Mike Davis – Old Gods, New Enigmas: Notes on Historical Agency

Dylan Riley – Bourdieu’s Class Theory: The Academic as Revolutionary

Kim Moody – The New Terrain of Class Conflict in the US

Sam Ashman, Zachary Levenson &Trevor Ngwane – South Africa’s ANC: The Beginning of the End?

Daniel Finn – Irish Politics Since the Crash

Mike Parker – Management-By-Stress: A Reply to Joshua Murray and Michael Schwartz

Vanessa Williamson – The Tea Party in Retrospect

Chris Maisano – The New ‘Culture of Poverty’



New PM Meeting on Thursday the 21st of September from 13h00 to 15h00 in the Freeman Center, room 39 (campus map).

Brad Bauerly will be presenting a paper entitled ‘The Superintending State: Situating Resistance and its Abatement in the American Transition to Capitalism‘.

Everybody is welcome!

“How does race relate to class in capitalism? Is it intrinsic and essential to the reproduction of capital, or merely an accidental feature of particular capitals? In this recent essay by Richard Seymour, and originally published on his Patreon, Seymour considers a debate within Marxism on the relationship between class, race and capitalism.”

Announcing Catalyst

June 3, 2017

Jacobin is launching Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy. Edited by Robert Brenner and Vivek Chibber.

First issue out now!


Vivek Chibber: Rescuing Class from the Cultural Turn.

Mike Davis: The Great God Trump and the White Working Class.

Cedric Johnson: The Panthers Can’t Save Us Now.

Nivedita Majumdar: Silencing the Subaltern.

Joshua Murray & Michael Schwartz: Collateral Damage.

Charles Post: Slavery and the New History of Capitalism.

Visit here to subscribe:

Charles Post – The Roots of Trumpism


Donald Trump’s nomination and election is the most recent chapter in an ongoing leadership struggle that began in the aftermath of the global recession and the 2008 Democratic electoral victory. Capital successfully beat back the first wave of middle-class radicalism in the Republican Party—the Tea Party—during the 2014 Congressional elections, but these rebels were not vanquished. They were radicalized.

Since the 1960s, the mass voter base of the Republican Party has been made up primarily of older, suburban, white, middle-class, small businesspeople, professionals, and managers, and a minority of older white workers. Until recently, the particular passions of the Party’s base —especially its hostility to the democratic gains of people of color, women, and LGBT people—could be contained. Minor concessions to the social conservatives on abortion, affirmative action, voter restrictions, and same-sex marriage/legal equality maintained their loyalty, while capitalists set the substantive neo-liberal agenda for the Republicans (and the Democrats as well). As in the Democratic Party, the non-capitalist elements of the Republican coalition were clearly junior partners to capital.


Read the rest here:

What now? The roots of the present economic crisis and the way forward: a discussion with David Harvey and Robert Brenner

Sponsored by the Advanced Research Collaborative, Center for Place, Culture and Politics, and Center for the Humanities.

The Graduate Center, CUNY
New York City
December 1, 2016


Full video here –

“For over eighty years, the reformist left in the United States has sought to transform one of the capitalist parties into a “people’s” party. Both the Communist Party’s popular front strategy and the social-democratic strategy of “realignment” (formulated by the brilliant ex-Marxist Max Shachtman) sought to transform the Democratic Party. The Democrats, through the 1950s, were a coalition of urban real estate developers, Jewish and Catholic capitalists and southern planters who enjoyed the voting support of northern industrial workers, black and white, middle-class liberals, and most southern whites. The reformists’ goal was to drive out the conservative, pro-capitalist elements—especially the Dixiecrats—leaving the labor officialdom and middle-class liberals to dominate a “labor-liberal” Party. As Paul Heideman pointed out in a recent essay in Jacobin,1 there was a realignment in the Democratic Party in the 1970s—but not the one the reformists hoped for. The southerners abandoned the Democrats for the Republicans, but with urban growth the non-WASP capitalists were joined by new capitalists in high technology and the media, and an increasingly neo-liberal urban middle class. Rather than becoming a labor-liberal party, the Democrats moved sharply right in the 1980s as the official leaders of the labor, civil rights, and women’s movements were marginalized.”

Continue reading –

Thursday, 20th of October (13h-15h): Pedro Lucas Dutra Salgado (Sussex), ‘International Historical Sociology and the Problem of Geopolitical Agency – The Case of Brazilian State Formation’. Venue: Freeman Center – F39 (University of Sussex).

Thursday 24th of November (13h-15h): Workshop on ‘International Historical Method’. Readings and venue to be determined.

Thursday, 8th of December: Michael McIntyre (DePaul University), title and venue to be determined.




This innovative text provides a compelling narrative world history through the lens of food and farmers. Tracing the world history of agriculture from earliest times to the present, Christopher Isett and Stephen Miller argue that people, rather than markets, have been the primary agents of agricultural change. Exploring the actions taken by individuals and groups over time and analyzing their activities in the wider contexts of markets, states, wars, the environment, population increase, and similar factors, the authors emphasize how larger social and political forces inform decisions and lead to different technological outcomes. Both farmers and elites responded in ways that impeded economic development. Farmers, when able to trade with towns, used the revenue to gain more land and security. Elites used commercial opportunities to accumulate military power and slaves. The book explores these tendencies through rich case studies of ancient China; precolonial South America; early-modern France, England, and Japan; New World slavery; colonial Taiwan; socialist Cuba; and many other periods and places. Readers will understand how the promises and problems of contemporary agriculture are not simply technologically derived but are the outcomes of decisions and choices people have made and continue to make.


Praise for the book:


In this audacious book, Isett and Miller argue that the key to understanding the emergence of the modern world is the epochal transformation of agrarian class structures. They show how their framework can account not only for the ‘Great Divergence’ between East and West, but also the ‘Little Divergence’ between Northwest Europe and the rest of the continent. Written with tremendous clarity and verve by two scholars in complete command of their subject, this is one of the best works of analytical history to have been published in recent years.
Vivek Chibber, New York University

In an extraordinary feat of interpretation, Christopher Isett and Stephen Miller have produced a theoretically informed history of agriculture, from its origins nine thousand years ago to the present. They have synthesized vast historical literatures on every major phase in the development of farming, from the rise of sedentary production, through the transition to capitalism, to the green revolution and beyond. They have also provided their own, always-illuminating resolutions of the debates over conceptual framework that have defined the field. An invaluable contribution for scholars, students at all levels, and general readers alike, it truly is a tour de force.
Robert Brenner, University of California–Los Angeles

“In her seminal work “The Origin of Capitalism,” the late scholar Ellen Meiksins Wood took on the credo that “capitalism emerged when the market was liberated from age-old constraints and when, for one reason or another, opportunities for trade expanded.” Schoolchildren in the US are commonly taught to conceive of the broad variety of political-economic systems, both those extant and those possible, as divisible into two essential and opposing categories: “markets” and “planning.” “Markets,” in this formulation, offer opportunities for commerce which make people free, while “planning” oppresses people through inefficient resource rationing. It is taken for granted that “markets” and “capitalism” are synonymous; likewise “planning” and “socialism.” The problems with this formulation are legion, but particularly egregious is its utter ahistoricity: inconveniently for the schoolteachers formulation, markets predate capitalism by thousands of years.”


Markets in the next system