Podcasts about trotskyist

By the late 1980s the Militant tendency, the organization which Ted Grant led before founding our international, became the most successful Trotskyist tendency in Britain since the founding of Trotsky's Left Opposition.At its height Militant was a household name. Everybody knew about the Militant Tendency, not just in Britain but internationally. Militant controlled the Labour Party Young Socialists, had a growing influence in the Labour Party and the unions, had more than 50 councilors and 3 Members of Parliament. It led the Liverpool City Council in battle with the Tory government and also the multi-million strong anti-Poll Tax Campaign, which eventually brought down Thatcher!And yet, today not a single trace is left of what was built. So what went wrong?To educate comrades on this important history and draw out the lessons for building the Revolutionary Communist International today, Communist Revolution editor Joel Bergman presents on how the Militant was built, and how it was destroyed.#communist #marxist #revolutionarycommunistinternational #rci #internationalmarxisttendency #imt#tedgrant #grantism #trotskyist #trotskyism #britishtrotskyism #trotsky #themilitant #militanttendency #cwi #committeeforaworkersinternational #socialistpartybritain #socialistalternative #taaffe #petertaaffe

We're on a break from the podcast while Mark starts his new tour 'The Leopard In My House' (details here: https://marksteelinfo.com/) But in the meantime, here's another classic episode from the archives.   Mark is joined by Robin Ince - comedian, writer and broadcaster - for a special extended interview, as he tries to make sense of the rise of conspiracy theories and the challenges faced by rational thought. It's a hilarious and wide-ranging conversation that covers everything from Naomi Klein and Donald Trump to Robin Askwith, star of Confessions of a Window Cleaner! Mark and Robin discuss whether it's worth arguing with anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers, and reveal some of the tricks that psychics use to con their audiences. But the most heated argument of all revolves around a Trotskyist interpretation of the 70s American detective series Columbo!    Follow Robin Ince @robinince.bsky.social   Follow What The F*** Is Going On? With Mark Steel @wtfisgoingonpod   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rudy joins Oisín Gilmore and David Landy, authors of Fragments of Victory Fragments of Victory: The Contemporary Irish Left for a discussion on the unique political history of the Republic of Ireland. We talk about why the country never developed a strong social democratic tradition, the dominance of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the economic turmoil of the Celtic Tiger crash, and Ireland's distinctive response to austerity compared to Southern Europe. We then move to the major social movements—water charges, abortion rights, and housing—highlighting their impact and legacy. The discussion also covers the role of trade unions, the evolution of the Irish left from Labour's decline to the rise of Sinn Féin and Trotskyist parties, and the influence of figures like Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. Finally, the episode reflects on the recent election results and what they mean for the future of Ireland's left-wing politics.

Send us a textJoin us for a thought-provoking conversation with Chris Catron as we dissect the evolving dynamics of leftist movements, from the millennial wave to the emerging Zoomer left. We're making the bold statement that the recent Leninist turn intertwined with neo-Kautskyism is reshaping contemporary leftist politics. Exploring the rise of neo-Stalinist and Trotskyist tendencies, we also tackle the challenges faced by groups like the Democratic Socialists of America in integrating Trotskyist organizations.Our dialogue with Chris ventures into the heart of leftist ideological shifts, scrutinizing the friction between radical liberalism and Marxist-Leninism, especially in the wake of MAGA-Communism. There's an intriguing spotlight on historical figures such as Earl Browder and William Z. Foster, juxtaposed with modern platforms like the PSL and Monthly Review. The discussion critically examines the left's response to mainstream political figures, including the complexities of Bernie Sanders' and Jeremy Corbyn's influence on progressive politics.Finally, we unravel the layers of U.S.-Israel relations since the 1980s and the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Chris offers insights into the paradoxes within leftist politics, from protest voting frustrations to the psychological barriers of breaking away from the Democratic Party. We also reflect on Marxist critiques, the frustrations with critical theory, and the cycles of generational shifts in political sentiment. This episode promises an enlightening exploration of historical memory, political norms, and the enduring challenges of building solidarity within leftist movements. 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

&y and &ers Lee read Leon Trotsky's predictions about the glorious future of a 1930s Soviet America, in which tipping and chewing gum have been abolished. For the full episode support the show at http://patreon.com/theantifada

Get access to The Backroom Exclusive podcasts on Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/OneDime⁠ In this episode of 1Dime Radio, I am joined by a friend of the show, C. Derick Varn (  @VarnVlog  ), a theorist, writer, and leftist podcast veteran, to discuss the phenomenon of leftists shifting to the right and cases throughout the history of famous right-wingers who were former radical leftists, such as Benito Mussolini and various former Communists turned Fascists. We discuss examples of the infamous "Trotskyist to Neoconservative pipeline," such as Lyndon LaRouche, James Burnham, and Irving Kristol. We speculate about the intellectual, psychological, and social factors behind these political shifts and their relation to the culture of the left. In The Backroom on Patreon, Varn and I go deep into the lore of contemporary examples of famous leftists "leaving the left" as well as the phenomenon of the "post-left" whereby people reject the left-right binary. Become a Patron at Patreon.com/OneDime if you haven't already! 00:00 The ACP, "Maga Communism" and The Post-Left 04:12 Introduction to 1Dime Radio with C. Derek Varn 05:02 The Left-to-Right Political Shift 06:38 Trotskyists To Neocon Pipeline 15:07 LaRouche Vs MagaCommunism 45:42 Personal and Psychological Factors in Political Shifts 53:07 The Culture of the Left 01:21:38 The Urban-Rural Divide 01:23:27 The Backroom Preview Check out Varn's Show: https://www.youtube.com/@VarnVlog Follow me on X: https://x.com/1DimeOfficial Read Articles Faster with Speechify: https://share.speechify.com/mzrxH5D Outro Music by Karl Casey Give 1Dime Radio a 5 Star Rating if you enjoy the show!

Olly and Marlon are joined by Sasha Yarapolskaya of Revolution Permanente a Trotskyist organisation which critiques LFI on the grounds that they are a reformist organisation. Sasha discusses how she was polticised in France, coming there as a refugee from Russia, by the heightened level of class struggle on display, as well as harassement by the far right and why, in her opinion, Melenchonism is a dead end for the left. Olly's previous interviews with Sasha and members of rev permanente. https://novaramedia.com/2022/06/14/terfs-are-marginal-france-a-new-media-platform-plans-to-keep-it-that-way/ https://novaramedia.com/2023/05/12/french-protesters-are-thinking-up-new-ways-to-stop-macrons-pension-reforms/ Song at the end: Sans la nommer by Georges Moustaki Cover our newspaper expenses: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/flep24⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ NEW: Cover ALL of our expenses...and get deep dives:⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/flep24⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want your book, magazine, or website advertised at the beginning or end of the show? Get in touch! Fighting Fund: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/flep24⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Patreon:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠https://www.patreon.com/flep24⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Flep24's Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠@flep24pod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Marlon's Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@MarlonEttinger⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Olly's Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠:⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠@reality_manager⁠⁠

Aidan Beatty, author of The Party is Always Right: The Untold Story of Gerry Healy and British Trotskyism joins us to trainspot the British Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP), a Trotskyist cult that was tight with Qaddafi, boasted Vanessa Redgrave as a member, and collapsed after the revelation of years of its leader's sexual abuse of membership.Sign up at http://patreon.com/theantifada for the bonus where we talk about Irish peacekeepers in Lebanon, the shared historical dynamics of the Irish and Jews, the WSWS's fascination with Woody Allen and Michael Jackson, and the macabre fate of Trotsky's death mask.Get the book from Pluto PressSong: Pop Smoke - For the Night

The title is clickbait - sorry! Marlon takes a solo look at an announcement by Macron to host all the country's political forces on the 23rd of August to determine who the next prime minister will be. The news sets off the typical paper-selling speculation about who the next Prime Minister might be (mostly familiar names, though one wacky hypothesis). And Marlon goes over a minor Trotskyist sect and why the National Rally wants to kick it out of a beautiful beach side summer blitz. Show Notes -⁠ Office de Tourisme de Leucate⁠ - ⁠Gouvernement : Macron va consulter les chefs des groupes parlementaires et des partis le 23 août⁠ - ⁠Nomination du premier ministre : les noms qui circulent pour Matignon⁠ - ⁠Nomination d'un nouveau Premier ministre : Macron va discuter avec les chefs de parti vendredi prochain⁠ Email us your Qs so we can give you As at flep24pod@gmail.com Cover our newspaper expenses. Joseph, how about you buy us one today? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/flep24⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want your book, magazine, or website advertised at the beginning or end of the show? Get in touch! Fighting Fund: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/flep24⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Flep24's Twitter @flep24pod Marlon's Twitter @MarlonEttinger Olly's Twitter @reality_manager

And she says "ow, that hurts!" In this episode Olly and Marlon discuss Laurence Tubiana, the PS, PCF, and Green candidate for NFP Prime Minister. They go over why LFI opposes her, her past and present Macron-compatibility, and her eco-anarchist offspring. Olly goes into one possible centrist scenario for a President of the National Assembly, which will start to be decided on Thursday, and Marlon discusses how some long ago LFI parliamentary strategy may help the left overturn the retirement reform...if they can get a Prime Minister in the door at all. Want your book, magazine, or website advertised at the beginning or end of the show? Get in touch! Flep24 email: flep24pod@gmail.com Flep24's Twitter @flep24pod Marlon's Twitter @MarlonEttinger Olly's Twitter @reality_manager

Peter Hitchens is an English conservative author, broadcaster, journalist, and commentator. He writes for The Mail on Sunday and was a foreign correspondent reporting from both Moscow and Washington DC. His books include The Abolition of Britain, The Rage Against God, The War We Never Fought and The Phoney Victory. Previously a Trotskyist and supporter of the Labour Party, Hitchens became more conservative during the 1990s. He joined the Conservative Party in 1997 and left in 2003, and has since been deeply critical of the party, which he views as the biggest obstacle to true conservatism in the UK. SPONSORS: Manscaped. Get 20% Off and Free Shipping with the code TRIGGER at https://manscaped.com Start earning A Yield on Silver, Paid in Silver with Monetary Metals. Click here to find out more: https://bit.ly/3Rs8Rv2 Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | info@xentricapc.com | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: marketing@triggerpod.co.uk Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to the Part 2 "MAGA Communism" episode in The Backroom exclusive podcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OneDime In this episode of the 1Dime Radio podcast, I am joined by the theorist, writer, and Marxist podcast veteran C. Derick Varn (Who runs the podcast channel "Varn Vlog") to discuss the complicated, bizarre history of certain tendencies on the contemporary Western left, such as neo-Stalinism, Dengism, old and new Maoism, Trotskyism, and "MAGA Communism." We also discuss the history of people on the left shifting to the right, Varn's own political journey from right to left, and his disagreements with different leftist groups like the Platypus Affiliated Society. 0:00 MAGA Communism Episode Sneak Peak 3:18 Guest Introduction 5:30 Varn's Political Journey: From Right to Left1 8:18 Western Trotskyism 29:47 Occupy Movement and Call-Out Culture 38:40 Mark Fisher and the Vampire Castle Debate 53:38 Pete Buttigieg's Marxist Dad 56:29 The Trotskyist to Conservative Pipeline 01:15:53 The Role of the CIA in Academic Marxism01:24:09 Contradictions in Marxism-Leninism 01:35:37 Reflections on the American Revolution Read more with Speechify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime⁠⁠⁠ Follow me on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/1DimeOfficial⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support 1Dime on ⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠ to get extra exclusive content. Be sure to give 1Dime Radio a 5-star rating if you get value out of these podcasts!

This episode is on the contemporary far-Left's turn away from the working-class towards the lumpen proletariat - except in the case of criminalised lumpen women. We discuss how the far-Left has adopted 'pet' lumpen proletariat groups (mentally ill men who identify as women, male asylum seekers, male criminals, men who are too dysfunctional to work, etc.), but only in so far as to lionise the figure of the emasculated proletariat man as an archetype, never the downtrodden, financially precarious, often prostituted or criminalised lumpen woman. How is it that the objectives of the PMC have come to chime with this figure of the lumpen man? And that the revolutionary Left, once concerned with the working-class as the revolutionary class, has swapped for the goals of the PMC (the most dominated section of the dominant class), in combination with the interests of the lumpen man, making both central to their politics.We also discuss the little known modern Trotskyist understanding of political practice that creates disruption by fermenting social contradictions, and that out of this chaos rises the opportunity for a re-organisation of society once the status-quo is unstable and unsustainable, leading to the options of barbarism (fascism) or socialism. Previously it was understood that the structural contradictions of capitalism would inevitably at times throw up such opportunities, but today's pessimistic and demoralised vanguardist far-Left, beholden to postmodernism and post-structuralism, acts as an agent to create contradictions and unsustainable policies, as a matter of strategy. This notion of disruption as valuable is one way to understand the ludicrous irony of preaching safety on campuses and that misgendering kills, whilst being willing to re-traumatise and up the probability of rape against the most vulnerable adults in our society: women in prison. This leads us to a topsy-turvy moral world where thoughts are so harmful people need their livelihoods destroyed for 'thought crimes', but rape against women is so irrelevant and benign it is not worth mentioning.Plus, the roots of the concept of 'validation', Trans activists wanting life to be one continuous DBT session, prison abolition as a luxury belief, and how for those from the upper-crust of privilege disagreement feels injurious and hostile, because they've not witnessed or experienced anything worse and it undermines the vision fed to them of their entitlement to power. Hannah tells the story of confronting a man chasing a woman in a car and the total disinterest of the police once it was reported. And we wonder about how the collaboration between the PMC and TRAs, aided and abetted by the new postmodernism-afflicted radical Left, thought they could pull of the heist of the century: trading the rights of women and children in order to advance their own power.

Subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon to listen to this premium episode, and all of our bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/knowyourenemy It was inevitable that Know Your Enemy would eventually discuss Arguing the World, the 1998 documentary about four Jewish intellectuals who emerged from the alcoves and arguments of City College in the 1930s and influenced American politics and letters for much of the rest of the twentieth century, and beyond: Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, and Nathan Glazer.Why now? Most of all, it's the kind of documentary we love—the personal rivalries, the gossip, the self-conscious intellectuality, and the, well, arguments. But we'll also be publishing an episode next week with historian Ronnie Grinberg about her new book, Write Like a Man: Jewish Masculinity and the New York Intellectuals, and while the overlap in subject matter is not perfect, this documentary would make for a great primer for listeners (since we know you're the kind of listeners who do not despise homework). It's also an excellent chance to revisit the history of the left, old and new, and their fraught relationship with each other; to consider the place of intellectuals and thinking in a time of urgent action; and, as ever, to talk about the ways the subjects of Arguing the World might fit into America's right turn and "how we got here."Watch:Arguing the World, dir. Joseph Dorman (1998); YouTube, PBS, IMDBRead:Irving Howe, "This Age of Conformity," Partisan Review, Jan-Feb 1954Irving Howe, "Socialism and Liberalism: Articles of Conciliation?" Dissent, Winter 1977Irving Kristol, “Memoirs of a Trotskyist,” NYTimes, Jan 23, 1977

An elegant Trotskyist, Michael Pablo grew up in Greece to become an urbane revolutionary, who made his presence felt at many of the most significant uprisings of the 20th century in an attempt to build what he called self-managed socialism.   Partnered by his dynamic and fearless wife Elli Dyovoumoti, Pablo was often in great danger, spent time in prison, and made enemies among fellow socialists. But when it came to the Algerian uprising of 1962 against the French, he rolled up his intellectual sleeves and got his hands dirty, helping the Algerians to arm themselves by setting up a gun factory. The story of this venture is worth a movie in its own right.   Clashing with Castro, supporting Solidarity in Poland, Pablo was an influential force without ever becoming a leader. He was ahead of his time in his support for fully-fledged feminism and maintained a strong circle of friends throughout his life.   Hall Greenland's biography, The Well-Dressed Revolutionary, is an admiring portrait of a man and a time when socially progressive ideas had real momentum and it felt as if the world were tilting towards a raised consciousness on equality and human rights.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark is joined by Robin Ince - comedian, writer and broadcaster - for a special extended interview, as he tries to make sense of the rise of conspiracy theories and the challenges faced by rational thought.   It's a hilarious and wide-ranging conversation that covers everything from Naomi Klein and Donald Trump to Robin Askwith, star of Confessions of a Window Cleaner!   Mark and Robin discuss whether it's worth arguing with anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers, and reveal some of the tricks that psychics use to con their audiences. But the most heated argument of all revolves around a Trotskyist interpretation of the 70s American detective series Columbo!   Get ad-free extended episodes, early access and exclusive content on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/wtfisgoingonpod   Follow What The F*** Is Going On? with Mark Steel on Twitter @wtfisgoingonpod   Visit Robin Ince's website http://robinince.com/mainpage/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Embark on an intellectual exploration of the radical left with our scholar, Dr. Wayne Price, as we untangle the intricate tapestry of modern leftist ideology. From the resurgence of Marxist-Leninism to the adaptive strategies of the Democratic Socialists of America, this episode promises a comprehensive dissection of the ideologies that are shaping the future of socialism. We scrutinize the historical echoes in today's political tumult, ponder the delicate balance between revolutionary change and electoral engagement, and question how the rise of Marxism influences the anarchist discourse.As we navigate the ideological currents within leftist movements, Dr. Price offers his expert analysis on the evolution of socialist and Trotskyist factions. We confront the controversies that have shaken the foundations of these groups and track their shifting allegiances, especially in the wake of Bernie Sanders' campaigns. Uncover the reasons behind the unexpected allure of Marxist frameworks for anarchists and witness the robust participation in anti-war and pro-Palestinian activism, as we grapple with the shifts that are redefining leftist politics.The conversation culminates in a vibrant discussion on how class theory and anarchist perspectives intersect and diverge, revealing the potential for a radical reimagining of post-capitalist society. We juxtapose the revolutionary aspirations against the stark realities of rising fascism and the environmental crisis, stoking the embers of optimism for a united front against societal and ecological threats. Join us for a thought-provoking episode that promises not just insights, but also a clarion call for all who envision a transformative path beyond the status quo. Support the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnAudio Producer: Paul Channel Strip ( @aufhebenkultur )Intro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @skepoetYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

This week the boys got together to talk about political apostasy. From the old left, to the new left, to whatever the hell it is that we have now. We discuss the motivations and consequences of jumping ship. The Ex-Communist's Consciencehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/deutscher/1950/ex-communist.htm Turned Around: Why Leftists Go Righthttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/22/why-leftists-go-right  From Memoirs of a Trotskyist by Irving Kristolhttps://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol_2.html The Neoconservative Counterrevolutionhttps://jacobin.com/2015/04/neoconservatives-kristol-podhoretz-hartman-culture-warHow Ex-Communists Shaped American Conservatismhttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/how-ex-communists-shaped-american-conservatism/426849/ Trotskyconshttps://www.nationalreview.com/2003/06/trotskycons-stephen-schwartz/The Neoconservative Journeyhttps://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817945725_105.pdf The Legacy of the Trotskyist Righthttps://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n2/SneigoskiTOQV6N2.pdfLike our theme song? Check out Autumn Brigade here: https://autumnbrigade.bandcamp.com/album/geist-ist-totSupport the show

On this new Whisper in the Wings from Stage Whisper, we welcome back playwright Andy Boyd, and welcome on for the first time actor Jeff Gonzalez. These two fantastic artists joined us to talk about their new work Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist. We dove in depth into this quirky and fascinating show. So tune in for this wonderful conversation, and then get your tickets for this show now!Three Scenes in the Life of a TrotskyistNow- March 17th@ The TankTickets and more information can be found at thetanknyc.orgAnd be sure to follow our guests to stay up to date on all their upcoming projects and productions:Andy: andyjboyd.com and @andyjboydJeff: jeffgonzalez.com and @jalangonzalez

Ian, Adam, Jane and Helen discuss royal privacy, the possible resurrection of the Crooked House pub, and the return of George Galloway. Questions? Feedback? Email us on podcast@private-eye.co.uk Sources: George Galloway on the “indefatigability” quote | Christopher Hitchens on being a drink-sodden former Trotskyist popinjay | Libel payouts over forged documents | Inquiry into Mariam Appeal | Inquiry into Viva Palestina | On Mykonos: “I actually had sexual intercourse with some of the people in Greece.” | Galloway on Iranian executions | Interview with Benjamin Cohen on gay rights | On Naz Shah's arranged marriage | Galloway pretending to be a cat | The US government on Sputnik's funding | An interview with Chinese media about attending the Beijing democracy forum  | On Julian Assange | On Russell Brand | Censured by Ofcom over Skripal claims | At the Grassrouts Out rally with Nigel Farage | London mayoral result, 2016 | March 2024: “No state has the right to exist . . . not the Zionist apartheid state of Israel.” | Chambers solicitors strike-off | £6,000 Twitter libel demands | Galloway: Bradford should be an “Israel-free zone” | Galloway won't debate Eylon Levy | Sam Coates interviews George Galloway in Rochdale

In this episode of Shit Platypus Says, we introduce the first segment of Reds, a series examining the growth of new communist organizations around the world. Hosts Tamas, Lisa, and Rebekah discuss the impetus for such a series: the sudden growth of self-styled communist organizations after a decade of social democratic activity on the Left and a dissatisfaction with liberal politics; a related revision occurring within Trotskyist organizations; and the historical echoes and discontinuities raised by the transition from the Millennial to the Zoomer generation. For the bulk of the segment, our inaugural segment of Reds, Melbourne Platypus members Ryan and Tom sit down with Jamie and Anthony of the Revolutionary Communist Organisation and its Collective of Leninist Youth, based in Australia, for a discussion about its current outlook, challenges, and tasks. The RCO appeared on a panel discussion held by Platypus Melbourne: “Imperialism: What is it, and why should we be against it?” (Dec 2 2023 panel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLSj2IZOgpg More info about the Revolutionary Communist Organisation (RCO): Program: https://www.revcomorg.info/general-clean Publication “Direct Action”: https://directactionnewcastle.wordpress.com/direct-action-rco/ Queer liberation paper: https://www.revcomorg.info/projecto-1 Collective of Leninist Youth (CLY): Publication “Red Youth Spectre”: www.tinyurl.com/redyouthspectre

THIS IS A PREVIEW. FOR THE FULL EPISODE, GO TO Patreon.com/worstofall Jake Beckhard and Andy Boyd (Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist) join the lads as they head on back to the U.S.S.R. to cover Warren Beatty's 1981 communist blockbuster: Reds. Topics include the brilliance of Diane Keaton, the terrifying smoochability of Eugene O'Neill, and how to make art in a world teetering on the edge of revolution. Want more TWOAPW? Get access to the rest of this episode, our full back catalogue of premium and bonus episodes, and add your name to the masthead of our website by subscribing for $5/month at Patreon.com/worstofall! Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist - Tickets // Instagram Jake Beckhard - Website // Twitter // Instagram Blue Balls NYCFC: You've got Blue Balls! How lucky for you. Check in every week for rapturous pod talk on all things NYCFC. With NYC Hosts Jake Beckhard and Trey Fillmore. Listen on Apple Podcasts // Spotify // Podomatic Andy Boyd: Website // NPX // Instagram // Better Than Shakespeare Podcast Media Referenced in this Episode: Reds. Dir. Warren Beatty. 1981. Look, I Made a Hat: Collected Lyrics (1981-2011) with Attendant Comments, Amplifications, Dogmas, Harangues, Digressions, Anecdotes and Miscellany by Stephen Sondheim. Penguin Random House. 2011. O'Neill: Son and Playwright by Louis Sheaffer. Little, Brown, and Company. 1968. “Thunder on the Left” by Peter Biskind. Vanity Fair. January 22nd, 2007. TWOAPW theme by Brendan Dalton: Patreon // brendan-dalton.com // brendandalton.bandcamp.com Commercial: “‘Goodbye For Now' Demos” feat. David Armstrong as “Stephen Sondheim”.

1 Gaza demo in London: nonsense claims 2 (7.19) Gaza, Israel and Egypt: sorting through the contradictions 3 (13.09) Gaza and UK opinion: massive gulf with political class 4 (19.59) Gaza: Scottish Labour resolution - ceasefire now! 5 (21.09) Labour witch-hunt continues. 6 (24.44) But what about Starmer, the ex-Trotskyist? 7 (28.44) Political trends in the UK: bourgeois backing for Labour? 8 (35.49) Ukraine: situation on second anniversary of the war 9 (44.49) Putin, Russian contradictions and Navalny 10 (50.19) US interests: what next? The collapse of the centre and move to the right in the USA?

James Bloodworth reveals the problems young men are having with finding dates and sex. We discuss Jordan Peterson & Andrew Tate, as well as the manosphere, Chris Williamson and many other aspects of male culture.  James Bloodworth is an English journalist and writer, as well as a former Trotskyist. He wrote the brilliant book Hired about going undercover in an Amazon warehouse: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hired-Months-Undercover-Low-Wage-Britain/dp/1786490161 (irony of buying it on Amazon!) Follow his substack here: https://www.jamesbloodworth.com/ Get our bonus questions on http://andrewgold.locals.com #heretics #manosphere #dating Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok  Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's embark on a journey through the labyrinth of Trotskyism and its complex world of factions and ideologies with the Regrettable Century's Jason and Chris and The Measure's Taken's Stephen Hammel.  Even after the disappearance of questions that made Trotskyism unique, it managed to survive well past 1992. Have you ever wondered why? We are here to unravel the mystery. In our conversation, we dissect the strange survival of Trotskyism in America and the myriad of splits it birthed. We'll explore the historical swings and shifts of Trotskyist organizations like the ISO and their transition from Shackmanites and Draperites to Cliffites and Grantites characters.Do you know the role of the Socialist Party of the USA, the Kasama Project, and the Platypus Affiliated Society in shaping post-Trotskyist tendencies in the United States? We'll discuss this and more, including the ripple effects of the post-Stalinist era that led to a rift between Trotskyism and Maoism. It's a deep dive into Trotskyist theory's core, including the theory of permanent revolution's evolution. When it comes to the decline of Trotskyism in America, we're not just observers. We investigate its re-emergence within DSA caucuses, the rise of Salt, the International Marxist Tendency's debut, and the factors contributing to Trotskyism's resurgence in the US.With us, you'll be a fly on the wall of history as we recount the various influences and impacts of Trotskyism on the American left and the evolution of communism. You'll travel back to 1992, witnessing the active Trotskyist organizations and their ideologies at the time. We'll also journey through the UK SWP's ties to conservative Islamic politics, the Arab Spring-induced splits, and the role of punk music in Trotskyism's resurgence. Lastly, we'll contemplate the lasting legacy of Trotskyism and the impact of its decline on the American left. This journey promises not just information, but thought-provoking insights on one of the critical aspects of leftist history and thought. Support the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnAudio Producer: Paul Channel Strip ( @aufhebenkultur )Intro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @skepoetYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

Doug Greene is an independent communist historian from the Boston area. He has written biographies of the communist insurgent Louis Auguste Blanqui and DSA founder Michael Harrington. Stalinism has left a complex and controversial legacy throughout history. How have interpretations of Stalinism been shaped by debates between anti-communists, Soviet defensists, and various figures of Western Marxism? Join us for an in-depth conversation with our guest, Doug Green, as we navigate the tangled history of Stalinism and its influence on Trotskyist and Maoist movements, as well as the resurgence of interest in socialism today.We'll unpack the intricate web of anti-communist sentiment that has shaped interpretations of Stalinism in Soviet history, from the contributions of Trotsky's biography of Stalin and Marx's 18th Brumaire to the right-wing anti-communist arguments that don't hold up to current scholarship. Doug offers invaluable insights into the Sino-Soviet split, the role Stalin played in it, and the Maoist critiques of Stalin, which often lack historical details. We also explore the fascinating figure of Arthur Koestler and his seminal work Darkness at Noon, analyzing how his views on historical necessity evolved over time.Finally, we delve into the trajectories of controversial figures such as Victor Serge, David Horowitz, Tony Cliff, and Sydney Hook, discussing how their interpretations of Stalinism have been influenced by anti-communist sentiment. We'll examine the various interpretations of Neo Kowskyism, Lars Lee Leninism, Mike McNair's Marxian Republicanism, and Eric LeBlanc's Social Democracy, among others, to assess the potential for a revived Marxist approach to the Soviet Union and Maoist China. This episode will leave you with a deeper understanding of the many facets of the complex legacy of Stalinism and its ongoing impact on contemporary politics. Support the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnAudio Producer: Paul Channel Strip ( @aufhebenkultur )Intro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @skepoetYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

Brendan O'Neill is a British political commentator and author. He was the editor of Spiked from 2007 to September 2021, and is currently its chief political writer. Once a Trotskyist, O'Neill was formerly a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and wrote for the party's journal Living Marxism. O'Neill currently defines himself as a Marxist libertarian. Brendan's book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1913019861 Brendan's website: https://brendanoneill.co.uk/ Brendan's writing: https://www.spiked-online.com/author/brendan-oneill/ SPONSORED BY: EasyDNS - domain name registrar provider and web host. Use special code: TRIGGERED for 50% off when you visit https://easydns.com/triggered/ ‘What is Enlightenment?' short essay by Immanuel Kant: https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/What-is-Enlightenment.pdf Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | info@xentricapc.com | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube:  @xentricapc   Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: marketing@triggerpod.co.uk Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/sign-up/ Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians.

WARNING: It seems my microphone was not fully plugged in during this exchange, and the computer defaulted to the internal microphone... which is, well, garbage. So, my audio quality sounds pretty dreadful here, but it's at least listenable, and there's no way we were re-doing this entire conversation. As mentioned towards the end, however, I may do a regular series episode concerning Burnham's Machiavellians at a later time, if there is further interest in the topic.My friend Karl Nord and I discuss James Burnham, one of the intellectual forebears of modern conservative thought in the United States. Remarkably, upon a closer look into his life, we find that Burnham is an iconoclast who could have been called a socialist, a nationalist, a conservative, a Trotskyist, a neoliberal, a centrist or a social democrat at various times in his life - and yet, he repudiates and attacks all of these ideologies at various times as well. This is a thinker who once thought a communist revolution was inevitable for America, who wrote briefs for the CIA, who supported McCarthy, and who shaped the worldview of generations of conservatives. In the end, the only label that suits him is "Machiavellian", which is fittingly the title of one of his books, which we take a cursory look at during this episode.

ORIGINALLY RELEASED May 16, 2020 A.M. Glittlitz joins Breht to talk about the Trotskyist sub-tendency of Posadism and discuss his new - and genuinely fascinating - book "I Want to Believe: Posadism, UFOs, and Apocalypse Communism" Check out more of Glittlitz's work  Follow him on Twitter And check out his podcast  Outro music 'UFOF' by Big Thief   LEARN MORE ABOUT REV LEFT RADIO: www.revolutionaryleftradio.com

Gary Younge is an author, an academic and one of the UK's most celebrated journalists. He joins Georgina Godwin to discuss his remarkable career in international reporting, his teenage years as a Trotskyist, reporting on the elections of Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama, and his new book, ‘Dispatches from the Diaspora: From Nelson Mandela to Black Lives Matter'.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett! They catch up with all of the news out of the legislature this week, as well as Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant not seeking re-election, a dodgy push-poll, South King County pedestrian fatalities on the rise, and lawsuits against the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI).  Breaking down the flurry of news out of the legislature this week, Crystal and Erica discuss proposed legislation for a wealth tax, middle housing, lowering the blood alcohol limit for driving, limiting rent increases, reducing the disparity between products advertised towards women versus men, alternatives to jail for behavioral health crises, and a potential expansion of law enforcement's ability to conduct vehicle pursuits.  The trend of current Seattle City Councilmembers announcing they won't seek re-election continued this week when councilmember Kshama Sawant revealed she won't again this year. With four of the seven open seats on the council this year without incumbents, this years' election is guaranteed to bring a large change to the city's leadership.  A seemingly non-scientific push-poll designed to show support for a potential ballot measure to fund more police hires and spending was sent to a number of Seattle residents. They use it as a jumping-off to discuss manipulative polling and how it's used to justify unpopular policy. Crystal and Erica also discuss the alarming increase in pedestrian fatalities in the region, especially in south King County. The data supports the need to make wide-spread improvements to our pedestrian infrastructure to truly make our cities safe for people who walk and bike.  Crystal and Erica end this week's show looking at two lawsuits against the Low Income Housing Institute. A former resident has sued the organization, claiming that LIHI illegally evicted them by not giving proper notice. The case hinges on whether LIHI's housing is emergency shelter or transitional housing, the latter requiring stronger resident protections. LIHI is also facing accusations that the conditions of their tiny house villages are not adequate to support their residents. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host Erica Barnett at @ericacbarnett.   Resources “Tackling Poverty with Misha Werschkul of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center” - Hacks & Wonks   “WA lawmakers trying again to tax wealth, as part of nationwide effort”  by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   “Two State-Level Housing Bills Aim to Stabilize Rent and Protect From Rent Gouging” by Vee Hua from The South Seattle Emerald   Washington Coalition for Police Accountability's letter on vehicle pursuit bills SB 5352 and HB 1363   “State Proposals Aim to Lower Traffic Deaths by Improving Driver Behavior” by Ryan Packer from Publicola   “Washington lawmakers discuss an alternative to jail for mental health crises” by Doug Nadvornick from KUOW   “Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant Will Not Seek Reelection” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Why I'm Not Running Again for City Council” by Kshama Sawant from The Stranger   “South King County Sees Alarming Jump in Pedestrian Fatalities” by Andrew Engelson from The Urbanist   “WALeg Wednesday: Saldaña Drops Bill to End Jaywalking” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist   “Former Tiny House Village Resident Sues Nonprofit, Alleging Unlawful Eviction” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola “Homelessness Authority, LIHI Clashed Over Reporting of Two Deaths at Tiny House Village” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast, get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:01:08] Erica Barnett: Hello, hello. [00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Hello, hello - and welcome back. Always a pleasure to have you and your information and insights. Think today we will start off just talking about the week in the Washington Legislature, now that our legislative session is off and running. What did you see this week? [00:01:28] Erica Barnett: There's a lot going on as always. This is a long session, so there's a lot more policy legislation coming our way. There's a proposal to revive a wealth tax that has moved forward but then floundered in previous sessions - it would be a 1% tax on intangible assets like stocks and bonds - and so we'll see how that goes this year, maybe third time is the charm. Legislation is moving forward to allow sixplexes around the state in areas that are ordinarily or that are traditionally single-family only - that's Jessica Bateman's bill - and that too has been proposed in the past, but it may have a better chance this session because one of the sort of obstructionist legislators, Gerry Pollett, is no longer in charge of the committee that determines whether that bill goes forward. There's a bill that would reduce the limitations on police pursuits. Police say that they, that legislation from - I believe it was either last year or 2021 - limiting the instances in which they can go after somebody in their car to violent crimes and sex crimes is inhibiting their ability to chase what they call criminals - people committing property crimes and things like that. So that proposal is up and it has a lot of support from the right-wing pundit class. And I'm missing a lot of other stuff - there's a bill to lower the blood alcohol limit for driving while intoxicated to 0.05 percent like Utah, which has been really effective in that state in reducing drunk driving deaths and a whole lot more. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: I think that's a good start. There's lots of things just getting out of the gate and people trying to figure out what does have the momentum and the support to move forward versus what doesn't. I think another one that I was looking at - in addition to the middle housing bill, which came out with a ton of support in a hearing that it had earlier this week - are also some bills aiming to stabilize rent and to protect people from rent gouging. So looking at capping rent increases between 3 and 7% annually, depending on the rate of inflation. There's lots of conversations about, absolutely, the need to increase housing supply - there's widespread agreement on that, and that certainly is necessary to long-term affordability. In the short-term, things like rent stabilization policies are going to be critical for reducing displacement, evictions, and can make more of a difference in the short-term than increasing the housing supply. So lots of people sometimes have either-or conversations about those. I personally love the opinion that both are necessary and useful. I've talked about before - I've had neighbors with rent increases over 40%, had rent increases personally of over 30%. And that is just completely unaffordable for so many people, and contributing to the amount of unhoused people that we have - so definitely looking at that as another one. There was another bill that just was a cool thing - with Senator Manka Dhingra, who works with students and youth in the area to introduce legislation. And they suggested legislation, which she has introduced now, which seeks to bring equity between pricing for products marketed towards men versus women, and how frequently the same exact product marketed towards women will cost more for no apparent reason. And so a bill trying to address that - I think that was most of it. There was another interesting one this week about an alternative to jail for people experiencing mental health crises. Instead of going to jail - which really doesn't address the root cause - talking about a kind of a 24-hour cooling off center where instead of being an environment that is not helpful at de-escalating or calming situations, that a place that is not jail that can seek to maybe stabilize or calm down a situation to hopefully get a person in a place where they're either stabilized or in a place where they can seek services. It sounds like that is in the beginning stages of conversation - does not have funding attached to it yet, that would be necessary - but those are the things that have been on my radar. [00:06:32] Erica Barnett: That last bill that you mentioned, also from Senator Dhingra - it's based on a similar program in Arizona - and I'm getting this from KUOW's coverage. And it's interesting. I really want to read up more about it because it's a 23-hour hold, essentially. And we have various types of involuntary and voluntary mental health facilities. 23 hours - my immediate response is - what happens after that 23 hours? Do we just release people back to the streets with no care plan? I'm assuming that is not the intent, and I'm assuming that 23 hours actually must come from some limitation in the law. But at the same time as this bill is moving forward, there is a proposal that's going to be on the ballot in April in King County to create crisis care centers where people can just walk in and - voluntarily or be brought there by police, I suppose - to receive crisis care. And it's for a longer period than that 23 hours, so it feels like there is an emphasis right now on trying to get an entire continuum of care for people in crisis. And none of this has passed yet. As you said, the bill in the Legislature does not come with funding. But there is more discussion of this than I've ever seen in the state, and that's really encouraging because right now, primarily what we do is put people in jail when they're experiencing a crisis that is causing a threat or perceived threat to public safety - and that really can be extremely destabilizing for people. [00:08:17] Crystal Fincher: And then you had talked about the vehicle pursuit legislation that is being worked on this week - and really interesting dynamics in between those. There certainly are folks led by a lot of law enforcement organizations who are saying that they're being limited - lots of times we can't chase people, or crime is on the rise because we've been essentially handcuffed from going after "bad guys." Senator Dhingra talked about it - we did an interview with her on Hacks & Wonks and in a Democratic media availability this past week - talked again about there's no data showing a linkage between a rise in crime and the limitations that were placed on police pursuits before. Now they're asking for an expansion of those. It is unclear why that would make a difference according to their logic. One, they actually are still allowed to pursue those most serious cases and have been. We've had several stories over the past few weeks of pursuits that have happened. And this is really a question of is it worth pursuing something, someone - no matter what - if someone stole some Tide detergent, is it worth a high-speed pursuit on residential streets where people are being put at risk and innocent bystanders are frequently harmed and killed in these situations. In fact, in the city of Kent, a police officer was killed during a high-speed chase. These are actually really dangerous events that happen. And there's a real question about - is it worth the loss of life, when frequently if you can identify the person you can find and pick them up - which has happened frequently - after the fact without risking the lives of everybody in the area. So that's going to be an interesting conversation moving forward. Senator Dhingra chairs the Law & Justice Committee and is not eager to bring this up for a hearing, but there are certainly Republican legislators and some Democratic ones who are in favor of expanding the ability to conduct these pursuits. And so that conversation is definitely going to be one that we follow throughout this session. Looking at events this week in the City of Seattle, one notable announcement came earlier this week about a councilmember who is not going to be running again. What was announced? [00:11:06] Erica Barnett: Kshama Sawant - I laugh because this was just so widely covered compared to other councilmembers who are not running - part of a trend of councilmembers on the current council saying that they are not going to seek re-election, but Kshama Sawant will not be running in District 3. She's going to be starting some sort of labor-related organization, and I say that vaguely because there wasn't a whole lot of detail in her announcement about what this group will do, but it's called Workers Strike Back. And what it will not do, apparently, is pursue elected office for its members. Sawant's organization, Socialist Alternative, is a small, Trotskyist offshoot of the socialist parties in America, and it's definitely one of the smallest. And they have not had a lot of success at getting people elected around the country. Sawant was really their shining example of a member who actually made it to elective office and was in there for three terms, for 10 years - one of those terms was a two-year term. And so they're going on and they're saying that they're going to start a workers' movement worldwide, so it remains to be seen what will happen with that. But Sawant will no longer be on the council, and a lot of people are already lining up to try to replace her. [00:12:42] Crystal Fincher: There are. I saw a couple of candidates have declared already, which has also received a lot of coverage. You are right - we got some kind of brief mentions for prior councilmembers, including Lisa Herbold and Alex Pedersen, announcing that they are not running. But there seems to be strong opinions about Councilmember Sawant and therefore strong reactions in both directions - people sad to see someone who has been a fierce and unabashed advocate for issues about workers' rights for a long time. Councilmember - Mayor Harrell also said one thing he never doubted was her fierceness and advocacy. But this is definitely going to be a change on the council, and she has definitely left her mark - coming to office following the $15/hour initiative in the City of SeaTac that was run by a number of unions and advocates and folks. Following that, she ran in the City of Seattle as a dramatic underdog who people didn't really take seriously for almost all of the campaign - running on 15 Now, $15/hour in the City of Seattle - and running successfully, making Seattle one of the first cities - major cities - in the country to pass that minimum wage. And we've seen minimum wages increase across the country since then, with first SeaTac and then Seattle. So really interesting, certainly has been a lightning rod for a lot. So we will see who is going to wind up replacing her and how those campaigns take shape. What do you see as - just how this election season in the City of Seattle, with so many open seats - may unfold? [00:14:52] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I was just doing the math in my mind - because I have to do it every time - and four of the seven seats that are going to be up are definitely going to be open seats. Open seat elections are always more interesting in my mind because you don't have that built-in power of incumbency that sometimes keeps people away, but often we re-elect incumbents. So we'll see what - Andrew Lewis has already said that he is going to be running for re-election in District 1. I believe Tammy Morales will be running for re-election - I would put money on that at this point - not a lot of money, but a little money. And Councilmember Dan Strauss also seems to be showing signs that he will run for a second term up in District 6. So still, with four open seats, that's going to be - that's a number that could swing the tenor of the council if there's any kind of trend in whether those seats swing left or right. But importantly, one thing that happens when you have massive council turnover is you both get a sort of breath of fresh air, but you also lose a lot of institutional knowledge. I think, and I said on Seattle Nice, I think Sawant's actual influence on legislation has been somewhat overstated. She didn't achieve $15/hour in Seattle - that was very much a union effort that she got on board with, and it was a process of collaboration and compromise. Her thing was, as you said, it was 15 Now - just do it now and screw anybody that opposes it. But she also has institutional knowledge and institutional memory, as does Lisa Herbold who's been there for - been in the council milieu in some capacity for 25 years. It's going to be a loss of that kind of institutional knowledge, and I think that that is important when you're a city council going up against a mayor who - and I say going up against because they often clash. Historically, the council and the mayor are often on opposite sides of issues. When you don't have that institutional knowledge of how processes work and how legislation gets done and how the budget gets done, the mayor can roll you over. Bruce Harrell has a lot of experience himself being on the council for a long time, so it'll be interesting to see how that affects the power dynamic between the mayor and the council as well. [00:17:36] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely will be. I'm also interested in something else that we saw this week that flew a little bit under the radar, but definitely was noticed in a number of political circles - which was a public safety online poll that was sent to people via text, several people this week. In fact, so many that it really didn't seem like it was a randomly targeted poll. It looked like someone got a hold of some political lists and sent it out, but what did this poll seek to ask and what was it comprised of? [00:18:10] Erica Barnett: Yeah. Unfortunately, nobody sent me this poll - which if you're listening to this and you want to send me poll information, please do - but from what I gather, it's a push poll designed to elicit the feeling that Seattle is less safe and needs more police. The goal seems to be gauging support for a potential public safety funding initiative at some point in the future. And again, I don't know anything more about the idea behind this initiative, but it would essentially - or at least according to the poll - get the police department up to 1,450 officers within five years. The premise behind this is pretty flawed, which is that all we need is to pour more money into the police department and they will magically be able to hire 500, 600 new officers - when the police department itself has said that's not the issue. Now, they would define the issue as people don't want to be police officers in Seattle because there's insufficient support for police in institutions like the City Council. I would say police departments across the country have had trouble recruiting in the last three years and this is just a sign of that. But the police department has a lot of money - they fund tons of, hundreds of vacant positions every year - and so I don't think a massive increase in their budget is going to have a whole lot of impact because their budget is not really the problem. However you define the problem, it's not that we aren't funding police sufficiently. [00:19:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this was really interesting - and for those who have listened and who know me, thank you for capturing this poll and sending me all of the screenshots. Just FYI - always do that with polls - take screenshots, send them on over if you get called for a poll, note what it is and all of the questions. Really interesting to see what people are asking, how people are asking. And with polls like this, I would not be surprised to see - obviously someone is thinking about this initiative - but looking at something like this, sometimes we see these announcements or stories in the media which cite numbers from vague polls. And this is not a real poll - this is someone sending around some surveys, very non-scientific, and the questions are almost comically skewed and written here. So it'll be interesting to see if someone uses this to try and signal support for the poll. I would also be interested just in seeing the raw numbers because traditionally, folks in the City of Seattle do not react well - even if this was a scientific poll - so this is going to be really curious to follow, but obviously someone is thinking about running a public safety initiative - really a police hiring initiative, which this really is. And it really does seem to be misguided. If there is one thing the City has definitely been trying to do for the past couple years, it's hire more police officers. How many times have they tried to increase hiring bonuses? They're advertising everywhere. This has been a monthly conversation in the City for, I feel like, two solid straight years - and if money could fix the problem, it would have. But we'll see how this continues to unfold. Another unfortunate bit of news that we have seen reinforced over and over again - but that has been made official - is just the increase in pedestrian fatalities and what kind of impact that is having. Some unfortunate news that we've seen, which has been reinforced repeatedly in news that we've seen, is pedestrian fatalities across the board have been increasing. There's been great coverage in The Urbanist about an alarming jump in pedestrian fatalities in South King County - just, it's really bleak. Really looking at the data put together by the State Department of Transportation - since 2013, the total number of crashes resulting in death or serious injury to pedestrians has climbed from 33 in 2013 to 95 in 2021. And that number continues to increase, and it is really alarming. And looking at the areas that are the most dangerous - Highway 99, also known as International Boulevard or Pacific Highway South, is one of the most dangerous roads for pedestrians in addition to Benson Highway or 104th - these go through several south County cities - but it's basically a high-speed highway in the middle of these cities. I remember they did work related to RapidRide Line A - a revamping of Pacific Highway South and International Boulevard - and unfortunately, one of the features that we saw was that there are long stretches of road with no pedestrian crossings. And mixing that with speeds that are 50 mph in some places is just a recipe for a disaster - when you're forcing people to sometimes take a - choose between walking directly across the street, which would be categorized as jaywalking, or taking a 10 to 15 minute detour to walk down to the nearest light or crossing and then walk all the way back, which is challenging for people with mobility issues - there are a lot of age and the disabled people, there are a number of services and health clinics on these roads. And so predictably, people are going to attempt to cross the road to avoid those really long crossings. To me, this was foreseeable just because of the design in these areas - and just mixing such high speeds in such high traffic pedestrian areas - and so it's unfortunate. These cities have recognized the problem, but some of the solutions that they've presented for the problem have been challenges. In fact, there was coverage of a meeting by Ryan Packer, actually, at the state where some City of Kent officers, at least who've been involved in traffic enforcement, really seemed to almost victim blame in the situation - talking about they would do emphasis patrols to help stop jaywalking, which is a cause of this. I would say that's more predictable impact of design there and people making a choice because sometimes they can't walk that distance. And also characterizing people who are on foot or even on bike as unhoused people or people in poverty, as opposed to lots of people who are commuting. This is a site where several accidents have - several fatalities and crashes that have injured and killed pedestrians have taken place. It's going to be - a new light rail station is in process of being built there. This is a very high traffic area, lots of commuters, it's near a Park and Ride - and so there's a whole cross-section of people, lots of professionals. I used to be frequently on transit as I was commuting to work via Metro in Seattle daily. It's just disappointing to see a lack of recognition of what some of these challenges are. The Urbanist addressed some of these in that article, but it is really, really challenging, and I wish the conversation in terms of solutions and increasing safety would focus more on things that didn't blame the victim or seek to target them, instead of help keep them safer. [00:26:51] Erica Barnett: Yeah. The idea that our roadway problems and our pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are because of individual behavior - it goes both ways, right? There's also an emphasis on people driving too fast, and this report does talk about people going - this report in The Urbanist talks about people going 80, 90 mph - and that is a huge problem and people should not be driving that fast. And two, these roads are designed for that. And the only way that you can make it possible for people to cross the road without "jaywalking" and the only way you can get people to stop speeding - and even driving the speed limit is often more than fast enough to cause fatalities - is you've got to put crosswalks in, you've got to slow down traffic. And the way you do that is through road design. And some of these - you can't necessarily go and narrow a highway - you can, but it's expensive and controversial. You can put in stoplights, you can put in bus lanes, you can do things that slow down the flow of cars - and I would say that it's not just that these things cost money, it's that they cost political will, and they're just - in a lot of these cities, and in the state, and including in Seattle - there is not the political will to do something that will slow down motorists. I remember - I don't live on Rainier anymore, but I lived right on Rainier for many years, or just a couple blocks off it - and I would use the 7 to get everywhere and run errands. And I am somebody who is physically capable of running across the street, and let me tell you - I did not go half a mile in one direction, walk across the approved pedestrian infrastructure, and walk half a mile in the other direction, just because that's what the road was telling me to do. I would run across the road. So people act rationally - and in that situation, it is rational to run across the road and just risk it, because I didn't have time to spend 30 extra minutes crossing a street that traffic engineers had decided was a highway through the middle of a neighborhood. And that causes really risky behavior. And the only solution, and the solution that obviously we haven't taken - because traffic fatalities are going up and not down everywhere - is to change our roads and to inconvenience drivers a little bit in order to save some lives. [00:29:32] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I do just want to underscore - between 10 and 15 years ago, the conversations about traffic calming in Seattle and hearing pushback, and - Oh my gosh, this is going to change my commute and things are going to take forever, there's a war on cars. And the impact to cars and drivers was really negligible - literally talking about differences of one and two minutes, which can have such a powerful impact on safety and truly save lives. We really do have to ask ourselves the question, Do we really believe cars should be able to just go as fast as possible and have absolute priority in anything that might slow them down? It's bad even if it costs lives and money and so much. Or can we spare a minute? Can we spare two minutes to spare some lives? It really does come down to that, and I wish we would more openly have that conversation - because there are so many people who are walking, and who are riding bikes, who are in proximity to that. And it has to be part of the solution to public safety, people being safe on the roads. I just wish we would be in a different place with that. I do want to definitely talk about some great coverage in PubliCola this week about the Low Income Housing Institute, also known as LIHI, being sued for unlawful eviction. What happened here? [00:31:11] Erica Barnett: This is one of a couple of lawsuits actually that have been filed against LIHI. One was dismissed at the court commissioner level, but this one was just filed this past week by a guy who lived in a tiny house village - actually in Olympia - run by LIHI. And he was kicked out after an altercation with one of the staff. And the lawsuit essentially is asserting that this was an eviction, that LIHI's tiny house villages are housing. This guy lived in the tiny house for more than two years when he was kicked out, and LIHI said - You have to be out within 48 hours, take all your stuff, goodbye. And he did vacate, but he's saying this was not legal, and it was an eviction, and the tiny house was his home. And I think as a matter of law, what is interesting - there's a couple of things that I think are interesting about this case - as a matter of law, LIHI has long been classified, or was long classified - their tiny house villages were classified as encampments. And they got an upgrade during the pandemic - the city, and then eventually the federal government, now considers them enhanced shelter. But what they're saying is that it's essentially transitional housing, and it meets these definitions of transitional housing that were adopted by the State Legislature just a couple years ago. So there's an interesting legal argument there about - once you have four walls, a door that locks - is that everybody who supports LIHI likes to say - is that housing? And does LIHI have more obligations to give notice and to give reasons and to allow people in some cases to rectify whatever is wrong? LIHI says that they are not transitional housing and that if you started defining their tiny houses that way, it would create a situation where every type of enhanced shelter would start looking at the people they take in differently because they wouldn't want to have to keep people around if they were causing a problem in the community. And if you had tenant rights, that would create a situation where people could live there for a long time while continuing to cause problems. So if it goes forward, that would be an interesting legal discussion. And separately, I think that there's been a lot of complaints from residents of the tiny house villages that the conditions there are not always the greatest. One thing that this gentleman who's suing brought up to me was that they have these kind of outdoor kitchens, that he said the nutrition is really bad, there have been times when the washing machines have been broken so they can't wash their clothes, where there's been no hot water for a month on end in this particular village. And so I think there's questions too about the quality of life at tiny house villages. And so those are not really being litigated, but they're being discussed and I think that that will continue to be the case. LIHI is under a microscope with funding from the new King County Regional Homelessness Authority, whose CEO Marc Dones has never been a big supporter of tiny house villages. So I think they are under fire right now, and their CEO Sharon Lee is definitely someone who fights back and you can read my coverage for her comments on that. [00:34:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is an interesting situation. I think it really brings up a lot of issues to a lot of folks that just because someone does not have shelter, if someone is responsible for providing them shelter or housing - and some of these people can be housed for months in tiny home villages - does that mean that they are not entitled to the same kinds of protections that everyone else is entitled to? And it seems like the argument against that is that - Well, this is a more challenging population and if we're going to serve them, providing those kinds of protections is dangerous for us as an organization and maybe we couldn't do it overall. When I think there are a lot of people who would love to talk about, Okay, what are ways that we can ensure that there isn't abuse or exploitation, more dangerous conditions? Just because someone does not have the means to pursue a lot of recourse or is coming from a bad environment, does that mean that we're fine with letting them settle for any old thing and any old treatment? And that is not to say that this is not a challenging and complex issue. Certainly this is a population that because they have been unhoused and out on the streets, they've been made more vulnerable to a host of challenges - whether it's health problems, safety issues, mental health issues, substance use disorder - the things that afflict society at large afflict this population also, and they're at risk for so many other things. And so I just hope we have a conversation that really does start from a place of how can we keep this population as safe as possible? And how do we keep people accountable to ensure that there aren't abuses? I feel like it's a risky place to be to say - If we aren't here, no one's going to be. And so take it or leave it with whatever there is, or not being introspective about how services can be provided in a better, safer, more equitable manner. I know that's what I thought when I first saw the coverage. What kind of reaction are you seeing from people? [00:37:20] Erica Barnett: It's interesting. I think there is a lot of opposition to LIHI right now that I'm seeing in places like Twitter. I did want to say - just to flip your comments a little bit - I've also heard lots of complaints over the years from people who live at encampments but also in tiny house villages, that the environment can also be made unpleasant and challenging by other residents. People talk about - because tiny house villages - many of them are low-barrier and they allow people to use drugs and alcohol. People talk about that creating a bad environment in some tiny house villages. And when you have a population that is largely actively using, it can be really challenging for people who aren't. I don't want to discount the fact that when you are completely low-barrier, that creates challenges in itself - if somebody's trying to stay sober and they're in that environment, for example. But there can be lots of challenges in these communities - they're communities of people who are all struggling with different things. I just wanted to signpost that a little bit. Like I said, I think there's pushback to LIHI right now. It receives a lot of contracts from KCRHA and people are starting to really put a spotlight on them more than on other organizations. My coverage has been pretty factual, I think, so I'm trying not to reflect a bias one way or the other. And people can read into it their own biases and opinions and are doing so. [00:39:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And it'll be interesting to see - I think one of the issues is that this is one provider who is doing so much of this work, and almost has a monopoly on the ability to provide these services. And are there - I certainly don't want to suggest that there are not challenges and that residents may not be, safety issues and sometimes, and thank you for bringing that up. I do think that it would be interesting to see what other similar shelters are doing and if they're in line with this. I do not know if they are in line with what other shelters who provide similar services or other tiny home villages are providing, but I hope that that is being looked at. [00:40:02] Erica Barnett: I will just say - really briefly - compare it to another enhanced shelter, the Navigation Center. Navigation Center kicks people out all the time. We don't necessarily talk about that as much because it's not as high profile. People aren't - the Navigation Center doesn't have an Andrew Lewis on the City Council constantly singing its praises and inviting criticism, but shelters do kick people out. It happens a lot for behavioral issues, so people should not be under the impression that this is uncommon. [00:40:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we will thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 20th, 2023. Happy birthday, Terrance. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of Seattle Nice Podcast, and the author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and find me on Twitter @finchfrii with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And if you like us, leave a review. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

Peter Hitchens is something of an iconoclast. Among his colleagues on the right, the Mail on Sunday columnist stands out as a heterodox thinker – yet he's perhaps one of the few who could be described as a genuine conservative. Aaron Bastani meets him to discuss his previous life as a Trotskyist and a Moscow […]

Warning: Sexual abuse is discussed in this episode. Brendan and James join John Kelly, author of Contemporary Trotskyism and The Twilight of World Trotskyism for a discussion on the history of world Trotskyism. They talk about the primacy of doctrine, the structure of Trotskyist parties around the world and their difference in structures and tactics, Trotskyism's lack of success in building mass parties, Latin American Trotskyism and the outlook of world Trotskyism. They also discuss the small-scale organizational dynamics of Trotskyist parties, their charismatic leaders, and their historical struggles to develop an understanding of topics outside the canon such as gender and sexuality.

Trotskyism played a key role in the development of the U.S. revolutionary left. Among American Trotskyists, James Cannon stood out. Bryan D. Palmer talks about Cannon's beliefs, his engagement with radical left formations in the U.S., and his involvement in militant labor struggles in the early twentieth century. (Encore presentation.) Bryan Palmer, James P. Cannon and the Emergence of Trotskyism in the United States, 1928-38 Brill, 2021 Bryan Palmer, James P. Cannon and the Origins of the American Revolutionary Left, 1890-1928 University of Illinois Press, 2007 (Image on main page by Adam Jones.) The post Pioneering Trotskyist appeared first on KPFA.

Today, Rich reflects on tolerance and worldview in the wake of hateful crimes across the country. Then, are Trotskyist leftist revolutionaries winning the culture? Plus, are Godless, leftists after your kids? Tune in. Portions of today's program are brought to you by PolitiWeek.com. Comment and follow on Facebook, Twitter, GETTR, and Truth Social or visit us at RichValdes.com

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

Jim Casey is a firefighting unionist, socialist and co-founder of the Australian Firefighters Climate Alliance. He is an anti-capitalist GREENS EXTREMIST who has twice run as a candidate against Anthony Albanese in the seat of Grayndler.  As he gears up to run for Greens preselection to be an upper-house candidate in the 2023 NSW state election, Jim took some time to talk to me about his time leading the Fire Brigade Employees Union,  the state of the Australian labour movement, his theories on why real political power lies outside of parliament and the controversies he ran into when taking on "Albo".  Join the LIASYO Facebook group here please and thank you If you've got the means please support this show by becoming a Patron Check out with my other podcast about the Greens and green politics with Emerald Moon, Serious Danger My special "ENOUGH" is out on Paramount+ this Friday @JimCaseyGreens jimcasey.online ARTICLE: We've Never Seen Conditions As Bad As This by Jim Casey   ARTICLE: Anthony Albanese: Labor heavyweight's Greens rival Jim Casey defends "Trotskyist" speech Cause of the Week: Rachael Jacobs, Greens Candidate for Grayndler (support her here)

Writer Ben Burgis joins Rob in the virtual bunker to talk about the legacy of Christopher Hitchens and his journey from a young Trotskyist to a defender of the Iraq War.Show Notes:Christopher Hitchens: What He Got Right, How He Went Wrong, and Why He Still MattersHitchens in LebanonBen's piece on the Supreme Court

On class wars, new and old. Michael Lind, Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, joins us to talk about what it might take to restore working class power in Western states. He explains some of the arguments in his book The New Class War (2020) in greater depth, as well as discussing his intellectual debt to the ex-Trotskyist theorist turned Cold War conservative, James Burnham. Plus, Michael talks about how his Texan background and upbringing shaped his outlook on industrialisation, national development and populism.  Part two: https://www.patreon.com/posts/243-bureaucracy-62900197 Readings: America's Asymmetric Civil War, Tablet Mag Why ending tenure is only the start, Tablet Mag The importance of James Burnham, Tablet Mag Bungacast Reading Club on The New Class War

Portugal is important to us, it's one of our oldest allies. It's also one of the few countries in Europe where the waitress serving your holiday breakfast is likely to be a communist voter. Indeed, the Carnation Revolution overthrew fascism in the lifetime of most of us, and until an unscheduled general election at the end of January, both a communist block AND a Trotskyist block were in government. The elections came and went unnoticed in the British media, but they produced highly surprising results. So we invited Professor Isabel David of the Institute of Social and Political Science at the University of Lisbon to join Sputnik to give them the scrutiny they deserve. And on centre court is a woman who has represented Brazil in tennis and twice competed for her country in the Pan American Games – from a wheelchair. Listed in the 100 Most Influential Disabled People, she's a model, a designer, and an entrepreneur, so it's not at all surprising to find that Samanta Bullock and her brand will be on the catwalk during the forthcoming London Fashion Week. From a packed schedule she found time to board Sputnik to tell us more.

Ben Burgis is a #Jacobin columnist, an adjunct #philosophy #professor at Morehouse College, and the host of the YouTube show and podcast Give Them An Argument. He's the author of several books, most recently Christopher #Hitchens: What He Got Right, How He Went Wrong, and Why He Still Matters. We talked about Christopher Hitchens life, works, and how his internationalist politics and worldview traversed his life, from youthful #Trotskyist to playing with #neoconservatives. Follow Ben's work here: https://jacobinmag.com/author/ben-burgis and his YT channel/podcast, Give Them An Argument: https://www.youtube.com/c/BenBurgisGTAA  

This month, Emma and Steve look at G.B.H. Alan Bleasdale's seven-part fictional account of a city council infiltrated by a Trotskyist group and the man who stands up to them. What starts as a political drama descends into conspiracy theory. But it still has a lot to say about the debates the left are still having with itself today. 

Kshama Sawant has won for the 4th time in 8 years as an open Marxist and a Trotskyist. We discuss Kshama Sawant and Socialist's Alternative 4th consecutive victory on the council, how working people beat back all the worst developers and landlords (again), and more from Kshama's hot fire victory speech!

This week's episode looks back at the results of two elections held last weekend – Argentina's legislative midterms and Bulgaria's third General Election this year. In Argentina, the ruling Frente de Todos coalition had a disappointing night, losing quorum in the Senate and seeing a reduction in their plurality in the Chamber. How will Alberto Fernandez and Christina de Kirchner react to these results? Are Juntos por el Cambio now favourites to win the presidential election in 2023? What will the impact on policymaking be for the next two years? With the rise of Javier Milei's far-right party and the surge of the Trotskyist left, is Argentina's party system fragmenting? In Bulgaria, after their third election this year, won by yet another new political party, the We Continue the Change bloc look set to have the numbers to form a government – do their allies share that will? Will Kiril Petkov and Asen Vasilev be able to break the political deadlock and put together a governing coalition? Why did Slavi Trifonov's party lose so much of its support so quickly? All these questions, and more, answered in this week's podcast. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ballot-to-talk-about/message

In speech before the court, Trotskyist leader indicts German state's revival of Nazi-style anti-socialist laws / Pentagon dispatching emergency medical teams to Minnesota as another winter surge of COVID-19 infections takes hold in the US / Two men convicted in 1965 Malcolm X assassination exonerated in New York court

Teaming up with Collective Action Comics, in this episode, we discuss Posadism aka Space Communism. A communist outlier, J Posadas was a Trotskyist from Argentina who believed that aliens were comrades sent to Earth to help humans start a revolution, telepathic dolphins were here to usher in a new type of generation through water births, and that, oh yeah, nuclear war was the best way to reach harmony in the universe. If you have seen any socialist alien memes pop-up over the past year, many of them were inspired by the cosmic left. But what good is any UFO cult if it isn't endorsing "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism" ? Confused yet? Perfect, take a listen and let us know if you are ready to join this galactic political movement or a least support dolphin midwives. For more info on Collective Action Comics follow them on IG @collectiveactioncomics or join their patreon. :) As always, we would love to hear from you ! Follow us on IG @systicism and DM us all your alien encounters and fav conspiracy theories. Or send us an email @ thesysterhood@yahoo.com. And for more ETea, join us at patreon.com/systicism for Q&A livestreams and bonus content for both believers and skeptics alike. The truth is out there... *cue X-files theme song* Hosted by: Joanna and Stephanie Farah Original theme song by: Nathan O'Dell and Angel

  Perhaps no term has caught the imagination of political circles on both the right and the left as the term “Professional Managerial Class” (PMC). The term was first coined by John and Barbara Ehrenreich to describe a caste of middle-class professional elites who increasingly controlled production through their specialist training and educational credentials. While the work of the Ehrenreich's was certainly significant, their hypothesis was not an entirely new one. In the 1940s, the Trotskyist-turn-conservative James Burnham penned the “Managerial Revolution” which hypothesized that society was increasingly falling under the domination of a managerial elite with specialist knowledge.   In recent times, especially in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis and the 2020 COVID pandemic, such analysis and criticism has gain popularity on both the right and left. However, how useful is the term PMC? Are the PMC a coherent social class? And in what ways does the convergence of discourse between both right and left on the “PMC thesis” obfuscate more than it elucidates?   About Ben Burgis: Ben Burgis is a philosophy professor and the author of Give Them An Argument: Logic for the Left. He is host of the podcast Give Them An Argument.   Listen to Ben's show, Give Them An Argument: https://www.youtube.com/user/benburgis1   Read Ben's Work in Jacobin here: https://www.jacobinmag.com/author/ben-burgis   Watch Derick's Varn Vlog here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMuZYE1Q9yNpzn4dzsPtmcQ   Watch Derick on Zero Book's Pop the Left here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nFVU7JbT-g&list=PLFad02vA5AOH8vV8rUp6mwkACCa77u2UM     Thank you, guys, again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and every one of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined, BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH!   Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents? Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!) THANKS Y'ALL   YouTube: www.youtube.com/thisisrevolutionpodcast Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/   Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   The Dispatch on Zero Books (video essay series): https://youtu.be/nSTpCvIoRgw   Medium: https://jasonmyles.medium.com/kill-the-poor-f9d8c10bc33d   Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/author/Pascal Robert   Get THIS IS REVOLUTION Merch here: www.thisisrevolutionpodcast.com

Writer Andy Boyd journeys with us to a cabin in the woods (ooOOOoooh!) to dig into the spooky world of Sam Raimi and the fantastically Not Great musical it inspired! Topics include the Star Wars Prequels, the death of irony, and A Farewell to Arms. Andy Boyd is a playwright, cartoonist, and songwriter based in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. His play The Trade Federation, or, Let's Explore Globalization Through the Star Wars Prequels was recently published by NoPassport Press, and his play Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist is available as a podcast. You can find out more about Andy at andyjboyd.com or by following his Instragram @andyjboyd. Follow Andy and buy his play: https://www.instagram.com/andyjboyd/ https://www.andyjboyd.com/ https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/andy-boyd/the-trade-federation-or-lets-explore-globalization-through-the-star-wars-prequels/paperback/product-8wr68g.html?page=1&pageSize=4 https://newplayexchange.org/users/1802/andy-boyd

Hello listeners! This week's guest on the show is ANDY BOYD! Andy Boyd is a playwright based in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. His play The Trade Federation, or, Let's Explore Globalization Through the Star Wars Prequels is available through NoPassport Press, and his play Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist is available as a podcast. To learn more about Andy and his work, be sure to visit his website at https://www.andyjboyd.com/ Also, follow Andy and his cartoons on Instagram @AndyJBoyd! GLISTENS: Sarah: "I had a dream I was in the theater and I started to cry." Sam: Vaccines! Andy: Japanese City Pop ________________________ Please support Beckett's Babies by reviewing, sharing an episode with your friends, or follow us on Instagram and Twitter: @beckettsbabies And as always, we would love to hear from you! Send us your questions or thoughts on playwriting, and we might discuss it in our next episode. Email: contact@beckettsbabies.com For more info, visit our website: www.beckettsbabies.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/beckettsbabies/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/beckettsbabies/support

Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist A Play by Andy Boyd Directed by Kim Kerfoot Scene 2: Literature and Revolution Cast: Jeff Gonzalez plays Lev Freddie Fulton plays David

Hello, friends! Please enjoy this original audio play by BTS host Andy Boyd! Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist A Play by Andy Boyd Directed by Kim Kerfoot Scene 1: The Stalin School of Falsification Cast: Jeff Gonzalez plays Lev Brett Radke plays Daniel Ben Schrager plays Louis and Paul Yoni Bronstein plays Ben

Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist A Play by Andy Boyd Directed by Kim Kerfoot Scene 3: Years of the Great Break Cast: Jeff Gonzalez plays Lev Brett Radke plays Daniel Ben Schrager plays Sean

Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist A Play by Andy Boyd Directed by Kim Kerfoot Scene 3: Years of the Great Break Cast: Jeff Gonzalez plays Lev Brett Radke plays Daniel Ben Schrager plays Sean

Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist A Play by Andy Boyd Directed by Kim Kerfoot Scene 2: Literature and Revolution Cast: Jeff Gonzalez plays Lev Freddie Fulton plays David

Three Scenes in the Life of a Trotskyist A Play by Andy Boyd Directed by Kim Kerfoot Scene 1: The Stalin School of Falsification Cast: Jeff Gonzalez plays Lev Brett Radke plays Daniel Ben Schrager plays Louis and Paul Yoni Bronstein plays Ben

Who was Posadas and what ideas did he and his Trotskyist ways put forth? And what do Communism, dolphin, and highschool debate have in common? Are the wise aliens just waiting it out 'til we drop the bomb before they come save the worthy (aka socialists)? If you were an alien, what would you want to receive from Earth in a gift basket? Or what song would you like to hear? We explore these questions and more as Brooke shares a tale in in this week's episode of something weird, your favorite paranormal podcast hosted by ~super professional~ paranormal researchers, Anna and Brooke, as we explore another paranormal tale and decide - do we believe? Find us on Instagram at @somethingweirdpocast or visit our website https://bit.ly/3iFBFMK for once in a while updates

mini Chart of Truth (do not research), long tail politics, 5th position, @jonrafmancellectuals, platform capitalist realism, the Trotskyist to Neocon pipeline (real)

The intersections of UFO beliefs of the left-wing Posadist International, the far right terror cult of Aladino Felix, and the struggle for worker and peasant power in Latin America’s 20th century.Bonus: The use of flatulence in radical rhetoric, how to propose to a woman with Leon Trotsky’s transitional program and triangular craft over Sacramento.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/shitgetsweird)

A speech by Dan Davison, a labour activist and sociology PhD student at the University of Cambridge, for a talk on C.L.R. James and the Haitian Revolution held in July 2020. Future meetings: https://workersliberty.org/meetings Read online: https://workersliberty.org/story/2020-08-26/black-jacobins-haitian-revolution-against-slavery All audio: https://workersliberty.org/audio Cyril Lionel Robert James (CLR James) was born in Trinidad in 1901. He wrote his first book, a novel called Minty Alley in the 1920s (published in 1936), while a school teacher in Trinidad; the book is a critique of class and colonialism, and indicated a lifelong interest in integrating race and class struggles. James, spent six years in the UK before the Second World War, joining the ranks of British Trotskyism. In 1938 he travelled to the US at the invitation of the American Socialist Workers’ Party and stayed for 15 years. In the same year The Black Jacobins was published. James left the Trotskyist movement in 1951 and from that time, until his death in 1989, James had a long and varied socialist and literary “career”, remaining a Marxist but also heavily influenced by Pan-Africanism. The Black Jacobins is the story of the Haitian Revolution of 1791-1804, focusing on the life and leadership of the ex-slave leader Toussaint L’Ouverture. It is also a history of European colonialism, the slave plantation system, the huge sugar factories of the French colony of San Domingue (the eastern half of the island that is now Haiti). Slave resistance came first in the form of flight to the mountains and forming of maroon band. But the French Revolution created a political conflict in the colony, one of many dimensions, including of whites against the French monarchy, of the free people of colour as well as the slaves. One ex-slave Toussaint Breda, later Toussaint L’Ouverture (meaning opening to liberty) joined up with the expanding slave army in the mountains; they created a disciplined fighting force. What happened next is a complex story of shifting alliances, increasing radicalisation, the end of slavery, and a war for independence.

Mike Ehrenreich talks about Leon Trotsky and I tell a storytime on how different streams of politics within the labor movement can clash. 

In 1971, Nick Origlass, a Trotskyist revolutionary, was elected as the mayor of Leichhardt Municipal Council in Sydney – one of the most unusual developments in Australian political history. Nick Origlass came of age during the Great depression of the 1930s, and was an indefatigable enemy of all forms of authority, and a lifelong believer...

A few short years ago, Michael Rectenwald was a Marxist professor at NYU, pursuing his career and contemplating becoming a Trotskyist, when the political climate on campus - victimology, cancel-culture, no-platforming, and political correctness run-amok - began to bother him. He responded by creating a Twitter handle, @AntiPCNYUProf (now @TheAntiPCProf), and began bashing campus excesses with humor and biting satire. Predictably, he was soon discovered and pushed out of his job. Rectenwald struck back by publishing Springtime for Snowflakes, a memoir of his experiences in academia, which included criticism and analyses of the leftism now dominating campus culture. He followed that book with Google Archipelago, which delves into the seeming enigma of why big business embraces far-left politics - hint: self-interest is involved - and the rapid growth of consumer/citizen surveillance. The foundation for a robust leftist totalitarianism is being carefully laid. With this new volume, Rectenwald returns with his characteristic sharp wit and incisive analysis and continues to fine tune his critique of modern leftism. In Beyond Woke (The New English Review Press), he brings his unique perspective as an ex-Marxist and civil libertarian to bear on leftist culture, with its abandonment of traditional morality and emphasis on collective social identities - which are ironically increasingly atomized, as overwhelming centrifugal forces break up any previously stable social cohesion. The revolution is here and it's winning. Find out why, and how to combat it. Michael Rectenwald is a recently retired Professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, where he taught cultural and social history as well as academic writing since 2008. Kirk Meighoo is a TV and podcast host, former university lecturer, author and former Senator in Trinidad and Tobago. He hosts his own podcast, Independent Thought & Freedom, where he interviews some of the most interesting people from around the world who are shaking up politics, economics, society and ideas. You can find it in the iTunes Store or any of your favorite podcast providers. You can also subscribe to his YouTube channel. If you are an academic who wants to get heard nationally, please check out his free training at becomeapublicintellectual.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few short years ago, Michael Rectenwald was a Marxist professor at NYU, pursuing his career and contemplating becoming a Trotskyist, when the political climate on campus - victimology, cancel-culture, no-platforming, and political correctness run-amok - began to bother him. He responded by creating a Twitter handle, @AntiPCNYUProf (now @TheAntiPCProf), and began bashing campus excesses with humor and biting satire. Predictably, he was soon discovered and pushed out of his job. Rectenwald struck back by publishing Springtime for Snowflakes, a memoir of his experiences in academia, which included criticism and analyses of the leftism now dominating campus culture. He followed that book with Google Archipelago, which delves into the seeming enigma of why big business embraces far-left politics - hint: self-interest is involved - and the rapid growth of consumer/citizen surveillance. The foundation for a robust leftist totalitarianism is being carefully laid. With this new volume, Rectenwald returns with his characteristic sharp wit and incisive analysis and continues to fine tune his critique of modern leftism. In Beyond Woke (The New English Review Press), he brings his unique perspective as an ex-Marxist and civil libertarian to bear on leftist culture, with its abandonment of traditional morality and emphasis on collective social identities - which are ironically increasingly atomized, as overwhelming centrifugal forces break up any previously stable social cohesion. The revolution is here and it's winning. Find out why, and how to combat it. Michael Rectenwald is a recently retired Professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, where he taught cultural and social history as well as academic writing since 2008. Kirk Meighoo is a TV and podcast host, former university lecturer, author and former Senator in Trinidad and Tobago. He hosts his own podcast, Independent Thought & Freedom, where he interviews some of the most interesting people from around the world who are shaking up politics, economics, society and ideas. You can find it in the iTunes Store or any of your favorite podcast providers. You can also subscribe to his YouTube channel. If you are an academic who wants to get heard nationally, please check out his free training at becomeapublicintellectual.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few short years ago, Michael Rectenwald was a Marxist professor at NYU, pursuing his career and contemplating becoming a Trotskyist, when the political climate on campus - victimology, cancel-culture, no-platforming, and political correctness run-amok - began to bother him. He responded by creating a Twitter handle, @AntiPCNYUProf (now @TheAntiPCProf), and began bashing campus excesses with humor and biting satire. Predictably, he was soon discovered and pushed out of his job. Rectenwald struck back by publishing Springtime for Snowflakes, a memoir of his experiences in academia, which included criticism and analyses of the leftism now dominating campus culture. He followed that book with Google Archipelago, which delves into the seeming enigma of why big business embraces far-left politics - hint: self-interest is involved - and the rapid growth of consumer/citizen surveillance. The foundation for a robust leftist totalitarianism is being carefully laid. With this new volume, Rectenwald returns with his characteristic sharp wit and incisive analysis and continues to fine tune his critique of modern leftism. In Beyond Woke (The New English Review Press), he brings his unique perspective as an ex-Marxist and civil libertarian to bear on leftist culture, with its abandonment of traditional morality and emphasis on collective social identities - which are ironically increasingly atomized, as overwhelming centrifugal forces break up any previously stable social cohesion. The revolution is here and it's winning. Find out why, and how to combat it. Michael Rectenwald is a recently retired Professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, where he taught cultural and social history as well as academic writing since 2008. Kirk Meighoo is a TV and podcast host, former university lecturer, author and former Senator in Trinidad and Tobago. He hosts his own podcast, Independent Thought & Freedom, where he interviews some of the most interesting people from around the world who are shaking up politics, economics, society and ideas. You can find it in the iTunes Store or any of your favorite podcast providers. You can also subscribe to his YouTube channel. If you are an academic who wants to get heard nationally, please check out his free training at becomeapublicintellectual.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few short years ago, Michael Rectenwald was a Marxist professor at NYU, pursuing his career and contemplating becoming a Trotskyist, when the political climate on campus - victimology, cancel-culture, no-platforming, and political correctness run-amok - began to bother him. He responded by creating a Twitter handle, @AntiPCNYUProf (now @TheAntiPCProf), and began bashing campus excesses with humor and biting satire. Predictably, he was soon discovered and pushed out of his job. Rectenwald struck back by publishing Springtime for Snowflakes, a memoir of his experiences in academia, which included criticism and analyses of the leftism now dominating campus culture. He followed that book with Google Archipelago, which delves into the seeming enigma of why big business embraces far-left politics - hint: self-interest is involved - and the rapid growth of consumer/citizen surveillance. The foundation for a robust leftist totalitarianism is being carefully laid. With this new volume, Rectenwald returns with his characteristic sharp wit and incisive analysis and continues to fine tune his critique of modern leftism. In Beyond Woke (The New English Review Press), he brings his unique perspective as an ex-Marxist and civil libertarian to bear on leftist culture, with its abandonment of traditional morality and emphasis on collective social identities - which are ironically increasingly atomized, as overwhelming centrifugal forces break up any previously stable social cohesion. The revolution is here and it's winning. Find out why, and how to combat it. Michael Rectenwald is a recently retired Professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, where he taught cultural and social history as well as academic writing since 2008. Kirk Meighoo is a TV and podcast host, former university lecturer, author and former Senator in Trinidad and Tobago. He hosts his own podcast, Independent Thought & Freedom, where he interviews some of the most interesting people from around the world who are shaking up politics, economics, society and ideas. You can find it in the iTunes Store or any of your favorite podcast providers. You can also subscribe to his YouTube channel. If you are an academic who wants to get heard nationally, please check out his free training at becomeapublicintellectual.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few short years ago, Michael Rectenwald was a Marxist professor at NYU, pursuing his career and contemplating becoming a Trotskyist, when the political climate on campus - victimology, cancel-culture, no-platforming, and political correctness run-amok - began to bother him. He responded by creating a Twitter handle, @AntiPCNYUProf (now @TheAntiPCProf), and began bashing campus excesses with humor and biting satire. Predictably, he was soon discovered and pushed out of his job. Rectenwald struck back by publishing Springtime for Snowflakes, a memoir of his experiences in academia, which included criticism and analyses of the leftism now dominating campus culture. He followed that book with Google Archipelago, which delves into the seeming enigma of why big business embraces far-left politics - hint: self-interest is involved - and the rapid growth of consumer/citizen surveillance. The foundation for a robust leftist totalitarianism is being carefully laid. With this new volume, Rectenwald returns with his characteristic sharp wit and incisive analysis and continues to fine tune his critique of modern leftism. In Beyond Woke (The New English Review Press), he brings his unique perspective as an ex-Marxist and civil libertarian to bear on leftist culture, with its abandonment of traditional morality and emphasis on collective social identities - which are ironically increasingly atomized, as overwhelming centrifugal forces break up any previously stable social cohesion. The revolution is here and it's winning. Find out why, and how to combat it. Michael Rectenwald is a recently retired Professor of Liberal Studies at New York University, where he taught cultural and social history as well as academic writing since 2008. Kirk Meighoo is a TV and podcast host, former university lecturer, author and former Senator in Trinidad and Tobago. He hosts his own podcast, Independent Thought & Freedom, where he interviews some of the most interesting people from around the world who are shaking up politics, economics, society and ideas. You can find it in the iTunes Store or any of your favorite podcast providers. You can also subscribe to his YouTube channel. If you are an academic who wants to get heard nationally, please check out his free training at becomeapublicintellectual.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A.M. Glittlitz joins Breht to talk about the Trotskyist sub-tendency of Posadism and discuss his new - and genuinely fascinating - book "I Want to Believe: Posadism, UFOs, and Apocalypse Communism" Check out more of Glittlitz's work  Follow him on Twitter And check out his podcast  Outro music 'UFOF' by Big Thief   LEARN MORE ABOUT REV LEFT RADIO: www.revolutionaryleftradio.com

Broadcast on 21st October, 1998, Jack Mundey and Hall Greenland discuss how the environment can be reshaped by community action, and also the life of Nick Origlass, Trotskyist and Mayor of Leichhardt.

Solidarność: The workers' movement and the rebirth of Poland in 1980-81 , by Mark Osborn, published January 2020. Part 11 of 11, pages 108 to 116. A letter to Scargill, by Sean Matgamna, from Socialist Organiser (issue 200) 11 October 1984. "Arthur Scargill, Lech Wałęsa: militants in distorting mirrors". A palm-sized samizdat edition of the Polish-language Trotskyist publication, Imprekor, carried a translation of our Open Letter to Scargill from Socialist Organiser 200, 11 October. See scans of it in the paper book. Buy a beautiful paper version for £5, including photographs and scans from the time: https://workersliberty.org/solidarnosc Playlist of book: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/sets/solidarnosc All audio: https://workersliberty.org/audio All tracks of this book: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-1-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-2-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-3-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-4-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-5-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-6-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-7-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-8-of-11 Appendices: https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-9-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-10-of-11 https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/solidarnosc-pt-11-of-11

On this episode, Pamela and Sophia discuss the anti-quarantine protestors as the newly christened "deplorables" in the lead up to the presidential election, Brad Troemel's fake ad and the Biden campaign. Pamela interviews August Nimtz, Professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Prof. Nimtz wrote a two volume book on Lenin’s electoral strategy from Marx and Engels through the Revolution of 1905 (vol. 1); & from 1907 to the October Revolution of 1917 (vol. 2). On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Lenin’s birth, we discuss the electoral area in his political strategy. We talk about the end of the Bernie Sanders campaign and then the legacy of the 1930s Popular Front today. On the second half of the episode, Sophia Freeman sits with to the current president of Platypus, Efraim Carlebach, who takes stock of the decline of the sectarian left, of the small Trotskyist and Maoists groups, and the waning influence of the party turn of the 1970s. They reflect on whether or not the mission of Platypus has changed in 2020, thirteen years after the organization's founding. Feel free to send it your responses, questions, criticism -- we’d like to hear from you -- to shitplatypussays@gmail.com. From the Platypus Archives: - Prof. Nimtz was on our Convention virtual panel, "The American Revolution and the Left," April 2020. Video: https://youtu.be/FvlbLgjnczo - Efraim & Sophia's interview with Ian Birchall, December 2017, for the Platypus Review https://platypus1917.org/2017/12/02/unchanging-core-marxism-interview-ian-birchall/ Hosted by Pamela C., Sophia F., with editing assistance by Michael W.

Yanis Varoufakis talks about life under COVID-19, the economic crisis, vultures stripping Greece, and democratizing the European Union (includes bonus audio clip of Jim Cramer recalling his Trotskyist past).

This episode is going to be a little different than the usual news rundown. I wanted to zoom out a bit and in light of the recent, undemocratic fashion in which the FL, AZ, and IL primaries played out, it is more important than ever that we recognize one of the biggest obstacles to progressive change in this country: The "Democratic" Party. This is an introduction into a separate, ongoing topic that I want to continue to discuss and think about.  The State and Revolution: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ The State in Capitalist Society: https://libcom.org/library/state-capitalist-society-ralph-miliband (LibCom is a crappy Trotskyist website, but there is a PDF link to the book here lol) Full lecture that I stole the clip of Michael Parenti (Da Gawd) is from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05tz0V9IBi0&t=1528s Please share this, and give me a five star rating on apple podcasts to expand my reach. Soon I will also be creating a Patreon page, so that you can support my work more directly. Thanks for listening, and you should still donate to/vote for Bernie. It ain't over till it's over. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/radiofreesd/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/radiofreesd/support

Solidarity 536, part 2 of 3, pages 7 to 12. Articles include: University strikes going into third week Save BBC from the Tories? But what BBC? A patronising appeal to the poor Simple, but potent What's in the bag? Michel Lequenne, 1921-2020 See https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/536-pt-13?in=workers-liberty/sets/solidarity-newspaper and https://soundcloud.com/workers-liberty/536-pt-33-pp12-16-israel-1948-diary-industrial-health-education-gnd Online: https://workersliberty.org/publications/solidarity/solidarity-536-26-february-2020 Browse all audio & subscribe: workersliberty.org/audio Subscribe to paper: workersliberty.org/sub

In episode 2 of @spaceprole's side project on contemporary and historical political issues in Latin America. This month we have Camilo Gómez, a Peruvian writer with bylines at Counterpunch and the Center for a Stateless Society, and the host of the History and Politics podcast. Listen to the full podcast at https://www.patreon.com/theantifada We discuss how the lavajato spilled into Peru, making anti-corruption a focus of the upcoming legislative elections. Gomez goes into details on the 3-4 currents of the divided Peruvian left, before going into a history of the armed struggle movement that culminated in the Shining Path. We talk about a couple other idiosyncratic Peruvian tendencies, like the Trotskyist ecosocialism of ex-Posadist Hugo Blanco and the UFO leftism of Alfa y Omega. Finally we talk about "market socialism" in the Peruvian context and have a little debate over whether markets are ever something worth defending. You can find Camilo's writing and podcasts here: https://www.spreaker.com/show/historyandpolitics https://c4ss.org/content/52487

How did Liverpool defeat the Iron Lady? A political tribute to Tony Mulhearn, a giant of the workers' movement. As part of the Militant Tendency and Socialist Party, Tony helped lead the working-class struggle that defeated Margaret Thatcher, and spent his life fighting for Trotskyist ideas. What can we learn from those heroic struggles in fighting for socialism today?

Check out some Real Nerd Hours when Chris and Jason have a discussion about a not very well known article from an obscure Trotskyist journal written around a decade ago...It generated a little bit of a buzz, but was mostly ignored. We think that was a mistake and we are going to tell you all about why you should care about the decisions of the 10th party congress.https://www.patreon.com/posts/red-jacobins-and-29448338?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshareSupport the show (http://patreon.com/theregrettablecentury)

Ben Burgis joins us for the B-Side to tell us what Leon Trotsky and Ayn Rand have in common with respect to their approach to logic. Ben and Adam go deep into the weeds about Trotskyist sectariana but bring it home with an assessment of the argumentative state of the left and how we should address debates and disputes moving forward. *** Join the Dead Pundits Society for full access --> http://patreon.com/deadpundits *** -Find all of our podcasts, videos, and articles here: http://deadpundits.com ----------------------------- 

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/deadpundits Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/deadpunditssociety Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/deadpunditssociety YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHahv2fM9eH2K4TzmsWl_Xg

This is the free Literary Hangover feed. To support the show AND ACCESS THE REGULAR UPCOMING MEMBERS-ONLY SERIES ON GEORGE ORWELL, become a Patron at Patreon.com/LiteraryHangover Next Orwell episode will be on his 1937 essay "Spilling the Spanish Beans." Quick note for Patrons: As mentioned in the episode, Alex and I will be doing periodic premium episodes on Orwell essays over the coming months as a thank you for your support. Our first George Orwell episode, of many! This time, his essay 'Looking Back on the Spanish War' written August 1942, with sections I, II, III, and VII printed in New Road, June 1943. Alex gives us an overview of religious and monarchical conflict in pre-modern Spain. Libertarian Socialism/Anarchism's early success in Spain. Franco's counterrevolutionary coup. Orwell's critique of the away-from-the-front left. Why right-wing atrocities are, as a rule, worse than leftist atrocities. Orwell's attempt to join the communists, becoming a Trotskyist, sympathy for Anarchists, and eventual smearing as a Fascist by Stainists. Why both Liberals and Communists downplayed the revolutionary nature of the war to focus on fighting fascism. Orwell's fear for the future of history under totalitarianism. How the US and UK let fascism win in Spain. Why the working class is, long term, fascisms biigest threat. Why there is hardly ever a war in which it doesn't matter who wins. Sources: 'Animal Farm,' BBC's In Our Time podcast, September 2016 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wgkz4 'The Spanish Civil War,' BBC's In Our Time podcast, April 2003 Shelden, Michael. 1991. Orwell: The Authorized Biography. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Hochschild, Adam. 2017. Spain in our hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. Beevor, Antony. 2006. The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

--{ "Total Control Always the Goal: Governance, Commerce Want Efficiency, Total Control, Over All that is Mortal, Sans Individual, Sans Soul." © Alan Watt }-- Big Changes - Everyone Struggles with Bills, Employment, Layoffs, No Job Security - Book, The Crowd - The Silent Majority; Those who don't Have Strong Opinions; Marx Called Them the Lumpen Proletariat - Julian Assange and the Recent Blitz of Media; The Standard Technique of Defamation of Character - Intelligence Services; Espionage - Media have Always been an Essential Part of Government - Early Days of the Internet - Complexities of Power - After 9/11, Censorship Kicked In - Government is Power, Power is Never Nice - Ultimate Power Really is Control - Omnibus Crime Bills Passed in Canada in the Late 1990s - Sexual Revolution of 1960s; Elements Tested in the 1920s; Miniskirts, Birth Control Pill - End of the Family Unit - Those Who Understand What is Happening have to Always Keep Hold of Their Sanity - No Choices Under Tyranny, Only Authorized Pathways of What You can Do - Cashless Society - Francis Bacon; His Understanding of Human Nature and How to Govern the General Populace - Machiavelli, The Prince - Monopolies - Bacon Advised Small Price Increases Instead of Large Tax as Not to Scare People - Austerity - Taxed into the Grave to Save You from Climate Change - Eugenics; H.G. Wells wrote about Sterilization - Movie, Metropolis, Erotic Power, Robots - Virtual Reality - Controlling Who is Allowed to Breed; Brave New World - Georgia Guidestones - Julian Huxley - Aldous Huxley, The Painless Concentration Camp - Lose Yourself in Entertainment, Escape from Worries - Socialism, Abolition of Religion - Right and Wrong; We Choose - Cultural Revolutions in Communist Countries - Former Pope Benedict Blames Catholic Church Sex Abuse Crisis on 1960s Sexual Revolution and 'Collapse in Morality' - 'Vegan Soldier' Storms a Farm with Her 'Army' of Protesters - Peter Hitchens was a Trotskyist and Later Completely Changed; In Recent Interview said No Hope for Britain; Lawlessness, Debt from Wars, Mass Migration - NASA says Mysterious Dancing Blue Lights Spotted Over the Arctic Circle were Caused by Vapor Tests and NOT Aliens - Netflix is Accused of 'Eco-Tragedy Porn' - Yellow Vest Violence in Toulouse - Same-Sex Couple Warns of Incest Dangers After Learning Sperm Donor Fathered 48 Children - Movie, Code 46 - Public-Private Partnerships - Floating City, Oceanix will Save Coastal Cities from Flooding Caused by Climate Change - Middle-Aged Treated Like Second Class Citizens - Amazon Workers Listening to What You Tell Alexa - Data Collection from Your Car - IMF Bailout for Ecuador Paved Way for Arrest of Assange - Foundations, Think-Tanks - End of Nation-State - World Economic Forum - Try Not to Lose Your Temper with Each Other. *Title and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Apr. 14, 2019 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

Claire Fox is a British writer, and the head of the Institute of Ideas think tank. She was formerly the editor of LM magazine, and is a panellist on the BBC's "Moral Maze'. In this episode, Claire talks about her childhood, growing up with parents on both sides of the political spectrum. She talks about her time as a Trotskyist in university, and how her passion for free expression led her to found the Institute of Ideas, which holds its festival each year in London. She also talks about the nature of offence in free speech debates and our wider political discourse. This episode also features a conversation with Ben Ryan, a researcher at Theos, on Amy Chua's latest book "Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations".

This week, we are excited to share with y'all an interview with TL, the main artist and designer of Bloc by Bloc: The Game of Insurrection. From the website of Out Of Order games, which publishes the game, "Bloc by Bloc is a semi-cooperative strategy board game inspired by 21st century riots and revolutions. The game features hidden agendas, deep strategy, area control, asymmetrical player abilities, and a special method for randomly generating billions of unique city layouts." Well, now the second edition of the game has launched a kicksKickStartertarter to pay for the new edition. This new edition includes streamlined game play, new pieces and new scenarios in order to improve the initial game. For the hour, TL & I talk about how the board game was developed, what study of real-world did to influence the game's development, TL's thoughts on how play can strengthen strategic thought, cultural means of spreading liberatory imagination with story-telling, and cooperation and more.   To jump in and get a physical, printed copy of the 2nd edition of Bloc by Bloc, search kickstarter and the title of the game. If you have the 1st edition and want the streamlined update, also check out the kickstarter for ways to update. If you want a free version of the game for you to print out by yourself and play for the cost of printing with your friends, you can download all of the elements.   TL mentions that Out Of Order games is looking for translation of the game into other, non-English languages, seeking a degree of fluency in game terminology and the languages in question. They are also always seeking review and design inputs. You can email the Out of Order crew here.   A few links we mentioned: *Decoloniser Catan / Post-Colonial Catan (scroll down for English, a Chinese translation is linked as well) * Riot: Civil Unrest video game (sort of like an insurrectional Sims experience) * Class Struggle (the boring-ass Trotskyist game's wikipedia page) * Calvin Ball (main ideas laid out by a fan of the comic strip) Resources for people wanting to make games: * Rules of Play book * Analog Game Journal * Board Game Geek * Community Printers is a Santa Cruz-based, cooperative, eco printer that's increasing game printing capability for short and long-run games    

Best known for his path-breaking work on the Haitian Revolution, The Black Jacobins, published in 1938, Trinidadian C.L.R. James was often at the center of revolutionary politics and theory in the 20th century; a one-time Trotskyist and fully informed by a study of Marx, James’s greatest work extends from beyond the boundaries of politics and …

Gabriel Palcic is an organizer, student, boxer, and Trotskyist. He helped co-found the Colorado Springs Socialists organization. Gabe sits down with Brett to discuss Leon Trotsky's history and philosophy.  Topics Include: the Bolshevik Revolution, Permanent Revolution, Fascism, the Deformed Worker's State, Stalin and "Stalinism", Kronstadt, the Russian Civil War,  and much more.   Find Gabe on FB here: https://www.facebook.com/gabe.palcic Find Colorado Springs Socialists here: https://www.facebook.com/springsocialists/   Our Outro music by Sole. You can listen to, and support, his music here: https://sole.bandcamp.com/album/sole-dj-pain-1-nihilismo Intro Music by The String-Bo String Duo. You can listen and support their music here: https://tsbsd.bandcamp.com/track/red-black This podcast is officially affiliated with The Nebraska Left Coalition and Omaha GDC