France Podcasts
-
Forna kolonier kräver tillbaka bortrövade kulturskatter. Efter decennier av hårt motstånd börjar Europas museer plötsligt återlämna föremål.
Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play.
Sveriges Radios kulturreporter Mina Benaissa berättar historien om hur aktivister bryter sig in på museer och hur Europa börjar ge efter för deras krav att få tillbaka kulturskatter. Hör om en historisk vändning i vem som har rätt till kulturarvsföremålen.
Nyhetspodden Dagens Eko ger dig en berättelse varje vardagsmorgon med programledaren Lena Nordlund och Sveriges Radios skarpaste journalister.
Programledare: Lena Nordlund
Gäst: Mina Benaissa
Producent: Elin Roumeliotou
Slutmix: Lisa Abrahamsson och Elin Hagman
Med ljud från: BBC, France 24, Al Jazeera, AP Archive, British Museum och Youtubekanalen "Walk with me, Tim".
Kontakt: [email protected] -
I väst har samurajen blivit symbolen för en japansk krigarkultur som saknar en europeisk motsvarighet. ”Samuraj” betyder ”att tjäna men dess faktiska innebörd är mycket komplex. ”Samurajen” vittnar om en märklig sammanflätning av militärorganisation, kejsardömets traditioner och civil uppoffring som tog en helt unik vändning i Japan jämfört med resten av världen.
Från framväxten under 700-talet har samurajen haft en central position i japans utveckling och tillerkänts avgörande segrar mot t.ex. Kublai Khans invasionsförsök under 1200-talet. Frågan är om det ens går att prata om Samurajen som ett eget begrepp utanför Japans historia som helhet? Vem är samurajen egentligen?
I den nymixade reprisen av avsnitt 28 av Militärhistoriepodden tar historikern Martin Hårdstedt och idéhistorikern Peter Bennesved sig an berättelsen om den japanska krigaren, krigarkulturen, de avgörande händelserna och den mycket märkliga statsapparat som byggdes upp runt japansk Bushido – ”Krigarens väg”.
I avsnittet diskuteras jämförelser med den europeiska utvecklingen, den märkliga privatiseringen av statliga ämbeten, de avgörande vändningarna under mongolinvasionen samt de stora ledarna – Sengogku Jidai, Nobunaga och Hideyoshi - som under en turbulent tid lyckades ena Japan under den epok som vi i Europa brukar kalla medeltiden.
Även samurajkulturens sakta förfall under Tokugawa-eran tas upp och Meijirestoriationens återfunna samurajromantik. Vi möter också samurajens militärteknisk förutsättningarna, rustningarna och svärden som ofta får definiera samurajen, och så får Peter Bennesved göra ännu ett utlägg om bågens speciella utformning och förutsättningar.
För den som är intresserad av fortsatt läsning rekommenderas speciellt Stephen Turnbulls många olika verk på temat. En bra introduktion är boken The Samurai – A military history (1996, 2013). För den som vill ha mer hardcore-historia rekommenderas historiken vid University of Georgia, Karl F. Fridays bok Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval Japan.
Bild: Samurajer med olika vapen, c. 1802-1814 av Racinet, Albert (1825-1893) - Gallica - Bibliothèque nationale de France
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello Interactors,
The social sciences sometimes unfairly get a bad wrap for being a ‘soft science’. But are they? In pursuit of a better understanding the role uncertainty plays in economic analysis, I stumbled across some research that ties John Maynard Keynes’s embrace of uncertainty with a resolute defense of the ‘soft sciences’ by one of the heroes of the ‘hard sciences.’ And you thought physics was hard.
As interactors, you’re special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You’re also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.
Please leave your comments below or email me directly.
Now let’s go…
CYBERSAIL
“The hard sciences are successful because they deal with the soft problems; the soft sciences are struggling because they deal with the hard problems.”
This quote is by the groundbreaking Austrian American polymath, Heinz von Foerster from his essays on information processing and cognition. He went on to state:
“If a system is too complex to be understood it is broken up into smaller pieces. If they, in turn, are still too complex, they are broken up into even smaller pieces, and so on, until the pieces are so small that at least one piece can be understood.”
This strategy, he’s observed, has proven successful in the “hard sciences” like mathematics, physics, and computer science but poses challenges to those in the “soft sciences” like economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, and others.
He continues,
“If [social scientists] reduce the complexity of the system of their interest, i.e., society, psyche, culture, language, etc., by breaking it up into smaller parts for further inspection they would soon no longer be able to claim that they are dealing with the original system of their choice.
This is so, because these scientists are dealing with essentially nonlinear systems whose salient features are represented by the interactions between whatever one may call their “parts” whose properties in isolation add little, if anything, to the understanding of the workings of these systems when each is taken as a whole.
Consequently, if he wishes to remain in the field of his choice, the scientist who works in the soft sciences is faced with a formidable problem: he cannot afford to lose sight of the full complexity of his system, on the other hand it becomes more and more urgent that his problems be solved.”
Von Foerster studied physics in Austria and Poland and moved to the United States in 1949. He started his career in 1951 as a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois. In 1958 he received grant funding from various federal government agencies to start a Biological Computer Laboratory.
Von Foerster understood the cognitive process humans use to break down large complex problems into smaller discrete linear steps. With the advent of computers, they then typed those instructions into punch cards and fed them into the computer to process. A linear process of which humans and computers can both do. He and his lab then devised a way for a computer to do something humans cannot – conduct multiple calculations at the same time by breaking them into smaller and smaller pieces “until the pieces are so small that at least one piece can be understood.” With that they invented the world’s first parallel processor.
While von Foerster helped to bring about a machine that could do what a human could not, they also discovered what a human can do that a machine cannot. Indeed, a parallel computer can break down and execute calculations across a network of instructions, but it can’t take in additional input from its environment and decide to adjust course depending on the nature of the results. It operates in a closed system with the information it has been given and with limited input.
I like the metaphor of sailing to better understand this. When I’m at the tiller of a sailboat steering with a course in mind, I must continually monitor the environment (i.e. wind speed, direction, tides, currents, ripples, waves), the sails (angles, pressures, sail shape, obstructions), the crew (safety, comfort, skill, attitude, joy, fear, anxiety) and the course and speed of the boat (too fast, too slow, tack, jibe, steer). I am using all my senses which continually input information as conditions change. My brain is making calculations and judgements resulting in decisions that in turn impact the conditions. For example, a sudden turn and the sails will fail, the water under the boat will be redirected, air and water pressure gradients will shift, and a crew member may fall or go overboard. All these shifts in conditions in turn impact my subsequent calculations and decisions instant by instant. It’s a persistent feedback loop of information created by human interactions with the boat, the crew, and with nature.
A computer cannot yet steer as a human would in such conditions. They lack the necessary level of sensory input from changing environmental conditions as well as judgement and control over the information these senses provide. The study of the information derived from these complex phenomena derives its name from the Greek word for “navigator”: κυβερνήτης (kubernḗtēs), or as it has come to be called – Cybernetics. How we got from ‘kuber’ to ‘cyber’ I’m not sure, but I have a hunch that is about to be revealed.
KEYNESIAN BRAIN CHAIN
One of the founders of Cybernetics in the 1940s, Norbert Weiner, defined it as “the entire field of control and communication theory, whether in the machine or in the animal.” Other founders said it is the study of “circular causal and feedback mechanisms in biological and social systems." Another member of the founding group, the influential cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead, said it’s "a form of cross-disciplinary thought which made it possible for members of many disciplines to communicate with each other easily in a language which all could understand."
Von Foerster’s seminars in Cybernetics grew to be very popular at the University of Illinois in the 1960s and 70s. But these early adopters were not the first to use this term to describe complex social information exchanges creating causal feedback loops. In 1834 the French mathematician, inventor of the telegraph, and namesake of the electrical current measurement Amp, André-Marie Ampère, used the term cybernétique to describe the “the art of governing or the science of government.” Perhaps that’s how we got from ‘kuber’ to ‘cyber’.
Either way, whether it’s political science, economics, or other social sciences of so-called “soft sciences” these early cross-discipline thinkers felt the urge to find ways to solve hard problems. Problems so complex they become impossible to deal with or track – they become intractable. One economics professor emeritus out of the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Robert Delorme, encountered these intractable problems in his work. He has since sought ways to establish a framework to deal with such problems that draws on the work of von Foerster. But also, on someone we mentioned last week, the famous British economist John Maynard Keynes.
Delorme was studying institutional patterns in public spending between Great Britain and France over long time periods. This yielded a great deal of quantitative data, but also qualitative data including behavioral differences between how governments and markets interacted with each other and within each country. Delorme also studied traffic fatality data between the two countries and hit the same challenge. While there were mounds of quantitative data, the qualitative data was quite specific to the country, their driving cultures, the individual accident circumstances, and the driver’s individual behavior. In trying to break these complex problems down into smaller and smaller pieces, he hit the dilemma von Forester spoke of. The closer he got understanding the massive mound of data in front of him, the further from his initial research economic question he got.
To better model the uncertainty that culminated from behaviors and interactions in the system Delorme turned to the tools of complexity economics. He considered real-world simulation tools like complex adaptive systems (CAS), agent-based computational economics (ACE), agent-based models (ABM), and agent-based simulation (ABS). But he realized this tool-first approach reminded him of the orthodox, or ‘classical’ style of economic inquiry Keynes was critical of. While he recognized these tools were necessary and helpful, they were insufficient at explaining the complexity that arises out of the events in “the real world”.
Delorme quotes Keynes from his 1936 book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money where he recognizes Keynes’s own need to break complex problems into smaller and smaller pieces while still staying true to the actual problem. Keynes acknowledged, “the extreme complexity of the actual course of events…” He then reveals the need to break the problem down into “less intractable material upon which to work…” to offer understanding “to actual phenomena of the economic system (…) in which we live…”
According to Delorme, Keynes, his economic philosophy, approach, and writings have been criticized over the years for lacking any kind of formalization of the methodologies he used to arrive at his conclusions and theories. So, Delorme did the work to comb through his writing to uncover an array of consistent patterns and methodological approaches which he’s patched back together and formalized.
He found that Keynes, like a helmsman of a boat, adapted and adjusted his approach depending on the complexity of the subject matter provided by the economic environment. When faced with intractable problems, he applied a set of principles and priorities Delorme found useful in his own intractable problems. The priority, he found, was to take a ‘problem first’ approach by confronting the reality of the world rather than assuming the perfect conditions of a mythical rational world common in traditional economics.
Again, using sailing as a metaphor, imagine the compass showing you’re heading north toward your desired destination, but the wind is to your face and slowing you down. It’s time to decide and act in response to the environmental conditions. Disregard the tool for now, angle the boat east or west, fill the sails, and zig zag your way toward your northerly goal while intermittently returning to the tool, the compass.
What Delorme found next was Keynes’s embrace of uncertainty. Instead of finding comfort in atomizing and categorizing to better assess risk, Keynes found comfort in acknowledging the intricacies of the organic interdependence that comes with interactions within and among irrational people and uncertain systems and environments. He rejected the ‘either-or’ of dualism and embraced the ‘both-and’ open-endedness of uncertainty. In other words, when there is a sudden shift in wind direction, the helmsperson can’t either ram the tiller to one side or adjust the sails. They must both move the tiller and adjust sails.
REPLICATE TO INVESTIGATE
To better deal with complex phenomena, and to further form his framework for how to deal with them, Delorme also found inspiration in the work of one of my inspirations, Herb Simon.
What Delorme borrowed from Simon was a way “in which the subject must gather information of various kinds and process it in different ways in order to arrive at a reasonable course of action, a solution to the problem.” This process, as characterized by the cybernetic loop, takes an input by gathering information and assesses and decides on a reasonable course of action. This solution in turn causes a reaction in the system creating an output that is then sensed and returned into the loop as input. This notion of a looping system made of simple rules to generate variations of itself is reminiscent of the work by a third inspiration for Delorme, John von Neumann.
Von Neumann was a Hungarian American polymath who made significant contributions to mathematics, physics, economics, and computer science. He developed the mathematical models behind game theory, invented the merge-sort algorithm in computer science, and was the first known person to create self-replicating cellular automata. And for all you grid paper doodlers out there, he first did it first on grid paper with a pencil. Now these simple processes are done on the computer.
By assigning very simple ‘black and white’ rules to cells in a grid (for example, make a cell white or black based on whether neighboring cells are black or white) one can produce surprisingly complex animate and self-replicating behavior. One popular example is Gosper’s gliding gun. It features two simple cellular arrows that traverse back and forth left to right across the screen on a shared path. When they collide, they produce animated smaller and simpler cellular offspring, an automaton, that rotate as they animate themselves diagonally to the lower right corner of the page or screen.
Delorme noticed von Neumann used this self-replication phenomena to describe a fundamental property of complex systems. If the complexity of automata is under a certain threshold of complexity, the automaton it produces will be less complex or degenerative – as is the case with Gosper’s arrow. However, if the threshold of complexity is exceeded it can over produce. Or, in the words of von Neumann, “if properly arranged, can become explosive.”
What Delorme’s research suggests, I think, is that to address complex intractable economic problems one must devise a looping recursive system of inquiry that self-replicates output intended to affect the next decision by the researcher. This makes the researcher both an observer and a participant in the search for solutions. The trick is to maintain a certain threshold of complexity such that the output doesn’t, again, become overwhelming or explosive.
In other words, instead of pointing tools at a mound of data in attempts to describe a static snapshot of what is in the world, create a circular participatory system that recursively produces something that affects how one might adjust what it produces in near real time.
As Delorme writes, “Complexity is not inherent to reality but to our knowledge of reality, it is derivative rather than inherent.” He then quotes science philosopher Lee McIntyre, who offers, “complexity exists ‘not merely as a feature of the world, but as a feature of our attempts to understand the world.”
I’m not sure what this kind of system looks like practically speaking, but I think the software tool developed by the economist Steve Keen, Minsky, is a start. Keen created this dynamic simulation software to model approaches to macroeconomics after he predicted the 2008 financial crisis. He hopes to entice people away from the static, equilibrium-fixated style of economics taught and practiced today.
The amount of data available to dynamically assess economic outcomes involving complex human behavior, human-made systems, and the natural world continues to push thresholds of complexity. We are creators, observers, and interactors of information in our own self-perpetuating recursive constructions of reality. But as von Forester suggested, even as we break down complex problems into parts, we can’t lose sight of the whole.
That reminds me of a quote from another ‘von’ the linguist and philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt – the younger brother of the famous naturalist Alexander von Humboldt. In 1788 he wrote,
"Nothing stands isolated in nature, for everything is combined, everything forms a whole, but with a thousand different and manifold sides. The researcher must first decompose and look at each part singly and for itself and then consider it as a part of a whole. But here, as often happens, he cannot stop. He has to combine them together again, re-create the whole as it earlier appeared before his eyes."
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io -
The PR Handbook is going westwards and in this new podcast series we will interview PR experts from Germany, the UK and France to gain a better understanding of how to get outreach in each country.
It's time for France and Véronique Bourgeois, PR Associative Director from Monte RP, joins the podcast to share her guide on how to work successfully with media relations in France.
-
The Western European PR Handbook is divided to three episodes: Germany, the UK and France. Our guests are experienced PR professionals with extended knowledge of how to get med media coverage in their countries as well as the ultimate guide for PR pitches.
In this second episode we are guested by Annabel Clementson from the UK agency T.F.D. Listen to her sharing her experience on how to get news coverage and succeed with PR efforts in the UK.
-
Konstantinopels fall år 1453 var slutet på den månghundraåriga kristna riksbildningen Bysan, men egentligen var nog det viktigaste resultatet det osmanska rikets slutliga etablering – med den nya huvudstaden Konstantinopel, dagens Istanbul, som centrum.
Framför Konstantinopels murar samlades en osmansk här på åtminstone 60 000 soldater med ett effektivt artilleri. De omkring 8 000 försvararna höll de osmanska anfallen stången från den 7 april fram till den 29 maj då staden till slut föll. I striderna ingick inte bara strider man mot man utan för den tiden tung artilleribeskjutning, underjordiska strider och sjöstrider.
I den nymixade reprisen av avsnitt 24 av Militärhistoriepodden samtalar historikern Martin Hårdstedt med idéhistorikern Peter Bennesved som Konstantinopels fall.
Konstantinopel hade fungerat som huvudstad för ett rike som existerat i mer än 1000 år beroende på hur man räknar. Bysantiska riket var arvtagaren till Romarriket och under århundraden det största och starkaste kristna riket innan de västeuropeiska rikena etablerades på allvar under tidig medeltid.
I mitten av 1400-talet var Bysans bara till namnet ett kejsardöme. Kejsaren i Konstantinopel kontrollerade egentligen bara ett mindre område på den europeiska sidan av Bosporen norr om Konstantinopel och en del områden i sydvästra Grekland tillsammans med ett antal öar. Riket var på alla sidor vid det här laget helt omgivet av det uppåtgående osmanska riket.
Den osmanske sultanen Mehmet II behövde visa att han dög som härskare i ett rike som han inte fullt ut kontrollerade. För att starka sin ställning inrikespolitiskt skulle en erövring av det mytomspunna Konstantinopel vara betydelsefullt. Dessutom vill han och den osmanska ledningen för alltid undanröja ett kristet brohuvud i veka livet på det osmanska riket. När snaran sakta drogs till kring Konstantinopel vädjade den bysantinske kejsaren Konstantin XI om hjälp. Men hans rop lämnades obesvarade eller med svävande löften. Påven, Ungern, Genua och Venedig hade begränsade resurser och var involverade i egna maktstrider.
Du som vill ta reda på mer slaget och Bysantinska riket kan läsa David Nicolle Constantinople 1453. The end of Byzantium, Oxford 2000 och Judith Herrin, Det bysantinska riket, Höör 2009.
Bild: Belägringen av Konstantinopel, av Philippe de Mazerolles - Bibliothèque nationale de France Manuscript Français 2691 folio CCXLVI v [2]
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello Interactors,
I stumbled across a book that picks ten influential economists and teases out elements from each that contribute to ideas circling the circular economy. It turns out bits and pieces of what many consider a ‘new’ idea have existed among notable economists, left and right, for centuries.
The first is a name known to most worldwide, even if they only get their history from Fox News. But had a gun been aimed more accurately, his name nor his global influence would have been a part of history at all.
As interactors, you’re special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You’re also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.
Please leave your comments below or email me directly.
Now let’s go…
THE DUEL AT SCHOOL
Class boundaries come into focus in college towns as diverse clusters of first-year students descend, mingle, and sort. Such was the case for one young man in Germany. It’s not that he was poor, but to the über he was. Having been born to Jewish parents, he was used to being bullied. Though he thought violence was an absurd remedy for injustice – after all, he went to college to study philosophy and belonged to a poetry club – but he also believed that sometimes one must stand their ground by whatever means.
And so there he stood, 18 years old, with his back to his adversary, about to engage in a duel. As he breathed in, I imagine he could feel the cold pull from the barrel of the pistol pointed to the sky inches from his chin. With each step his pulse must have quickened. He must have felt the gun handle twist in his sweaty palms as he gingerly rested his tremoring finger on the trigger. He knew at any second, he must turn quickly. He must not flinch. And he must not die.
In his final steps I imagine his world must have slowed down. And then, in a blur, he whirled around and fired at his challenger. The blast must have lit his face, punctuated by the sound of a whirring bullet. He felt the skin just above his eyebrow burn. I can see him lifting his shaking hand to his forehead expecting blood. But it was just an abrasion. The bullet had grazed his skull. That bullet was millimeters from ending Marxism before it even started. Had it landed, Karl Marx would have been dead at 18.
My sense is that when most people read the word Marxism, they think Communism. He’s best known for two massive publications, The Communist Manifesto, and Das Kapital – or often simplified and anglified to just Capital. But he eventually distanced himself from the direction Communism and even Marxism had taken. As we shall see, he was a professional journalist for most of his adult life and thus a staunch free press and free speech advocate – two freedoms communist authoritarianism eradicated.
The word, ‘Marxism’, today is often used by some to discredit progressive pro-social political and economic ideas given its connotations to communism. A holdover from American Cold War McCarthyism. It turns the disparaging came long before the 1940s and 50s. It was used the same way in France and other parts of Europe in the late 1800s. So much so that Marx’s collaborator on The Communist Manifesto, Fredrich Engels, once wrote,
“What is called ‘Marxism’ in France is certainly a very special article, to the point that Marx once said to Lafargue [Marx’s son-in-law]: "What is certain is that I am not a Marxist."
Marx’s economic work is less well-known and Das Kapital remains the most accurate and lucid critique of the negative effects of capitalism. Marx was first and foremost a philosopher and his arguments take aim at the moral and ethical implications of capitalistic systems. Which is why circular economic advocates often turn to Marx for their own philosophical underpinnings.
Coincidently, the man credited with capitalism, and whom Marx often took aim, Adam Smith, was also a philosopher. In fact, he mostly wrote about liberal philosophy and relatively little about economics. I wonder if today these two philosophers, who many see representing the left and the right of political economics, would be unsuspecting allies or dueling advisories?
Karl Marx’s first year at university in Bonn, Germany was like many freshmen. He partied a lot. But Bonn was also home to radical politics at the time. Students were heavily surveilled by the police due to semi-organized radical attempts by student organizations to overthrow the local government. It turns out the poetry club he had joined was not about poetry, it was a front for a resurgent radical political movement. Though, having already spent a night in jail for drunken disorderly behavior, Marx may have mostly been interested in the social side of the club.
Paralleling political turmoil was class conflict between the so-called ‘true Prussians and aristocrats’ and ‘plebeians’ like Marx. The near fatal event came about when an aristocrat challenged Marx to a duel. Marx indeed thought dueling was absurd, but evidently, he, like many men in those days, thought it a worthy way to ‘man up’. His dad certainly didn’t think so and accelerated the plan to transfer his son to the University of Berlin to study law.
HEGELIAN REBELLION
While in Berlin, Marx also continued to study philosophy and wrote both fiction and nonfiction on the side. One of his most influential professors was Eduard Gans. Gans had been brought to the university by none other than the influential German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel had died just four years before Marx arrived in Berlin, and Marx, like many, was fascinated by his work.
After Hegel’s death, Hegelians (as his disciples were called) became divided between Right Hegelians and Left Hegelians. The right interpreted Christian elements in his philosophy seeking to associate his ideas and popularity with the Christian-led Prussian political establishment. The left embraced aspects of reason and freedom of thought they believed Christianity and the Prussian government limited. Gans’ lectures tended more toward the left and so did Marx who joined a radical group of Young Hegelians seeking revolution.
After graduating, Marx left for Cologne, Germany in 1842 to become a journalist for the Rhineland News. He expanded on Hegel’s ideas around the role of government in providing social benefits for all and not just the privileged class. He openly criticized right leaning European governments and his radical socialist views garnered the attention of government sensors. Marx said,
“Our newspaper has to be presented to the police to be sniffed at, and if the police nose smells anything un-Christian or un-Prussian, the newspaper is not allowed to appear."
He also became interested in political economics and became frustrated with other Young Hegelians who continued to focus the movement on religion.
His critical writing eventually got him kicked out of Germany, so he fled to Paris. There too his writing got him in trouble. The Prussian King warned the French interior minister of Marx’s intentions and was expelled from France. On to Belgium he went where he, again, was kicked out. Marx eventually took exile in London in 1850 where he familiarized himself with the writing of Europe’s leading economists, including Britain’s most famous, Adam Smith.
His research passion project brought in no money. Risking extreme poverty for him and his family, he took a job as European correspondent writing for the New-York Daily Tribune in 1850. After ten years, he quit when the paper refused to publicly denounce slavery at the start of the civil war. During that decade, he continued to research in the reading room of the British Museum amassing 800 pages of notes which became the source material for his first successful 1859 book, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. At the time, he was also witnessing firsthand the deplorable conditions London factory laborers endured at the dawn of the industrial age and the destruction of nature with it.
Marx’s primary critique was summed up in a single German word: Produktionsweise which can be translated as "the distinctive way of producing" or what is commonly called the capitalist mode of production. Marx believed the system of capitalism distinctly exists for the production and accumulation of private capital through private wealth, hinging on two mutual dependent components:
* Wealth accumulation by private parties to build or buy capital, like land, buildings, natural resources, or machines, to produce and sell goods and services
* A wealth asymmetry between those who accumulate the wealth and capital (employers) and the those needed to produce the good or service (laborers) in a way that yields the profits needed to accumulate the wealth (i.e. cheap or free labor)
Capital accumulation existed in markets long before Karl Marx and Adam Smith, but the accumulation was limited, including by nature. For example, let’s say I start a garden next year growing zucchini. Zucchini grown in the Northwest United States can become overwhelmingly productive. I would likely yield more zucchini than my family could consume. I could decide to exchange the remaining zucchini for money at a local farmer’s market. In economic terms, I grew a commodity (C) and would be exchanging them for money (M) thereby turning C into M.
Let’s imagine while at the market I am drawn to another commodity that I’m not willing to make myself, honey. I can now use my money (M) to buy a commodity (C1) grown by someone else. The beekeeper could easily take the money I gave them (M1) and exchange it for a good they’re unwilling to grow or make themselves (C2). This chain of exchange could continue throughout the entire market.
This linear exchange of money through markets was common leading up to the industrial age. Money was the value exchanged but the generation of money only happened at the rate of natural production or extraction of natural commodities or by industrious human hands. Wealth accumulation could indeed occur by saving it or exchanging it for something that may rise in value faster than, say, zucchini, like property or gold.
THOSE DUTCH DO MUCH
With the dawn of the industrial age, Marx observed capitalists showed up to the market with large sums of accumulated wealth at the outset. Wealth often came through inheritance, but also rent of property (sometimes stolen, as occurred during colonization) or profits from an existing or past enterprise. This money (M) is then used to invest in the means necessary to produce, or trade, a good or service (C). The capitalist themselves need not want or need their good or service, they may not be interested in it at all. Their primary concern, according to Marx, is to covert their initial investment (M) into more money (M+) through profit made on the sale of the good. They then take their accumulated money (M+) and use it to invest in the production of, or trade with, another good or service (C+).
Due to the efficiencies gained through the advent, invention, and innovation of energy and machines the rate of production greatly increased in the industrial age. And with it profits. This inspired entrepreneurs to take risks into new ventures thereby diversifying the market while creating additional engines of wealth and capital accumulation. Herein lies the Marxist claim on the primary motivation of capitalism – turn capital into more capital through one or many forms of profiteering.
Again, this concept predates Marx or Smith. In the 1600s the Dutch created a market expressly for the exchange of money for a piece, (also known as a stock or share) in a company. It was another way to accumulate wealth for the purpose of building capital. The first to utilize this market in 1602 was the Dutch India Company leading Marx to comment, “Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the seventeenth century.”
Marx predicted the eventual outcome of unbridled wealth accumulation would be monopolistic behavior. Those who accumulate wealth also generate the power to buy out competitors leading to not only consolidation of wealth, but power. And not just economic power, political power too. We all know too well how wealth and power can sway election results and lobbying strength.
Those sucked into capitalism need not necessarily be greedy. It’s the nature of the pursuit of business in a capitalist system to compete on price. This was particularly apparent in what Marx observed. One way capitalists lowered the price of a good was to flood the market with it. The only way to do that is to increase production. But to earn necessary profits to accumulate necessary capital on a lower priced good meant lowering the amount of money spent on capital (i.e. real estate, raw goods, or machines) and/or labor (i.e. employee wages). This led to increasing wealth disparities and further strengthened the asymmetry Marx claimed was necessary in the capitalist mode of production. It’s not necessary to be greedy to win, but you can’t win without competing on price. And too often it’s the workers who pay the price. This was Marx’s biggest beef with capitalism.
Wealth disparities are now the greatest in history and the number of natural resources needed to create low-cost goods in the competitive global race to bottom barrel prices are nearing earthly limits. Meanwhile, as more people are pulled out of poverty and urban areas grow exponentially, more natural resources are demanded. Including for the necessary energy to make, move, and manage the mess we consumers create. We seem compelled to continually capitulate to creeping capitalism.
It leads many to wonder, do we need capitalism? Marx concludes in Das Kapital that capitalism cannot exist forever within earth’s natural resource limitations. But he may be surprised to find that it has lasted as long as it has. To reject capitalism, or assume, as Marx did, that capitalism is a natural evolution on a path toward some form of communal economically balanced society, does not necessitate rejecting markets. Nor does it necessarily imply going ‘back’ to pre-capitalist times, like 16th century Holland.
But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look to the Dutch. They may be onto something yet again. A Dutch company called Bundles has partnered with the German appliance manufacturer Miele to create an in-home laundry service. Instead of, or in addition to, Miele racing to making more and more washing machines, selling to more and more people, at lower and lower prices, they lease the washer and dryer to Bundles who then installs and maintains the appliances in homes for a monthly fee. The consumer pays for a quality machine serviced by a reputable agent, Bundles and Miele get to split the revenue, and Miele is incented to make high quality and long-lasting appliances to earn higher profits. They’ve since expanded this idea to coffee and espresso machines. It’s an attempt at a more circular economy by reducing consumption, energy, and resource extraction, all while utilizing existing markets in a form of capitalism. It’s a start.
But perhaps not enough of a change for Marx. Or maybe so. In 1872, eleven years before his death and twenty-two years before Miele was founded, he gave a speech in Amsterdam. He acknowledged, “there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.” As in his youth, it appears he found violence to be an unworthy course of action for injustice. But also consistent with that eventful day in Bonn, 1836, as he was challenged to a duel, he also has his limits. His speech continued, “This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.”
REFERENCES:
Karl Marx: Man and Fighter (RLE Marxism). Boris Nicolaievsky, Otto Maenchen-Helfen. 2015. Published originally in 1936.
Alternative Ideas from 10 (Almost) Forgotten Economists. Irene van Staveren. 2021.
Letter to E. Bernstein. Friedrich Engels. 1882. [“Ce qu’il y a de certain, c’est que moi je ne suis pas marxist” (Friedrich Engels, “Lettre à E. Bernstein,” 2 novembre 1882. MIA: F. Engels - Letter to E. Bernstein (marxists.org).]
La Liberte speech. Karl Marx. The International Working Men's Association.1872.
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io -
The Western European PR Handbook is divided to three episodes: Germany, the UK and France. Our guests are experienced PR professionals with extended knowledge of how to get med media coverage in their countries as well as the ultimate guide for PR pitches.
In this first episode we are guested by Anne Esser from the comms agency PSM&W to talk about how to do PR in Germany.
-
Berättelsen om makthavaren som växer upp i den franska extremhögerns huvudnäste, vars politiska karriär för alltid kommer att förknippas med hennes kontroversielle far vare sig hon vill eller inte.
Nya avsnitt från P3 ID hittar du först i Sveriges Radio Play.
Marine Le Pen är 8 år gammal när hon vaknar mitt i natten av att någon har försökt spränga hennes familjehem i bitar med en stor laddning dynamit. Attentatet är riktat mot hennes pappa, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Han är grundare av det högernationalistiska partiet Nationella Fronten och är känd för sina många kontroversiella uttalanden.
Med tiden ska även Marine själv bli något av en vattendelare inom fransk politik. När hon 2011 tar över Nationella Fronten efter sin far, inleds en satsning på att försöka avdemonisera partiet för att kunna nå ut till en större del av befolkningen. Men arvet efter pappa Jean-Maries många grodor väger tungt – och Marine kommer hela tiden närmare punkten då hon måste göra upp med honom, en gång för alla.
P3 ID om Marine Le Pen är en historia om svek, skandaler och en europeisk högerpopulism på frammarsch.
Medverkar i avsnittet gör Fanny Härgestam, frilansjournalist och Le Pen-kännare, och Marie Nilsson Boij, sydeuropakorrespondent på Sveriges Radio.
Avsnittet gjordes av Studio Olga hösten 2022.
Programledare: Vendela Lundberg
Avsnittsförfattare och reporter: Hateff Mousaviyan
Producent: Vendela Lundberg och Patrick Stanelius
Exekutiv producent: Carl-Johan Ulvenäs
Ljudmix: Fredrik Nilsson
Ljudklippen i avsnittet är hämtade från: Sveriges Radio, INA, France 2, TF1, RTL, JHM, France 24, Sky News, Instagram.
Böckerna "À contre flots" av Marine Le Pen och "En by i Champagne" av Fanny Härgestam har varit till särskilt stor hjälp under arbetet med det här avsnittet.
-
En sällsynt medeltida maktfaktor: en kvinna med mod och handlingskraft nog att leva som en drottning, styra som en kung och dö som en legend.
Nya avsnitt från P3 Historia hittar du först i Sveriges Radio Play.
Redaktionen för detta avsnitt består av:
Cecilia Düringer – programledare och manus
Tove Palén – manus och research
Elina Perdahl – producent
Zardasht Rad – scenuppläsare
Julia Öjbrandt – ljuddesign och slutmix
Medverkar gör även Kim Bergqvist, doktorand i historia vid Stockholms Universitet.
Vill du veta mer om Eleonora av Akvitanien? Här är några av de böcker som ligger till grund för avsnittet:
Eleonore av Akvitanien av Johan Lybeck
Aliénor av Aquitanien av Agneta Conradi Mattsson
Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France and England, Mother of Empires av Sara Cockerill
-
Frances och Anna brukar mysa och äta chips i soffan. Nu ringer Frances upp henne för att ge en morgonkram!
Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play.
Vill du vara med i måndagsväckningen? Skriv till Barnmorgon:
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/skicka-en-mandagsvackning-i-barnmorgon -
Berättelsen om den skandalomsusade kronprinsen som växte upp i skuggan av en älskad kung, och som blev historiskt impopulär när han själv tog över tronen av Thailand.
Nya avsnitt från P3 ID hittar du först i Sveriges Radio Play.
Våren 2020 skakas Thailands huvudstad Bangkok av demonstrationer. Demonstranterna uttrycker sitt missnöje mot den sittande regeringen. Men de kraftiga protesterna innebär också ett nytt kapitel i Thailands historia. Trots att landets hårda majestätslagar innebär fängelse för den som uttalar sig negativt om kungafamiljen så riktas nu kritik och ilska öppet mot kungahuset. Anledningen stavas Maha Vajiralongkorn, eller Rama X, landets regent som tog över efter sin pappa, den omtyckte kung Bhumibol år 2016. Rama X är utbildad stridspilot och beryktad tjejtjusare. Han har anklagats för att hellre vistas på ett lyxhotell i södra Tyskland, omgiven av vackra kvinnor, än att synas och bry sig om folket i sitt hemland. Och på kort tid har han lyckats rasera sin pappa kung Bhumibols eftermäle. Det här är den, för många, okända berättelsen om ett land vars stormiga moderna historia går stick i stäv med bilden av ett sorglöst semesterparadis.
I avsnittet medverkar:
Karin Zackari, doktor i mänskliga rättigheter och expert på Thailands historia
Andrew MacGregor Marshall, journalist och författareAvsnittet gjordes av Studio Olga sommaren 2022.
Programledare: Vendela Lundberg
Avsnittsmakare och reporter: Patrick Stanelius och Sally Henriksson
Ljudmix: Fredrik NilssonKlippen är hämtade från Sveriges Radio, France 24, The New York Times, Nine Network, Al Jazeera, Channel 4, CNA, Bloomberg, BBC, Thai PBS World, AP, VOA
Böckerna "A kingdom in crisis" och "The king never smiles" har varit till extra stor hjälp under researcharbetet
-
Украинская сторона сообщила о том, что российской армии удалось захватить новые территории в Донецком регионе. В то же время, Украина готовит контрнаступление, чтобы отвоевать оккупированные земли на юге страны.
Ожидается, что первые суда с зерном вскоре выйдут в Черное море. Как обеспечить им безопасность по пути в Турцию и есть ли риск нарваться на минные заграждения.
Исследователи, изучаюшие динамику цен на зерно считают, что рост этих цен больше, чем это мотивировано войной в Украине.
Российский государственный телеканал RT (раньше Russia Today) получил отказ от Европейского суда на своё обжалование запрета на вещание. Запрет на вещание RT France был введен ЕС 1 марта.
В среду утром поставки газа из России в Германию сократились до 20 % мощности. В то же время почти на 10% выросли цены на природный газ, который будет поставлен из Нидерландов, сообщают немецкие СМИ.
Ведущая: Нина Старцева
Репортер: Ирина МакридоваВы можете связаться с нами по электронной почте: [email protected]
-
"Formula 1 Lenovo Grand Prix De France 2022"
(00:26) Vi börjar såklart med att avhandla allt om kval och race.
(43:20) Vi avslutar med att snacka om nästa veckas race i Ungern, F1-22 spelet, svenskarna i Indycar samt F2!
Gå med oss på Facebook för att tjöta med oss om racen: Formel 1 Sverige - Eftersnack eller så kan ni snacka med oss på Twitter!
Tycker ni om oss och vill höra mer samt är intresserade av antingen tv-serier, filmer, böcker eller spel kan ni lyssna på någon av våra andra poddar som ni hittar i vårt länkträd
-
EPISODE 12 I detta ljuvligt böljande och fullspäckade avsnitt möter vi härligt inspirerande Emelie Nilsson och bjuds in i hennes värld av "andliga ting", (som också är henne konto på Instagram).
Emelie har som så många andra vi mött i podden flera andliga förmågor och verktyg i sin spirituella verktygslåda. Hon är medium, Reiki-healer, tarot-reader och andlig inspiratör och brinner verkligen för att vägleda, möta och inspirera andra på sin livsresa. Vi blev blown away av hennes kunskap och förmåga att hitta sätt att använda alla dessa verktyg i hennes dagliga arbete och i mötet med människor. Detta är ett otroligt avsnitt för alla oss som vill utveckla våra egna mediala gåvor!
Eftersom vi är väldigt nyfikna på mediumskap och hur man kan öppna upp för den sortens kanalisering pratar vi en hel del om hur man kan träna upp sin förmåga och intuition. Vi blir också stärkta i att våga tro på det som kommer till en och inte avfärda det som drömmar eller fantasier.
Vi får också genom Emelies otroliga förmåga en resa tillbaka i våra egna tidigare liv - även där som syskon men då i 1600-talets Frankrike... Mer om det i avsnittet;)!
FUN FACT: Det Emelie inte vet är att vi i detta livet har vuxit upp i en familj som ÄLSKAR Frankrike, vår pappa har sedan innan vi föddes burit basker i ur och skur, han talar flytande franska och önskar basically att han var född i La France. Vi har under vår barndom i princip enbart lyssnat på fransk julmusik och annan fransk musik också för den delen. Fransklärare som vår far är började han tidigt skola in sina döttrar i det franska språkets magiska värld. Skulle vi resa utomlands - ja då kan ni ju gissa vart det bar hän. Trerättersmenyer till middag, baguetter, crepes och croque monsieur innan detta fanns i Sverige, och ja the story goes on...
Så JA vi resonerar starkt med Frankrike och det var ju inte jätteoväntat att vi levt tidigare liv där :) - bitar föll på plats!
Emelie delar också generöst med sig av sin kunskap om Tarot - ger tips om hur du kan använda korten. Hon drar också ett kort från en av hennes andra kortlekar till er lyssnare mot slutet av avsnittet som träffar oss rätt i hjärtat och som är ett fint meddelande till oss alla inför sommaren!!
Om du är nyfiken på Emelie och hennes fantastiska arbete kika in på Hem | Andliga ting och på Instagram hittar ni henne som @andliga.ting där ni också får uppleva hennes otroliga kreativa förmåga - ni förstår vad vi menar när ni ser hennes bilder...
Följ också gärna oss på @Spiriturious. Josefina hittar ni på @jflowsthlm och Emma på spiriturious_emma.
TACK för att ni lyssnar!
Peace & Love
Emma och Josefina
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- もっと表示する
