Europe Podcasts
-
En av Europas starkaste litterära röster tystnade 2023. Anneli Dufva tecknar i denna essä från 2015 ett porträtt av Dubravka Ugrei. Hon som lämnade sitt land för att värna sin egen yttrandefrihet.
Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play.
ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Ursprungligen publicerad 27/2 2015 som en del i en serie om yttrandefrihet efter terrordåden i Paris och Köpenhamn.
I sin senaste bok, en essäsamling, betitlad Europe in Sepia skriver Dubravka Ugrešić i essän Manifesto.
"En gång två zoner åtskilda av en rätt stadig mur så har Europa under loppet av 20 år blivit en kaotisk mega-marknad. Nu finns inga murar och inga koordinater heller; ingen vet var väst är, och inte öst heller".
Hon, som själv beskriver sig som "en produkt av en socialistisk barndom, Jugoslaviens sönderfall, inbördeskrig, nya pass och brustna identiteter, exil och ett nytt liv i ett västeuropeiskt land".
”Dessa små på pålitliga fakta. Stämplarna i passet läggs på hög och förvandlas vid något tillfälle till otydbara linjer. Först då börjar de plötsligt rita upp en inre karta. En karta över det imaginära. Och först då beskriver de i detalj den där omätbara upplevelsen av exilen. Ja, exilen är som en mardröm.”
Jag har, i min tur, beskrivit henne som att allt hon skriver är färgat av hennes fria hjärnas tolkning av ett Europa format både av krig och sina filosofer.
För i Dubravka Ugrešić böcker, både romaner och essäer, rör man sig nämligen i Europa, mellan platser. Hon iakttar detaljer på dessa platser- små händelser eller fenomen som tillsammans skapar en lika galghumoristisk som vemodig ton. Hon är pessimist. Kanske bliven med tiden, men hon är det.
I en annan essä i samma bok står hon och röker på en balkong i Bulgariens huvudstad Sofia, i vad hon beskriver som ett typiskt öst-europeiskt hyreshusområde, där hon är på besök hos en bekant. På balkongen intill får hon syn på en märklig ståltråds-grunka. Hon frågar vad det är och vännen svarar att "Det är min påhittige granne, han jagar duvor med den". Hon frågar vad han ska med duvor till, varpå vännen lakoniskt säger: "Du vet, det är många människor som kämpar här..."
Hon skriver sedan att hon själv under de år som gått sedan den händelsen blivit betydligt mer pris- och krismedveten, att hon till och med köpt ett antal burkar med kondenserad mjölk. Holländsk kondenserad mjölk. Burkarna är på alla sätt utom ett identiska med dem som i Sovjet kallades zguschenska.
Skillnaden är att de holländska har ett bäst före-datum
Och jag kan se henne framför mig, där hon bär hem matkassarna till sin lägenhet i Amsterdam. Jag har nämligen varit där två gånger, för att intervjua henne. Hon bor i ett stort vitt 60-talshus med långa, långa loftgångar, på en gata där det finns både en polisstation och en moské.
När inbördeskriget i det forna Jugoslavien bröt ut 1991 tog Dubravka Ugrešić stark ställning emot kriget och emot nationalismen. Hon blev då kallad både för förrädare och häxa. Efter en rad offentliga påhopp lämnade hon Kroatien 1993, eftersom hon inte kunde "anpassa sig till den ständiga terrorn och lögnaktigheten i såväl offentligheten, som politiken, kulturen och vardagslivet".
Livet blev motbjudande när allt var så nedsmutsat av hat och nationalism och sen blev jag utsedd till en allmänhetens fiende, jag blev utfryst av både mina grannar, vänner och kolleger, sade hon när jag träffade henne år 2004.
Dubravka Ugrešić hamnade först, sedan hon lämnat sitt hemland, i Berlin, vilket också är den stad som spelar en sorts huvudroll i hennes roman Den ovillkorliga kapitulationens museum. I den är det är 90-tal, det är exil, det är fragment av liv och närbilder på ting som bärare av både minne och tid.
Något som återkommer även i nästa roman Smärtans ministerium, som däremot utspelar sig i den stad där hon kom att bli kvar, Amsterdam.
Ett Amsterdam dit bokens huvudperson Tanja kommer för att undervisa i serbokroatiska på universitetet.
Serbokroatiska, som sen Jugoslaviens upplösning inte längre finns som ett officiellt språk, eleverna också de en grupp forna jugoslaver som nu ska definiera sig både i förhållande till det gamla landets nya länder och förhålla sig till det för dem främmande land där de råkat hamna.
Och staden Amsterdam, som en plats för glömskan, som Dubravka Ugrešićsäger, där minnena skingras. En skör, drunknande miniatyrstad, byggd på sand - som gjord för att se igenom och för att försvinna i, tänker jag.
Och när jag besöker henne nästa gång, år 2010, då är det vi istället talar mest om hennes nya hemland Nederländerna och den politiska förändring landet befinner sig i. Då har både filmaren Theo van Gogh och professorn Pim Fourteyn mördats och parlamentsledamoten Ayaan Hirsi Ali lämnat landet. De var alla tre islamkritiska, offentliga personer som genom sina öden kom att bli symbolgestalter, vilka i någon mening legitimerade den islamkritiska hållning som vuxit sig allt starkare i det tidigare så öppna Nederländerna.
2010 hade Nederländerna därför istället fått en invandringspolitik som var en av de hårdaste i Europa. Bland annat med svåra både språk- och kulturtester för de invandrade. Och Geert Wilders främlingsfientliga Frihetsparti hade blivit tredje största parti i parlamentet.
Hans teser är enkla, säger hon. Holland ska belöna hårt arbetande människor, stoppa immigrationen, stoppa islam som till skillnad från kristendom är en farlig religion enligt honom. Allt framfört med billig känslomässig retorik, menar Dubravka Ugrešić.
”Jag jämrade mig över något lösryckt fragment, en tillfällig melodi som klingade i mitt öra. Ett ansikte som plötsligt visade sig i mörkret. Ett ljud, en ton, en vers, en slogan, en doft en scen.”
Dubravka Ugrešić talade vidare om den polarisering, den uppdelning i "vi" och "dem", som alltid funnits, som handlade om judarna på 30-talet och som handlade om muslimerna, då 2010. Behovet dock detsamma - att peka ut den andre.
Nu, år 2015, vet vi att läget hårdnat ytterligare. Att muslimerna fortsatt är utsatta som grupp, men att nu även de judiska grupperna står inför en ny våg av antisemitism.
Och i yttrandefrihetens namn - det här är Dubravka Ugrešić - hon som själv flytt sitt land för att värna sin egen yttrandefrihet, hon fortsätter också att tycka att man inte behöver vara politiskt korrekt.
I essän "Code" i Europe in sepia skriver hon "om den politiska korrekthetens regler hindrar oss från att använda etnicitet, nationalitet, ras, kön eller andra typer av skillnader - alla lika opålitliga i vilket fall som helst - men vi ändå vill ha något att falla tillbaka på, så finns alltid koden." Koden, som hon menar är de skrivna eller oskrivna regler som styr vårt beteende inom olika grupper.
Hon tror helt enkelt inte på en uppdelning av människor, på en indelning i grupper - därav hennes kritik av mångkulturtanken. Hon menar att den kan bli omvänt rasistisk genom att den förstärker idéen om "den andre" och snarare hindrar integrationen.
Ja, hon sade det 2010. Hon kanske skulle säga något annat nu - antagligen skulle hon det, eftersom hon är den hon är.
Jag söker på youtube och jag hittar ett föredrag hon höll i Boston hösten 2013, där hon från en person i publiken får frågan hur hon ser på demokratin Europa.
Hon svarar långt och vindlande och hon säger att människor är rädda och tysta och att de inte vet hur de ska positionera sig idag, eftersom postionerna är så låsta. Om du som kroat är emot EU, då hamnar du ofrivilligt på samma sida som nationalister och fascister. Det är så lätt att bli etiketterad och så svårt att hitta alternativ.
Begrepp som demokrati och stat börjar lika malätna flaggor, säger hon, men en typisk drastisk Dubravka Ugrešić-formulering.
För Dubravka Ugrešić utmanar med sina tvära kast mellan högt och lågt, åsikter och fakta. Och mellan litterära och filosofiska referenser finns också läppstiften, den rumänske taxichauffören i London, gamla amerikanska filmer...
Det är det som gör henne så intressant.
Och jag skulle vilja sluta med ett citat. Författaren Steve-Sem Sandberg beskrev Dubravka Ugrešić så här, 2004:
–Det finns ingen författare jag läst de senaste decennierna som så uppriktigt och så känsligt och smärtfyllt och så gripande tagit pulsen på vår egen samtid.
Anneli Dufva
-
In Sweden it was not especially uncommon to hear the phrase “moral superpower” as a descriptor of Sweden on the international stage. But when push comes to shove it is Lithuania that time and time again has proven to be Europe’s true moral super power.
In this english language edition of Säkerhetsrådet, Katarina Tracz invites two chairmen of the Lithuanian Foreign Affairs and Defense Committees Zygimantas Pavilionis and Laurynas Kasciunas to discuss, among other things, the war in Ukraine, Sweden’s process of NATO accession and Europe’s relationship to China.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Interview with Gonçalo Themudo, Board member of Wikimedia Europe, about Wikimedia Europe, recorded at the Big Fat Brussels Meeting VIII.
-
This episode is in English. Mike Rooseboom is the Product Manager for one of the Growth teams at Epidemic Sound. At Epidemic Sound content creators can find royalty-free music for video or sound productions such as Youtube videos or podcasts.
Mike’s Growth Team consists of him as the Product Manager, a Data Scientist, a Product Designer, a Tech Lead, several Full-Stack Engineers, a Machine Learning Engineer, and an Engineering Manager. The team works very closely with data scientists and user researchers and tries to work systematically with data and insights, both quantitative and qualitative, to understand user behavior and where to optimize. From insights they derive hypotheses and bets, from which they create experiments or activities to validate if they’re on the right track or not. Usually, their teams have data scientists embedded, thus part of the day-to-day. User research is something they get help from centrally, but also do a bit themselves in the team, with QA help from the central team.
Based on both quantitative and qualitative insights, they believe visitors and users don’t really understand what it is that they provide. It seems simple enough, but music licensing is hard and it can easily be mistaken for music streaming. Their hypothesis was that visitors needed a bit more information on how this benefits them. So they did different things. Add a page about licensing information. Add a quiz on what subscription works for you. Add information per user segment, addressing their benefits and pain points directly (Youtuber, Streamer, etc). Apart from licensing, which is still hard, it resulted in more signups but also more retention and lower customer service cases. What they learned was that if you address your visitors according to their needs and pain points, you build trust and motivation, even if it seems like you’re adding friction to the funnel.
A challenge they had was that the website was quite slow, especially the further away you are from their servers in Europe. Google looks at The Core Web Vitals – Largest Contentful Paint (LPC), First Input Delay (FID), and Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) for ranking. Epidemic Sound looked at the correlation between LCP, and conversion rate. The result is a much faster site and improved Google’s page speed index score. And they learned that it is hard to attribute the work to ranking or signups, or even any qualitative input from users. But looking at their own data, they know the site is faster around the world than it used to be.
One insight is that they keep hearing that people want to hear the music before signing up, and they have historically kept the music a little hidden, like Netflix or Viaplay, but this seems to annoy people. So they made the music available through a more robust top navigation. This would also improve SEO. And the results were…Terrible, it killed conversion. They did this many times in different iterations, and they are still not done. Experimentation isn’t about winning, it’s about learning. They can continue to iterate because they believe that there is something here.
Datadrivet is a podcast by scilla.studio. Do you want help getting started with experiments in your team? Get in touch with us at scilla.studio or on Linkedin. The podcast hosts are Joni Lindgren and Jasmin Yaya. -
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.
-
A conversation presented as part of the Battle of Ideas Debate festival at Accelerator on November 16th 2022.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the return of war to Europe has shocked the world and appears to have upended many assumptions about how international politics operates. What are the roots of the crisis in Ukraine and what will be the implications for reshaping Europe? Is this a new moment of Western unity and a reassertion of ‘Western values’ or the return of History and deeper geopolitical tensions? If borders and nation states still need to be taken seriously, how can countries offer solidarity to others?
Speakers:
Alex Voronov, journalist and writer. Since Russia’s invasion he has done several trips to the Ukraine to report from the war zone. Voronov is a former political editor of Eskilstuna-Kuriren, and currently an editorial writer at Liberala Nyhetsbyrån.
Maria Nilsson, Associate Professor of Journalism at the Institute of Media Studies, Stockholm University. Nilsson’s research interests include the politics of representation; questions of power, credibility and agency in visual media practices; and visual journalism and journalism in various historical and current contexts.
Sabine Beppler-Spahl, author and journalist. Chair at the Freiblickinstitut, Germany correspondent for online publication Spiked. -
Jacob Walter var en vanlig tysk menig soldat i Napoleons väldiga armé som invaderade Ryssland 1812. Det som gjorde honom ovanlig var att han skrev en dagbok om en av militärhistoriens största katastrofer.
Napoleons fälttåg i Ryssland 1812 tillhör den militära historiens mest dramatiska händelser. I slutet av juni 1812 korsade en väldig armé omfattande mer 450 000 man – till och med över 600 000 om man räknar alla reserver – den ryska gränsen vid floden Njemen och rördes sig mot Moskva.
Den ryska huvudstaden intogs i september efter ett antal brutala strider där slaget vid Borodino den 7 september var det i särklass blodigaste. Trots att Moskva var i franska händer kunde Napoleon inte tvinga Ryssland och Alexander till en fred på sina villkor.
I oktober inleddes reträtten tillbaka. Efter övergången av floden Beresina i slutet av november bröts armén slutligen samman. Endast mellan 20 000 och 30 000 återkom av den väldiga armén. Resten dog eller tillfångatogs. Det hela var en katastrof.
I den nymixade reprisen av avsnitt 26 av Militärhistoriepodden följer Martin Hårdstedt och Peter Bennesved en av deltagarna i fälttåget: den menige tyske soldaten Jacob Walter. Med utgångspunkt i hans bevarade dagbok rör sig samtalet kring det katastrofala fälttåget ur den enskilde soldatens perspektiv. Hur tedde sig umbärandena för den enskilde krigsdeltagaren? Varför utvecklades fälttåget till en katastrof? Vilken betydelse hade vintern egentligen?
Den franska armén – La Grande Armée – bestod bara till hälften av franska soldater. Resten kom från andra delar av det franska imperiet utanför det egentliga Frankrikes gränser. Med i fälttåget fanns polacker, tyskar, österrikare holländare, italienare och så vidare. Jacob Walter kom från det tyska kungariket Würtemberg vars armé tämligen ovilligt deltog i fälttåget mot Ryssland.
Jacob var veteran från tidigare fälttåg i den tyska armén som slogs mot Napoleon 1806-07 och även 1809. Efter 1812 fick han avsked på grund av sina skador som en följd av umbärandena i Ryssland. Men han var en av de mycket få som levande återvände hem. Jacob kom att skriva ner sina upplevelser i en dagbok som via utvandrande efterkommande hamnade i USA. Historikerna kan genom hans realistiska och i alla högsta grad trovärdiga berättelse få en inblick i detta världsdrama som är långt ifrån strategierna och de höga officerarnas staber. Lidandet i krig får ett ansikte.
Om du vill lära dig mer om Napoleonkrigen, fälttåget 1812 och Jacob Walter kan du läsa hans dagbok som finns utgiven på svenska Jakob Walter Fotsoldat i Napoleons armé. Dominic Lieven har skrivit en fantastisk bok på engelska Russia against Napoleon. The battle för Europé 1807 to 1814 som rekommenderas för hard core-läsaren. En skönlitterär skildring är naturligtvis Leo Tolstoj Krig och Fred. En sammanfattning av hela Napoleonkrigen hittar du i Martin Hårdstedts Omvälvningarnas tid som innehåller ett par kapitel om ryska fälttåget.
Bild: Korsandet av floden Berezina den 17 november 1812 av Peter Hess, målad 1844.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hello Interactors,
Today is part one of a two-part exploration. I was curious as to why conventional economics continues to rely so heavily on deterministic mathematical models that assume perfect conditions even though they know such inert situations don’t exist in nature. It may tie back to the Enlightenment and the popular beliefs of Newton and Descartes who merged Christian beliefs with mathematic certainty – despite viable alternative theories they helped squelch.
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 SPERMISTS
Isaac Newton and René Descartes were spermists. They believed they entered this world through preformation. This theory states every future organism is wrapped up in a seed or sperm as a preformed miniature version of itself. This was the dominant belief among Europe’s most respected Enlightenment thinkers. They believed not only did a Christian god create all the plants and animals, including humans, but all the future ones too. Intercourse, they surmised, is a magical act that initiates the growth of microscopic animacules which then grow until they are fully formed. It’s easy to brush this off as a point in time lack of knowledge and excuse these brilliant minds. We might say, “They just didn’t know any better.” But it turns out there were other brilliant minds at the time who thought they were crazy.
But powerful people are not easily persuaded. They, along with the church, continued to push the idea that preformation is as elementary to evolution as mathematical axioms are to theorems. A mathematical certainty that one day seduced many scientists, and later economists, into similar deterministic expressions.
One of the early preformation influencers was the Dutch philosopher, mathematician, and theologian, Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718). Three years before his death, he published a soon to be popular book, The Religious Philosopher: Or, The Right Use of Contemplating the Works of the Creator. In it he writes,
“This however is sure enough…that all living Creatures whatever proceed from a Stamin or Principle, in which the Limbs and Members of the Body are folded and wound as it were in a Ball of Thread; which by the Operation of adventitious Matter and Humours are filled up and unfolded, till the Structure of all the Parts have the Magnitude of a full grown Body.”
His book was translated into English in 1724 and its influence spread. In 1802, the English clergyman and philosopher, William Paley (1743-1805), expanded on the ‘Ball of Thread’ analogy with his infamous watchmaker analogy. Using examples of mechanistic functions of the human body like joints and muscles, he expanded the popular notion that this is the work of a supreme designer – their Christian god. He writes,
“Contemplating an animal body in its collective capacity, we cannot forget to notice, what a number of instruments are brought together, and often within how small a compass. It is a cluster of contrivances.”
But Paley wasn’t alone, nor was he the first. Both Descartes and Newton had already remarked as much. Newton once wrote, “like a watchmaker, God was forced to intervene in the universe and tinker with the mechanism from time to time to ensure that it continued operating in good working order."
The confidence of spermists was buoyed when spermatozoa was discovered by the Dutch microscopist Antoine van Leeuwenhoek in 1677. But the seed of the idea dates all the way back to Pythagoras. He believed male semen is fluid that collects and stores different elements from the body like the bone and brain. He said, “semen is a drop of the brain.” The woman provided a host and nourishment so the male semen could unfold inside her body.
Another Greek philosopher, Empedocles, refuted the Pythagorean claim 100 years later noting offspring often inherit characteristics of the mother. He proposed there was a blending of male and female root reproductive elements in plants and animals that has the potential to produce blended varieties as their offspring. Empedocles was on to something, but his theory was overshadowed by a more popular theory and powerful name, Aristotle.
THE OVISTS
Aristotle believed both men and women provided different forms of reproductive purified blood in the form of semen and menstrual fluids. Because semen appeared more pure than menstrual fluids, he surmised it must have the advantage. Therefore, the male provided the instructions, design, or blueprint for formation and the woman provided the material. The ‘blood’ metaphor is alive today despite our knowledge of genetics. J.K Rowling did her part in her Harry Potter series to perpetuate and popularize the blood metaphor with ‘pure-bloods’ and ‘half-bloods’ or the derogatory ‘mud-bloods’.
Aristotle’s ideas were brought to life in the 17th and 18th century by the spermists nemesis, the ovists. Ovists were rallying behind the discoveries of William Harvey (1578-1657) and Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) of female eggs in female bodies, the union of the sperm and egg, and the formation of an embryo which in turn unleashed the production of various parts of the body. Harvey called this cellular formation of individual parts in plants and animals epigenesis. An idea Aristotle also suggested.
But one Dutch spermist, Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680), used this to further the preformation theory, but with a twist. Evidence of the union of egg and sperm, he suggested, must mean the future organism is embedded inside the head of the sperm in miniature form waiting to become whole with the help of the egg. A century later, this prompted a Swiss scientist, Charles Bonnet (1720-1793), to offer a counter ovist preformation theory. He suggested a Christian god planted future generations not inside the sperm, but inside the egg – like nested eggs within eggs.
Meanwhile, a group of naturalist scientists opposed these Cartesian and Pythagorean, mechanistic preformation theories. The French naturalist, mathematician, and philosopher, Pierre Louise Maupertuis (1698-1759), further rejected theological explanations and believed both the male and female possess particles that come together to form unique characteristics in their offspring. He is credited with being the first to observe evolutionary hereditarian changes in organisms over time suggesting some characteristics are dominant while others are recessive.
The German physiologist Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1733-1794) expanded on this work and revived Harvey’s theory of epigenesis. By observing chick embryos, he discovered a supernatural action occurs once the sperm is implanted in the egg. This sparks what he called a vital action “vis essentialis” that culminates over the period of gestation creating a fully formed body. This is the origins of what we now call embryology.
Those in the mechanistic and theological Cartesian camp weren’t having it. They, like the church, rejected talk of indescribable, supernatural, and immaterial ‘vital actions.’ It was not only heretical, but suggested science was going backwards to embrace medieval miracles of the occult. Either way, if there were forces at work on matter, the preformation mechanists believed it too would have been preordained by a Christian god. The co-inventor of differential calculus, German polymath and theologian, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), reasoned like this,
“But if in truth an intelligible explanation is to be sought in the nature of the thing it will come from what is clearly apprehended in the thing…for the success of the whole system is due to divine preformation.”
THE NATURALISTS
Toward the middle of the 18th century the French naturalist and mathematician, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), began publishing his work on natural history, Histoire Naturelle – an opus that amassed 36 volumes that continued to be amended even after his death. By looking at the history and evolution of the natural world, Buffon was the first to articulate patterns of ecological succession – the successive structural change of species over time. He rejected Christian Creationism and theories of the preordained mechanistic unfolding of nature and provided vivid and expertly rendered illustrations to the contrary.
He took elements of Aristotle’s blood theories, qualitative approaches to inquiry, and aspects of both spermists and ovists to merge them with empirical evidence and compelling writing to make convincing arguments for unexplainable actions vital to the creation and evolution of the natural world.
As the late professor of history and Director of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Studies at UCLA, Peter Hanns Reill, wrote, Buffon “emphasized the primacy of living over inanimate matter, asserted the existence of inner, active forces as central agents in nature, envisioned a world of new creation and leaps in nature, and proclaimed the ineffable quality of individuality and the manifold variety of nature.”
Through “comparison”, “resemblance”, “affinity”, and “analogical reasoning” he “revitalized and historicized nature without denying the existence of a comprehensible order.” This provided a path for science to embrace qualitative reasoning without foregoing the rigor, language, and quantitative aspects of mathematics embraced by mechanists like Newton and Descartes.
It wasn’t only ecological communities that could be explained this way. Society and politics could too. This admission further worried mechanists and theologians. They feared any acknowledgement that mysterious random events, be it at a particle or societal level, that could lead to a ‘vital action’ creating unforeseen mutations accuses the Christian god of not understanding his own creations. It would reject both ‘divine preformation’ and ‘God’s will’.
This came at a time of social revolutions, debates, and contestations over human rights, freedoms of religion, and ‘we the people.’ Mechanists married the certainty of mathematics with the certainty of their Christian god to explain the world. If nature and society lacked the linear precession of clocks, compasses, and mathematical calculations, they feared such uncertainty would unravel societal order and unleash chaos.
Naturalists continued to point to ‘internal’ vital forces that created perceptible ‘external’ microscopic and macroscopic evolutions that countered the dominant inert, deterministic, and mechanical philosophies and beliefs. But the seduction of certainty remains with us to this day, even when we know it not to be true.
The Scottish philosopher and historian, Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), suggested as much writing,
“Our notion of order in civil society is frequently false: it is taken from the analogy of subjects inanimate and dead; we consider commotion and action as contrary to its nature; we think it consistent only with obedience, secrecy, and the silent passing of affairs through the hands of a few.”
Ferguson goes on to use a brick wall as an analogy. He continues,
“The good order of stones in a wall, is their being properly fixed in places for which they are hewn; were they to stir the building must fall: but the order of men in society, is their being placed where they are properly qualified to act. The first is a fabric made of dead and inanimate parts, the second is made of living and active members. When we seek in society for the order of mere inaction and tranquility, we forget the nature of our subject, and find the order of slaves, not of free men.”
Buffon’s new modes of inquiry transformed fields formally beholden to mechanistic dogma like medicine, physiology, and chemistry. But it seems economics remain seduced by the determinism of linear, mechanistic, mathematical approaches despite it being a branch of the social sciences. While it may have dropped religion, it has yet to fully embrace the “notion of order in civil society is frequently false.” It’s time conventional economics acknowledge there are mysterious ‘vital forces’ internal to nature and society resulting in external perturbations that propagate indeterminant permutations.
Tune in next week as I explore what that might look like.
Thank you for reading Interplace. This post is public so feel free to share it.
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 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.
-
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 -
Torsdagen den 27:e oktober bjöd Seiko Sverige in till event på Skyddsrummet i Stockholm.
Denke & Berns var inbjudna att sända podcast från den trevliga tillställningen. I avsnittet träffar vi bland annat Naoto Hirooka, Seiko General Manager Marketing department in Europe and Africa och Ingunn Rønningen Boge, Marketing Manager Seiko Sverige samt flera eventbesökare i vimlet. Självklart passade vi även på att klämma på massor av fina klockor från Seikos premium sortiment så som King Seiko.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
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.
-
Rockflödet, en podd för dig som vill få full koll på det senaste inom rockvärlden. Utöver nyheter dyker det upp heta intervjuer och tunga tips om aktuella band.
Veckans huvudrubriker: Sweden Rock Festival har släppt fyra första banden & biljetter, Rolling Stones släpper ny skiva & Avatar har släppt sin nya singel & musikvideo.
Ni hittar även en intervju med John Norum (Europe) i mitten av avsnittet.
Programledare: Corey Duvette och Jonas Lööw
Jingel: Jens Werner (Veritas, Save The Noize)
Klipp: Linus Borninger
Produktion: Flick Agency, i samarbete med podcasten Hårdrock - För Fan! och rockbladet.se
-
International Corner - Round Table Discussion: Transparency and Reliability More Attractive in Troubled Times?
With extensive sanctions against Russian interests, rising energy prices and global uncertainty, international real estate investors have a lot to think about at present. We have seen before that the Nordic countries with their good reputation for transparency and stable regulatory systems have benefited from uncertain times. Do we see the same thing today? What parameters are most important to investors? How long-term do you dare to be during a military conflict in Europe?
This production was recorded on September 21th at Business Arena Stockholm.Moderator:
Peter Dahlen, Managing Director, American Chamber of Commerce in Sweden
Speaker panel:
Rosie Hunt, Real Estate Research Analyst, DWS Group
Jenny Lindholm, CIO, Alecta Fastigheter
Lisa Hybbinette, Partner, Roschier
Max Barclay, Head of Newsec Advisory, Newsec -
Today I’m speaking with Matthew Goodwin who’s a Professor of Politics at Rutherford College, University of Kent. His latest book National populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy (Penguin UK 2018), written together with political scientist Roger Eatwell, is one of the best books to read if one wants to understand the political currents in contemporary Europe. He recently joined Substack and I highly recommend giving him a follow if you’re interested in politics, populism and the challenges to democracy.
The last week or so I’ve been embroiled in a debate on Twitter and in Dagens Nyheter over whether the Sweden Democrats are fascist or not, which is a debate that never seems to go away. I’ve been wanting to get Matthew Goodwin on the podcast for quite some time, so it’s a happy coincidence that we timed our talk with this debate over fascism. (If you missed it, this is my first response to my critics. The second will be published tomorrow.)
I ask him about how one can distinguish between national populism and fascism. We also talk about the implosion of the conservative party in Britain, the space for a third party in Britain, about wokeism and what to do about it, and why Gen Z seems to go left in the anglosphere but to the right in Sweden. I hope you enjoy the programme!
Jag mottar inga statliga bidrag eller annan finansiering, utan förlitar mig helt på er läsare och lyssnare. Genom att bli betalande prenumerant gör man det möjligt för mig att fortsätta vara en självständig röst.
Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.)
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.enrakhoger.se/subscribe - Laat meer zien
