Podcasts about Vladimir Lenin

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Oct 23, 2023 UPSTREAM INTERVIEW W/ BREHT AND ALYSON:  What Is To Be Done? This is the question so profoundly posed by the Russian Revolutionary and Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, in his landmark text of the same name. Although it was written well over a century ago, this text, the questions it asked, and the paths forward that it provided, are just as relevant today as they were a hundred years ago. And just as urgent. What roles do spontaneity and disciplined organization have in leftist movements? Can we focus simply on economic reform, or do our actions need a larger political framework to structure, guide, and propel them?  Why does it feel like even though so many of us are motivated to work towards structural change, that things continue to get worse? Why does it seem like potential revolutionary struggles in the West always seem to stall and fail to move from a singular moment to a protracted movement?  These are old and familiar questions — a lot of ink has been spilled and speeches made exploring them — and in this Conversation, we've brought on two guests who've not only thought about these questions in depth, but who have some pretty compelling answers that draw from revolutionary theory and practice in both their personal lives and from the deep well of wisdom bequeathed by theorists Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao.  Breht O'Shea is the host of the podcast Revolutionary Left Radio and a co-host of Guerrilla History. He's been on the show multiple times so you may already be familiar with his voice. Alyson Escalate, who has also been on the show, is the co-host, along with Breht, of Red Menace, a podcast that explains and analyzes revolutionary theory and then applies its lessons to our contemporary conditions.  Further Resources: Red Menace – What Is To Be Done? - V.I. Lenin  Revolutionary Left Radio – Politics in Command: Analyzing the Error of Economism  Red Menace – The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fanon: On Violence and Spontaneity Red Menace – Understanding Settler Colonialism in Israel and the United States Revolutionary Left Radio on Instagram Upstream – Buddhism and Marxism with Breht O'Shea (In Conversation) Upstream – Trans Liberation and Solidarity with Alyson Escalante (In Conversation) Upstream – Revolutionary Leftism with Breht O'Shea (In Conversation)  

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Oct 11, 2018 In this episode, Alyson joins Breht to do a dive deep into Vladimir Lenin's State and Revolution, one of the most important texts in Marxist political theory. We break down Lenin's core arguments about the state as an instrument of class rule, the necessity of smashing the bourgeois state rather than reforming it, and the vision of a transitional workers' state on the path to communism. We also discuss the historical context of 1917, how Lenin draws from Marx and Engels, and why this work remains essential for understanding the nature of power, revolution, and socialist strategy today. This episode offers an accessible yet rigorous guide to one of Lenin's most influential works. ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio https://revleftradio.com/  

I've been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump's MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism. 5 Key Takeaways* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account' that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

 “There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen.” Why's Danny opening the show with a quote from Vladimir Lenin? The shop digs into why Pie Charts R' Us™ Advisors like Merrill Lynch are shifting into survival mode, which cybersecurity stocks are worth getting into as tariffs continue to shift […] The post Can You Out-Trade Tariffs? | Your Money Podcast – Episode 543 appeared first on Revere Asset Management.

Why does Vladimir Putin often say that the West is conspiring to weaken Russia? Historian James Crossland traces this narrative back to a British intelligence officer and a failed assassination attempt on Vladimir Lenin in 1918. The story is featured in his new book, Rogue Agent, from Secret Plots to Psychological Warfare, the Untold Story of Robert Bruce Lockhart. James takes us into Lockhart's psyche and lays out how a single moment in the dying days of Czarist Russia helped fuel a century of paranoia and rifts. SPY Artifact Highlight: Trotsky Ice Axe  If you liked this episode, check out these links: Sidney Reilly: Master Spy with Benny Morris Accessory to a Mission - Gadgets and Gear For The Well-Dressed Spy SpyCast | Rise of Devils - The Origin of Modern Terrorism with James Crossland Prefer to watch your podcasts? Find us on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@IntlSpyMuseum/podcasts.   Subscribe to Sasha's Substack, HUMINT, to get more intelligence stories: https://sashaingber.substack.com/  And if you have feedback or want to hear about a particular topic, you can reach us by E-mail at SpyCast@Spymuseum.org.  This show is brought to you from Goat Rodeo, Airwave, and the International Spy Museum in Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

April 22 is Earth Day, or as it's better known by socialists and communists around the world, a celebration of Marxism and Vladimir Lenin's birthday.

What are your takeaways from the chance to rest and reconsider the events so far, AND to plan for what's about to take place. In your life, or in the lives of those who influence you. Historical marker of the day again features Abe Lincoln, and also Vladimir Lenin, Harriet Quimby and the Rolling Stones.Support the showThanks for listening. Please share the pod with your mates, and feel free to comment right here! Write to Bob on his email -- bobmendo@AOL.comLink to https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100078996765315 on Facebook. Bobs Your Uncle features the opinions of Bob Mendelsohn and any of his guests.To financially support the podcast, go to the Patreon site and choose Gold, Silver or Bronze levels. Thanks for that! https://www.patreon.com/BobsYourUncle To read Bob's 1999 autobiography, click this link https://bit.ly/StoryBob To see photos of any of Bob's guests, they are all on an album on his Flickr site click here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobmendo/albums/72177720296857670

In mei viert Amsterdam een uniek muziekfestival. Wat past beter bij 750 Jaar Amsterdam dan de uitvoering van heel het werk van Gustav Mahler door de beroemdste orkesten, dirigenten en solisten uit heel de wereld? Mahler, de Weense componist van het 'Fin de Siècle' die Amsterdam als de tweede stad van zijn muziek beschouwde. Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger praten met Thomas de Jonker, musicoloog van het Concertgebouw, over dit festival, Mahlers muziek, zijn leven in turbulente politieke tijden, in een periode van culturele bloei en over zijn unieke band met Nederland en het Concertgebouw.***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt door het Concertgebouw en met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show! Als vriend word je uitgenodigd om op zaterdag 17 mei met Jaap en PG in het Mahler Paviljoen op het Museumplein in Amsterdam te genieten van Mahlers Negende symfonie!Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl en wij zoeken contact.Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst plus linkjes en een overzicht van al onze eerdere afleveringen vind je hier***Gustav Mahler (1860-1911) was de beroemdste musicus van zijn tijd. Nog voor hij 40 werd, had de stokoude keizer Frans Jozef hem benoemd tot chef van de Hofopera in Wenen. Dát was al zeer politiek, want in Oostenrijk-Hongarije hadden joden maar net volledige burgerrechten, dus deze benoeming op de top van de kunsten was een sensatie. Door die artistieke roem en komeetachtige carrière was Mahler doelwit van heel wat vuige kritieken. De jaren tussen 1890 en 1914 leken wel onbezorgd, feestelijk in cultuur en vele contacten, maar de gouden jaren na het Weens Congres van 1815 waren voorbij. Het Habsburgse Rijk wankelde, oorlogen langs de randen braken uit en donderwolken aan de horizon trokken samen.Mahlers werk klinkt daarom soms bijna profetisch. Zijn Wenen bloeide, maar in de krotten en stegen leefden sloebers als Adolf Hitler en Josip Broz Tito en ondergedoken Russen als Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotski en Jozef Stalin. De komende eeuw begon in de sloppen van deze stad.Gustav Mahler was inmiddels een wereldburger van de eerste golven van de globalisering. Hij werd chef van de Opera en de New York Philharmonic, dirigeerde van Ljubljana en Boston tot Rotterdam. Stoomschepen, treinen en zelfs de auto voerden hem over heel de wereld. Amsterdam werd zijn 'tweede stad'. In 1903, 1904, 1906 en 1909 kwam hij zijn eigen symfonieën dirigeren. Zo ontstond een unieke, organische relatie met de musici van het Concertgebouw en dirigent Willem Mengelberg. Samen schreven zij muziekgeschiedenis. Het belette de erg veeleisende 'divo' Mahler overigens niet gedurig te klagen over de regen, de kille wind en het lawaai van de havenstad. Na Mahlers dood in 1911 werd Amsterdam het cultureel centrum waar men hem bleef eren en spelen. In 1920 - meteen na de Vrede van Versailles - bracht de stad de kunstenaars van heel de wereld bijeen voor het eerste 'Mahler Feest'. Het vredesappel tijdens dat festival bewees nog eens hoezeer men politiek en menselijk snakte naar verzoening in een vreedzaam Europa. Dat ontstond pas na de jaren waarin Mahler door de Nazi's verboden was en hij in de vergetelheid leek te raken. Maar niet in Amsterdam en evenmin in New York. Dirigenten als Bernard Haitink en Leonard Bernstein zorgden voor een renaissance van Mahlers liederen en symfonieën. De nieuwe welvaart, de technologie van de elpee en de televisie én de filmkunst maakten Mahler een begrip voor velen. Hij werd de componist van een modern, verzoend Europa. In Amsterdam komt nu in 2025 in het festival de wereld bijeen. Hopelijk ook nu voor een moment en appèl tot vrede en verzoening. Toporkesten uit Chicago, Boedapest, Tokyo en Berlijn, jonge maestro's als Klaus Mäkelä en fameuze dirigenten als Kirill Petrenko komen Mahler dirigeren. ***Verder luisterenIn MAHLER! De symfonieën nemen Gijs Groenteman, Thomas Oliemans en Thomas de Jonker de negen voltooide symfonieën van Mahler minutieus onder de loep.387 - Niets is zó politiek als opera - 100 jaar Maria Callas373 - Nederland en België: de scheiding die niemand wilde Hoe een opera België van Nederland afscheurde346 - Alle Menschen werden Brüder!43 - Mozart op het Binnenhof198 - Slovenië met Mahlers Ljubljana305 - Andrea Wulf, Hoe rebelse genieën twee eeuwen later nog ons denken, cultuur en politiek beïnvloeden488 - Het Congres van Wenen (1814-1815) als briljant machtsspel71 - Caroline de Gruyter en Habsburg455 - De bufferstaat als historische - maar ongewenste - oplossing voor Oekraïne (met verwijzingen naar Habsburg)207 - Zomer 2021: Boekentips van PG! oa Händel in London, the making of a genius148 - Stefan Zweig als inspirator van Europa als culturele en politieke gemeenschap en schrijver van opera's38 - Oostenrijk als brug naar Rusland339 – De geopolitiek van de 19e eeuw is terug. De eeuw van Bismarck***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:28:51 – Deel 201:24:07 – Deel 301:57:58 – EindeZie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of the US Navy History Podcast, hosts Dale and Christophe continue exploring World War I, focusing on the Russian Revolution and the subsequent military and political changes. They highlight the enormous impact of Russian casualties, food shortages, and the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. The podcast also covers significant battles, including the Central Powers' offensive in Romania and the role of Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Additionally, the hosts discuss the US's reluctant but eventual entry into the war, prompted by unrestricted German submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. The episode concludes with an overview of the Ottoman Empire's involvement and the Armistice of Mudros. The episode ends with a tribute to Private First Class Donald Robert Abraham for his bravery during the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.usnavyhistorypodcast@gmail.com@usnhistorypod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Ships Store⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hero Cards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the Grateful Nation Project — Hero Cards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠navy-cycling.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

In today's episode, Emily Hart speaks to archaeologist Daniella Betancourt: the woman decoding the enigma of Colombia's mummies. Mummification is a practice which has been carried out all over the world, from Chile to China – from the ancient Egyptian pharaohs to Vladimir Lenin and Evita Perón, and - though chronically understudied - right here in Colombia too. These preserved remains are, Daniella tells us, a perfect time capsule: bodies frozen in time, they give us all sorts of clues about the ways people lived, and their beliefs about life and death. With the National University of Colombia, Daniella has been studying a collection of 36 mummies found in various institutions, trying to work out who they were, who mummified them, when - and why. Because until now, there has been so little study of this practice in Colombia, there's still an awful lot find out, not least because these mummies were created by indigenous communities whose histories and customs were interrupted and erased by the Spanish colonisation of the country: many of Colombia's mummies were destroyed and even burnt. But there is evidence that indigenous groups in Colombia kept practicing ritual mummification long after the arrival of the Spanish – perhaps a high-stakes act of cultural resistance, a spiritual imperative, or an attempt to create talismans of power – at this point, we can only guess – what the study has revealed, however, is that mummification was practiced much more widely than was previously thought – by more groups and in more regions of Colombia. Though in the historical chronicles of the Spanish invasion and early colonial period, there are some descriptions of mummies, most of the contextual information has been lost – in fact we don't even know where most of these mummies came from or how they were found, as their burial sites were desecrated by tomb raiders and looters who took anything of value and sometimes even displaced the remains themselves. However, the new study by Daniella and the team has shed new light on these Mummies, able to reach amazing conclusions about diet, geography, and even health from state-of-the-art scientific methods. However, as Daniella will tell us, some of the results actually pose more questions than they answer – we'll be talking in particular about a mummified two-year-old girl, who surprised Daniella even after years of studying her, and whose strange condition continues to confound researchers. We'll also be discussing the ethics of studying human remains, and of displaying them in museums. The headlines for this week are also reported by Emily Hart.

Following eight hours of negotiations in Saudi Arabia today, the US and Ukraine say that Kyiv will accept a 30-day ceasefire with Russia. Washington also pledged to lift a freeze on intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine. Also, former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was detained on an ICC arrest warrant and will likely stand trial for crimes against humanity. And, the Balochistan Liberation Army claims responsibility for a train highjacking involving more than 400 hostages in Pakistan. Plus, a museum in Finland dedicated to Vladimir Lenin shifts focus amid tensions with Russia.Listen to today's Music Heard on Air. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Who are the worst of the worst dictators of the 20th century? Opinions may vary, but you can join Linda Lacour Hobar, author of The Mystery of History, to learn more about the chilling rise to power of Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler. Great for mature students - to appreciate what we "should" learn from history!  (For ease of listening, Part 1 covers only Lenin and Mussolini; Part 2 covers Stalin and Hitler. Don't miss Part 1 for a crash course on communism!)If you would prefer to "see" this podcast as an MP4 with slides—or obtain a PDF worksheet for students with an answer key—this workshop is now available to purchase on our website. (It was previously only an MP3; it's been upgraded to an MP4!) 

Who are the worst of the worst dictators of the 20th century? Opinions may vary, but you can join Linda Lacour Hobar, author of The Mystery of History, to learn more about the chilling rise to power of Vladimir Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler. Great for mature students - to appreciate what we "should" learn from history!  (For ease of listening, Part 1 will cover only Lenin and Mussolini; Part 2 covers Stalin and Hitler.)If you would prefer to "see" this podcast as an MP4 with slides—or obtain a PDF worksheet for students with an answer key—this workshop is now available to purchase on our website. (It was previously only an MP3; it's been upgraded to an MP4!) 

pWotD Episode 2867: International Women's Day Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 327,957 views on Saturday, 8 March 2025 our article of the day is International Women's Day.International Women's Day (IWD) commemorates women's fight for equality and liberation along with the women's rights movement. International Women's Day gives focus to issues such as gender equality, reproductive rights, and violence and abuse against women. Spurred by the universal female suffrage movement, International Women's Day originated from labor movements in Europe and North America during the early 20th century, with the modern holiday, March 8, being declared by Vladimir Lenin.The earliest version reported was a "Woman's Day" organized by the Socialist Party of America in New York City on February 28, 1909. In solidarity with them, communist activist and politician Clara Zetkin proposed the celebration of "Working Women's Day" approved at the 1910 International Socialist Women's Conference in Copenhagen, albeit with no set date; the following year saw the first demonstrations and commemorations of International Women's Day across Europe. Vladimir Lenin declared March 8 as International Women's Day in 1922 to honour the women's role in the 1917 Russian Revolution; it was subsequently celebrated on that date by the socialist movement and communist countries. The holiday became a mainstream global holiday following its promotion by the United Nations in 1977.International Women's Day is a public holiday in several countries. The UN observes the holiday in connection with a particular issue, campaign, or theme in women's rights.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:55 UTC on Sunday, 9 March 2025.For the full current version of the article, see International Women's Day on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Olivia.

2025晨鐘課－每天，都是新的起點 以歷史智慧滋養生活，點亮2025每一天！ 借鑑過去，活在當下，展望未來！ 粵語廣播網站 (時兆出版社授權錄製) https://soundcloud.com/mediahk Podcast@靈修廣播站 3月9日 歷史可以改寫「等你知道至高者在人的國中掌權，要將國賜與誰就賜與誰。」 但以理書 4：32 2014年5月，我參觀了莫斯科的克里姆林宮和列寧陵墓，心中思緒萬千。我想像著俄國革命（1917年）和蘇聯（1922至1991年）強盛時期的情景。弗拉基米爾．列寧（Vladimir Lenin，1870年–1924年）在1905年曾堅定地指出：「宗教是人民的鴉片」，是「一種精神上的劣質酒」。他堅信他們的無神論能夠成功將所謂「壓在人類頭上的宗教枷鎖」取而代之。但列寧想像不到的是，最終他的許多無神論思想會被連根拔起，甚至在克里姆林宮國會大廳，宗教也被傳揚。 俄羅斯《消息報》的一篇頭版文章稱，1992年3月9日俄羅斯聯邦最高蘇維埃代表大會宣佈：「前蘇聯人民代表大會代表們計畫在老地方─克里姆林宮國會大廳舉行會議。……根據克里姆林宮的排程，3月14日至25日還要舉辦另一場名為《通往新生活的聖經之路》的活動。該活動將由美國基督復臨安息日會承辦。」 於是，按照計畫，復臨教會在設有6500個席位的克里姆林宮國會大廳（曾是共產黨代表大會的中心）舉行一場連續多日且內容全面的福音佈道會。每日兩場的大會由馬克．芬尼（Mark Finley）擔任主持，近1萬2千人參加，超過1,400人受洗。但這僅是復臨教會在俄羅斯體制改革後計畫實施的佈道策略之一。 在1992年6月18日的《復臨評論》中，威廉．詹森（William G. Johnsson）提到復臨教會在俄羅斯建立了1第一所基督教神學院，2第一家基督教出版社， 3第一家私立診所，4第一個全國宗教廣播節目，5第一家宗教電視網，並且6在克里姆林宮舉辦了第一場福音佈道活動。在這個充滿挑戰的地方，聖工一開啟就大獲全勝！ 永遠不要失去希望。上帝「能使人的心好像隴溝的水隨意流轉」。 祂在俄羅斯所成就的事，在任何地方都能做到─在你的生活中也是如此。

7 Hours and 21 MinutesSome Strong LanguageHere is the complete reading and commentary of Vladimir Lenin's "State and Revolution" by Pete, and Aaron from Timeline Earth.Timeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageDiscover the often-overlooked connections between some of history's most notorious dictators and the ideology they shared, as we sit down with renowned historian Paul Kengor from Grove City College via Prager University Videos. Kengor, who previously captivated millions with his PragerU video on Karl Marx, helps Prager University's with another riveting new series, "Hall of Evil." This enlightening project highlights the chilling truths behind figures like Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, demonstrating the brutal realities of Marxist-Communism. With an urgent call to fill the educational gaps left by traditional history courses, Kengor's insights are indispensable for understanding how these leaders' totalitarian regimes shaped the 20th century. PragerU's collaboration with Kengor aims to shed light on ominous historical truths, with upcoming episodes featuring Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro. Tune in to grasp the magnitude of these histories and join us on a journey to ensure the past's lessons are not forgotten.Key Points from this Episode:• Discussion on the launch of the Hall of Evil series  • Insight into Lenin's use of terrorism to achieve his goals  • Examination of Stalin's role in the Ukrainian Holodomor famine  • Comparisons of death tolls among historical dictators  • Emphasis on the importance of educating youth about totalitarianism  • Call to reflect on history to avoid repeating its mistakes**With a fresh new schedule, we're excited to continue this journey with our dedicated community on Wednesdays and Saturdays.** Other resources:   PragerU Hall of Evil series videos:LeninStalinWant to leave a review? [Click here], and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!Because we care what you think about what we think and our website, please email David@teammojoacademy.com

About the Lecture: During the 70 years of its existence, the Soviet Union claimed to be a communist state based on the philosophical doctrines of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and, at the later stages, Vladimir Lenin. This made philosophy a mandatory course in every Soviet university and led to the creation of a peculiar version of the history of philosophy. Leading Soviet specialists, such as Valentin Asmus and Igor Narskii, interpreted the history of philosophy as a dialectical struggle of oppositions, such as materialism and idealism, religion and science, bourgeoisie and proletariat. Consequently, they divided philosophers of the past into two camps: allies, whose theories preceded dialectical materialism, and foes, who belonged to the idealistic camp. This talk will highlight the principal patterns of the Soviet approach to the history of philosophy and illustrate them through the case study of Igor Narskii's interpretation of David Hume's theory. About the Speaker: Viacheslav Zahorodniuk was an assistant professor at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. He defended his PhD thesis, “The evolution of the ‘idea' concept in the British philosophy of the 17-18th centuries,” devoted to Locke's, Berkeley's, and Hume's epistemology. Zahorodniuk was a postdoc in the Department of Philosophy at the University, working on a project on Hume's theory of knowledge. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for the Research in Humanities, working on the project “Early Childhood in the Early Modern: Locke's Accounts on Children Perception.” His interests also include Soviet studies, and an article, “Painted Red: The Soviet interpretations of Hume's epistemology,” is forthcoming in Hume Studies.

Kristen Ghodsee reads the final section of Alexandra Kollontai's 1915/1916 essay about World War I–"Who Needs the War?"–and looks for lessons applicable to the present day. This is especially salient today because the United States is on the eve of a trade war with Mexico and Canada.This translation is from a 1984 collection of Kollontai's writing published by Progress Publishers in the Soviet Union, which claims that the essay was written while Kollontai was in exile in Norway. She sent it to Vladimir Lenin (then in exile in Switzerland) who also edited it before publication. The final pamphlet was first published in 1916. It went into multiple editions and was distributed widely across Europe and Russia.Send us a textThanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

Happy pod-a-versary to us! Jamie Peck and Sam Beard celebrate one year of Party Girls by answering a bunch of listener questions. How many years does the American empire have left? How hopeful are we that we'll see serious social change within our lifetimes? How many times a day do we think about Lenin? And why does Sam dress like a zoomer now? All this, plus we reveal which super exciting guest we have coming on in February and what book(s) you should read to prepare. Fundraiser for the person Jamie could not remember the name of: https://givebutter.com/support-sandiego-protester 00:00:00 Happy one year anniversary 00:08:05 Does Chris Cuomo smell like week old coffee and gold bond powder like I assume? 00:08:17 If we were to control the means of production, what industry should be prioritized first? 00:09:43 Who is your dream party girl guest? 00:13:34 What is your favorite David Lynch movie. 00:15:45 What would you ask Luigi if you could? 00:17:19 You're in charge of sending the first 5 people to mars, who u sending? 00:19:45 Would Jamie ever go back on the majority report as a guest? 00:20:15 How do I correctly channel my anger, isolation and sadness regarding the current events? 00:23:41 What is to be done? How it might should be done? 00:25:30 How many years do you think this empire has and does it fall from within or another war loss ends it? 00:28:36 Thoughts on folk punk as a genre and I guess also as politics? 00:31:22 If you could say one more thing to Chris Cuomo what would it be? 00:32:46 How hopeful are you that serious social change will happen in America During Your Lifetime? 00:35:34 Sam, why do you dress like a zoomer now? 00:36:12 Sam, how are you so hot? 00:36:26 I have a crush on you Jamie. 00:38:37 Who is your ideal candidate for 2028? Sky is the limit, dead or alive even. 00:40:45 As more spaces and housing becomes rapidly absorbed into a neo-feudalist hellscape, what are ways to protect and liberate property from privatization? Are community land trusts effective to this goal? 00:43:36 How many times a day do you think about Vladimir Lenin, father of socialism and our humble saviour? 00:44:42 What was your favorite memory doing party girls? 00:50:37 Isn't anger over AI art simply petty-bourgeois anxiety from proletarianization? 00:53:31 Do you have an escape America Plan? 00:55:30 What inspired your political views? 00:57:56 What's your historical comparison between Luigi Mangione and John Brown? 00:59:56 Thoughts on general strike May 1 2028? 01:01:46 What do you think about decommodfied music & the relationship of music to ideological critique? 01:05:56 Sam, what was it like being on CNN? 01:06:24 Is the meaning of life dependent on economic conditions only? Or is there more to meaning? 01:09:47 As goth socialists, what keeps you guys from falling into cynicism and doom?? 01:16:15 What are your party girls goals for year 2? *** SIGN UP NOW at https://patreon.com/partygirls to get the full version of this episode, all other bonus content, Discord access, and a shout out on the pod! Follow us on ALL the Socials: Instagram: @party.girls.pod Twitter: @partygirlspod TikTok: @party.girls.pod Youtube: @partygirlspod Leave us a nice review on Apple Podcasts if you feel so inclined: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/party-girls/id1577239978 :)

Kristen Ghodsee reads the fifth section of Alexandra Kollontai's 1915 essay about World War I–"Who Needs the War?"–and looks for lessons applicable to the present day. This is especially salient today because of the narrow confirmation of the new U.S. Secretary of Defense under the Trump Administration, and the emergence of the reinvigorated oligarchy in the United States.This translation is from a 1984 collection of Kollontai's writing published by Progress Publishers in the Soviet Union, which claims that the essay was written while Kollontai was in exile in Norway. She sent it to Vladimir Lenin (then in exile in Switzerland) who also edited it before publication. The final pamphlet was first published in 1916. It went into multiple editions and was distributed widely across Europe and Russia.Send us a textThanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

In this episode of 'Ideas Have Consequences,' we share an intriguing and controversial list of the top 10 most evil people in history. The includes infamous figures like the Kim dynasty of North Korea, the Sanhedrin of Jesus's time, Ivan the Terrible, Vladimir Lenin, and Adolf Hitler. Taunton examines their catastrophic impact through raw numbers of killings and their influential ideas, leading to a broader discussion of historical and moral significance.   Follow me everywhere: https://linktr.ee/larrytaunton  ✉️  Sign up for the Posse here: Join the Posse on Tribes https://www.growtribes.com/larry/subscribe Get all the content I can't share publicly directly in your inbox… https://join.larrytaunton.com/

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 153 Did you know the Soviet Union ran a DEI program exactly like the Woke Marxist one of today? How about Mao's China? As it turns out, DEI isn't an American invention. It's a Soviet invention and Soviet export, designed, outlined, and implemented by Josef Stalin and Vladimir Lenin in the USSR in the 1920s. The results were predictable, of course: massively increasing ethnic strife arising from within the world's most widespread Affirmative Action program in history. Russians, then later Han Chinese, then later straight, white, Christian, males in the West, were invited to subjugate themselves to ethnic minorities to accomplish "actual equality," which we today call "equity." The full program was called korenizatsiya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia), and its "diversity" program was called raznoobrazsiya, and its lever was called "Great Russian chauvinism" in the USSR, "Han chauvinism" in the PRC, "white supremacy culture" in today's West, and "great-power chauvinism" in general. In this groundbreaking episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay explains the korenizatsiya program of Stalin's USSR and reads excerpts from two of Stalin's works to flesh it out. Join him to understand how DEI is nothing more than a Bolshevik Communist program we've implemented on ourselves. You don't want to miss it. Sources: Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1913 (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm) Stalin, from the Twelfth Party Congress, 1923 (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1923/04/17.htm) Mao, Criticize Han Chauvinism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_25.htm) New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #DEI

Become a member of the Science Fiction community to continue the discussion Website - https://damiengwalter.com YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/DamienWalter/membership Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/DamienWalter Subscribe to the Science Fiction podcast feed for long-form commentaries on these video essays https://damiengwalter.com/podcast/ Join the Science Fiction community on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/324897304599197/ Follow Damien on Twitter - https://x.com/damiengwalter Threads - https://www.threads.net/@damiengwalter Bluesky - LINK https://bsky.app/profile/damiengwalter.bsky.social

Kristen Ghodsee reads the fourth section of Alexandra Kollontai's 1915 essay about World War I–"Who Needs the War?"–and looks for lessons applicable to the present day. This translation is from a 1984 collection of Kollontai's writing published by Progress Publishers in the Soviet Union, which claims that the essay was written while Kollontai was in exile in Norway. She sent it to Vladimir Lenin (then in exile in Switzerland) who also edited it before publication. The final pamphlet was first published in 1916. It went into multiple editions and was distributed widely across Europe and Russia.Mentioned in this episode:"How to do escapism in the Trump era," The New Republic"The Other Great Depression," Le Monde Diplomatique in English, French, Spanish, Farsi, Bulgarian, and EsperantoAnachoresis - withdrawal into the desertSend us a textThanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

This week we go all the way back to the beginning to ruminate about what motivated us to start the podcast in the dark days of the pandemic. We open with a passage from Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains that struck a chord with Max. In it MacLean talks about the early days of the nihilistic libertarian society built by Charles Koch who was himself building upon the work of his father in the John Birch Society. Turns out, Koch and the founders of the neoliberal movement were inspired by the organizing principles of Vladimir Lenin. Let that sink in. Chapters Intro: 00:00:00 Sketch: 00:01:29 Max's Moment: 00:06:39 A Discussion: 00:41:19 Outro: 01:27:49 Resources Nancy MacLean: Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America The Family on Netflix Jeff Sharlet: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power Max on Bluesky UNFTR on YouTube -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Check out the UNFTR Pod Love playlist on Spotify: spoti.fi/3yzIlUP. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility. Unf*cking the Republic is produced by 99 and engineered by Manny Faces Media (mannyfacesmedia.com). Original music is by Tom McGovern (tommcgovern.com). The show is hosted by Max and distributed by 99. Podcast art description: Image of the US Constitution ripped in the middle revealing white text on a blue background that says, "Unf*cking the Republic."Support the show: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/unftrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kristen Ghodsee reads the third section of Alexandra Kollontai's 1915 essay about World War I–"Who Needs the War?"–and looks for lessons applicable to the present day. This translation is from a 1984 collection of Kollontai's writing published by Progress Publishers in the Soviet Union, which claims that the essay was written while Kollontai was in exile in Norway. She sent it to Vladimir Lenin (then in exile in Switzerland) who also edited it before publication. The final pamphlet was first published in 1916. It went into multiple editions and was distributed widely across Europe and Russia. Ghodsee also discusses the 2024 presidential election in the United States, and offers a message of hope in the event of a Trump victory. Mentioned in this episode:Kristen Ghodsee discusses utopia and social dreaming on "What Could Go Right?" Send us a textThanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

Send us a textWhat if the very framework meant to safeguard democracy is actually undermining it? Lucas de Hart and Luke Pickerel join us from the Democratic Constitution blog and podcast, who offer a bold critique of America's constitutional framework. As members of the Marxist Unity Group, Lucas and Luke draw on the ideas of influential thinkers like Vladimir Lenin and critiques from Charles A. Beard and Robert Dahl. They urge us to reconsider the Senate's malapportionment, the presidency's expansive powers, and the unelected nature of federal justices. Their call for a democratic constitution is both a rallying cry and a thought-provoking challenge to existing power structures.Our conversation takes you through the labyrinth of the American political system, dissecting the obstacles it poses to strategies like the popular and united front. We scrutinize the constitutional structure that incentivizes legislators to shift power toward the executive and judiciary branches. We confront liberal fears that altering the Constitution might backfire, ultimately asking whether adhering to a framework that allows for minority domination is the real threat to democracy. The episode also compares the U.S. governance model with global systems, exploring whether a shift toward models like Sweden's might offer a more truly democratic path.Peeling back the layers of America's founding myths, we examine the economic origins of constitutional flaws and how this impacts representation today. From the strategic sidelining of democratic input in foreign policy to debates on state rights and American identity, Lucas and Luke guide us through a critical analysis of the Constitution's role in both preserving and challenging democratic ideals. As we question the foundation of the American republic, we invite you to ponder the universal struggles of maintaining democratic principles and the potential paths toward a more equitable future. Support 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

The EVILution of Communism Workshop, Session 2 Communism is a religious view that has evolved and adapted over the last two centuries, including right up to the present day. Understanding the developments and threats in our present world requires understanding what Communism really is, especially in its Marxist variants, and how it has developed and changed over the years. In response to this need, James Lindsay of New Discourses held a four-lecture workshop series on the EVILution of Communism in Dallas, Texas, at the start of August 2024. The second and third lectures in this series focus on what might be considered two tracks of twentieth-century Communism, both arising in different contexts, East and West, after the failure of Karl Marx's nineteenth century agitational evangelism. In this second lecture, the Eastern track is the focus, tracing the development of the Soviet Union through Vladimir Lenin's Bolshevik Party as a vanguard. Here, James Lindsay characterizes Eastern Marxism as a broadly state-industrial project, referring to Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism variously as "Industrial Communism" and "State Communisms" for reasons he lays bare. The general theme is turning the state into an industrial apparatus for the socialist transformation of man himself, in addition to society and nature. In the end, the Eastern model of Marxism (Leninism, Stalinism, general Sovietism, and Maoism) failed everywhere it was attempted, leading to one of the greatest tragedies of human history. The other three lectures in this series can be found here: Session 1: Communism 1.0: Theoretical Communism: https://newdiscourses.com/2024/10/communism-1-0-theoretical-communism/ Session 3: Communism 2.5: Social Communism (Coming soon!) Session 4: Communism 3.0: Corporate Communism (Coming soon!) Notes (PDF): https://newdiscourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/DallasWorkshop24-Evilution-of-Communism.pdf New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #communism

In a telegram sent January 15th, 1918, Vladimir Lenin wrote: For God's sake, take the most energetic and revolutionary measures to send grain, grain and more grain!!! The Bolsheviks came to power chanting the slogan, "Peace, Land, and Bread". But there was little of the latter available. Believing that the greedy peasants were hoarding all the grain, the Bolsheviks went to the countryside and forcibly seized it. The results were tragic. In this video, let us take a look at Soviet Russia's desperate, merciless campaign for grain.

In a telegram sent January 15th, 1918, Vladimir Lenin wrote: For God's sake, take the most energetic and revolutionary measures to send grain, grain and more grain!!! The Bolsheviks came to power chanting the slogan, "Peace, Land, and Bread". But there was little of the latter available. Believing that the greedy peasants were hoarding all the grain, the Bolsheviks went to the countryside and forcibly seized it. The results were tragic. In this video, let us take a look at Soviet Russia's desperate, merciless campaign for grain.

Imagine an alternate universe in which the American Revolution fails or where Russia rejects Leninism in its infant stage. Live from the Hoover Institution's Fall Retreat, Lord Andrew Roberts, renowned historian and the Hoover Institution's Bonnie and Tom McCloskey Distinguished Visiting Fellow, joins Hoover senior fellows Niall Ferguson, John Cochrane, and H.R. McMaster to discuss various historical counterfactuals, including British forces winning the pivotal Battle of Saratoga in 1777; Vladimir Lenin being assassinated before Communism takes root in Russia; John F. Kennedy surviving his motorcade through Dallas; plus China rejecting economic reforms and instead refashioning itself as a second North Korea.   Recorded on October 17, 2024.

Kristen Ghodsee reads Alexandra Kollontai's 1915 essay about World War I–"Who Needs the War?"–and looks for lessons applicable to the present day. This translation is from a 1984 collection of Kollontai's writing published by Progress Publishers in the Soviet Union, which claims that the essay was written while Kollontai was in exile in Norway. She sent it to Vladimir Lenin (then in exile in Switzerland) who also edited it before publication. The final pamphlet was first published in 2016. It went into multiple editions and was distributed widely across Europe and Russia. Ghodsee also discusses the 2024 presidential election in the United States. Mentioned in this episode:Elon Musk reveals cybercabs, robovans, and the Optimus robot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu-eK72ioDkIf you are an American citizen, especially in a swing state, please register to vote here: https://voterizer.org/Thanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

Capitalism is a revolutionary situation of the last stage of pre-history, and the potential and possibility for freedom, or else it is just what Hegel said history has always been: the slaughter-bench of everything good and virtuous humanity has ever achieved. Marxism defined itself as the critical self-consciousness of this task of socialism in capitalism, but this has been eclipsed by the mere moral condemnation of catastrophe. This happened as a result of Marxism's own failure, over a hundred years ago, to make good on the crisis. This pattern has repeated itself since then, in ever more obscure ways.  Chris Cutrone's Marxism and Politics: Essays on Critical Theory 2006-2024 (Sublation Media, 2024) span the time of the Millennial Left's abortive search to rediscover a true politics for socialism in the history of Marxism: the attempted recovery of a lost revolutionary tradition. Cutrone's participation as a teacher alongside this journey into the heart of Marxism was guided by the Millennial investigation into controversial and divisive figures such as Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukacs, Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School, and Marx himself. The question of a political party for socialism loomed large--but was abandoned. Readers of these essays will find no taboo unchallenged, as every aspect of Marxism's accumulated wreckage is underwritten by the red thread and haunting memory of what was once the world-historical character of socialist revolution. Can this Marxist "message in a bottle" cast adrift by hisotry yet be received? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Capitalism is a revolutionary situation of the last stage of pre-history, and the potential and possibility for freedom, or else it is just what Hegel said history has always been: the slaughter-bench of everything good and virtuous humanity has ever achieved. Marxism defined itself as the critical self-consciousness of this task of socialism in capitalism, but this has been eclipsed by the mere moral condemnation of catastrophe. This happened as a result of Marxism's own failure, over a hundred years ago, to make good on the crisis. This pattern has repeated itself since then, in ever more obscure ways.  Chris Cutrone's Marxism and Politics: Essays on Critical Theory 2006-2024 (Sublation Media, 2024) span the time of the Millennial Left's abortive search to rediscover a true politics for socialism in the history of Marxism: the attempted recovery of a lost revolutionary tradition. Cutrone's participation as a teacher alongside this journey into the heart of Marxism was guided by the Millennial investigation into controversial and divisive figures such as Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukacs, Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School, and Marx himself. The question of a political party for socialism loomed large--but was abandoned. Readers of these essays will find no taboo unchallenged, as every aspect of Marxism's accumulated wreckage is underwritten by the red thread and haunting memory of what was once the world-historical character of socialist revolution. Can this Marxist "message in a bottle" cast adrift by hisotry yet be received? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Capitalism is a revolutionary situation of the last stage of pre-history, and the potential and possibility for freedom, or else it is just what Hegel said history has always been: the slaughter-bench of everything good and virtuous humanity has ever achieved. Marxism defined itself as the critical self-consciousness of this task of socialism in capitalism, but this has been eclipsed by the mere moral condemnation of catastrophe. This happened as a result of Marxism's own failure, over a hundred years ago, to make good on the crisis. This pattern has repeated itself since then, in ever more obscure ways.  Chris Cutrone's Marxism and Politics: Essays on Critical Theory 2006-2024 (Sublation Media, 2024) span the time of the Millennial Left's abortive search to rediscover a true politics for socialism in the history of Marxism: the attempted recovery of a lost revolutionary tradition. Cutrone's participation as a teacher alongside this journey into the heart of Marxism was guided by the Millennial investigation into controversial and divisive figures such as Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukacs, Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School, and Marx himself. The question of a political party for socialism loomed large--but was abandoned. Readers of these essays will find no taboo unchallenged, as every aspect of Marxism's accumulated wreckage is underwritten by the red thread and haunting memory of what was once the world-historical character of socialist revolution. Can this Marxist "message in a bottle" cast adrift by hisotry yet be received? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Capitalism is a revolutionary situation of the last stage of pre-history, and the potential and possibility for freedom, or else it is just what Hegel said history has always been: the slaughter-bench of everything good and virtuous humanity has ever achieved. Marxism defined itself as the critical self-consciousness of this task of socialism in capitalism, but this has been eclipsed by the mere moral condemnation of catastrophe. This happened as a result of Marxism's own failure, over a hundred years ago, to make good on the crisis. This pattern has repeated itself since then, in ever more obscure ways.  Chris Cutrone's Marxism and Politics: Essays on Critical Theory 2006-2024 (Sublation Media, 2024) span the time of the Millennial Left's abortive search to rediscover a true politics for socialism in the history of Marxism: the attempted recovery of a lost revolutionary tradition. Cutrone's participation as a teacher alongside this journey into the heart of Marxism was guided by the Millennial investigation into controversial and divisive figures such as Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky, Georg Lukacs, Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School, and Marx himself. The question of a political party for socialism loomed large--but was abandoned. Readers of these essays will find no taboo unchallenged, as every aspect of Marxism's accumulated wreckage is underwritten by the red thread and haunting memory of what was once the world-historical character of socialist revolution. Can this Marxist "message in a bottle" cast adrift by hisotry yet be received? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

7 Hours and 21 MinutesSome Strong LanguageHere is the complete reading and commentary of Vladimir Lenin's "State and Revolution" by Pete, and Aaron from Timeline Earth.Timeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

Robert Bruce Lockhart was one of the most extraordinary and unconventional agents of the 20th century. A British diplomat, spy, and propagandist, his life was one of scandal and deception - from the jungles of Malaysia to the streets of Moscow, he bore witness to some of history's most pivotal moments. He even took part in a plot to kill Vladimir Lenin and bring down the Communist regime.Today we're joined by James Crossland, Professor of International History at Liverpool John Moores University and author of 'Rogue Agent'. James tells us how this gifted yet flawed character went from a teenage upstart to a crucial Cold War intermediary and a master of psychological warfare.Produced by James Hickmann and edited by Dougal Patmore.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Sign up HERE for 50% off for 3 months using code ‘DANSNOW'.We'd love to hear from you - what do you want to hear an episode on? You can email the podcast at ds.hh@historyhit.com.You can take part in our listener survey here.

In the aftermath of the First World War the Western great powers sought to redefine international norms according to their liberal vision. They introduced Western-led multilateral organizations to regulate cross-border flows which became pivotal in the making of an interconnected global order.  In contrast to this well-studied transformation, in Against the Liberal Order: The Soviet Union, Turkey, and Statist Internationalism, 1919-1939 (Oxford University Press, 2024), Samuel Hirst considers in detail for the first time the responses of the defeated interwar Soviet Union and early Republican Turkey who challenged this new order with a reactive and distinctly state-led international politics. As Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took up arms in 1920 to overturn the terms of the Paris settlement, Vladimir Lenin provided military and economic aid as part of a partnership that both sides described as anti-imperialist. Over the course of the next two decades, the Soviet and Turkish states coordinated joint measures to accelerate development in spheres ranging from aviation to linguistics. Most importantly, Soviet engineers and architects helped colleagues in Ankara launch a five-year plan and build massive state-owned factories to produce textiles and replace Western imports. Whilst the Kemalists' cooperation with the Bolsheviks has often been described as pragmatic, this book demonstrates that Moscow and Ankara actually came together in an ideological convergence rooted in anxiety about underdevelopment relative to the West, gradually arriving at statist internationalism as an alternative to Western liberal internationalism. Drawing on extensive archival research and offering an often-ignored and non-Western perspective on the history of international relations and diplomacy, Against the Liberal Order presents a novel interpretation of the international order of the interwar period that crosses the borders of historical disciplines and contributes to questions of current concern in world politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the aftermath of the First World War the Western great powers sought to redefine international norms according to their liberal vision. They introduced Western-led multilateral organizations to regulate cross-border flows which became pivotal in the making of an interconnected global order.  In contrast to this well-studied transformation, in Against the Liberal Order: The Soviet Union, Turkey, and Statist Internationalism, 1919-1939 (Oxford University Press, 2024), Samuel Hirst considers in detail for the first time the responses of the defeated interwar Soviet Union and early Republican Turkey who challenged this new order with a reactive and distinctly state-led international politics. As Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took up arms in 1920 to overturn the terms of the Paris settlement, Vladimir Lenin provided military and economic aid as part of a partnership that both sides described as anti-imperialist. Over the course of the next two decades, the Soviet and Turkish states coordinated joint measures to accelerate development in spheres ranging from aviation to linguistics. Most importantly, Soviet engineers and architects helped colleagues in Ankara launch a five-year plan and build massive state-owned factories to produce textiles and replace Western imports. Whilst the Kemalists' cooperation with the Bolsheviks has often been described as pragmatic, this book demonstrates that Moscow and Ankara actually came together in an ideological convergence rooted in anxiety about underdevelopment relative to the West, gradually arriving at statist internationalism as an alternative to Western liberal internationalism. Drawing on extensive archival research and offering an often-ignored and non-Western perspective on the history of international relations and diplomacy, Against the Liberal Order presents a novel interpretation of the international order of the interwar period that crosses the borders of historical disciplines and contributes to questions of current concern in world politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In the aftermath of the First World War the Western great powers sought to redefine international norms according to their liberal vision. They introduced Western-led multilateral organizations to regulate cross-border flows which became pivotal in the making of an interconnected global order.  In contrast to this well-studied transformation, in Against the Liberal Order: The Soviet Union, Turkey, and Statist Internationalism, 1919-1939 (Oxford University Press, 2024), Samuel Hirst considers in detail for the first time the responses of the defeated interwar Soviet Union and early Republican Turkey who challenged this new order with a reactive and distinctly state-led international politics. As Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took up arms in 1920 to overturn the terms of the Paris settlement, Vladimir Lenin provided military and economic aid as part of a partnership that both sides described as anti-imperialist. Over the course of the next two decades, the Soviet and Turkish states coordinated joint measures to accelerate development in spheres ranging from aviation to linguistics. Most importantly, Soviet engineers and architects helped colleagues in Ankara launch a five-year plan and build massive state-owned factories to produce textiles and replace Western imports. Whilst the Kemalists' cooperation with the Bolsheviks has often been described as pragmatic, this book demonstrates that Moscow and Ankara actually came together in an ideological convergence rooted in anxiety about underdevelopment relative to the West, gradually arriving at statist internationalism as an alternative to Western liberal internationalism. Drawing on extensive archival research and offering an often-ignored and non-Western perspective on the history of international relations and diplomacy, Against the Liberal Order presents a novel interpretation of the international order of the interwar period that crosses the borders of historical disciplines and contributes to questions of current concern in world politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

In the aftermath of the First World War the Western great powers sought to redefine international norms according to their liberal vision. They introduced Western-led multilateral organizations to regulate cross-border flows which became pivotal in the making of an interconnected global order.  In contrast to this well-studied transformation, in Against the Liberal Order: The Soviet Union, Turkey, and Statist Internationalism, 1919-1939 (Oxford University Press, 2024), Samuel Hirst considers in detail for the first time the responses of the defeated interwar Soviet Union and early Republican Turkey who challenged this new order with a reactive and distinctly state-led international politics. As Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took up arms in 1920 to overturn the terms of the Paris settlement, Vladimir Lenin provided military and economic aid as part of a partnership that both sides described as anti-imperialist. Over the course of the next two decades, the Soviet and Turkish states coordinated joint measures to accelerate development in spheres ranging from aviation to linguistics. Most importantly, Soviet engineers and architects helped colleagues in Ankara launch a five-year plan and build massive state-owned factories to produce textiles and replace Western imports. Whilst the Kemalists' cooperation with the Bolsheviks has often been described as pragmatic, this book demonstrates that Moscow and Ankara actually came together in an ideological convergence rooted in anxiety about underdevelopment relative to the West, gradually arriving at statist internationalism as an alternative to Western liberal internationalism. Drawing on extensive archival research and offering an often-ignored and non-Western perspective on the history of international relations and diplomacy, Against the Liberal Order presents a novel interpretation of the international order of the interwar period that crosses the borders of historical disciplines and contributes to questions of current concern in world politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In the aftermath of the First World War the Western great powers sought to redefine international norms according to their liberal vision. They introduced Western-led multilateral organizations to regulate cross-border flows which became pivotal in the making of an interconnected global order.  In contrast to this well-studied transformation, in Against the Liberal Order: The Soviet Union, Turkey, and Statist Internationalism, 1919-1939 (Oxford University Press, 2024), Samuel Hirst considers in detail for the first time the responses of the defeated interwar Soviet Union and early Republican Turkey who challenged this new order with a reactive and distinctly state-led international politics. As Mustafa Kemal Atatürk took up arms in 1920 to overturn the terms of the Paris settlement, Vladimir Lenin provided military and economic aid as part of a partnership that both sides described as anti-imperialist. Over the course of the next two decades, the Soviet and Turkish states coordinated joint measures to accelerate development in spheres ranging from aviation to linguistics. Most importantly, Soviet engineers and architects helped colleagues in Ankara launch a five-year plan and build massive state-owned factories to produce textiles and replace Western imports. Whilst the Kemalists' cooperation with the Bolsheviks has often been described as pragmatic, this book demonstrates that Moscow and Ankara actually came together in an ideological convergence rooted in anxiety about underdevelopment relative to the West, gradually arriving at statist internationalism as an alternative to Western liberal internationalism. Drawing on extensive archival research and offering an often-ignored and non-Western perspective on the history of international relations and diplomacy, Against the Liberal Order presents a novel interpretation of the international order of the interwar period that crosses the borders of historical disciplines and contributes to questions of current concern in world politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Kristen Ghodsee reads Alexandra Kollontai's 1915 essay about World War I–"Who Needs the War?"–and looks for lessons applicable to the present day. This translation is from a 1984 collection of Kollontai's writing published by Progress Publishers in the Soviet Union, which claims that the essay was written while Kollontai was in exile in Norway. She sent it to Vladimir Lenin (then in exile in Switzerland) who also edited it before publication. The final pamphlet went into multiple editions and was distributed widely across Europe and Russia. Thanks so much for listening. This podcast has no Patreon account and receives no funding. If you would like to support the work being done here, please spread the word and share with your friends and networks, and consider exploring the following links:Buy Kristen Ghodsee's new book now: Everyday UtopiaSubscribe to Kristen Ghodsee's (very occasional) free newsletter. Learn more about Kristen Ghodsee's work at: www.kristenghodsee.com

Marxism has evolved from being an economic theory to a cultural battle that is subverting public schools, universities, the media, hollywood, and much more throughout America and the world. This isn't Soviet Marxism of the 1960s, it's Next Gen Marxism that has fueled violent protests and riots from Chile to Colombia to the United States and is destroying the nuclear family. For Episode 34 of the Border Wars Podcast, we sit down with author and renowned scholar Katie Gorka, who describes the geneology of Marxism from Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Antonio Gramsci, to Black Lives Matter and Antifa. In her latest book "Next Gen Marxism: What it is and how to combat it," co-authored with The Heritage Foundation scholar Mike Gonzalez, Gorka explains the top ten tactics for patriots to fight back and win the cultural battle against Woke ideology.

Vladimir Lenin famously said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” The dangerous left woke ideology has a strategy and is recklessly targeting schools and universities to harmfully indoctrinate your children. However, the heart of the Father wants your children healthy and impactful. Because of this, Proverbs 22:6 similarly states, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Our children will be sown into, we choose the seed!

Eric welcomes back Michael Mandelbaum, author and Christian A. Herter Professor Emeritus of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.  Michael is the author of the new book The Titans of the Twentieth Century: How They Made History and the History they Made (New York: Oxford University Press, 2024). His book is a study of the interaction between individuals and the structural forces of history with essays on Woodrow Wilson, Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill, FDR, Mohandas Gandhi, David Ben Gurion and Mao tse-Tung. They discuss the circumstances that allowed these figures to exercise enormous influence on the course of history in the 20th century, the role of will and will to power in driving historical change, the imprint that Lenin left on the Soviet Union, the continued influence of Woodrow Wilson on American internationalism of both the liberal and conservative variety, the role of ideas in politics and the danger of political figures committed to ideas and unrestrained by countervailing forces, the unique preparation of Churchill and FDR for wartime leadership, why these figures seem so much more substantive than today's political leaders and why all of the 8 leaders under consideration would likely see today's world as a failure of their efforts.    The Titans of the Twentieth Century: How They Made History and the History They Made: https://a.co/d/aylEsW4 Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 146 One of the great paradoxes of Communism is that in the end, the state is supposed to "wither away," leaving a stateless, classless society in which there is high functioning and little or no want. This circumstance is presented as different to the other stages of history, which are said to proceed through revolutionary overthrow of the existing system. In particular, socialism is meant to be born out of capitalism through a violent proletarian revolution that seizes the means of production and establishes itself as an all-powerful "dictatorship of the proletariat." But this absolute totalitarian state is also exactly what's supposed to "wither away" to make room for Communism. How can that be? In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay takes you through the fifth chapter of Vladimir Lenin's The State and Revolution (https://amzn.to/3YGh4jC), written in 1917, to show you Lenin's vision for socialism and his vague but terrifying plan for this magical transition. Join him on this maiden voyage into Leninism on the New Discourses Podcast. New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #lenin

NTD has produced a special TV series adapted from the book How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World, by the editorial team of Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party. Watch the first episode here. Many of the prophecies foretold in orthodox religions have come to pass, as have the predictions made by Nostradamus and those passed down in cultures around the world, from Peru to Korea. In Chinese history, from the Han to the Ming dynasties, there have been surprisingly accurate prophetic texts. These prophecies show us the important truth that history is not a coincidental process, but rather a drama in which the sequence of major events has been pre-established. In the end times, which also could herald the beginning of a new historical cycle, all of the world's religions are awaiting one thing: the arrival of the Creator in the human realm. All dramas have a climax. Though the devil has made arrangements to destroy humankind, the Creator has means of awakening the world's people, helping them to escape the devil's bondage, and offering them salvation. The ultimate battle between good and evil is unfolding today. Orthodox religions the world over have foretold that in the era of the Creator's return, the world would be awash with demons, abominations, and ominous events as humanity lost its moral restraints. This is the world today. The state of degeneration we face today has been long in the making. It began hundreds of years ago, with the rise of its core driving forces: atheism and the deception of humanity. It was Karl Marx who created an ideology to encompass the deception in all its permutations, and it was Vladimir Lenin who put the theory into brutal practice. Marx, however, was not an atheist. He was a Satanist and became the demon whose mission it was to prevent man from recognizing the Creator in the end times.   ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV