Good stuff as always. The podcasts really are one of my favorite parts of this subreddit. So I guess this is just a thanks to everyone that is involved. Keep up the good work.

Small comment about Anders Behring Breivik now Fjotolf Hansen.

He is a Norwegian, and his horrible actions were done in Oslo and on Utøya, not in Sweden, as some some kind of revenge against the Norwegian Labor party.

I don't have a further question or anything like that, I just like hearing Immanuel Wallerstein get a brief shoutout. As more of a political scientist/international relations scholar who is very influenced by the World-Systems approach, I've got a particular affinity for him :)

This is a really cool resource. My university deals with a lot of the same issues discussed in this. Thanks for posting this, and to everyone involved!

Edit: If anyone is interested in Perry Anderson's "The Asiatic Mode of Production" essay, it can be found in the Notes section toward the end of his book, "Lineages of the Absolutist State". It was discussed around the 13:45 minute mark.

The audio quality was definitely improved on this ep. Good work!

Hi there! Are you guys planning to put this on the podcasts app on IOS? It would mean people could download it and listen to it on the bike / in the train / in the bus, whatever they do withouten wifi. I’d appreciatie it a lot!

Please suggest some books to read about Marxism and Leninism.

As a side note: The latest podcasts don't seem to appear on gpodder.net. Not suere why.

Very informative episode, butone small criticism: I can't disagree all the "cultural Marxism" talk is rooted in paranoia and misunderstanding or worse. But clearly those who are parroting that trope today do not understand it's conceptual meaning as a historian would, just as an average person calling someone a "Marxist" is using the term completely differently from what an academic would. In that light, and giving the numbers, it feels counterproductive to just label them racist antisemites and then marginalize and dismiss their concerns. It feels moderately uncomfortable and reminiscent of how early feminists were criticised.

Since Marxist historiography's theory and methodology are tough to explain easily and quickly, here are a couple of threads to get a bit more in-depth:

Here is a post of mine from last year where I talk about the basic ideas underpinning Marxist historiography as a school.

Here is u/CommieSpaceInvader on Marxist historiography and the holocaust. Here is another of his threads, this time on Marxism and hegemony. And here is a look at Marxism and class.

Hi!

In the very beginning, the guest has proposed (and later reinforced) a distinction between "critical" and "affirmative" historians based on their attitude towards the Power and "nationalist or similar narratives", that being engagement in critical discussion or justification and affirmation respectively.

Is the absence of the option to stay indifferent to the phenomenon of Power -- a personal opinion of u/CommieSpaceInvader, something intrinsic to the Marxist historiography (perhaps being perceived as a form of affirmation?), or the notion was just omitted as being irrelevant to the further discussion?