Podcasts about Rosa Luxemburg

That's right! Part 1! And you'd better enjoy this one, because it's the most fun we're gonna have on this topic! Imagine, you're a young woman, charming, witty, a political genius with an unbridled passion for life and your fellow human beings. You make it to Switzerland, one of the only places women can study and meet the love/biggest political influence /worst pain in the arse of your life. He's rich and good looking. Coalescing here are countless political refugees from multiple different countries, struggling to throw off the yolk of autocratic oppression, and you can switch between multiple different languages to engage with them. Something unstoppable seems to be swelling throughout Europe, an irrefutable appetite for massive change. And you have the intellectual acumen, unstoppable energy and resounding humanity that this cause will need to propel it into the twentieth century. God…can't we just stay here?++++++  

Grötiga terroristtankar, banbrytande filosofi och viktiga litterära författarskap. Allt rymdes hos Bo Cavefors förlag. Det får en av fundera över dagens intellektuella klimat, säger Tor Billgren. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Först sänd 2018-06-14.”RAF: texter”, som publicerades på Bo Cavefors förlag i oktober 1977 måste vara en av bokhistoriens mest vältajmade utgivningar. Det är en 520-sidig antologi med texter av aktivister inom den västtyska terrorgruppen Röda Arméfraktionen, RAF.Cavefors berättar om publiceringen i Malmökonstnären Lena Mattssons filminstallation ”I betraktarens öga”, som visades på Moderna Museet i Malmö 2014. Förutom den svenska boken, gav han också ut en utgåva på tyska, eftersom inget tyskt förlag vågade göra det. För att böckerna inte skulle fastna i tullen, fabricerade han ett fejkomslag: ”Kärlek med förhinder” stod det på framsidan av ett stort antal av de tyska böckerna.Cavefors hade starka drivkrafter, både politiska och litterära. I Lena Mattssons intervjufilm kallar han sig ”kulturell onanist”.Det som gör boken så vältajmad, är att det var just i oktober 1977, som palestinska PFLP kapade ett Lufthansaplan med kravet att ett antal fängslade RAF-ledare skulle friges.I fem dagar irrade planet runt i Mellanöstern med fem besättningsmedlemmar och 86 passagerare som gisslan, sju av dem barn. Tidigt på morgonen den 17 oktober kunde planet slutligen landa i Mogadishu, Somalia. Det stormades av tysk specialpolis, och gisslan fritogs.Följande morgon hittades RAF:s fängslade ledare, Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin och Jan-Carl Raspe döda i sina fängelseceller i vad som förmodligen var ett koordinerat självmord.I samma veva lägger alltså Bo Cavefors ”RAF: texter” på bokhandelsdiskarna.Det var förstås också en mycket kontroversiell utgivning. RAF hade vid det laget mördat 16 personer i sina olika aktioner, varav två i Stockholm under ockupationen av Västtyska ambassaden 1975.Och våren 1977 hade SÄPO slagit till mot en RAF-trogen terrorcell i Sverige som planerade att kidnappa före detta ministern Anna-Greta Leijon i utpressningssyfte. Så hösten 1977 visste alla vad RAF var. Bo Cavefors hade en särskild näsa för det som låg i tiden.Han startade sitt bokförlag 1959, men det är först 2018 som historien om förlaget berättas utförligt i bokform. Det är bokhistorikern Ragni Svensson som gör det i sin doktorsavhandling ”Cavefors – Förlagsprofil och mediala mytbilder i det svenska litteratursamhället 1959–1982”.Första året gav den då 27-årige förläggaren ut nio titlar från sitt föräldrahem i Limhamn, bland annat ”Sju algeriska studenters vittnesmål om tortyren i Frankrike” och tre böcker av den mycket kontroversielle poeten Ezra Pound.Stig Claesson sökte sig tidigt till förlaget, liksom en ung Lars Norén. Honom refuserade dock Cavefors, tre gånger på tre år.Förlaget fick snabbt en vänsterpolitisk profil. Ragni Svensson noterar att utgivningen kom att ”spegla eller rentav föregå den väg som den svenska vänsterrörelsen kom att ta framåt slutet av 1960-talet”.Cavefors gav ut Mao Tse-tung, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci, Marx, Stalin, Lenin och Nordkoreas diktator Kim Il Sung.Det kom tjogtals med titlar som ”En socialistisk kultursyn”, ”Marxismens politiska ekonomi” och ”Kulturrevolutionen vid Kinas universitet”.Han introducerade tänkare och filosofer som Roland Barthes och Michel Foucault. Peter Weiss knöts tidigt till förlaget, och 1975 gav Cavefors ut den nigerianske författaren Wole Soyinka, 11 år innan han fick Nobelpriset.Det är inte dåligt för vad som länge var ett enmansförlag. Men Cavefors hade starka drivkrafter, både politiska och litterära. I Lena Mattssons intervjufilm kallar han sig ”kulturell onanist”.Att läsa om Bo Cavefors skapar funderingar om intellektuell takhöjd och diskussionsklimat nu och då. Vill man få en överblick över vidden av utgivningen kan man ta till en annan bok från 2018: ”BOC – en bok om Bo Cavefors Bokförlag”, som innehåller en komplett bibliografi.De Caveforsböcker som jag själv har starkast kontakt med är Salvador Dalís självbiografi, som tidigt väckte mitt intresse för konst. En annan är William Burroughs ”Den nakna lunchen”, som Cavefors tog till Sverige 1978. Jag hittade den på en loppmarknad i Simrishamn 1996 och läste den på ett kvavt tåg samma sommar som jag skulle rycka in i Flottan. Boken var osprättad, så jag satt med min morakniv och skar. Sida efter sida sköljde bokens febriga och erotiska hallucinationer över mig.Förlaget gick under i det som kom att kallas Caveforsaffären; en stormig process som spelades upp kring 1980. Bo Cavefors hade vunnit en upphandling från Kulturrådet om att ge ut Strindbergs samlade verk i ny utgåva. Men mitt under förberedelsearbetet drogs beslutet tillbaka.Officiellt på grund av brister i upphandlingsförfarandet, men i den debatt som följde menade Cavefors försvarare inom kulturvärlden att det var hans kontroversiella utgivning som var det egentliga skälet. Han var för obekväm, för besvärlig.Snart kom också anklagelser om ekonomisk brottslighet. Han satt häktad i polishuset i Lund i nio dagar, men frikändes sedan på 10 av 11 åtalspunkter. Förlaget gick i konkurs och i början av 1981 såldes det enorma boklagret i en legendarisk utförsäljning. Det är förmodligen från denna som min osprättade Burroughsbok härstammar.Att läsa om Bo Cavefors skapar funderingar om intellektuell takhöjd och diskussionsklimat nu och då. Hade utgivningarna av till exempel Ezra Pound, Stalin och den svenske fascistledaren Per Engdahl, vars memoarer Cavefors gav ut 1979, kunnat stå emot dagens sociala medierdrev och polariserade åsiktsjournalistik?Hade ett etablerat förlag idag kunnat ge ut visdomsord från Islamiska Statens teologer, eller Anders Behring Breiviks manifest?Bo Cavefors har motiverat utgivningen av RAF-boken med att det rörde sig om ”viktiga dokument för den tiden”.Att publicera något måste inte betyda att man ställer sig bakom det. Det finns en historisk och vetenskaplig poäng med att tillgängliggöra material för den tänkande allmänheten, även av kontroversiell, oetisk och korkad natur.Kanske är den här nakenheten exhibitionism, precis som det kan vara exhibitionism att ge ut böcker.Efter tiden med förlaget har Bo Cavefors i hög grad fortsatt med sin kulturella onani. Han har skrivit böcker och gett ut tidskrifter, men också samarbetat med olika konstnärer. I Lena Mattssons installation som visades på Moderna i Malmö, ingår förutom intervjufilmen, bland annat också en liten projektion av en naken Cavefors från en pjäs som han satte upp i Malmö 2005.Den här nakenheten återkommer i flera konstnärliga samarbeten, till exempel med Martin Bladh på Fylkingen i Stockholm 2009, och med Leif Holmstrand. Boken ”Ett rum på tredje våningen” består av textflöde och bilder, där en åldrad Cavefors poserar i olika sexuella situationer, inte sällan insnärjd i Holmstrands virkade girlanger.Kanske är den här nakenheten exhibitionism, precis som det kan vara exhibitionism att ge ut böcker: att torgföra sina åsikter och posera med vad man tycker är viktigt.Kanske är nakenheten provokation, precis som det kan vara provokation att ge ut Stalin eller ett tjockt manifest med ”grötiga terroristtankar och livsfarlig våldsromantik”, som en av recensenterna beskrev RAF-boken.För 40–50 år sedan yttrade sig denna inskränkthet genom upprop om moralisk resning, idag genom krav på trygga rum och triggervarningar.Men det är ett ytligt sätt att se på saken. Jag ser snarare nakenheten som ett verktyg för att ifrågasätta kroppsideal och avslöja fördomar, precis som utmanande bokpubliceringar kan avslöja inskränkthet och en subjektiv och godtycklig syn på yttrandefrihet.För 40–50 år sedan yttrade sig denna inskränkthet genom upprop om moralisk resning, idag genom krav på trygga rum och triggervarningar.Ett samhälle behöver sina obekväma och besvärliga personer. Det är de som lockar den indignerade flocken att demonstrera var toleransens gränser går.Tor Billgren, frilansjournalist LitteraturRagni Svensson: Cavefors – förlagsprofil och mediala mytbilder i det svenska litteratursamhället 1959–1982. Ellerströms, 2018.Anna-Lina Brunell, Ragni Svensson, Jonas Ellerström, Bo Cavefors: BOC – en bok om Bo Cavefors förlag. Tragus förlag, 2018.Leif Holmstrand & Bo Cavefors: ”Ett rum på tredje våningen” (Holmstrand Böcker, 2015)Martin Bladh & Bo I. Cavefors: ”Qualis artifex perero” (Styx, 2013) FilmerLena Mattsson: ”In the eye of the beholder”Lena Mattsson: ”Den kulturelle onanisten”

“Someone said, oh, you look like Steve Bannon, and I love you for that… No, I just shaved my hair and lost some pounds.” — Kaya Genç on Trumpism's global fanbase The NATO circus rumbled into the Turkish capital of Ankara this week resembling more of a gun show than an alliance summit. Ringmaster Donald J. Trump promised Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the F-35s and lifted the very sanctions that Trump himself had imposed. Erdogan handed out pistols to the assembled leaders — with poor old Keir Starmer (no Winston Churchill) leaving his at the airport. And observing all these clowns from Istanbul was the Turkish novelist and essayist Kaya Genç. As a contributor to the anthology How We See It: The World Looks at America in the Age of Trump, Genç is a keen America watcher. He first set foot in the United States in January 2017, stumbling into New York City's protests against Trump 1.0's Muslim-ban. What seemed temporary — Trump as a bizarre historical aberration — looked to Erdogan-literate Kaya Genç like an operating manual for 21st century populist authoritarianism. Turkey, Genç argues, has spent a century Americanizing itself. First with the 20th century Marshall Plan, the highways, the Hilton hotels, and finally an American-style executive presidency operating on the politics of referendum. Now, he says, the whole world — from Turkey to France and Britain — is living with the consequences of 21st century Americanization. Like a more functional NATO, right-wing populists operate like an international alliance. Erdogan, Trump, Meloni, Le Pen and Farage are like a club in which projecting strength at summits buys impunity at home. And this club has a house style. Turkish right-wing columnists, Genç reports, deploy Michael Corleone on their X banners — exactly David Thomson's warning earlier this week about Hollywood's glorification of on-screen violence. So, in a way, America observers like Kaya Genç got a sneak preview of Trump's America in movies like The Godfather. First as cinema, then as life. From both Turkey and Russia with love. Five Takeaways •       NATO: The Club of the Mighty. The night before the summit, activists were rounded up in Ankara — LGBTQ rights defenders, labor unionists, journalists — as threats to NATO security. In Turkish civil society, Genç explains, NATO doesn't represent the liberal world order; it represents the mighty, and has since the writers of the 1960s. The summit itself was a military passion show: jets overhead, revolvers gifted among the attendees, and a host country whose ruling politicians no longer hide that arms exports — including the drones Ukraine used so effectively — are now the mission of the Turkish economy. •       Trump: A Star Among Right-Wing Voters Everywhere. In India, a chubbier, longer-haired Genç was once told: you look like Steve Bannon, and I love you for that. The Turkish media savaged Biden but forgives Trump everything — Netanyahu is the villain of the Turkish press, while Trump speaks the language. Not Turkish (though he tried a phrase): the language of the presidential system. The Turkish right's America has always been selective — yes to the death penalty and gun ownership, no to labor rights, free expression, and the trans movement — an instinct as old as the poet Mehmet Akif Ersoy's advice to copy Germany's industriousness and leave out the decadence. •       Living the Consequences of Americanization. Turkey began its republic in the 1920s on the European model — parliament, proportional voices for an ethnically diverse country. After the Marshall Plan, it re-forged itself on the American one: highways, Hilton hotels, burger joints, and eventually an American-style executive presidency, approved by referendum over the objections of people like Genç. That's why Trump 1.0 read so differently in the two countries: in New York it looked like an exception to be fought off; in Ankara it looked like how American politics works — and something to imitate. •       Populists Learn Like Large Language Models. Did Erdogan create the model, or is Trump teaching Erdogan? Neither, says Genç: it's a dialogue — right-wing populism learning from itself the way AI learns from language models. The AKP ran a Gramscian culture war through the institutions; Meloni, Le Pen, and Farage apply the cosmetic soft brush that makes fascist-rooted politics presentable. Join the club, project strength at the summit, and whatever you do domestically stops mattering. Putin, notably, is not in the curriculum: Turkey is returning its S-400s to get the F-35s, and Russia is becoming a footnote. •       The Hologram and the Pushback. Ekrem Imamoglu — the Istanbul mayor Genç profiles in The Dial as the hologram candidate — won the city with socialist municipalism, and the skeptics who warned it would alienate the pious were simply wrong. Soft liberalism, the faith Genç himself held since the nineties, is disappearing; the pushback is finding its heroes in dead poets — Rosa Luxemburg, and Sevgi Soysal, whose novel Walking is out in English from New York Review Books. From Istanbul to Middle America, Mamdani to AOC, Genç's advice to the left is the same: don't fragment — conquer the big parties. About the Guest Kaya Genç is a novelist and essayist from Istanbul. He is the author of Under the Shadow: Rage and Revolution in Modern Turkey and The Lion and the Nightingale, and his writing appears in The Dial, The Guardian, Foreign Policy, Index on Censorship, and Jewish Quarterly. He is a contributor to How We See It: The World Looks at America in the Age of Trump (The New Press, June 2026), edited by The Dial's Madeleine Schwartz. References: •       How We See It: The World Looks at America in the Age of Trump, edited by Madeleine Schwartz (The New Press, June 2026). Publishers Weekly: “A much-needed reality check.” •       Madeleine Schwartz — founder and editor-in-chief of The Dial, editor of the anthology, and a recent guest on the show. •       Under the Shadow: Rage and Revolution in Modern Turkey — Genç's account of Turkey's political generation, published just after the 2016 coup attempt. •       Ece Temelkuran — the Turkish writer and recent guest whose How to Lose a Country globalized the Turkish case as a warning to democracies everywhere. •       Sevgi Soysal — the Turkish novelist who died at 40, whose Walking — a portrait of Ankara slowly killing itself for profit — is out in English from New York Review Books, reviewed by Genç. •       David Thomson — the film critic and recent guest whose argument that Trumpism grew from Hollywood's lov...

Welcome to another episode of the Peaceful Political Revolution in America podcast.I want to begin today with a passage that has been sitting with me for some time. It comes from the Swiss scholar Pascal Lottaz, host of the Neutrality Studies podcast, in his March 2026 introduction to an interview with the political scientist Dr. Aaron Good. Lottaz opened that conversation this way. "Crime in the United States is not a bug; it's a feature. That actually explains a lot also about its illegal foreign policies. The US as a political entity is deeply intertwined with crime syndicates and explicitly illegal acts under international and local law. Epstein was not at all an exception. These shady dealers are part and parcel of how US politics works."Good's argument, in brief, is this. After the Second World War, the United States built what he calls a "tripartite state" — the public democratic state we learn about in civics class, the national-security state of the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, and, behind both of them, a deep state that he defines as an obscured, dominant, supranational source of antidemocratic power. That deep state, he argues, did not emerge from any constitutional design. It emerged from the pursuit of empire — from a postwar project that required, in his words, an endless exception to the rule of law in order to function.That's quite a diagnosis. And it is a powerful one. But it leaves an obvious question hanging. If the rot is structural, what do we do about it? That question is what brings me to today's guest.Dr. Camila Vergara is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Research and Innovation at the Essex Business School at the University of Essex. She is the editor of Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, and the author of Systemic Corruption: Constitutional Ideas for an Anti-Oligarchic Republic, published by Princeton University Press.Where Aaron Good gives us a forensic account of how the American state has been hollowed out by elite criminality, Camila Vergara takes a longer view. Drawing on Machiavelli, Condorcet, Rosa Luxemburg, and Hannah Arendt, she argues that the corruption we are describing is not a recent betrayal of an otherwise sound design — it is the predictable trajectory of representative government itself. Republics, she contends, decay into oligarchies. They always have. And the question is not whether the United States is corrupt, but whether the constitutional architecture we inherited contains the tools to push back against that decay — or whether we need to build new ones.Her answer, of course, is the latter. She proposes what she calls plebeian institutions — a network of local assemblies, independent of parties and government, designed to give ordinary people a permanent, structural check on the power of the few.Today, we are going to walk through that argument. We will talk about how she defines systemic corruption, why she thinks reform from within is unlikely to be enough, what plebeian power could actually look like in twenty-first century America, and whether the U.S. Constitution — as it stands — is part of the cure or part of the disease.Dr. Camila Vergara, it is a pleasure to have you on the Peaceful Political Revolution in America podcast. Welcome to the conversation.Quick LinksSYSTEM CORRUPTION by Camila Vergarahttps://a.co/d/0eEmbDAFPascal Lottaz, Neutrality Studies:https://youtu.be/WjgvH8xCbv4?si=gjQVXmbCbwhk3al1YouTube:https://youtu.be/0KUlGYE6apw

Auch wenn wir uns dem Sommer mit großen Schritten nähern, ist bei meiner heutigen Rezension von Sommerlektüre keine Spur. Dabei könnte man doch meinen, dass es in einem Roman der, zumindest zu einem großen Teil, in einer von Männern bewohnten WG oder besser gesagt Kommune im Berlin der DDR recht freiheitlich und locker-leicht zugehen müsste und man beschwingt in die Lektüre starten könnte. Und hat nicht Rosa Luxemburg schon gesagt: „Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit der Andersdenkenden.“? Ich behalte diesen Gedanken im Kopf und komme später darauf zurück.Im Aufbau Verlag erschien dieses Jahr der Roman Mit beiden Händen den Himmel stützen der gebürtigen Berlinerin Lilli Tollkien, die damit ihr literarisches Debüt gab. Darin begleiten wir ihre Protagonistin Lale, die wir quasi schon vor ihrer Geburt kennenlernen, als sie uns beschreibt wie es sich anfühlt im Bauch ihrer Mutter, diesem geschützten und gleichzeitig ungeschützten Raum zu sein, denn der Schutz des Kindes hängt maßgeblich vom Verhalten der Mutter ab. Durch deren vorgeburtlichen Drogenkonsum entwickelt jedoch auch ihr Baby, Lale, unsere Protagonistin, eine Abhängigkeit und startet in ihr Leben mit einem Drogenentzug und es ist das Jahr 1980. Einige Zeit später, Lale ist circa anderthalb Jahre, wird ihrer Mutter das Sorgerecht entzogen und der Vater, der ohnehin nicht auf der Geburtsurkunde erscheint, fährt wegen eines Banküberfalls ins Gefängnis ein. Daraufhin kommt sie ins Heim, eine Zeit die sowohl für die Leserin als auch die Protagonistin eine Leerstelle bilden und ein Jahr später, Lale ist zweieinhalb wird sie von Karlheinz, einem Freund von Lales Vater, als Pflegekind aufgenommen und findet so ihren Weg in seine Wohngemeinschaft. Dies ist jedoch kein bloßer Akt der Nächstenliebe, sondern ein Freundschaftsdienst für Lales Vater, der Karlheinz beim letzten Bankraub nicht verpfiffen hat und die 700 Mark, die er zusätzlich für sein Pflegekind bekommt, tun ihr Übriges. In der WG wohnen neben Karlheinz noch drei weitere Männer, nämlich Wolfgang, Ansgar und Frank und, nach seiner Entlassung aus dem Gefängnis, schließlich auch Lales Vater.In diesem Umfeld wächst Lale ohne feste Strukturen und Regeln auf. Was für andere Kinder eher die Ausnahme wäre, nämlich viele Süßigkeiten zu essen, lange wach zu bleiben und ständiges Fernsehen, ist für sie der Normalzustand. Doch es wird schnell deutlich, dass dieses Leben nichts begehrenswertes für sie darstellt. Es sind ihre Bewunderung für das zu Hause ihrer Freundin Lina, das aufgeräumt ist und in dem es gut riecht, aber vor allem die Schule und die damit verbundenen Regeln und Abläufe die ihr Halt geben.„Die Schule ist mein Anker. Alle Abläufe wiederholen sich, und es gibt eindeutige Regeln. Die Klassenlehrerin ist immer nüchtern, und alles scheint einem beruhigenden Plan zu folgen, die Stuhlkreise, die Schulmilch, die Hofpausen und das Lesen in der bunten Fibel. Das Beste aber ist die Normalität der anderen oder dass, was ich mir darunter vorstelle.“ (S.33/34)Ihre Sehnsucht nach Regeln, Ordnung und Stabilität scheinen nicht verwunderlich, stehen sie doch im starken Gegensatz zu ihrer tatsächlichen Lebenswelt, die geprägt ist von Männern, die unter dem Deckmantel der Freiheit ein Leben jenseits von Konventionen führen, die revolutionär sein wollen und über Philosophien schwadronieren, in deren Leben aber Alkohol, Drogen und Machtmissbrauch an der Tagesordnung stehen und denen Lales Wohlbefinden egal ist.Als Lale mit 14 Jahren aus der Männer WG auszieht, zunächst in eine betreute Mädchen WG, hat sie längst ihre Erfahrungen mit Alkohol und Drogen und was noch viel schlimmer ist, mit sexuellem Missbrauch gemacht und musste aufgrund schulischer Probleme auf eine Hauptschule wechseln. Mit 16 Jahren bezieht sie zum ersten Mal alleine eine Wohnung. Auch von diesem Punkt aus begleiten wir sie weiter durch ihr Leben, dass durch ihre Kindheit so negativ geprägt ist, dass es für sie unendlich schwer ist erwachsen zu werden, herauszufinden was sie wirklich möchte – in beruflicher wie persönlicher Hinsicht – aber auch ihre Traumata zu verarbeiten. Wir begleiten Lale auf der Suche nach sich selbst, immer umgeben von der Frage, wer sie eigentlich ist, wer sie sein möchte. Diese tiefgreifenden persönlichen Fragen rühren vor allem auch vom quasi nicht vorhandenen elterlichen Schutz und der Vernachlässigung, die sie durch ihre Eltern erfahren musste. Während ihre Mutter aufgrund ihrer Heroinabhängigkeit nicht in der Lage ist für ein Kind zu sorgen und im Leben ihrer Tochter nur selten und unzuverlässig auftaucht und schließlich auch an ihrer Sucht stirbt, ist der Vater aufgrund seiner politischen Aktivitäten und Raubüberfälle oft physisch nicht vorhanden. Wenn doch, scheint seine Aufmerksamkeit dann eher seinen wechselnden Partnerinnen denn seiner Tochter zu gelten. Dieses Fehlen der Eltern und damit auch das Fehlen von Vorbildern oder Leitfiguren zusammen mit dem fehlenden elterlichen Schutz sowie der Tatsache, dass Lale sich nahezu allein in einer grenzenlosen und gefährlichen Erwachsenenwelt behaupten muss, prägen und traumatisieren sie. Dem chronologischen Erzählstrang, mit dem Lilli Tollkien uns dabei durch die Handlung führt, sind aber auch immer wieder Auslassungen und Vorausschauen auf Lales späteres Leben eingestreut.Die Freiheit der Andersdenkenden beschränkt sich dabei auf ihre eigene ganz persönliche Freiheit, durch deren Ausleben sie Grenzen anderer überschreiten, in denen es vor allem zu Vernachlässigung und Missbrauch kommt und somit ein Umfeld entsteht, in dem Gewalt verharmlost und normalisiert wird. Die Mitglieder der Kommune, die sich nach außen progressiv geben, werten Frauen zu Objekten ab, die vor allem zur Befriedigung ihrer eigenen Bedürfnisse, sei es sexueller Natur oder der Erledigung häuslicher Pflichten, dienen. Empathie, Gleichberechtigung, Respekt oder Schutz erfahren die Frauen, zu denen auch Lale – ein Kind – gehören nicht. Rücksichtsloses Verhalten wird als politisches Ideal getarnt.„Der Geruch meiner Kindheit setzt sich zusammen aus Schwarzer-Krauser-Tabak, Bier und stockiger Wäsche. Aus Sperma, Haschisch und Überbackenem.“ (S.67)Und später beschreibt die Protagonistin:„Mit Genugtuung beobachte ich, wie die Erwachsenen mit sich ringen, wenn ich ein Schnapsglas leere, wenn ich am Joint ziehe, die Schule schwänze oder betrunken auf irgendeinem Schoß in der Kneipe sitze, wie sie zu spüren scheinen, dass etwas an der Situation falsch ist und sie dennoch Teil davon sind und nichts sagen.“ (S.118)Dennoch sind Lilli Tollkiens Sprache und Beschreibungen nicht anklagend. Es ist aber schmerzhaft zu lesen, wie Lale versucht, Halt und Sinn, ja sich selbst in ihrem Leben zu finden. Es ist eine Geschichte über Suche und Kampf um Selbstermächtigung und Emanzipation, die die Frage aufwirft, wer man hätte sein können und wer man ist. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lobundverriss.substack.com

Wat is de relevantie van Simone de Beauvoir drie feministische golven later? De Pools-Belgische filosoof Alicja Gescinska wekt ‘De tweede sekse' van Simone de Beauvoir opnieuw tot leven.In 1949 analyseerde Simone de Beauvoir in ‘De tweede sekse' haarscherp hoe het ervoor stond met de vrouwenemancipatie nadat de eerste feministische golf was gaan liggen. Stemrecht was weliswaar bereikt, maar nog altijd waren vrouwen economische afhankelijk van, en achtergesteld aan de man. Die afhankelijkheidsrelaties maken, zo luidt het filosofische adagium dat onlosmakelijk met De Beauvoir verbonden is, dat je niet als vrouw geboren wordt, maar tot vrouw gemaakt.Wat is de relevantie van Simone de Beauvoir nu de vierde feministische golf gaande is? De Pools-Belgische filosoof Alicja Gescinska wekt ‘De tweede sekse' opnieuw tot leven en haalt De Beauvoir naar de eenentwintigste eeuw. Is het niet de man die behoefte heeft aan emancipatie?Alicja Gescinska is een Pools-Belgische filosoof, schrijver en publicist. Afgelopen jaar verscheen van haar hand Vrouwen in duistere tijden, tien biografische portretten van vrouwen van blijvende betekenis, onder wie Rosa Luxemburg, Anna Achmatova, Hannah Arendt en Barbara Skarga. Met dit boek is ze genomineerd voor de Socrates Wisselbeker. Deze maand verschijnt in de serie De originelen ‘De ontdekking van de vrouw', een filosofisch monoloog waarin Gescinska ‘De tweede sekse' opnieuw vertelt.Programmamaker: Veronica BaasModerator: Frida BoekeIn samenwerking met: Uitgeverij Athenaeum en Filosofie MagazineZie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

** Come to Macro ‘n Chill, our online community gathering, where we listen to and discuss the current episode. This week, Jeremy of Proles Pod will be joining us. If you have questions for him, bring them! Tuesday, April 28th, at 8pm ET/5pm PT. Register here: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/G7ijDSVmTcKeDc82AAs0XQLast year, Proles Pod completed a multi-part series on The Stalin Eras. Now Jeremy, one of the co-hosts, joins Steve for a conversation about it, resulting in a two-part dialectical excavation of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Project. The purpose of this exploration is neither to sanctify nor condemn, but to strip away bourgeois mythologies and ground the discussion in material conditions and collective processes.In Part One, Jeremy and Steve look at democratic centralism, where rigorous debate is followed by unified action, then contrast it with the false choice offered by US electoral politics. They draw on Rosa Luxemburg, Julius Nyerere, and materialist analysis of US history (slavery, settler colonialism, Jim Crow as inspiration for Nazi laws), and agree that both Democrats and Republicans serve the same capitalist-oligarchic permanent state.Proles Pod is an explicitly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist podcast run by four ADHD-addled individuals. Although the foundation of Proles was built on the topic of history, more recently they have branched out into theory, politics, and culture. You can find them anywhere fine podcasts are distributed.Join their Patreon https://www.patreon.com/c/ProlesPod/postsCheck out a teaser for The Stalin Eras https://www.instagram.com/reels/DP81SiTjQry/

In Part 6 of our series "From Dawn to Decadence," we examine the intellectual trajectory and eventual "decay" of the Aufheben collective. This episode explores the group's early contributions to Marxist theory, their critique of the state, and the internal contradictions that led to their decline.We dive deep into the specific criticisms leveled by the Aufhebung Collective against previous thinkers, including their critiques of Rosa Luxemburg's "objectivism" and the perceived "automaticity" of capitalist collapse. We also discuss how their work interacts with broader Marxist debates on over-accumulation, under-consumption, and the role of the state in managing the "common ruin" of society.Key Topics Discussed:The Roots of Aufheben: How the collective emerged within the landscape of radical Marxist theory.Critique of Luxemburgism: Why Aufheben rejected theories of automatic economic collapse in favor of a more nuanced understanding of class struggle.The Decay of Theory: Analyzing the shifts in the collective's perspective that signaled a move away from their original radical foundations.Theoretical Implications: How these debates on the "highest stage" of capitalism and the "rentier state" remain relevant in today's shifting global landscape.Link:  https://files.libcom.org/files/Aufheben-%20Decadence.pdfSend us Fan Mail 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,Julian

Yanara Friedland is a writer, translator, and educator born in Berlin. She is the author of Uncountry: A Mythology (2016) winner of the Noemi Press Fiction Book Award and Groundswell (2021) selected for Essay Press's Book Award and Thanatographies (U Alabama Press, 2026). Her work explores the effects of dislocation on memory and language, engaging with multilingual and transhistorical spaces through archival research and in collaboration with other artists. She teaches creative writing and literature at Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies and co-runs the reading series Mutter Courage in the Pacific Northwest. Thanatographies is a genre-defying meditation on disappearance, memory, and the porous boundaries between the living and the dead. In poetic prose, Yanara Friedland weaves together dreamscapes, historical fragments, personal recollections, and philosophical inquiry to explore the afterlives of loss and survival. Moving through rooms, cities, forests, and archives, the text becomes a living document of insomnia, exile, and the spectral presence of women across time, including artists, revolutionaries, caretakers, and ghosts. Structured in four sections titled Room, Night, Medusas, and Burials, the book traverses inner and outer landscapes, from Berlin's haunted streets to the intimate terrain of the body. Friedland's voice is both lyrical and incisive, drawing on figures such as Unica Zürn, Rosa Luxemburg, and Else Lasker-Schüler to illuminate the intersections of gender, violence, and historical erasure. The result is a deeply embodied poetics of wakefulness, where hidden life remembers and speaks. Thanatographies is written for readers of experimental literature, feminist theory, and contemporary poetics. The book resonates with artists, scholars, and seekers who are compelled by the aesthetics of mourning, the politics of memory, and the radical potential of language to hold what is otherwise unspeakable. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Aan tafel deze week: president van Oekraïne Volodymyr Zelensky, topdiplomaat Robert Serry, filosoof Alicja Gescinska. Presentatie: Maaike Schoon Wil je meer weten over de gasten in Buitenhof? Op onze website vind je meer informatie. Daar kan je deze aflevering ook terugkijken en je vindt er natuurlijk nog veel meer gesprekken: https://bit.ly/buitenhof-19-apr-26 In Buitenhof een uitgebreid gesprek met president Volodymyr Zelensky van Oekraïne. Over Rusland en de situatie aan het front, over Europa en Trump en over het einde van zijn presidentschap. Zelensky doet een oproep om haast te maken met een EU-lidmaatschap voor Oekraïne en hij vertelt over de druk die een aantal landen op hem hebben uitgeoefend om op te houden met aanvallen op de Russische olie-infrastructuur.  De eerste Nederlandse ambassadeur in Oekraïne, Robert Serry, heeft zijn hart aan het land verpand. Hoe kijkt hij naar het interview met de president van zijn geliefde Oekraïne? Is er eigenlijk vrede mogelijk zonder de tussenkomst van de Amerikaanse president Donald Trump? De Pools-Belgische filosoof Alicja Gescinska schreef het bekroonde Vrouwen in duistere tijden. In het boek worden tien biografische portretten geschetst van vrouwen met blijvende betekenis; onder wie Rosa Luxemburg, Anna Achmatova, Hannah Arendt en Barbara Skarga. Wat hebben deze vrouwen, en hun confrontatie met het kwaad, ons te vertellen?

Aan tafel deze week: president van Oekraïne Volodymyr Zelensky, topdiplomaat Robert Serry, filosoof Alicja Gescinska. Presentatie: Maaike Schoon Wil je meer weten over de gasten in Buitenhof? Op onze website vind je meer informatie. Daar kan je deze aflevering ook terugkijken en je vindt er natuurlijk nog veel meer gesprekken: https://bit.ly/buitenhof-19-apr-26 In Buitenhof een uitgebreid gesprek met president Volodymyr Zelensky van Oekraïne. Over Rusland en de situatie aan het front, over Europa en Trump en over het einde van zijn presidentschap. Zelensky doet een oproep om haast te maken met een EU-lidmaatschap voor Oekraïne en hij vertelt over de druk die een aantal landen op hem hebben uitgeoefend om op te houden met aanvallen op de Russische olie-infrastructuur.  De eerste Nederlandse ambassadeur in Oekraïne, Robert Serry, heeft zijn hart aan het land verpand. Hoe kijkt hij naar het interview met de president van zijn geliefde Oekraïne? Is er eigenlijk vrede mogelijk zonder de tussenkomst van de Amerikaanse president Donald Trump? De Pools-Belgische filosoof Alicja Gescinska schreef het bekroonde Vrouwen in duistere tijden. In het boek worden tien biografische portretten geschetst van vrouwen met blijvende betekenis; onder wie Rosa Luxemburg, Anna Achmatova, Hannah Arendt en Barbara Skarga. Wat hebben deze vrouwen, en hun confrontatie met het kwaad, ons te vertellen?

Am WeltfrauentagEin Kommentar von Paul Clemente.Haben Sie es bemerkt? Gestern, am 8. März war wieder Weltfrauentag. Schon der Hundertfünfzehnte, seit 1911. Impulsgeberin war die deutsche Sozialistin Clara Zetkin, Mitstreiterin von Rosa Luxemburg. Zweck der Aktion: Ans Frauenrecht und Gleichstellung der Geschlechter zu erinnern. Im Jahr 2026 ist der Sachverhalt komplizierter. Denn: Wer oder Was ist eigentlich eine „Frau“? Gender-Ideologen postulieren: Nicht der Körper bestimmt das Geschlecht, sondern die Gesellschaft. Folglich ist der Welt-Frauentag auch ein Tag für Transfrauen. Dass diese Neukonzeption kaum Euphorie auslöst, sorgt bei „Progressiven“ für reichlich Frust. Auch bei der Autorin, Schauspielerin und Trans-Aktivistin Phenix Kühnert. Im Interview mit dem Online-Magazin Glamour lautet die erste Frage: „Fühlst du dich als trans* Frau am Weltfrauentag gesehen?“ Ihre Antwort:„Ja, ich bin ja auch einfach eine Frau. Schwierig ist es natürlich nur, wenn angenommen wird, dass jede Frau mit einer Vulva geboren wird. Oder ich an Formulierungen merke, dass trans* Menschen nicht mitgedacht werden.“ Dabei sind biologistische Ignoranten nicht das größte Problem. Die ließen sich notfalls umerziehen. Nein, so richtig ätzend sind Feministinnen, die Transfrauen nicht anerkennen, ihnen die Weiblichkeit absprechen. Verbale Giftspritzen, zu denen auch Alice Schwarzer zählt. Die Veteranin des Geschlechterkriegs befürchtet, dass böse Machos sich als Frauen ausgeben, um feministische Errungenschaften zu untergraben. Etwa beim Sport: Männer, die bei gleichgeschlechtlicher Konkurrenz unterliegen würden, erklären sich zu Frauen und sacken Gold-Pokale ein. Auch der Weg zur Frauensauna ist für Transfrauen geebnet. In England berief sich sogar ein Sexualstraftäter auf seine Weiblichkeit. So konnte er eine Verlegung in den Frauenknast durchsetzen. Ebenfalls in Gefahr: Die Frauen-Quote: Transfrauen könnten den Bio-Frauen die Platzreservierung kapern. Was Kritiker der Gender-Ideologie in den Irrsinn treibt: Sie entkoppelt die Geschlechtszugehörigkeit von überprüfbaren Kriterien. Verlagert sie stattdessen in die Subjektivität des Betroffenen. Somit ist Widerspruch unmöglich. Oder man endet als Transfeind am virtuellen Marterpfahl. Ein Schicksal, dass auch Alice Schwarzer traf. Die 83-jährige Herausgeberin der Zeitschrift Emma ist eine scharfe Kritikerin der Gender-Ideologie. Das ist kein Geheimnis. Aber jetzt lud das Deutsche Schauspielhaus in Hamburg sie zur Lesung aus ihrem neuen Buch. Und zwar exakt am 8. März. Am Frauentag. Mit anderen Worten: Das Theater hatte auf Eklat, also Gratiswerbung spekuliert. Und bekam sie auch. Postwendend. Schon im Vorfeld jammerten 340 Theaterschaffende in einem offenen Brief: „Mit Bestürzung mussten wir feststellen, dass Alice Schwarzer am 08.03. ihr neues Buch ,Feminismus pur. 99 Worte' in eurem Theater vorstellen darf. Wir als Theatermacher*innen fordern: Sagt diese Veranstaltung ab! Nein zu menschenfeindlicher Rhetorik! Alice Schwarzer kämpft seit Jahren gegen Selbstbestimmung, Arbeitsrechte und soziale Teilhabe von Trans-Menschen und Sexarbeiter*innen.“ Frau Schwarzer beharre „auf biologistischen Vorstellungen von Geschlecht, nennt Trans-Geschlechtlichkeit einen ,Trend' bzw. ein ,Freizeitvergnügen' und schwadroniert - ganz in AfD-Manier - von einer Gefahr für Kinder und Jugendliche, denen der Geschlechtswechsel verlockend leicht gemacht“ werde. Außerdem bewertete eine mögliche Kanzlerschaft von Alice Weidel als ermutigendes Zeichen für Frauen, trotz politischer Differenz. Fazit:„Keine Bühne für Hetze! Keine Bühne für Alice Schwarzer!“...https://apolut.net/cancel-aktion-gegen-alice-schwarzer-von-paul-clemente/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anne Ghesquière reçoit Laurence Devillairs, normalienne, agrégée et docteur en philosophie. Pourquoi les femmes ont-elles été oubliées dans l'histoire de la philosophie ? Comment des figures comme Gabrielle Suchon, Elisabeth de Bohême ou Simone de Beauvoir ont-elles pourtant contribué à l'évolution de la pensée sans recevoir la reconnaissance qu'elles méritent ? Qu'est-ce que la philosophie féminine, et comment en parler sans réduire ces penseuses à leur féminité ? Quel impact le mouvement #MeToo a-t-il eu sur la manière dont nous repensons l'histoire de la philosophie et de la justice ? Hypatie, Ban Zhao, Rosa Luxemburg, Olympe de Gouges, Jeanne Hersh, Simone de Beauvoir, Mary Wollstonecraft, Isabelle Stengers, Rachel Carson... Laurence Devillairs nous propose de redécouvrir ces femmes oubliées de l'histoire des idées, et de repenser la place des femmes dans la philosophie. Elle a co-dirigé, avec Laurence Hansen-Løve, Ce que la philosophie doit aux femmes aux éditions Robert Laffont. [SÉLECTION WEEK-END – METAMORPHOSE] L'épisode #527 a été diffusé, la première fois, le 30 sept. 2024.Quelques citations du podcast avec Laurence Devillairs :"Il n'y a pas une pensée féminine, il y a de la pensée.""Comment parler de ces philosophes sans les réduire à leur féminité, mais sans non plus occulter leur féminité.""Je crois que MeToo a permis, permet et permettra de repenser la justice et donc l'injustice."Recevez chaque semaine l'inspirante newsletter Métamorphose par Anne GhesquièreDécouvrez Objectif Métamorphose, notre programme en 12 étapes pour partir à la rencontre de soi-même.Suivez nos RS : Insta, Facebook & TikTokAbonnez-vous sur Apple Podcast / Spotify / Deezer / CastBox / YoutubeSoutenez Métamorphose en rejoignant la Tribu MétamorphoseThèmes abordés lors du podcast avec Laurence Devillairs :00:00Introduction00:51 L'invitée03:33 Les femmes, grandes oubliées de l'Histoire09:03 Être une femme impacte-t-il la façon de penser ?16:44 Histoire de la philo, reflet de l'Histoire ?21:18 Place des femmes dans l'Antiquité25:26 Qu'est-ce qu'être philosophe ?29:09 L'incroyable Gabrielle Suchon au 17e36:54 La méconnue Elisabeth de Bohême48:16 Penser l'amour : l'impact des mystiques du Moyen-Âge58:05 Catherine McKinnon et l'injustice institutionnelle01:01:10 Le corps : un enjeu de la pensée01:11:21 Révolutions et femmes01:15:27 Repenser la justice après MeToo01:19:08 Consentement et inégalité systémique01:23:59 L'écoféminisme et le CAREAvant-propos et précautions à l'écoute du podcast Photo © Astrid di Crollalanza Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Den 15 januari 1919 mördades en av den tyska socialdemokratins stjärnskott, Rosa Luxemburg. Hennes liv hade präglats av kamplust. Rosa Luxemburg var nationalekonom, socialist, kommunist, revolutionär, teoretiker och en enastående talare. Vi följer hennes resa från det polska familjehemmet till Berlins politiska centrum. Vi möter agitatorn som trotsade kriget, skapade splittring i sitt eget parti och fortsatte kämpa för arbetarklassens rättigheter. Programmet är en bearbetad version från 2018.

Tras años de lucha contra el capitalismo y el imperialismo, en 1919 Rosa Luxemburg auspició la revolución comunista en Alemania, cuyo fracaso le costó la vida.

Wir haben den kurzen Text "Frauenwahlrecht und Klassenkampf" von Rosa Luxemburg vertont. Er ist aus der Broschüre zum II. SPD-Frauentag, Stuttgart, 12. Mai 1912. Viel Spaß beim Hören!

Nur 1,48 Meter groß, musste sich Rosa Luxemburg (geboren am 5.3.1871) oft auf einen Stuhl stellen, um gesehen zu werden. Was die mutige Denkerin und Politikerin zu sagen hatte, ist auch heute noch wichtig zu hören. Von Veronika Bock und Ulrich Biermann.

Ihr ökonomisches Hauptwerk „Die Akkumulation des Kapitals. Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus“ verfasste Rosa Luxemburg im Jahr 1913 innerhalb von nur vier Monaten. Darin knüpft sie an Karl Marx‘ Theorie der ursprünglichen Akkumulation an, deutet diese jedoch grundlegend anders: Nicht als abgeschlossenes Frühstadium des Kapitalismus, sondern als sein dauerhaftes Strukturmerkmal. Weil sich das Kapitalverhältnis nicht aus sich selbst heraus reproduzieren könne, unterliege es einem ständigen Expansionszwang. Das Kapital sei daher auf ein „nicht-kapitalistisches Außen“ angewiesen, das es sich aneignen und ausbeuten kann, um Mehrwert zu produzieren. Kolonialismus und Imperialismus erscheinen bei Luxemburg somit nicht nur als politische Machtkonstellationen, sondern als ökonomische Notwendigkeit, die sie aus dem Expansionszwang des Kapitalismus ableitet. Das europäische Kapital müsse sich auf außereuropäische, nicht-kapitalistische Gebiete ausdehnen, um neue Märkte zu erschließen und diese in den kapitalistischen Wirtschaftskreislauf zu integrieren. Dabei komme dem Militarismus eine zentrale ökonomische Funktion zu: einerseits als Rüstungsindustrie und Absatzmarkt, andererseits als Mittel zur gewaltvollen Erschließung nicht-kapitalistischer Gebiete und Produktivkräfte. Doch was passiert, wenn sich das Modell der Expansion irgendwann erschöpft; wenn alle gesellschaftlichen Sphären durchdrungen sind und keine Arbeitskraft, keine Natur, keine Ressourcen mehr außerhalb des kapitalistischen Weltmarkts existieren, die dem Kreislauf des Kapitals noch unterworfen werden können? Mit dem Soziologen Klaus Dörre diskutiert Alex Demirović die historische wie aktuelle Relevanz von Luxemburgs Beitrag zur Theorie der Ausdehnung der kapitalistischen Ökonomie durch den Imperialismus. Kontakt, Kritik, Feedback: theoriepodcast@rosalux.org

Marina Bassani"Rosa la Rossa"la vera storia di Rosa LuxemburgMonologo con Marina BassaniTesto di Marina Bassani - Produzione Teatro SeligCineteatro BarettiVia Baretti, 4 - Torino11, 12, 13   febbraio  2026 ore 20.45Dall'11 al 13 febbraio 2026 alle ore 20.45, al Teatro Baretti di Torino, ritorna Marina Bassani con la prima del monologo Rosa la Rossa. La vera storia di Rosa Luxemburg. Sul palco, ad accompagnare l'artista, ci saranno il musicista Nunzio Barbieri, chitarrista di Paolo Conte   e Francesco Django Barbieri con il suo clarinetto. Per tutta la sua vita Rosa attende  il momento in cui i lavoratori prenderanno coscienza della loro condizione e faranno la rivoluzione.A 17 anni  scrive: “Il mio ideale è un regime sociale in cui si possano amare tutti”. Un giorno trova un libro, Il Capitale di Karl Marx. Dice esattamente quello che pensa lei. Ha solo sedici anni quando tiene una lezione ai suoi fratelli su concetti come  profitto e  plusvalore e, come se fosse un gioco, inventa un grazioso teatrino dove i personaggi sono operai e padroni, sfruttatori e oppressi.Partita da Zamosh per studiare botanica ed economia all'università di Zurigo, la sola università che accolga le donne, si stabilisce a Berlino nella città più industrializzata di Europa e qui entra a far parte del partito socialdemocratico. Ma presto si trova in dissenso. Contraria alla guerra (la prima guerra mondiale è alle porte), ne denuncia gli abusi e le torture,  e si schiera contro  molti suoi compagni di partito che  hanno votato l'aumento delle spese di guerra. Più di una volta viene rinchiusa in carcere per disobbedienza e per incitamento allo sciopero generale. Ma, incurante della sua miserabile condizione, dal carcere detta il manifesto della Lega  Spartachista.Abbandonata dal partito socialista , sempre più sola, ha bisogno di un filo rosso per uscire dal labirinto soffocante, fatto di divieti, sfruttamento, schiavitù, colonie, guerra. Lo trova, oltre che nella lotta politica, nel suo amore per la natura. La natura rimane l'oasi in cui il suo pensiero si rifugia. Nella prigione di Wronki, in Polonia, ha il permesso di curare un piccolo giardino: “ogni mattina ispeziono accuratamente lo stato dei boccioli di tutti i miei cespugli, e ogni giorno visito una coccinella rossa con due macchie nere sul dorso”. Le mura del carcere non le impediscono di continuare a lottare per un mondo libero. È quando abbiamo di fronte un muro, che conosciamo davvero la libertà.  Per tutta la sua vita Rosa ha cercato di abbattere questo muro. La sua compassione l'ha condotta a combattere per proteggere la natura, i fiori, gli uccelli e gli esseri umani.  Ma fino a dove poteva spingersi la sua passione? Rosa ha tenuto sempre in mano il filo rosso, ma questo filo rosso alla fine è diventata la sua trappola. Rivoluzione o riforma? Passione o ragione? Rosa ha scelto la passione a costo della sua stessa vita.In scena i suoi ultimi giorni , in attesa di venire arrestata, ha solo il cielo sopra di sé e la musica che le tiene compagnia. Non ha paura e continua a gioire di ogni piccolo segno che venga dal mondo di fuori. Marina Bassani, attrice e regista,  è nata a Milano  e vive  a Torino. Si è diplomata all' Accademia dei Filodrammatici di Milano, medaglia d'oro ex aequo con Lella Costa,  e si è laureata in filosofia. Si è specializzata in  monologhi  e dialoghi  teatrali. Allieva di Ernesto Calindri e del maestro russo Jurji Alschitz. Ha fondato a Torino  Teatro selig, nel 1996, inaugurando come attrice  una lunga serie di ritratti  femminili . Ha messo in scena alcuni  ritratti esilaranti di donne   tratti dai Talking heads di Alan Bennett, ha recitato  Ho volato con l'angelo, il monologo sulla scrittrice  Karen Blixen, ha scritto e recitato al teatro Astra  il  monologo  sulla nobile Costanza d'Azeglio, ha scritto e recitato la storia  della partigiana Ada Gobetti, e il monologo  sulla cantante francese Barbara ( in cui la Bassani canta  e racconta la sua bio).  Al Teatro Parenti a Milano ha recitato Yossl Rakover si rivolge a DioIn cui vestiva i panni di un uomo).Ha messo in scena al Teatro Baretti di Torino il monologo  La Madre,  tratto dall'opera Vita e Destino di Vassilij Grossman. Ha messo in scena al teatro Baretti  il dialogo Ay Carmela!,di Sanchis Sinisterra,  ambientato nella Spagna franchista, uno spettacolo con due attori (M.Bassani e L.Bartoli)Ha messo in scena come regista e attrice   Battaglie di J M Ribes , con tre attori,  e ha scritto e recitato Orlando, tratto da V.Woolf. Ha scritto  Mia madre non è una cocotte,  storia di Romain Gary e  Amava il Chelsea hotel, storia di Leonard Cohen.Tra i suoi recitals , ha scritto e  recitato Pensare con le mani, un testo ispirato a  La Chiave a stella di Primo Levi, Dal corpo all'anima,  storia di Etty Hillesum, Viaggio a Gerusalemme sulla figura del Cardinal Martini. È l'autrice   delle fiabe Zefirino collo lungo e Ombretta Camilla,  illustrate da Lele Luzzati. 11,12,13   febbraio 2026 ore 20:45Cineteatro Baretti, via Baretti 4con Marina Bassaniscrittura scenica e regia Marina Bassaniconsulenza artistica Serenella di Michelechitarra Nunzio Barbiericlarinetto F. Django Barbieriluci e fonica: Luca ScicchitanoDiventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

Seven transits this week, highlighted by Venus's entrance into Pisces and Saturn's transit into Aries — where it will remain for the next 26 months.Mercury's extended transit through Pisces produced three documents in 1836 — the Alamo letter, the Treaty of New Echota, and the gag rule — and Rosa Luxemburg's prophecy in 1914. Both configurations return simultaneously in 2026 for the first time in over 600 years. The question: will we speak what we find in the deep, or let fear lay it on the table unread?Saturn in Aries has asked the same question across three cycles — 1937, 1967, 1996 — where has discipline become cowardice, and what has the refusal to act already cost? Churchill in the wilderness. King on the mountain. Mitchell at the table. The exam begins February 13th. Readiness is not bestowed. It is built.(5:04) The Messenger in the Deep: Mercury's Extended Transit Through Pisces (Essay)(22:16) What Are You Willing to Say from the Deep?(23:14) Transit 1: Sun in Aquarius Square Moon in Scorpio(26:36) Transit 2: Venus in Pisces(33:03) Transit 3: Sun in Aquarius Sextile Chiron in Aries(35:57) Transits 4 & 5: Mercury Retrograde Shadow + Mercury Conjunct the North Node in Pisces(41:06) Transit 6: Saturn in Aries(48:28) Transit 7: Sun in Aquarius Square Uranus in Taurus(51:12) Saturn in Aries: The Discipline of Courage (Essay)

To help work out the dialectic of national self-determination in the face of Trump's imperialist aggression against Venezuela, Greenland, Canada, etc., Andrew and Gabriel revisit 1914-16 writings of V.I. Lenin on Ireland's struggle for independence from England. They discuss Lenin's response to Rosa Luxemburg, who thought that national self-determination is impossible, and his defense of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin. In addition, they discuss why it was Marx's custom to “sound out” acquaintances about their attitudes to national self-determination. (See episode page for links to writings.) In the episode's current-events segment, the co-hosts discuss the fightback against the Trump regime's aggression against Greenland and Minneapolis, as two facets of one struggle. Radio Free Humanity is co-hosted by Gabriel Donnelly and Andrew Kliman, and sponsored by Marxist-Humanist Initiative (https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/ ).

We've made the case before, but it bears repeating: MMT is a politically neutral, descriptive lens explaining the operational realities of a sovereign fiat currency system where the availability of real resources, not money, are the constraint. And Marxism is an analytical framework for understanding class relations and production. The two are not inherently opposed. It's a mistake to dismiss MMT as capitalist apologetics.Steve's guest is Dr. Anthony Anastasi, an economist teaching at the Sino-British College, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology. They talk about Anthony's paper: Marxism and MMT: How Modern Monetary Theory Can Enrich the Debate Amongst Marxists.They dismantle the all-too-common Marxist critiques of MMT, which claim that the state can't control money's value, and that MMT lacks a theory of value. (However, the ubiquitous “taxpayer money” framing that feeds austerity myths, is not limited to Marxists.) The discussion reframes the state's monetary capacity as a tool for class struggle rather than a capitalist backstop.They look at the federal job guarantee with reference to Rosa Luxemburg's concept of non-reformist reform, ie, a reform that can weaken capitalist logic and build working-class consciousness and power.Anthony also brings an on-the-ground perspective, sharing observations from China's political economy, including local-vs-central financing, RMB-denominated debt, capital controls, and emerging debates that resemble MMT arguments even when not labeled as such.Dr. Anthony William Donald Anastasi is an economist and lecturer specializing in development economics and international political economy. He teaches at the Sino-British College, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, and holds a Ph.D. from East China Normal University. His research examines how state–business relations, industrial policy, monetary sovereignty, and income distribution shape economic growth, trade patterns, and political power, with a particular focus on China and East Asia. Alongside publishing in SSCI-ranked journals, he regularly writes for the popular press on the Chinese and U.S. economies and global trade.@_AWDA_ on X

Le pouvoir a longtemps été exercé quasi exclusivement par des hommes. Comment les femmes, victimes du pouvoir, ont-elles pu penser le pouvoir ? J'en parle avec Laurence Devillairs.Le livre de Laurence : https://www.lisez.com/livres/ce-que-la-philosophie-doit-aux-femmes/9782266352116Mon site : https://www.fabricemidal.comFacebook Fabrice Midal : https://www.facebook.com/FabriceMidalFacebook du podcast Dialogues : https://www.facebook.com/dialogues.fmInstagram Fabrice Midal : https://www.instagram.com/fabricemidalInstagram du podcast Dialogues : https://www.instagram.com/fabricemidal_dialogues/Tiktok : https://www.tiktok.com/@fabricemidalMes trois chaînes YouTube :Mes vidéos : https://www.youtube.com/@fabricemidal1Les Dialogues : https://www.youtube.com/@dialoguesfmLes méditations guidées : https://www.youtube.com/@mediteravecfabricemidalMes podcasts :Le podcast de Fabrice Midal (toutes mes vidéos en version audio) :

Today's episode in our season of live recordings from the Regent Street Cinema looks at the biopic of a revolutionary: Margaretha von Trotta's Rosa Luxemburg (1986), which explores the deeply unstable relationship between the personal and the political. David talks to writer and philosopher Lea Ypi (Free, Indignity) about where biography ends and philosophy begins and whether revolutionary politics requires the leading of a revolutionary life. What was Rosa Luxemburg's true cause? Who or what betrayed her and her ideas? And how does her legacy live on? Out now on PPF+: a bonus episode to accompany this series in which David and film historian Harrison Whitaker discuss the greatest Christmas film of ideas: Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life, which is much more than just a seasonal tearjerker. To get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening sign up to PPF+ https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Next time: Wittgenstein w/Nikhil Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Étienne Balibar, Luca Salza"La filosofia di fronte al genocidio"Conversazione su Gaza con Étienne BalibarEdizioni Cronopiowww.shopcronopio.it“Mi definisco ‘ebreo' perché sono sconvolto dall'idea che i significati morali e persino religiosi, e per via di conseguenza filosofici, portati nella storia dall'ebraismo – dalla parola dei Profeti di Israele fino al discorso di quei rinnegati o eretici che hanno alimentato la mia formazione intellettuale (Montaigne, Spinoza, Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Freud, Kafka, Benjamin, Arendt, Simone Weil, Derrida, che è stato mio professore) – potrebbero d'ora in poi essere associati, per molto tempo e persino per sempre, non più alla resistenza alle persecuzioni e alla ricerca dell'autonomia intellettuale, all'imperativo della moralità e della giustizia e alla discussione sui suoi mezzi (tra cui la rivoluzione), ma all'oppressione e allo sterminio di un altro popolo sotto il patrocinio di questo ‘nome'. Penso che l'onore del ‘nome ebraico' debba essere difeso da questa infamia e che sia necessario esprimere una rivolta”.Étienne Balibar è tra i più importanti filosofi contemporanei della politica. Membro del Tribunale Russell sulla Palestina, è da anni un sostenitore della causa palestinese. Ha scritto numerose opere, tra cui disponibili in italiano: Crisi e fine dell'Europa? (2016); Razza, nazione, classe (con Immanuel Wallerstein, 2020); Spinoza e la politica (2024)Luca Salza insegna letteratura italiana e storia delle idee all'Università di Lille. Dirige, con Pierandrea Amato, la rivista K.Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

The second episode in our live series from the Regent Street Cinema explores Louis Malle's My Dinner with Andre (1981), in which two men discuss the meaning of theatre, capitalism, love, science, faith and freedom over a meal. David talks to playwright and screenwriter Lee Hall (Billy Elliot, Rocketman) about how a great film can be made out of a single conversation. Who was the real Andre? How scripted was the dialogue? Who won the argument? And why has this film had such an extraordinary afterlife? Out tomorrow on PPF+: a bonus episode to accompany this series in which David and film historian Harrison Whitaker discuss the greatest Christmas film of ideas: Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life, which is much more than just a seasonal tearjerker. To get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening sign up to PPF+ now https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus If you are looking for last minute Christmas presents we have 6- and 12-month gift subscriptions to PPF+ giving access to all our bonus episodes, ad-free listening and automatic sign-up to our fortnightly newsletter – which can be delivered to the recipient of your choice on Christmas Day! ⁠https://ppf.supportingcast.fm/gifts⁠ Next time: Rosa Luxemburg w/Lea Ypi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Adam and Cameron continue their December series on founding Soviet thinkers. This week, they discuss the life and work of Polish German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam and Cameron continue their December series on founding Soviet thinkers. This week, they discuss the life and work of Polish-German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg.Also on the show: China's $1 trillion trade surplus and the Trump administration's newly released National Security Strategy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

durée : 00:59:05 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Antoine Ravon - De 1841 à 1844, Karl Marx fait partie d'un mouvement berlinois, le Jeune-hégélianisme. Pourtant, à la différence de ses camarades, il s'intéresse moins aux questions religieuses qu'aux questions politiques et sociales… - réalisation : Riyad Cairat - invités : Michaël Löwy Philosophe et sociologue, auteur de Franz Kafka et de Rosa Luxemburg. L'étincelle incendiaire.; Pauline Clochec Maîtresse de conférences en philosophie

Vandaag bespreken we het boek De democratische markt van Lisa Herzog. Subtitel: Hoe meer economische gelijkheid onze politiek kan redden. Lisa Herzog is een Duitse politiek filosoof. Ze is hoogleraar politieke filosofie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Haar onderzoek richt zich op economische rechtvaardigheid, ethiek in organisaties en democratie in het bedrijfsleven. Engelse titel van het boek The Democratic Marketplace: How a More Equal Economy Can Save Our Political Ideals (aug 2025) Politics and the Economy (Elements in Political Philosophy) (October 31, 2025) 'De toekomst van werk: van hiërarchie naar democratie (2024) Citizen Knowledge: Markets, Experts, and the Infrastructure of Democracy (2023) Reclaiming the System: Moral Responsibility, Divided Labour, and the Role of Organizations in Society (2018) Ze heeft al een aantal boeken op haar naam, en al heel wat publicaties in de 6 jaar dat ze in Groningen zit. Toch is ze nog niet echt een bekend gezicht in Nederland volgens mij. https://www.rug.nl/staff/l.m.herzog/research?lang=nl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Herzog Een goed en duidelijk, maar droog wetenschappelijk boek. Met onderwerpen waar we de laatste maanden al vaker boeken besproken hebben, maar nu met een focus op de economie, en de mythe dat de markt alles oplost. Verschillende videos van haar talks online te vinden, veelal in het Duits. Trouw: Democratie en kapitalisme waren het powerkoppel van het Westen. Maar de klad zit in het huwelijk, betoogt politiek filosoof Lisa Herzog, en als we niet oppassen delft de democratie het onderspit. https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/als-we-onze-economieen-niet-hervormen-verliezen-we-de-democratie-waarschuwt-filosoof-lisa-herzog~b6a1a1f2 Inleiding: De democratie democratiseren, de economie democratiseren 1 Markten, grote bedrijven en hun alliantie tegen de democratie 2 Werknemers: onderschikten of burgers? 3 Ongelijkheid: waarom democratiën er minder van nodig hebben 4 Van groei naar functies 5 Tijd voor democratie 6 De democratie repareren op open zee Inleiding: De democratie democratiseren, de economie democratiseren Betoog dat efficientie en groei, het fundament onder het kapitalisme, geen demokratische waarden zijn. Het economische systeem komt vooral ten goede aan de happy fwe, de mensen die al veel hebben. De ongelijkheid wordt steeds groter. We hebben al vaker gezien dat dit uiteindelijk tot steeds meer problemen lijdt en dat het voor iedereen slecht is. Er is een enorme focus op efficientie, terwijl zoals Herzog zegt, op de plekken waar het moet (natuurlijke hulpbronnen) is het een goed idee. De problemen van de moderne economische systemen zijn een slechte verdeling, onrechtvaardigheid, een gebrek aan ecologische duurzaamheid en onvoldoende mentale ruimte om meer existentiele vragen te stellen. (spijker op de kop) Belangrijke oorzaak, de focus op efficiëntie. Welke democratie willen we? participatie me een sterk deliberatief element zegt Herzog. Actief betrokken burgers (Eva Rovers) en burgers die meningen, perspectieven en argumenten uitwisselen (IDG). Rosa Luxemburg en huidige politiek - over wiens vrijheid praten we als we het hebben over vrijheid. Luxemburg zegt dat vrijheid, gaat over vrijheid van de degenen die anders denken. Anderen de rechten toekennen die je ook voor jezelf opeist. 1 Markten, grote bedrijven en hun alliantie tegen de democratie Als we op een romatische manier naar markten kijken dan lijkt dit de beste oplossing. Een plek waar mensen hun waren kunnen aanbieden en andere mensen dit kunnen kopen en onder druk van concurrentie worden de producten beter en goedkoper. Waar de eigenaar verantwoordelijk is en zich ook verantwoordelijk voelt voor wat ze maakt en de effecten rondom het bedrijf en de markt. Maar de markt ziet er al lang niet meer zo uit.  De markt bestaat vaak uit grote bedrijven, zonder een aanwijsbare eigenaar,

There is no denying that capitalism has played a leading role in warming the planet.   As the Industrial Revolution ushered in previously unseen levels of prosperity for some people, human beings' negative impact on the natural world exploded at a ferocious rate.  While it's helpful for modern-day economists to look back at the faults and failures of capitalism as a way to explain the multitude of problems facing humanity in the 21st century, it's even more interesting to understand the critiques that economists of the 19th and 20th century had about capitalism and what they were experiencing in real time that led them to these incredibly-prescient conclusions. John Cassidy joins the show this week to discuss his new book "Capitalism and Its Critics: A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI". John has written about economics and politics for The New Yorker for over 30 years. He's also the author of "How Markets Fail" and "Dot.Con: How America Lost Its Mind and Its Money in the Internet Era."  John's new book covers 250 years of economic critiques of capitalism from well known economists like Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and Joan Robinson, as well as some lesser-know, yet incredibly important critics like Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Rosa Luxemburg, JC Kumarappa, and many more. The Climate Pod is going to be live in Chicago! Join us for our Chicago Climate Bash, the hottest comedy show on the planet! On Sunday, October 26th at 5 pm CT at The Lincoln Lodge, we're featuring an amazing lineup of great comedians and expert guests. There will be standup, panels, music, and more. This show is a live recording of The Climate Pod. Featuring Chad The Bird, Lucia Whalen, and Kat Abughazaleh! Get your tickets now: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/chicago-climate-bash-tickets-1758346845749?aff=oddtdtcreator Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter/podcast, The Climate Weekly, to help support this show. Your contributions will make the continuation of this show possible.  Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, and more! Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

In today's episode David talks to Alan Renwick from UCL's Constitution Unit about the pros and cons of referendums. When does a democratic question need to be put direct to the people? Do some countries do it better than others? How can referendums be used to open up political debate? And how can we avoid a rerun of the pitfalls of the Brexit referendum? There are just a few tickets left for the 3rd film in our autumn film season at the Regent Street cinema on Thursday 9th October: a screening of Rosa Luxemburg, followed by a live recording of PPF with philosopher and writer Lea Ypi. We'd love to see you there https://bit.ly/4nDuKoY Next Up in Fixing Democracy: Compulsory Voting Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Women in Dark Times (Fitzcarraldo) begins with three remarkable women: revolutionary socialist Rosa Luxemburg; German-Jewish painter Charlotte Salomon; and film icon Marilyn Monroe. The story of these women blazes a trail across some of the defining features of the twentieth century – revolution, totalitarianism and the American dream – and compels us to reckon with the unspeakable. Extending her argument into the present, Rose turns her focus to ‘honour' killings and celebrates contemporary artists whose work grows out of an unflinching engagement with all that is darkest in the modern world. Women in Dark Times, reissued a decade after its original publication, offers a template for a scandalous feminism, one which confronts all that is most recalcitrant and unsettling in the struggle to create a better world. Jacqueline Rose was in conversation about her work with Yasmin El-Rifae, co-producer of The Palestine Festival of Literature and author of Radius.

In today's episode on how to fix democracy David talks to political scientist Nic Cheeseman about how to stop governments rigging elections around the world, from Africa to the United States. How widespread is the problem? Has digital technology made it worse? What makes an election free and fair? And what are the chances that the next US presidential election will be a free and fair one? Tickets are available for the 3rd film in our PPF Films of Ideas season at the Regent Street Cinema in London on Thursday 9th October: join us for a screening of the biopic Rosa Luxemburg followed by a live recording of the podcast with Lea Ypi https://bit.ly/4mNzNCT Next Time: Now & Then with Robert Saunders on Neil Kinnock, Labour and Militant Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

durée : 00:59:10 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Comme chaque semaine, nous revenons sur l'actualité en nous demandant dans quelle mesure l'IA profite aux travailleurs. Nous continuons ensuite d'interroger le rapport des économistes à la guerre, en nous demandant comment Rosa Luxemburg fait le lien entre surproduction, impérialisme et armement. - invités : Juan Sebastian Carbonell Sociologue du travail et des relations professionnelles, post-doctorant à l'université de Liège au laboratoire PragmApolis; Mylène Gaulard Maître de conférences en sciences économiques à l'Université de Grenoble Alpes

durée : 00:35:01 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - En 1913, Rosa Luxemburg faisait le lien entre surproduction capitaliste et course à l'armement. Ce raisonnement marxiste pourrait-il trouver un écho aujourd'hui, à l'heure où les industries sont en manque de demande et où les dépenses militaires mondiales atteignent des niveaux inédits ? - réalisation : Camille Mati - invités : Mylène Gaulard Maître de conférences en sciences économiques à l'Université de Grenoble Alpes

Nous sommes le 25 janvier 1919, à Berlin. C'est un cercueil vide que l'on porte en terre, au cimetière de Friedrichsfelde. Il devrait contenir la dépouille de Rosa Luxemburg, mais le corps, jeté par ses assassins dans le Landwehrkanal dix jours plus tôt, ne sera retrouvé qu'au mois de mai suivant. Dans un monde en ébullition, dans un siècle démarrant dans la plus grande des violences, Première Guerre mondiale, révolution bolchévique en Russie, chute de l'Empire allemand, l'icône marxiste, l'inlassable militante de la justice sociale a dérangé à tous les étages. A l'été 1887, à Varsovie, alors qu'elle n'a encore que 17 ans, la jeune fille avait écrit : « Mon idéal est un ordre social où il me serait permis d'aimer tout le monde. A la poursuite et au nom de cet idéal, je serai peut-être, un jour, capable de haïr. » Il y a 100 ans était assassinée Rosa Luxemburg … Invité : Christoph Brüll, professeur assistant Centre for Contemporary and Digital History University de Luxembourg. Maître de conférences au Département des sciences historiques, Université de Liège. Sujets traités : Rosa Luxemburg, Empire allemand, militante, justice, sociale, assassinée Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Um sein Leben und seine Kunst zu retten, schreibt Schostakowitsch eine Sinfonie ganz nach Stalins Geschmack. Es scheint, als würde er sich damit vom Volksfeind zum Volkshelden komponieren. Doch das ist nur ein Teil der Wahrheit. Host & Autor Malte Hemmerich (SWR/WDR 2025) *** CREDITS Autor & Host: Malte Hemmerich Regie: Felicitas Ott & Malte Hemmerich Es sprachen: Tuula Simon, Nadine Kettler & Stefan Roschy Technik: Andreas Völzing Redaktion: Tuula Simon & Greta Hey Eine Produktion von SWR Kultur und WDR3. *** BESONDERER LINKTIPP DER REDAKTION: WDR: Zeitzeichen - Der Geschichtspodcast Der tägliche Podcast über Geschichte von der Antike bis heute, über Europa und die Welt, über die Geschichte der Menschheit: 15 Minuten zu historischen Persönlichkeiten und Erfindungen. Von George Washington bis Rosa Luxemburg, vom Büstenhalter bis Breaking Bad. ZUM PODCAST: https://1.ard.de/alles-geschichte-zeitzeichen *** LINKTIPPS Am 9. August 1975 starb Dmitri Schostakowitsch, einer der einflussreichsten Komponisten des 20. Jahrhunderts. Seine Musik ist ein akustisches Tagebuch der sowjetischen Geschichte - voller Codes, Klüfte und Kontraste. Ausschnitte aus seinem Leben zeigen, wie dicht sein Leben mit dem Weltgeschehen verwoben war: Dmitri Schostakowitsch 50. Todestag: https://www.br-klassik.de/aktuell/news-kritik/dmitri-schostakowitsch-komponist-50-todestag-100.html Auf dem Laufenden bleiben mit den beiden Newslettern von BR-KLASSIK: Regelmäßige Infos über Programmhighlights, Neues und Hintergründe aus der Klassikszene sowie über die aktuellen Veranstaltungen der Klangkörper des BR: https://www.br-klassik.de/footernavi/newsletter/index.html Die ganze Welt der Klassischen Musik, Neuigkeiten, Kritiken, Veranstaltungstipps und Sendungen gibt es bei BR-Klassik unter: http://www.br-klassik.de/ Ihr liebt Podcasts? Dann registriert euch für den Newsletter "Die Podcast-Entdecker": Er liefert euch Podcast-Tipps von Bayern 2 direkt in euer Postfach: Bayern 2-Newsletter: https://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/service/newsletter/newsletter-podcast-entdecker-anmeldung-100.html *** Und hier noch ein paar besondere Tipps für Geschichts-Interessierte: DAS KALENDERBLATT erzählt geschichtliche Anekdoten zum Tagesdatum - skurril, anrührend, witzig und oft überraschend. Und noch viel mehr Geschichtsthemen, aber auch Features zu anderen Wissensbereichen wie Literatur und Musik, Philosophie, Ethik, Religionen, Psychologie, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Forschung, Natur und Umwelt gibt es bei RADIOWISSEN. Wir freuen uns über Feedback und Anregungen zur Sendung per Mail an radiowissen@br.de. Alles Geschichte finden Sie auch in der ARD Audiothek: ARD Audiothek | Alles Geschichte JETZT ENTDECKEN

In this conversation we're exited to welcome Alana Lentin back to the show to talk about her new book The New Racial Regime: Recalibrations of White Supremacy, which works with the concept of the racial regime put forth by Cedric Robinson in his book Forgeries of Memory and Meaning. The book features a foreword by Elizabeth Robinson, long time interlocutor, partner in critical media work, and life partner of Cedric Robinson.  We talk about this project which starts with an analysis of the war on so-called Critical Race Theory, and the attendant fascistic agenda, the “whitelash” against Black Studies, and gets deep into zionist counterinsurgency efforts throughout academia, as well as the so-called “war on antisemitism,” and how we make sense of “the processes through which racial colonial rule is ideologically resecured.” It's a really interesting read and I definitely recommend people pick it up. Alana Lentin is a teacher and writer, and identifies as a Jewish European woman who is a settler on Gadigal-Wangal land (Sydney, Australia). Her work focuses on a critical theorization of race, racism and antiracism.  She is a Professor of Cultural and Social Analysis at Western Sydney University. She is the author and editor of multiple books, including Why Race Still Matters and Racism and Anti-Racism in Europe.  More about Dr. Lentin and her work can be found at her website. This also is the first episode that Josh and Jared have recorded together since October of 2023, and it was great to collaborate again on an episode! We hosted with the Sameer Project last week. With the forced starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, it is absolutely critical that we ways to continue getting support their way. We we'll put a link to donate to the Sameer Project and to that conversation in the show description. And of course if you appreciate the work that we do on audio podcasts like this, and through our video feed on Youtube, the best way to support our work is to become a patron show for as little as $1 a month, or support us through our BuyMeACoffee page. Our music as always is courtesy of Televangel Correction: in the interview Jared said it was the "National Federation of Teachers" which is not accurate (or a thing). It was the National Educators Association, however that vote from the a majority of the 7,000 delegates of the largest US teacher's union was rejected by the union's board. Read more here. Now here is our conversation with Alana Lentin on The New Racial Regime The title of the episode is a reference to this tweet. Source of the image in the thumbnail. Some References: Dylan Rodríguez on Lexical Warfare & Counterinsurgency "Stop Asian Hate" as Zionist Policing with Dylan Rodríguez "Rosa Luxemburg and the Primitive Accumulation of Whiteness" by Siddhant Issar, Rachel H. Brown, and John McMahon The War on Anti-Semitism with Anna-Esther Younes Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, Decolonization & Islamophobia with Alana Lentin (MAKC episode) Prior audio episodes with Alana Lentin

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:46:16 +0000 https://jung-naiv.podigee.io/1089-772-ines-schwerdtner-parteivorsitzende-von-die-linke fd37a89a1454c8a9c1472c22669336f7 Politik für Desinteressierte Unterstützt uns finanziell ► http://www.paypal.me/JungNaiv Diskutiert im Jung & Naiv Forum ► http://forum.jungundnaiv.de/ Zu Gast im Studio: Ines Schwerdtner (DIE LINKE). Sie ist seit Oktober 2024 zusammen mit Jan van Aken Bundesvorsitzende ihrer Partei und seit 2025 direktgewählte Abgeordnete im Deutschen Bundestag. Ab 2014 war sie freiberuflich als Journalistin tätig und schrieb für einige linksorientierte Zeitungen. Von 2014 bis 2019 leitete sie die Zeitschrift Das Argument. Im Jahr 2020 gründete sie zusammen mit anderen die deutschsprachige Ausgabe des ursprünglich aus den USA stammenden sozialistischen Magazins Jacobin. Im Jahr 2023 trat Schwerdtner in die Linkspartei ein, nachdem sie die Partei zuvor journalistisch begleitet hatte. Sie ordnet sich dem sozialistischen und gewerkschaftsnahen Parteiflügel zu. Ein Gespräch über Ines' rasanten politischen Aufstieg, den Bundestagswahlkampf, ihre ersten Monate im Bundestag, Sprechstunden und die Arbeit an der Basis, Armut und Armutsempfindung der Bevölkerung, ökonomische Herrschaftssprache, Ines' Biografie, Eltern, Kindheit und Werdegang, ihre Politisierung und ihr Verständnis von Sozialismus, Reform vs Revolution, das Ende des Kapitalismus, Vitamin B innerhalb der Linkspartei, die Lehren aus den Fehlern der Linken vor 100 Jahren, Rosa Luxemburg & Zohran Mamdani, Vergesellschaftung der Rüstungsindustrie, die Angst der heutigen "Bourgeoisie" vor den Linken, Fressefreiheit, Aufrüstung und Landesverteidigung, Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr, gewaltbereiter Widerstand gegen Faschisten an der Macht uvm. + eure Fragen via Hans Bitte unterstützt unsere Arbeit finanziell: Konto: Jung & Naiv IBAN: DE854 3060 967 104 779 2900 GLS Gemeinschaftsbank PayPal ► http://www.paypal.me/JungNaiv full Politik für Desinteressierte no die linke,links,kapitalismus,cdu,afd,faschismus,antifaschismus,sozialismus,gaza,trump Tilo Jung

Sie war brillant, radikal und furchtlos – und wurde zur mächtigsten Stimme einer Revolution. Rosa Luxemburg kämpfte für "die Sache", für Gerechtigkeit, für Freiheit – und für eine Welt, in der Menschlichkeit über Macht steht. Doch wer war diese Frau jenseits der berühmten Zitate? In dieser True Love Folge erzählen wir die Geschichte einer Unbeugsamen. Einer Andersdenkenden. Wir sprechen über Rosa Luxemburgs Vorstellungen einer besseren politischen Ordnung, ihre Beziehungen, ihren unerschütterlichen Glauben an Veränderung – und über den Moment, in dem sie zu gefährlich wurde. Für das System. Für ihre Gegner. Rosa Luxemburgs Biografie ist eine Geschichte über Mut, Überzeugung – und den hohen Preis dafür. Eine Produktion von Auf Ex Productions. Hosts: Leonie Bartsch & Linn Schütze Recherche: Fabian Nolte Redaktion: Antonia Fischer Produktion: Lorenz Schütze Expertin: Julia Killet Hintergrundinformationen, Bilder und Videos findet ihr auf unserem Instagram- oder TikTok-Kanal @true.lovepodcast. Oder auf unseren privaten Profilen @leonie_bartsch und @linnschuetze. Wir würden uns riesig freuen, wenn ihr den Podcast bewertet und teilt. Haben euch lieb & bis in zwei Wochen! Quellen (Auswahl) Buch „Rosa Luxemburg und Leo Jogiches“ von Maria Seidemann Buch „Rosa Luxemburg – die Liebesbriefe“ von Jörn Schütrumpf Buch „Rosa Luxemburg – Ein Leben“ von Ernst Piper Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? [**Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte!**](https://linktr.ee/truelove_podcast) Du möchtest Werbung in diesem Podcast schalten? [**Dann erfahre hier mehr über die Werbemöglichkeiten bei Seven.One Audio!**](https://www.seven.one/portfolio/sevenone-audio)

On this week's MACRODOSE, James kicks off our economics history series with a look at the life and impact of the Polish-German revolutionary and Marxist theorist Rosa Luxembourg, and why her work has renewed relevance today (2:22).For exclusive content - including our new chat show, The Curve, and Macrodose's monthly newsletter, The Fix - visit: https://www.patreon.com/macrodose. Got a question or comment? Reach out to us at ⁠macrodose@planetbproductions.co.uk⁠.To learn more about the work we do at Planet B Productions, head to ⁠planetbproductions.co.uk⁠.

Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) was one of the greatest Marxist thinkers of the 20th century. She was an economist, a speaker, socialist party leader, and writer on Marxism, the working class, and freedom. She helped found many socialist newspapers, the Polish Social Democratic Party, and the Spartacus League. Further Reading: Rosa Luxemburg The Life of Rosa Luxemburg On January 15, 1919: Rosa Luxemburg was murdered This month we're talking about Outsiders -- women who marched to the beat of their own drum and rejected stereotypes about what women "should" be. They are aesthetic pioneers, norm-benders, and often the only woman in their field. History classes can get a bad rap, and sometimes for good reason. When we were students, we couldn’t help wondering... where were all the ladies at? Why were so many incredible stories missing from the typical curriculum? Enter, Womanica. On this Wonder Media Network podcast we explore the lives of inspiring women in history you may not know about, but definitely should. Every weekday, listeners explore the trials, tragedies, and triumphs of groundbreaking women throughout history who have dramatically shaped the world around us. In each 5 minute episode, we’ll dive into the story behind one woman listeners may or may not know–but definitely should. These diverse women from across space and time are grouped into easily accessible and engaging monthly themes like Educators, Villains, Indigenous Storytellers, Activists, and many more. Womanica is hosted by WMN co-founder and award-winning journalist Jenny Kaplan. The bite-sized episodes pack painstakingly researched content into fun, entertaining, and addictive daily adventures. Womanica was created by Liz Kaplan and Jenny Kaplan, executive produced by Jenny Kaplan, and produced by Grace Lynch, Maddy Foley, Brittany Martinez, Edie Allard, Carmen Borca-Carrillo, Taylor Williamson, Sara Schleede, Paloma Moreno Jimenez, Luci Jones, Abbey Delk, Adrien Behn, Alyia Yates, Vanessa Handy, Melia Agudelo, and Joia Putnoi. Special thanks to Shira Atkins. Original theme music by Brittany Martinez. Follow Wonder Media Network: Website Instagram Twitter See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Dec 10, 2024 Alyson and Breht finally dive into the German Revolution of 1918! This pivotal yet often overlooked revolutionary moment saw the collapse of the German Empire at the end of World War I, the rise of workers' and soldiers' councils, and intense ideological and political struggles shaping the future of socialism, liberalism, and fascism in Europe. Together they discuss this rather ambigious revolution, give a detailed overview of events, and reflect on what lessons we can learn from it. From the toppling of the Kaiser, to the brutal fight between social democrats and communists (including the horrible murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht), to the rise of the Freikorp and the Weimar Republic (and beyond), they help listeners understand the importance, the successes, the failures, and the tragedies, of this often neglected revolution. Check out the 3-part series on YT mentioned in the episode: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7y0zyKXzhwzrZ0raG4HpT8ZdXx9USoW3 ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio: https://revleftradio.com/      

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

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Oct 12, 2019 In this episode, I sit down with author and illustrator Kate Evans to discuss her powerful graphic biography Red Rosa, which vividly brings to life the story of revolutionary Marxist thinker Rosa Luxemburg. We explore Luxemburg's radical politics, her commitment to internationalism and anti-militarism, and the challenges she faced as a Jewish woman in the male-dominated socialist movements of her time. Kate shares her creative process behind the book, how she translated dense political theory into an accessible visual narrative, and why Luxemburg's legacy remains so vital for today's struggles against capitalism and authoritarianism. Whether you're new to Luxemburg or a longtime admirer, this conversation offers fresh insight into one of the most brilliant and courageous figures of the socialist tradition. Find her book, and all her other work, here: https://www.cartoonkate.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio HERE

While the Suffragettes were fighting to win the vote, over in Germany, Rosa Luxemburg was focused on overthrowing the entire system. A committed Marxist revolutionary and a fervent advocate of internationalism, Luxemburg believed that true freedom lay beyond ‘bourgeois democracy'. Her sharp intellect and uncompromising stance made her a formidable force in the politics of early-20th century Europe. Mark Jones speaks to Danny Bird about Luxemburg's extraordinary biography – from her rebellious youth and opposition to the First World War to her brutal execution in 1919. The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Alyson and Breht finally dive into the German Revolution of 1918! Together they discuss this rather ambigious revolution, give a detailed overview of events, and reflect on what lessons we can learn from it. From the toppling of the Kaiser, to the brutal fight between social democrats and communists (including the horrible murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht), to the rise of the Freikorp and the Weimar Republic (and beyond), they help listeners understand the importance, the successes, the failures, and the tragedies, of this often neglected revolution. ---------------------------------------- Check out the 3-part series on YT mentioned in the episode HERE Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Follow RLR on IG HERE Subscribe to Red Menace on your preferred podcast app

Alyson and Breht finally dive into the German Revolution of 1918! Together they discuss this rather ambigious revolution, give a detailed overview of events, and reflect on what lessons we can learn from it. From the toppling of the Kaiser, to the brutal fight between social democrats and communists (including the horrible murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht), to the rise of the Freikorp and the Weimar Republic (and beyond), they help listeners understand the importance, the successes, the failures, and the tragedies, of this often neglected revolution. ---------------------------------------- Check out the 3-part series on YT mentioned in the episode HERE Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Follow RLR on IG HERE Subscribe to Red Menace on your preferred podcast app