunity in monetary politics. The entire monetary order in China is political, but there was a debate within the regime over stimulus.The conservatives won out.Some Western financial leaders used this to push back against central bankers in their own countries. The Republican party is becoming increasingly incoherent.Some, such as Mnuchin, emphasize the structural necessity of some kind of continuity. Others, such as Jay Powell, argue that the priority is confronting China. There is an ongoing de-centering from the West in a dollar-based world. The U.S.-China competition has changed. We have moved from a realm of competition over GDP growth rates to a much starker contest involving hard power.The tech sanctions are a sovereignty issue, not just an economic issue.Mentioned in this Episode:Adam's new book, ShutdownJames Meadway on neoliberalismRudiger Dornbusch, Essays (1998/2001)Quinn Slobodian on right-wing globalistsPerry Anderson's review of Adam's work, and Adam's responseMarx's Capital Volume 1Helen's book, Oil and the Western Economic CrisisDaniela Gabor on macrofinance 

In this episode we bring on Private Equity expert Perry Anderson to share the fascinating inside baseball of buying companies with no capital.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After the ‘End of History' is a podcast about International Relations and History. It is part of the Hawks & Sparrows project. Want more? Please consider supporting the podcast on Patreon to receive bonus episodes, as well as early releases of the monthly Hawks & Sparrows newsletter. You can also follow us on Twitter @after_history. Thanks for listening,Mario and Tom *Episode 28 continues our discussion on Turkish political history with a focus on the administrations of Mustafa İsmet İnönü, Adnan Menderes, Sami Süleyman Gündoğdu Demirel, and  Halil Turgut Özal. From World War II to the post-Soviet era, we explore what Perry Anderson means when he describes the post-Kemalist period in terms of "cycles of the Centre-Right."   

After the ‘End of History' is a podcast about International Relations and History. It is part of the Hawks & Sparrows project. Want more? Please consider supporting the podcast on Patreon to receive bonus episodes, as well as early releases of the monthly Hawks & Sparrows newsletter. You can also follow us on Twitter @after_history. Thanks for listening,Mario and Tom *Episode 27 is the first in a series on Turkish politics, drawing from several scholarly articles in New Left Review, one published shortly before, the other coming a year after the "small world war" in Nagorno-Karabakh, the topic that we intended to focus on from the outset. As with most episodes, the focal topic exploded into a much broader discussion, beginning with a general reconstruction of Turkish political history from the Ottoman Empire to the Ataturk years. Needless to say, we're not experts in this history, but we leaned on our ol' pal Perry Anderson to guide us along to the heart of our research on the Erdogan period. Readings for this series include: Turkey at the Crossroads by CIHAN TUĞALA Small World War by GEORGI DERLUGUIANThe New Old World by PERRY ANDERSONThe music you hear on After the End of History is provided by Jason King. This episode also features a sample of Fikret Kizilok. 

Kemalizm konusundaki yayına gelen tepkiler arasında, bugünün sorunun Kemalizm olmadığı, 2021'de 1930'ların konuşulmasının yersizliği gibi yargılar yanında Kemalist halkçılığın sınıfsızlık tezinin inkarına varan değerlendirmeler dikkat çekiyordu. İngiliz Marxist kuramcı Perry Anderson, “Kemalism” başlıklı yazısından sonra kaleme aldığı “Kemal'den Sonra” adlı uzun makalesinde, laiklik ve devletçilik ilkelerindeki değişime rağmen, Kemalizm'in daha derinde yatan temeline, “bütünleşmeci milliyetçiliğe” hiç dokunulmadığını vurguluyor. Kanımca, buradan yola çıkarak, laiklik ilkesindeki değişimin Diyanet'in milli bütünleşme ile görevli kılınması biçiminde karşımıza çıktığını görmekteyiz ki burada Kemalizm ile bir karşıtlık değil, bir devamlılık bulunmaktadır. Aynı şey, özelleştirmeci, piyasacı yaklaşımla devletçilik ilişkisi için de geçerlidir. Keza, bütünleşmeci (tekçi) milliyetçiliğin Rum pogromları, Alevi katliamları ve Kürt sorununu yaratan baskı gibi unsurlarla birlikte sürdürüldüğünü de Kemalizm'in devamlılığı olarak tesbit etmemiz gerekiyor. Buna ek olarak, çok parti ile sınıf çatışması arasında ilişki kuran Kemalizm'in tek-partiyi meşrulaştıran yaklaşımı ile çok partili dönemdeki parti kapatmalar, 12 Eylül'ün seçim ve parti mevzuatına “olabildiğince az parti ve koalisyonsuz iktidar” perspektifinden getirdiği yaklaşım ve nihayet bugün aynı yaklaşımın vardığı bir zirve olarak tek adam otoriterliği aynı devamlılık çizgisi içinde yer almaktadır. Bu devamlılığı teşhis, Türkiye'nin daha demokratik bir geleceğe erişebilmesi için elzem olan yeni anayasa tasavvuru için zorunluluktur.

Perry Anderson, CEO; Mark Heywood, Tribologist and Chris Davis, NHRA Team Owner. Hosted by Brad Gillie from SiriusXM ch 90, Late Shift.

We discuss the third and final in the series of Perry Anderson essays on the EU in the London Review of Books, "The Breakaway", and wonder if the EU can - despite its crises - just carry on indefinitely. Reading Clubs are for monthly subscribers $10+. Sign up at patreon.com/bungacast

We discuss the second of Perry Anderson's three LRB essays on the making and unmaking of the EU: "Ever Closer Union?"  Our monthly Reading Club is for patrons $10+. Sign up at patreon.com/bungacast

We discuss the first of Perry Anderson's new essays on Europe published in the London Review of Books, which focuses on Luuk van Middelaar - described as the EU's first organic intellectual. We discuss what that means, as well as the role of the "coup" in forming the EU. Reading Club episodes are for subscribers $10+. Sign up at patreon.com/bungacast

In 1969, on the ninth floor of a Sir George Williams University building a peaceful protest was underway. Six Black students had accused their professor, Perry Anderson, of discrimination and when students felt the university's administration had not done a proper investigation, 200 students staged a sit-in. The event did not end as peacefully as it started.Watch the documentary "Ninth Floor" by Mina Shum on YouTube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRNnTMIUe2A&ab_channel=NFB  Don't forget to subscribe and follow on Instagram @racism.is.nonsense for posts all month long!https://www.instagram.com/racism.is.nonsense/?hl=enlinktr.ee/KnowNonsensePodcast

At last we wrap our discussion on Perry Anderson's excellent American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers with a summary conversation. For those that may be joining the podcast for the first time, this would be a great entry point for understanding Anderson's recent Marxist scholarship, where he has focused on the social, economic and political development of the great and emerging powers of the world. His other books include The New Old World, Brazil Apart and recent studies on Britain (see NLR 125) and the EU (see LRB 17 December 2020 and 7 January 2021). Breaking into a more informal discussion of what we think this work offers activists and writers opposed to US imperialism, we drill into some theoretical issues around the state and society, the role of intellectuals and strategy (uniquely?) in American foreign policy, while also projecting out beyond the book's scope, which was published midway through Obama's second term, into the Trump administration and after. As a segue into the next book under discussion -- Kishore Mahbubani's Has China Won? -- we also tackle some issues around the rise of China as a geopolitical rival to America's global hegemony and what that might mean for the direction of American foreign policy in the near to mid-term. Join us for a more in depth discussion on this topic in Episode 16. Jason King continues to kindly provide the music that you hear in After the 'End of History.' Thanks for listening.  

Após impasse entre o presidente e governadores, Renan Quinalha comenta o julgamento ocorrido no STF sobre o reconhecimento da competência de estados e municípios para determinar se a vacinação deve ou não ser compulsória. Laura Carvalho analisa os fatores que podem estar levanto à nova alta da inflação e faz previsões para o cenário econômico de 2021.Dica:"Brasil à Parte", Perry Anderson - https://www2.boitempoeditorial.com.br/produto/brasil-a-parte-937Envie comentários, dúvidas e sugestões usando a #entretanto no Twitter ou mande um email para entretantopodcast@gmail.comApresentação: Laura Carvalho e Renan QuinalhaDireção: Bruno HorowiczEdição: Bruno Horowicz e Julia LeiteProdução: Gustavo Rosa de Moura e Marina PersonProdutora: Mira Filmes

In the fifth installment of our focus on Perry Anderson's American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers, we reconstruct the last three chapters of "Imperium." The presentations cover the period from the Nixon administration through the first half of Obama's second term. Recalibrations: Gopal -- 00:00:00 to 00:27:52Liberalism Militant: Tom -- 00:28:32 to 00:55:02The Incumbent: Mario -- 00:55:33 to 01:43:45Jason King kindly provides the music that you hear in After the 'End of History.' You can find more of his work on Soundcloud. 

In part II of our discussion on Perry Anderson's American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers, we take a deeper look at the first three chapters of "Imperium," reading the dynamics between exceptionalism (isolation from the "fallen world") and universalism (making the world in America's image) that can be found in the period from America's founding to the Second World War. We also tackle the emergence of National Security in the foreign policy establishment vis a vis Truman, Kennan and the 'containment' of the Soviet Union. Chapter discussion markers:I. "Prodromes": 00:00:45 II "Crystallization": 00:21:33III. "Security": 00:46:08 Jason King kindly provides the music that you hear in After the 'End of History.' You can find more of his work on Soundcloud. 

In our eighth episode, we introduce the work and thought of Perry Anderson, the leading intellectual figure behind the New Left Review and author of several modern classics of Marxist political thought. We've chosen to dedicate the next few episodes of the podcast to American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers to discuss how his historical materialist understanding of the long-term trajectory of capitalism and the interstate system frames his perspective on America's rise to global hegemony. We're joined by our friend Gopal to help draw out the nuances and broader theoretical context of this challenging but rewarding text. Part I includes a brief introduction to Anderson's work, contextualizing American Foreign Policy within his better known works, such as Lineages of the Absolute State and Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. We also share some thoughts on how his work has impacted our own critical attitudes toward American foreign policy, particularly the "regnant liberalism" that has repeatedly justified imperialist interventions abroad. (See "Arms and Rights" in NLR 31.)Finally, we begin our reconstruction of the book's main topics with a focus on the Preface and Introduction to Imperium, the work's first of two parts (the second being Consilium). Here Anderson lays out what distinguishes his work from other historical scholarship, particularly in its chronological sweep and the interrelation between ("First World") capitalist states both before and after the establishment of American supremacy within the capitalist system.Jason King kindly provides the music that you hear in After the 'End of History.' You can find more of his work on Soundcloud. 

With guest Asad Haider, we discuss at length the theoretical polemic of E.P. Thompson against Louis Althusser. What was the historical context for each side of this conflict (in which Althusser never participated directly)? What was Thompson’s critique? Asad argues that Thompson did not understand Althusser correctly, or even provide a satisfactory conceptual account of what was best about his own empirical research. The two, may have been closer to each other than Thompson understood. A humanist, he preferred the young Marx; Althusser, an anti-humanist, argued systematically for the importance of the mature Marx. Both, however, were reacting to the Stalinist ossification of their respective national Communist parties. Readings discussed in this episode: Louis Althusser, For Marx https://www.versobooks.com/books/35-for-marx Louis Althusser, “Contradiction and Overdetermination” (from For Marx) https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm Louis Althusser, Etienne Balibar, Roger Establet, Pierre Macherey, and Jacques Rancière, Reading Capital https://www.versobooks.com/books/2042-reading-capital Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm Perry Anderson, “Origins of the Present Crisis” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I23/articles/perry-anderson-origins-of-the-present-crisis Perry Anderson, Arguments Within English Marxism https://www.versobooks.com/books/576-arguments-within-english-marxism Asad Haider, Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump https://www.versobooks.com/books/2716-mistaken-identity Karl Marx, Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx1.htm E.P. Thompson, “The Peculiarities of the English” https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1965/english.htm E.P. Thompson, “An Open Letter to Leszek Kolakowski” https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1973/kolakowski.htm E.P. Thompson, “The Poverty of Theory: Or, An Orrery of Errors” https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1978/pot/intro.htm E.P. Thompson, “Outside the Whale” https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1978/outside-whale.htm

We cover Chapter Five, but first have an extensive discussion of the debate between Thompson and Perry Anderson and Tom Nairn over the history of social class and economic development in England, with sociologist Jonah Stuart-Brundage. What should we make of liberalism in England at the end of the eighteenth century and what it meant for the prospects of revolution? Secondary readings: Perry Anderson, “Origins of the Present Crisis” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I23/articles/perry-anderson-origins-of-the-present-crisis Perry Anderson, “Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism,” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I35/articles/perry-anderson-socialism-and-pseudo-empiricism Arno Mayer, The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War https://www.versobooks.com/books/475-the-persistence-of-the-old-regime Tom Nairn, “The British Political Elite” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I23/articles/tom-nairn-the-british-political-elite Tom Nairn, “The British Working Class” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I24/articles/tom-nairn-the-english-working-class Tom Nairn, “The Anatomy of the Labour Party: Part I” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I27/articles/tom-nairn-the-nature-of-the-labour-party-part-i Tom Nairn, “The Anatomy of the Labour Party: Part II” https://newleftreview.org/issues/I28/articles/tom-nairn-the-nature-of-the-labour-party-part-ii E.P. Thompson, “The Peculiarities of the English” https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1965/english.htm#n1

Welcome to Casualties of History, a podcast from Jacobin magazine. We’ll be working our way through EP Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class. In this first episode, Alex and Gabe introduce themselves and cover the book’s preface, as well as outline the context in which it was written. Who was Thompson, and what was he aiming to do in writing this book? Who was he arguing with, and why?Reference is made to secondary literature:Perry Anderson, “Origins of the Present Crisis,” New Left Review 1, no. 23 (Jan-Feb 1964).EP Thompson, “The Peculiarities of the English,” Socialist Register (1965). Thompson, “Time, Work Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” Past & Present no. 38 (Dec 1967).Frederick Cooper, “Work, class and empire: An African historian's retrospective on E. P. Thompson,” Social History 20, no. 2 (1995).Geoff Eley, A Crooked Line (University of Michigan, 2006).Madeleine Davis, “Reappraising British socialist humanism,” Journal of Political Ideologies 18, no. 1 (2013). Davis, “Edward Thompson's Ethics and Activism 1956–1963: Reflections on the Political Formation of The Making of the English Working Class,” Contemporary British History 28, no. 4 (2014).

This is Perry's story of how to survive and thrive today.

 Aquele em que eles analisam uma das principais barbáries nacionais, a perversa concentração de renda. A partir de dois relatórios elaborados pela ONG OXFAM em parceria com o DATAFALHA, respectivamente intitulados “País estagnado: um retrato das desigualdades brasileiras-2018” (disponível:https://www.oxfam.org.br/sites/default/files/arquivos/relatorio_desigualdade_2018_pais_estagnado_digital.pdf) e   “Nós e as desigualdades: percepções sobre a desigualdade no Brasil” (https://www.oxfam.org.br/sites/default/files/arquivos/relatorio_nos_e_as_desigualdades_datafolha_2019.pdf0), os quatro odiados, na verdade nesse episódio três, uma vez que o integrante Bruno Malavolta não pôde colaborar com o tempero literário pelo nobre motivo de seu doutoramento, debatem sobre como a desigualdade social historicamente vivida pelo brasileiro produz uma ambivalência desumana, em que 1% do estamento social mais rico do país vive como uma espécie de casta que desfruta privilégios, como acesso à educação de qualidade, saúde, lazer, segurança, parafraseando Engenheiros do Hawaii, sob os muros e as grades que os protegem de quase tudo, e nada lhes protege de uma vida sem sentido.   E diante dessa realidade sem sentido Cássio ressalta, com base na obra "Linhagens do Estado Absolutista" de Perry Anderson, que o Estado Moderno nasce garantindo o domínio da nobreza e da burguesia, (basta lembrar que só pobres pagaram impostos inicialmente) impondo seus interesses à dinâmica da vida em sociedade, vilipendiando os demais estratos sociais. Enquanto Moisés enfatiza dados perturbadores como a percepção de 49 % dos brasileiros que acham que a renda mínima para estar entre os 10% mais ricos é de 20.000 reais mensais, em contraposição com o dado que revela que apenas 1% dos brasileiros possuem renda entre 20 e 30 mil reais, revelando que a concentração de renda é mais absurda do que o cidadão brasileiro consegue perceber. Já Osvaldo traz para o debate uma espécie de “geografia da concentração de renda”, relembrando que em 2010 a Cidade de Goiânia figurou no cenário internacional entre as 10 cidades do mundo com maior concentração de renda.  Assim, nesse episódio os odiados transitam por temas como o avanço das religiões de matriz protestante, que em solo nacional engendram, através da teologia da prosperidade, a ideologia de que pela fé o indivíduo consegue ascender socialmente; passando pelo debate da escolarização/meritocracia, Cássio, Moisés e Osvaldo refletem sobre os 49% dos brasileiros que acreditam na falácia de que ter diploma é garantia de emprego; enfim, ouvindo todo o episódio você perceberá que o fio condutor que vai ligando os assuntos e seus debatedores é a possibilidade do exercício da cidadania em um cenário de profunda concentração de renda, que favorece a formação de uma ínfima casta endinheirada em contraposição a uma classe social miserável em condições de vulnerabilidade, parafraseando Racionais, em que o neguinho vê tudo do lado de fora.   Quer conferir como ficou? Dê um play e se enforque na corda da liberdade!    

How to get your energy and life back at any age using natural supplements that I've been using. Fast acting testosterone boost that helps your mood, energy and sex life.

Alla från vänster till höger kastar ordet "hegemoni" omkring sig. Men vad betyder det egentligen? Elin Grelsson Almestad gräver i H-ordets historia. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Liberalernas trånga ensidiga hegemoni skapar mer problem än den löser, skriver socialistiska Internationalen medan Lars Anders Johansson, i  tankesmedjan Timbros nättidning Smedjan konstaterar att den svenska likhetskulturen syns i den  modernistiska hegemoni som varit rådande inom svensk arkitektur och stadsplanering sedan slutet av 1930-talet. I riksdagen råder en nyliberal hegemoni, förklarar Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna medan Mats Blomberg skriver i tidningen Fokus om hur borgarna 1976 lyckades bryta vänsterns hegemoni. Samtliga exempel är hämtade från ett par veckor i svenska medier. Hegemoni är ordet på allas läppar. Ja, i alla fall om man ser till hur det har spridit sig under de senaste decennierna från att främst ha hört hemma i universitetsmiljöer och akademiska diskussioner till att nu florera på allt från feministiskaworkshops till ledarsidor av alla politiska färger. En sökning i mediearkivet Retriever visar hur begreppet endast omnämndes ett fåtal gånger per år i dagspressen under 1990-talet för att sedan stadigt öka. Knappt ett par decennier in på tjugohundratalet förekom begreppet med marginal över 500 gånger per år i sportsammanhang, ledartexter och kulturanalyser. Det förekommer förstås också i publikationer som inte registreras i något mediearkiv, mer ljusskygga sajter som talar om etablissemangsmedias hegemoni. Ja, detta luddiga begrepp används av alla politiska läger och i skilda syften. Men vad betyder det egentligen? 2017 utkom historikern och sociologen Perry Anderson med boken The H-word som går till botten med hegemonins idéhistoria, utifrån en liknande iakttagelse kring begreppets utbredning. I snitt ges det ut en engelskspråkig titel i månaden med ordet hegemoni i. Anderson återvänder till begreppets ursprung grekiskans hegemonia som betyder ledning eller ledarskap. Härifrån kommer den geopolitiska betydelsen av hegemoni där en eller ett flertal svagare stater underkastar sig en starkare stat frivilligt, i syfte att erhålla internationellt erkännande, beskydd eller ekonomiskt bistånd. I Grekland var det Sparta och Aten som skapade sig hegemoniska särställningar där andra stater underkastade sig dem i utbyte mot beskydd. Aristoteles beskrev systemet som att de båda hegemoniska staterna i Grekland tog sin respektive styrandeform som standard och ålade dem på andra städer, i ett fall demokrati och i ett annat fall oligarki, fram tills att det hade blivit en fast vana hos befolkningen i resten av städerna att inte ens önska jämlikhet utan endast välja mellan att regera eller att uthärda underkastelsen. Ungefär så fungerar hegemoni, oavsett i vilket sammanhang den uppstår. Det verkar de flesta vara överens om. Hegemonin döljer med andra ord de politiska dimensionerna genom att få det att framstå som objektivt Efter Grekland och Aristoteles faller begreppet mer eller mindre i glömska fram till mitten av 1800-talet, då det återkommer i diskussioner och analyser kring Preussen och kejsardömets särställning innan det landar hos revolutionärerna i Ryssland. Här handlade det inte längre om relationen mellan stater, utan om relationen mellan klasser inom en och samma stat där Lenin använde sig av hegemoni som en fokuserad social strategi; att ena alla grupper som allierade under proletariatets diktatur, inte minst den stora majoriteten bönder. Det var också genom denna definition av hegemoni som den italienska kommunistledaren Antonio Gramsci kom i kontakt med begreppet under 1920-talet. 1926 dömdes Gramsci till 20 års fängelse av Mussolini-regimen och började under fängelsevistelsen att nedteckna sina tankar om samhället, totalt 29 anteckningsböcker där han bland annat utvecklade teorin kring kulturell hegemoni. Begreppet beskriver hur en styrande klass kan dominera genom kulturen i samhället dess vanor, beteenden, upplevelser och värderingar så att den styrande klassens sätt att leva och livsåskådning blir normerande och gör att det politiska, sociala och ekonomiska tillståndet i samhället framstår som naturligt och oundvikligt. Hegemonin döljer med andra ord de politiska dimensionerna genom att få det att framstå som objektivt. Det ska dröja till 1970-talet, långt efter Gramscis död, innan fängelseskrifterna trycks och sprids i både Italien och andra länder. Den kulturella hegemonin blir från och med då ett nyckelbegrepp för att beskriva nyliberalismen, borgerlighetens makt i samhället och hur kapitalismen närmast betraktas som en naturlag. Även inom genusvetenskapen plockas begreppet upp för att beskriva så kallad hegemonisk maskulinitet. De beteenden som den hegemoniska maskuliniteten innehar ses som naturliga, vanliga och positiva, men är också en idealbild som ingen kan leva upp till. Det närmaste män kan komma är delaktighet, det vill säga man delar den hegemoniska manlighetens ideal, även om man inte kan leva upp till den fullt ut. Genom att eftersträva hegemonin och på så vis stödja idealet, åtvinner männen de fördelar som den hegemoniska maskuliniteten tilldelas. I samband med #metoo aktualiserades den analysen, kring frågeställningar hur vissa beteenden kan ursäktas och till och med legitimeras.  Likaså återkommer begreppet i den återkommande frågan om en manlighet i kris. Vad sker med den enskilda mannen när hegemonin förändras från den starka, industriarbetande familjeförsörjaren till den emotionellt tillgängliga mannen vars partner tjänar mer? Vad händer med de män som känner sig vilsna och omsprungna, eftersom hegemonin kräver någonting annat av dem nu? Så vad talar vi egentligen om idag när vi talar om hegemoni? Den hegemoniska maskuliniteten, liksom den marxistiska kulturella hegemonin är bara några av de begrepp som ordet återkommer i. Hegemoni används också för att exempelvis att kritisera journalisters påstådda mörkning om invandringens effekter eller påvisa hur så kallad etablissemangsmedia vägrar berätta om chemtrails på himlen. Det är sannolikt en naturlig följd av ett samhälle som de senaste decennierna förvandlats till ett informations- och påverkanssamhälle, där alltfler röster vill göra sig hörda, liksom ett samhälle där tilltron till auktoriteter minskat och alla kan skapa sig sina egna sanningar. Hegemoni upprätthålls, enligt Gramsci, genom att de intellektuella på olika sätt företräder den styrande klassens intressen och förklarar sakernas tillstånd för undersåtarna på ett sådant sätt att de upplever de maktförhållanden som råder som självklara och därför självmant ger sitt samtycke till att låta sig styras. En formulering som idag lika gärna kunde vara hämtad från Flashback forum eller en antivaccinationssajt. Det finns ju i själva verket också något gott i att vissa hegemonier exempelvis hur vi talar om Förintelsen eller att vaccination gynnar både individ och folkhälsa faktiskt har etablerats. Samtidigt är andra hegemonier, som tron på evig utveckling på en jord med begränsade naturresurser, fortfarande starka fastän all forskning pekar på att vi är på väg mot en klimatkatastrof. Det finns med andra ord anledning att tro att såväl Aristoteles som Gramsci vänder sig i sina gravar när de ser hegemonibegreppets slängiga användning i alla former av svensk debatt, men det är ett symtom på tiden vi lever i. Makten är mer differentierad, rösterna är fler. Hegemoniordet är idag allas och samtidigt ingens alls. Elin Grelsson Almestad, författare och skribent   Litteratur Perry Anderson: The H-word. The Peripetetia of Hegemony. Verso, 2017. Raewyn Connell: Maskuliniteter. Översättning Åsa Lindén och Nils Sjödén. Daidalos, 2008. Antonio Gramsci: Selection From the Prison notebooks. Redaktör och översättare Qouintin Hoare och Geoffrey Nowell Smith. Lawrence and Wishart, 1971. Kristoffer Holt: Mediemisstro där ytterkanterna möts. Institutet för mediestudier, 2016. Dag Thorén: Mediakriget. Lunds universitet, 2015.

Alla från vänster till höger kastar ordet "hegemoni" omkring sig. Men vad betyder det egentligen? Elin Grelsson gräver i H-ordets historia. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Essän publicerades 2019.Liberalernas trånga ensidiga hegemoni skapar mer problem än den löser, skriver socialistiska Internationalen medan Lars Anders Johansson, i tankesmedjan Timbros nättidning Smedjan konstaterar att den svenska likhetskulturen syns i den modernistiska hegemoni som varit rådande inom svensk arkitektur och stadsplanering sedan slutet av 1930-talet. I riksdagen råder en nyliberal hegemoni, förklarar Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna medan Mats Blomberg skriver i tidningen Fokus om hur borgarna 1976 lyckades bryta vänsterns hegemoni. Samtliga exempel är hämtade från ett par veckor i svenska medier.Hegemoni är ordet på allas läppar. Ja, i alla fall om man ser till hur det har spridit sig under de senaste decennierna – från att främst ha hört hemma i universitetsmiljöer och akademiska diskussioner till att nu florera på allt från feministiskaworkshops till ledarsidor av alla politiska färger. En sökning i mediearkivet Retriever visar hur begreppet endast omnämndes ett fåtal gånger per år i dagspressen under 1990-talet för att sedan stadigt öka. Knappt ett par decennier in på tjugohundratalet förekom begreppet med marginal över 500 gånger per år i sportsammanhang, ledartexter och kulturanalyser. Det förekommer förstås också i publikationer som inte registreras i något mediearkiv, mer ljusskygga sajter som talar om ”etablissemangsmedias hegemoni”. Ja, detta luddiga begrepp används av alla politiska läger och i skilda syften. Men vad betyder det egentligen?2017 utkom historikern och sociologen Perry Anderson med boken ”The H-word” som går till botten med hegemonins idéhistoria, utifrån en liknande iakttagelse kring begreppets utbredning. I snitt ges det ut en engelskspråkig titel i månaden med ordet ”hegemoni” i.Anderson återvänder till begreppets ursprung – grekiskans hegemonia som betyder ledning eller ledarskap. Härifrån kommer den geopolitiska betydelsen av hegemoni där en eller ett flertal svagare stater underkastar sig en starkare stat frivilligt, i syfte att erhålla internationellt erkännande, beskydd eller ekonomiskt bistånd. I Grekland var det Sparta och Aten som skapade sig hegemoniska särställningar där andra stater underkastade sig dem i utbyte mot beskydd. Aristoteles beskrev systemet som att ”de båda hegemoniska staterna i Grekland tog sin respektive styrandeform som standard och ålade dem på andra städer, i ett fall demokrati och i ett annat fall oligarki, fram tills att det hade blivit en fast vana hos befolkningen i resten av städerna att inte ens önska jämlikhet utan endast välja mellan att regera eller att uthärda underkastelsen.” Ungefär så fungerar hegemoni, oavsett i vilket sammanhang den uppstår. Det verkar de flesta vara överens om.Hegemonin döljer med andra ord de politiska dimensionerna genom att få det att framstå som objektivtEfter Grekland och Aristoteles faller begreppet mer eller mindre i glömska fram till mitten av 1800-talet, då det återkommer i diskussioner och analyser kring Preussen och kejsardömets särställning innan det landar hos revolutionärerna i Ryssland. Här handlade det inte längre om relationen mellan stater, utan om relationen mellan klasser inom en och samma stat där Lenin använde sig av hegemoni som en fokuserad social strategi; att ena alla grupper som allierade under proletariatets diktatur, inte minst den stora majoriteten bönder. Det var också genom denna definition av hegemoni som den italienska kommunistledaren Antonio Gramsci kom i kontakt med begreppet under 1920-talet. 1926 dömdes Gramsci till 20 års fängelse av Mussolini-regimen och började under fängelsevistelsen att nedteckna sina tankar om samhället, totalt 29 anteckningsböcker där han bland annat utvecklade teorin kring kulturell hegemoni. Begreppet beskriver hur en styrande klass kan dominera genom kulturen i samhället – dess vanor, beteenden, upplevelser och värderingar – så att den styrande klassens sätt att leva och livsåskådning blir normerande och gör att det politiska, sociala och ekonomiska tillståndet i samhället framstår som naturligt och oundvikligt. Hegemonin döljer med andra ord de politiska dimensionerna genom att få det att framstå som objektivt.Det ska dröja till 1970-talet, långt efter Gramscis död, innan fängelseskrifterna trycks och sprids i både Italien och andra länder. Den kulturella hegemonin blir från och med då ett nyckelbegrepp för att beskriva nyliberalismen, borgerlighetens makt i samhället och hur kapitalismen närmast betraktas som en naturlag. Även inom genusvetenskapen plockas begreppet upp för att beskriva så kallad ”hegemonisk maskulinitet”. De beteenden som den hegemoniska maskuliniteten innehar ses som naturliga, vanliga och positiva, men är också en idealbild som ingen kan leva upp till. Det närmaste män kan komma är delaktighet, det vill säga man delar den hegemoniska manlighetens ideal, även om man inte kan leva upp till den fullt ut. Genom att eftersträva hegemonin och på så vis stödja idealet, åtvinner männen de fördelar som den hegemoniska maskuliniteten tilldelas. I samband med #metoo aktualiserades den analysen, kring frågeställningar hur vissa beteenden kan ursäktas och till och med legitimeras. Likaså återkommer begreppet i den återkommande frågan om en manlighet i kris. Vad sker med den enskilda mannen när hegemonin förändras från den starka, industriarbetande familjeförsörjaren till den emotionellt tillgängliga mannen vars partner tjänar mer? Vad händer med de män som känner sig vilsna och omsprungna, eftersom hegemonin kräver någonting annat av dem nu?Så vad talar vi egentligen om idag när vi talar om hegemoni? Den hegemoniska maskuliniteten, liksom den marxistiska kulturella hegemonin är bara några av de begrepp som ordet återkommer i. Hegemoni används också för att exempelvis att kritisera journalisters påstådda mörkning om invandringens effekter eller påvisa hur så kallad etablissemangsmedia vägrar berätta om chemtrails på himlen. Det är sannolikt en naturlig följd av ett samhälle som de senaste decennierna förvandlats till ett informations- och påverkanssamhälle, där alltfler röster vill göra sig hörda, liksom ett samhälle där tilltron till auktoriteter minskat och alla kan skapa sig sina egna sanningar.Hegemoni upprätthålls, enligt Gramsci, genom att de intellektuella på olika sätt företräder den styrande klassens intressen och förklarar sakernas tillstånd för undersåtarna på ett sådant sätt att de upplever de maktförhållanden som råder som självklara och därför självmant ger sitt samtycke till att låta sig styras. En formulering som idag lika gärna kunde vara hämtad från Flashback forum eller en antivaccinationssajt. Det finns ju i själva verket också något gott i att vissa hegemonier – exempelvis hur vi talar om Förintelsen eller att vaccination gynnar både individ och folkhälsa – faktiskt har etablerats. Samtidigt är andra hegemonier, som tron på evig utveckling på en jord med begränsade naturresurser, fortfarande starka fastän all forskning pekar på att vi är på väg mot en klimatkatastrof.Det finns med andra ord anledning att tro att såväl Aristoteles som Gramsci vänder sig i sina gravar när de ser hegemonibegreppets slängiga användning i alla former av svensk debatt, men det är ett symtom på tiden vi lever i. Makten är mer differentierad, rösterna är fler. Hegemoniordet är idag allas och samtidigt ingens alls.Elin Grelsson, författare och skribent LitteraturPerry Anderson: The H-word. The Peripetetia of Hegemony. Verso, 2017.Raewyn Connell: Maskuliniteter. Översättning Åsa Lindén och Nils Sjödén. Daidalos, 2008.Antonio Gramsci: Selection From the Prison notebooks. Redaktör och översättare Qouintin Hoare och Geoffrey Nowell Smith. Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.Kristoffer Holt: Mediemisstro där ytterkanterna möts. Institutet för mediestudier, 2016.Dag Thorén: Mediakriget. Lunds universitet, 2015.

Each year over 300,000 people have a hip replaced. Perry Anderson, Vital60 podcaster, had his hip replaced 7 months ago and has deep insight in how to prepare for and how to recover from a hip replacement. This podcast includes Heather and Myles Weber, health and fitness professionals to discuss this topic to help those about to go through and recover from hip replacement surgery. We are at the Urijah Faber Ultimate Fitness Gym in Sacramento California. An amazing full service gym.

Many of us find ourselves in someone else's life not our own. We are not responsible to fix their life or problems. Even if we are in a relationship with them and love them. We can't fix anyone, but we can change the way we respond to them. Drama, chaos and ineffective patterns will not get you the life you really desire. Let others deal with their own life and their drama that has a life and energy of its own. Create your own life with the power and strength that is already inside of you. It may be hidden, but we all have our unique personal strengths that can power our lives in a new amazing way. The best way to help others is to be the example of how to live, love and grow into your new life. Life is too short to do it any other way. - Perry Anderson

"This is not my Circus, Those are not my monkeys"Many of us find ourselves in someone else's life not our own. We are not responsible to fix their life or problems. Even if we are in a relationship with them and love them. We can't fix anyone, but we can change the way we respond to them. Drama, chaos and ineffective patterns will not get you the life you really desire. Let others deal with their own life and their drama that has a life and energy of its own. Create your own life with the power and strength that is already inside of you. It may be hidden, but we all have our unique personal strengths that can power our lives in a new amazing way. The best way to help others is to be the example of how to live, love and grow into your new life. Life is too short to do it any other way. - Perry Anderson

Fala pessoal do GizCast! Voltando à normalidade aqui no Quem Foi?!, Gabriel Bonz (@_gabrielbonz) inicia aqui a série “O Contrato Social” dentro do QF?!. Nessa série, buscaremos desenvolver as teorias do contrato social colocadas dentro da história da filosofia política e iniciamos com um conceito fundamental pra entender a formação do Estado moderno: a concepção que o historiador marxista Perry Anderson (1938) tem desse momento de “passagem” da época feudal para a época moderna. Lembrando que qualquer dúvida, sugestão, indicação de convidado, é, não só bem vinda, como necessária. Para entrar em contato nos procure no Facebook, no Twitter ou no e-mail. Agradecemos a Yann Cerri (@yanncerri) pela arte da capa e à Sapiens Solutions pelo suporte ao podcast. Produção: Gabriel Bonz. Participação: Gabriel Bonz. Edição: Gabriel Bonz. Arte da Capa: Yann Cerri. Referência do início do programa: “Os senhores que permaneceram proprietários dos meios de produção fundamentais em qualquer sociedade pré-industrial eram, certamente, os nobres terratenentes. Durante toda a fase inicial da época moderna, a classe dominante – econômica e politicamente – era, portanto, a mesma da época medieval: a aristocracia feudal. Essa nobreza passou por profundas metamorfoses nos séculos que se seguiram ao fim da Idade Média: mas desde o princípio até o final da história do absolutismo nunca foi desalojada de seu domínio do poder político. As alterações nas formas de exploração feudal sobrevindas no final da época medieval estavam, naturalmente, longe de serem insignificantes. Na verdade, foram precisamente essas mudanças que modificaram as formas do Estado. Essencialmente, o absolutismo era apenas isto: um aparelho de dominação feudal recolocado e reforçado, destinado a sujeitar as massas camponesas à sua posição social tradicional.” (ANDERSON, Perry. Linhagens do Estado Absolutista. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 2004, pp. 18). #GizCastAcessível: A capa tem uma foto em preto e branco do rosto de Perry Anderson, um homem sério que parece estar falando, e tem um óculos de armação grossa e preta. Está escrito em fonte Times New Roman maior “QUEM IX FOI?!” e, embaixo, “Estado Absolutista” para Perry Anderson. Ao redor da capa há uma simulação de moldura dourada. Apoie o projeto:  Curta no Facebook! Siga no Twitter! Siga-nos no Instagram!

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas 2016 In 2013, historian Perry Anderson observed that it is axiomatic for US foreign policy advisors that, ‘the hegemony of the United States continues to serve both the particular interests of the nation and the universal interests of humanity’. But troubled is the head that wears the crown of world domination. The US establishment is worried by the threat of domestic disorder, terrorist outrages and the rising powers in the East, notably China. It is also concerned by a range of social and economic problems: rising inequality, a failing school system, the burden of health care and obsolete infrastructure. Furthermore, ‘energy is wasted, R&D is insufficient, labour is under-skilled, finance is under-regulated, entitlements are out of control, the budget is in the red, the political system is overly polarised’. The current presidential election campaign confirms that elite confidence in US hegemony is not shared by substantial sections of the electorate. The rise of Donald Trump symbolises the scale of popular disaffection. According to Colombia historian Mark Mazower, his success – in parallel with populist politicians in Europe – confirms that ‘nationalism is back like it never went away’. Trump is riding ‘a populist insurgency’ seeking to restore the USA to its ‘rightful place in the world’. Trump appeals to widespread discontent over the impact of global economic forces, causing increasing inequality and insecurity, particularly in blue-collar communities. Trump’s nationalist revival has an angry and defensive tone. It stands in stark contrast to the vision of John Winthrop’s Puritan evangelicals who, sought to build in Massachusetts Bay a ‘city on a hill’, an ideal society in the New World as an example to the Old. As the late Benedict Anderson observed, the spirit of nationalism forged in the American Revolution, based on ‘an imagined political community’ of creole pioneers, provided a model for nationalist movements – first in Europe, and subsequently throughout the colonial world. But, whereas the nationalist spirit of the founding fathers had a unifying and democratic character, that of Trump, with its anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic and anti-Muslim tropes, seems divisive and reactionary. Can America’s overwhelming military might continue to compensate for its chronic economic stagnation? Can the USA’s global cultural influence help it to hold off the competition of the rising powers of East Asia? Can any political alternative overcome the exhaustion and paralysis that appears to have overtaken the American system under the presidency of Barack Obama? speakers Professor Sarah Churchwell chair of Public Understanding of the Humanities; Professor of American literature, School of Advanced study, University of London Dolan Cummings associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story (forthcoming from Zero Books) Alex Deane managing director, FTI Consulting; Sky News regular; BBC Dateline London panellist; author Big Brother Watch: The state of civil liberties in modern Britain Michael Goldfarb journalist and historian, FRDH Podcast Dr Kwasi Kwarteng Conservative member of parliament for Spelthorne; historian; author, Ghosts of Empire and War & Gold Chair Dr Cheryl Hudson lecturer in American history, University of Liverpool

SMJ #16 – Pra que serve Direito Romano? Toda disciplina possui seu mito fundador, e como bom mito, é preciso que seja problematizado. A matemática tem Euclides, a física moderna tem Newton, a química Lavoisier, a história Heródoto, e o direito, por sua vez, foi recolher entre os romanos antigos a origem heroica de toda uma tradição. Mas será que o nosso direito contemporâneo tem alguma relação com o direito romano como muitos querem fazer crer? Afinal, porque se fala tanto de direito romano? O que uma tradição de mais de dois mil anos tem a nos ensinar hoje, com todos nossos problemas e questionamentos que nada lembram os de antigamente? Em uma expressão: pra que serve Direito Romano? Para compreender estas e outras questões relativas a história de Roma e do direito antigo, o Salvo Melhor Juízo trouxe para sua bancada dois especialistas no tema: Walter Guandalini Jr.* e João Paulo Arrosi**. Confira! ========= Indicado no programa: Livros: Paul Veyne, “O pão e o circo”; Paul Veyne, “Império Greco-Romano”; Paul Veyne, “História da vida privada” vol. 1, capítulo 1; Perry Anderson, “Passagens da antiguidade ao feudalismo”; Aldo Schiavone, “Uma história rompida”; Aldo Schiavone, “Ius”; Mario Bretone, “História do Direito Romano”; Série: ROMA (HBO) ========= Comentários, sugestões, críticas: contatosalvomelhorjuizo@gmail.com Twitter: @SMJPodcast Facebook: Salvo Melhor Juízo Instagram: @salvomelhorjuizo Assine o Feed: feeds.feedburner.com/salvomelhorjuizo Compartilhe, divulgue, ajude-nos nesse projeto! *Walter Guandalini Jr. é professor de direito romano da Universidade Federal do Paraná. Mestre e doutor em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Paraná. Fez estudos de doutoramento sanduíche no Centro Studi per la Storia del Pensiero Giuridico moderno, da Università degli studi di Firenze. **João Paulo Arrosi é professor de direito romano, mestre e doutorando em direito pela Universidade Federal do Paraná.

Teaching, prayer, and thanks at the final meeting for Perry Anderson, an elder at BRCC. NOTE: This file contains a lot of material other than the teaching, which was part of the celebration of Perry's years of service as an elder in BRCC.

Perry Anderson teaches on the power and privilege of praying in Jesus name.

A look into the intimacy of prayer, by Perry Anderson. Also includes a recording of the taking of the Lord's Supper.