Guerrilla History - People's History of Europe (Part 2 - Post-WWII) w/ Raquel Varela

Episode Date: December 16, 2022

This episode of Guerrilla History is Part 2 of a two-part conversation with Professor Raquel Varela on the history of modern Europe.  In this installment, we carry on from last time, where we left off at the end of WWII.  If you haven't already checked out part 1, be sure to do so!  This work necessitates critical engagement! Raquel Varela is a labour historian, researcher and Professor at New University of Lisbon, and Honorary Fellow at the International Institute for Social History.  She is the author of A People's History of Europe: From WWI to Today.   Help support the show by signing up to our patreon, where you also will get bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory  We also have a (free!) newsletter you can sign up for, a great resource for political education!

You don't remember den, Ben, boo? No! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rank. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerrilla action on. Hello, and welcome to guerrilla history. the podcast that acts as a reconnaissance report of global proletarian history

and aims to use the lessons of history to analyze the present. I'm your host, Henry Huckimacki, joined as usual by my two co-hosts, Professor Ignan Hussein, historian and director of the School of Religion at Queen's University in Ontario, Canada. Hello, Adnan. How are you doing today? Hi, Henry. I'm doing well. It's great to be with you. Always nice to see you. I feel like we've been seeing a lot of each other recently, but, you know, I'm not complaining for sure. And also joined by Brett O'Shea, host of Revolutionary Left Radio and co-host of the Red Menace podcast. Hello, Brett. How are you

doing? I'm doing very well, Henry. It's always nice to see you as well. And it's also nice to see our guest today who is returning from our previous conversation that we had with her. We have Professor Raquel Varela, who is a labor historian, researcher and professor at the new University of Lisbon and the author of the book that we were talking about last time, a people's history of Europe from World War I to today. So listeners, if you have not already listened to part one of this conversation, we talked from World War I and a little bit of pre-World War I, but mostly from World War I through World War II in that conversation. If you haven't listened to that yet, go back and do that now because we are going to pick right back up where we left off

in the post-war period. But first, let me welcome Professor Raquel Varela. Hello, Professor. It's nice to have you back on the show. Hello, and thank you very much for this invitation again and this talk, which was so nice last time, made me think a lot, so I hope we will continue. Absolutely. I know we all thought a lot about it afterwards, and I know that the listeners also would have been a thought-provoking conversation for them. So I guess, Brett, why don't I turn things over to you to get us underway as we jump in? Again, We finished up with the World War II, with World War II in the last conversation. So let's get right into the post-war period, Brett.

Sure. Yeah, that's a great transition point. It's kind of halfway more or less of the book itself, which is a nice little stopping and starting point. So after the chapter three entitled Midnight in the Century, the Second World War, your next chapter is called the 1945 European Social Pact. So we have a situation. The World War is over. Europe is largely in ruins. Many people will know the context of where we're going next. And then, yeah, if you could just kind of open up a discussion about what happens immediately

in the aftermath of World War II and the people's movements throughout Europe and the government's attempt to regain control. There's, of course, reconstruction in many countries. So there's a lot going on. And you can kind of take us anywhere you want. But, yeah, just kind of starting from there and moving forward. So thank you so much. The main idea I want to debate in this part of the book is that the post-war period in Europe is just possible to understand if we use the concept of revolution in 1945. So what we had in 1945, 1947, 48

and already since 19444, you could say it and of course sooner in countries like Greece and Yugoslavian we had a revolutionary process characterized by the

fact that the workers' resistance had gained a huge power in defeating Nazism, and even the huge part of the regular army of the Allies was constituted by workers mainly. So what we have in 1945 is the biggest economy in Europe and virtually the rich economy, countries in Europe are destroyed, except England, and capitalism is in a huge crisis, because in 1945 was absolutely clear from the political point of view that the Nazism was not an option of a country driven by a crazy guy called Italy. but the solution of the dominant class of Germany towards the 1929 crisis. So when we had, so in 1945 capitalism as a mode of production was in a deep symbolic crisis

because it was, because 80 million people had died. in the Second World World. And the Second World World was not just caused by the Nazi fascism in Germany because the Allies

had the political towards Germany which was done in Munich in 1938 in order to see, in order to don't fight fascism directly

because fighting fascism directly was just possible by supporting revolutionary struggles from the workers' point of view. And Stalin itself in 1939 in the Rebentrop-Molotov pact had a policy towards Hitler

that was to say Hitler can bill against France and Britain and not against Soviet Union because Stalin and the regime knew that a war could live to a socialist uprising against bureaucracy. That's why Stalin had defeated and killed the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party

and the hired cadres of the Red Army because the idea was to kill all the leaderships that could then discern from a bureaucratic regime to a socialist revolution. So what we have was acknowledged by millions of workers in Europe and also in United States that capitalism the

1929 crisis answered by capitalism by dominant classes let's not forget that there was a militarization of the workforce done by Roosevelt in United States let's not forget the imprisonment

of the Japanese in United States let's not forget the all the pact that was done with the unions during the war in order they were

wouldn't strike that ended with the meccartism and a Bonapartist policy towards the unions in order to smash any communist or socialist ideology. And this, of course, is directly connected with 1929 crises for two reasons. First, because during the 30s, the most radical period of the American working class took places, which is the sit down strikes in US, 36, 37, that Michael Moore speaks in this film, Roger and I, I think, because his grandfather was a flint worker in the GM. So, calling power yourself, Colin Powell, he said there was two moments where we were in the abyss of a revolution, because for calling power, a revolution is an abyss, was the sit-down strikes in the 30s and the civil rights movements in the 60s. So what we saw in 1945-90, it's a huge...

A number of strikes started in U.S., in England, in France. In France, there were half million people in the resistance. Most of them run by the Communist Party, which was a very pro-Soviet party. And there was a struggle between the goal and a conservative liberal approach and the resistance. and in northern Italy and in Yugoslavia in Greece in Yugoslavia in Greece they were dominant much sooner than this

which will explain of course the Tito regime and some Yugoslavia independence and the self-management etc and the civil war in Greece because there was a division between Stalin and Churchill of Greece and there was a civil war

after the Second World War. So in order to disarm the workers, it was built the Social Pact. The Social Pact is just possible to understand under the Cold War system. So Yacht and Potsdam have defined the division of Europe between what will be called dramatically and theatrically by Churchill, the Iron,

and 13, but Churchill was in the Yalta in Potsdam signing this division. So when he complained after that, he could, he just could complain about himself. This was a division that he supported and signed it.

And as you can see, for example, in a very, very well, very good movie of Ken Lodge, the spirit of 45, all what we have after the Second World World, I know this is a very counterintuitive explanation, but what we have is a situation of in many countries

or in many sectors or in regions, a situation of workers' control because the Nazis have destroyed the countries or the Allies bombing the Nazis. There was a physical destruction of property. And there was, when the Nazis lived, they have to run because both the Red Army and the American British Army conquers more spaces. There is an empty place, a political empty place,

that will be run by the resistance and by the workers locally. So you have this entire cities in northern Italy were controlled by the resistance. Factories were under workers' control because the Nazis had to escape and the workers took care of the factories between France and Germany, a very powerful industrial area. you have entire villages under the population control because it's very counterintuitive but for us labor historians is very obviously

if you don't have the state you cannot build a state from a day to another one so you cannot arrive here in Europe which is destroyed with American offices and say look now we are in charge This doesn't happen. There was a huge amount of life which was controlled by the workers. Distribution of food, distribution of energy, running factories, running villages, etc.

On another way, what we had on the same time was that the majority, the resistance in most of the countries is a very industrial world. working class base resistance. So, for example, just the railway workers in British resistance was 7%. And the railway workers are not 7% of the population, of course. So what we had was a huge power of the organized working class in key sectors of the world and key sectors of any economy, communication, miners, railway workers, steel workers. All these workers had enormous power because they have been producing during the war, they have been resisting during the war, and they have not provoked the war. The war was provoked by the reaction of the bourgeoisie, both in

dictatorial and not dictatorial countries, it doesn't matter because the reaction was the same, was a war economy. The second world world is an answer to 1929. It's a process of massive destruction of capital in order to recover the rate of profits. That is, and usually

people mixed, there is a chronology between crisis and war, which most of the time is inverted in my, it's put it on the other way around. So when we look now for the crisis in the war in Ukraine, people say, oh, we are in bad shape economically because of the world. No, the war is already an answer to the economic crisis. So what we had was a war economy, and the workers were very, they acknowledge this, they get, they got conscience of this

so in to summarize very simple capitalists had to say look you give us the guns and but why you are going to give the guns in change of

what and capitalists have made the biggest the biggest change in the lives of capital which was look if you give us the guns, we give you safety in job and universal welfare state. Why this is so important?

Because capitalism cannot work with secure jobs, because unemployment is the way you pressure the wages. So it's by a huge amount of unemployment that you guarantee low wages, pressure over the wages. If you have labor security, you have full employment, you cannot make a pressure over the wages. The second is universal welfare state. Capital is based on the reproduction salaries of biological reproduction of the workers. So if you have the garbage workers, you consider they just worth the minimum wage. A doctor, you can pay maybe four times more, but always you pay,

the minimum to him be a doctor, the meaning for him, for she be a nurse, the minimum for the garbage worker being a garbage worker. Because for capital, people have a value according to their profit and not to their human, and not because they are humans and we consider all equal. So universal welfare state tends to equalize workers. because it doesn't matter if you are a garbage worker, if you are a nurse, if you are an industrial worker, whatever.

People are all considered equal and they deserve the same hospital treatment, the same education, the same cultural, everything. So, universal welfare state and full employment is it cannot live with capitalism. But as Europe is totally destroyed, the recover of economy done with fresh investment of US in the Marshall Plan, which is a military plan, as you know, because just the first year is the Marshall Plan. After the second year, what we have is military Keynesianism. Most of the money goes to the defense of Europe. So, and then you have an imposition of co-management in Germany and of Toyotaism in Japan. So when Americans occupy Germany and Japan, they say, look, we put here the money, but you control the workers. And this is the production of, and of course, because they have had all their unions destroyed Japan and Germany.

so there was not a political resistance to this. So this made a top profit rate because you had countries destroyed. They need to be built from zero. So the level of accumulation is huge because you are doing everything new, if we forget that they had to kill 18 million people for this. you control the unions and you put a huge amount on the investment.

This was the German and the Japanese miracle, so-called miracle. So in a movie of Bernardo Bertolucci, Novichento, a great movie where he tries to make an overview of the 20th century, there is a moment where they go to keep the guns of the resistance they go to pick the guns of the resistance and they say to the peasant you have to give us the gun the war is over

any answers the war is over but capitalism is not over we still have bosses and I think this image synthesize in one second what I wanted to say in the book The Social Pact is an extraordinary, exceptional moment in capitalism, just possible to understand. If we understand that workers had the guns, this was a revolutionary situation.

The workers were, there was a dual power. There was a power of the workers and the power of the states trying to rebuild themselves. Another very important piece of art that shows this is the book, I don't know the name in English, from Primo Levy. He has a trilogy of Auschwitz when he was in Auschwitz. And after when the second book is when he goes from Auschwitz to Italy. And you see all the state destroyed and people were in self-management. So the social pact is an answer. to all of this, basically to the huge strength of the workers.

Of course, now you can ask me why the workers didn't decide it to overthrowing capitalism. In my opinion, because the Soviet Union signed this pact and told to the resistance, look, let's sign this instead of trying a revolutionary situation where we will defeat the states of Europe. in my opinion this is why this peasant in Italy

because why this is in the movie of Bertolucci because part of the Communist Party in Italy refuses to give the guns and they went three or four months to the mountains refusing to give the guns. But this was a minority.

The majority of the resistance accept the social pact. The problem is that the Social Pact, as we see now, and we see since the 80s, was just an exceptional phase of capitalism, because capitalism is about unemployment and is about division of workers. What capital wants is that if you are a garbage collector man, you are not worth it, and you should be like this all your life. You don't get an education, you don't get respect, you don't get help, you get the minimum wage

and we can substitute you by another one. This is the idea of capital and it came back in the same not even in the same way but in a worst way because we are living a catastrophic moment where wars are

returning to capital are returning to the world even with the hypothesis of a nuclear world and we have 60 persons that have the same amount of income as half of the planet. Yeah, you're showing the relevance of this history. It connects so closely with our present.

But quickly, one other follow-up question about this post-war period. I was interested also in the idea of Europe and how it's implemented in your analysis of what the European project is and comes to be. I think you were very careful to point out that, of course, the emergence of the welfare state across different countries in Europe is nothing to do, really, with the project of Europe and the European Union. And in fact, actually, the European Union is something that accomplishes the undermining, ultimately, of the welfare society, because it is, of course, a product of the

post-89 Berlin Wall period with the Maastricht Treaty and the reunification of Germany. But going back to this pre-war period, I wonder if you could elaborate. I was very interested in how you pointed out that there had been European projects, like, you know, since Charlemagne. Now, I'm a medievalist, and of course, you know, that is, and the economist, even today, its European column is written by somebody called Charlemagne, right? It's because it goes back to this idea of the Latin West. The church had its kind of idea of a European kind of project.

But you seem to suggest something interesting that to stop the kind of workers' project of Europe, there is a kind of formulation of a European commercial treaty. and markets and so on, and a project that is really the U.S.'s project in some ways, and, of course, many of the bourgeois elites of these European states in the post-war period to prevent, it seems, in some way, a kind of extension of that worker militancy, formulating a kind of new European vision and its integration potentially with, you know, Eurasia, you know, because I think one of the things you pointed out is the devastation, And one of the big problems was hunger was spreading.

And of course, they're separated not very far geographically from the breadbaskets of cereal production in Ukraine and Russia. But because this would have meant integration into and possibly dependence on the Soviets and extension of Soviet influence into Europe that the creation of a kind of European project is partly the result of U.S. provisioning the Marshall Plan, creation of NATO. And so I wonder if you could elaborate on how Europe is a product of this Atlantic kind of, or at least the institutions that come to emerge, as part of a kind of capitalist Atlantic project to prevent a radical vision of Europe. Yeah. Thank you. Well, Europe, European Union, reclaims they have, they are the, they narrate the welfare state.

They have built it. They have built the welfare state. And this is chronologically a lie. You cannot subscribe this because, as I explained before, the welfare state and the social pact are born in 1947, 48. and the European Union has a little embryon in 51, but it goes a little bit further in the 70s, but it really just developed in the 80s and 90s,

with the Ordo Neoliberalism from Germany, and especially after the 80 crisis and all the related, restructuring process. And the European Union is not characterized by welfare state or universal policies, but social assistance policies. This is one of my contributions. I can be right or not, but let's say it's original contribution in this book,

which is part of my research on labor movement. in Europe. So I would say that most of the things I have said were a result of a very good bibliography of label historians and social

historians. But this part is original. Again, it can be wrong. Just underlying what is my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that the European Union breaks with universal policies and start social

assistance policies. What is the differences from the point of view of value theory? Because, again, if you pick up a construct worker that produces some value or a physical engineer, etc. And you give all the same health, you are saying the cost of labor is the same. But if you say we are going to give minimum income or access to the hospital as it is nowadays in most of the countries in Europe, for example, now you want to go to a hospital, they ask you, are you poor? Which is, by the way, incredibly rude because they don't ask if you are poor. They ask, are you under the

Artzvier in Germany, minimum income in Portugal, Sestavazica, whatever? By the way, all these policies were designed in World Bank. Most of the ministers of Europe went to the World Bank where they have been months

training this. Social policies focalize, we say targeted social policies. Why? Because you are managing workforce like this. You are saying, oh, you are unemployed, I'm going to pay you health. But this health is according to what you produce to society. And how do I regulate this? Well, if you work to a company, you have a good insurance. If not, you have to go to the public hospital. In the public hospital, you pay according to the income. And that's how you change universal policies where 15 years ago I went with my kids to the best pediatrician hospital in Lisbon. And I went there and the son of the prime minister was there. And there was this gypsy community, gypsy community, which is totally without job, without in a very bad situation. And everybody was waiting for.

the same doctor. This is a socialist policy. This is a universal policy. You say, look, for us, people all have the same value. But then you don't have this anymore

now, because the European Union has imposed. For example, the European Union has imposed that in order a state to become a member, they have to introduce the pre-retirement system. The pre-retirement system is that was done to debt workers of the social pact,

that unionized workers of the social pact that had good wages and they go to pre-retirement and they are substituted by their sons and daughters that earn 40 to 50% less. So all the design of European Union is, in my opinion, is the end of social pact. The European Union is not a social pact, is the end of social pact. But now we have to see the second differences. The social pact, which I ideological criticize because I'm enthusiastic of the idea that workers have the right, the possibility and the courage to do revolutions, social revolutions, in order to stop exploitation.

But this is my ideological approach. But what really happened was not that. What happened was a social pact between classes. Workers and bosses have compromised the social pact. It's a pact between classes. We are not going to struggle for power. And you give us welfare state and for women. employment, and they say, okay, we accept if you give us the guidance.

This is a negotiation between bosses and companies, sorry, between workers and employees. The European Union has no participation of the working class in the negotiation. It's the American bourgeoisie with the French and German bourgeoisie, designing market, As again, it was just the carbon market, which was at the beginning in 51. It was the key center of the production of material for the reconstruction of Europe. So it was absolutely essential to have this negotiation between France and Germany because otherwise there would be no reconstruction.

there would be no reconstruction and there would be a possibility of a social uprising, of a social revolution. So if you don't stabilize Europe. So this was the first answer of the American bourgeoisie. Jamonet, which is the founder of European Union, was the man in charge during the world in U.S. So there was already a strained connection between the bourgeoisie in US and French,

even during the Second World War, not just after that. So the European Union is a compromise between bourgeoisie's, has nothing to do with workers, no workers, no unions, no workers' organization, no workers' federation, nothing was there in the negotiations of European Union. is a top negotiation but the European Union claims they are the social pact

it's a different movement we see there of course then you can say look but comparing to other attentive since Carlos Magno Charles

how do you say it in English Charles Cabes Magno the attempt to build Europe in the middle age Charlemagne

okay and there were many attempts to do it of course the church played an important role you know it much better than I because the church was the state

at the time but all them failed in a way why because the competition between the dominant classes was bigger which led to wars and conquerors of territories etc etc the European Union is always shown

as the wonderful result of the bourgeoisie Why European Union is so used by liberals and how it's so egemonic? Because they say, look, we are the guarantee of peace. And it's amazing when they say this, they say we are the warriors. They say this with proud, but what they are saying is that, look, when they say we are the guarantee of peace, they are saying, look, all the wars in Europe have happened, has happened. because our states, our companies, our bourgeoisie

have been doing wars in Europe since always. And for the first time, we decided not to do worse. Which is absolutely true, because when they say words are between people, this is a lie. Words are between states. So when they say, we are the guarantee of peace. And how they guarantee peace?

They guarantee peace by a very strange process, which is a division of the profits between German, France and a little bit Scandinavia countries, also England. And when England, after the 2008 crisis said, start not earning so much money, they said, okay, we are living, we are not earning as much as we won't. and all this process is eating the borders of European Union by the debt system, which is a system of destroying economies, of concentration of capital, that Marx already writes in capital since the 17th century. the public debt is this magician of the state to concentrate capital. And the bourgeoisies of Portugal, Spain, Greece, Ireland, in change of having some, we say, some little bit of the bread,

they have accepted. But this process was just possible to, has some stability, in my opinion. Now I'm doing a little bit of future forecasts. So a little bit of forecasts. This process could just happen because when the China is open to the market, the double of the workers come to the market worldwide.

And you had a huge amount of profits done with this, and a huge amount of debt because after the German reunification, the German has decided we are going to borrow cheap money and this exploded in 2008. We lend this money

so they can buy as machines because the structure of the European Union economy is Germany and France, and it is automobile industry and aeronautic industry and real estate industry, construction industry, not real estate, but construction. So I believe this is, after 2008,

this has started to implode with the Brexit is a result of this. And I don't think this crisis is nothing else. When the European Union shows so much together against Putin, this crisis is already a result of that crisis, because the German industry needs not just the gas to have the factories working 24 hours a day. It doesn't matter if the workers are dying of exhaustion, working all nights long, because when they speak of ecology, they never ask why we are working at night, why workers are working at night,

why we don't stop producing, producing, producing. They need raw materials for the green, so-called green transition. It has nothing to do with green. The so-called green transition needs raw materials. And these raw materials are in Russia, are in China, mainly, are also a little bit in Australia and Brazil. So even when they say, look, nuclear plants is a lot. option, which is, of course, pathetic to see them defending that nuclear plants are now a green

energy. But when they say this, the uranium is not in control of European. So what we have in Europe, a huge population with no energy and no raw materials. So I think, I could say the same about certainly the Russia is in crisis so the dispute of Ukraine is very important for Russia the Chinese so I'm not saying

that the European Union is just the one disputing but we are speaking about the Europe they are disputing raw materials they are disputing energy and I think this design of the European Union which started to implode with the Brexit

after 2008 is now facing a huge crisis which we don't think we don't know how much will take this because if you do the green transition you destroy the welfare state where is the money to pay all these factories to become green

I'm not also the question of raw materials and energy also what we have is the countries if they work to 24 hours a day, most of the countries of Europe cannot pay the debt. So if you put all the workers working 24 hours a day, they don't pay the debt. Because the debt is over the GDP at this moment, as well as in US.

So we are all living above a volcano, which is, of course, exploding in front of us. And I think the work is just a moment of this. So, European Union could survive because the profit rates in the 90s were huge. When the European Union was really was really starting to be a reality in the 80s, just after that came the opening of the Chinese market to the world. When I'm speaking Chinese market, I'm speaking of labor force. so you can produce there by very cheap with a huge profit rates. And now there is nothing like this.

There is just a success of sacrifices of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists. After the Second World War, what they had to do, look, forget socialism because we in capitalism are going to give you full employment, growth. and welfare for everyone, what any capitalist, any government says every day in the television. Prepare yourself for the crisis, prepare yourself for a catastrophe, prepare yourself for sacrifices. They don't have nothing to offer from the point of view of the only thing they have to say is you have to support us. We are terrible, but if you don't support us, there is a fashion. There is even worse.

So their discussion, we are going to give you the best of life. Which was their propaganda in 45, 47? Now is prepare yourself to get frozen at home, to eat pork because you cannot have access to good protein, to stay at home, don't have money to go to the theater. So behave yourself as an animal. while we have every day the number of millionaires growing, including in Europe, including in France, including in Germany, including in Portugal, the billionaires are not growing, but the concentration of capital is huge.

The topic I want to turn us to now, and I do want to just appreciate for a moment how expansive you are with your answers. It's one of the things that I really like about interviewing you is that we can give you a topic, and then we get so much information. It's like an avalanche of information in many ways. It's great. So I do appreciate that. But I just want to briefly also bring in my co-hosts as I ask this question because

it was something that we chatted about after we wrapped up the previous interview with you on the next topic, which is anti-colonial revolt, anti-colonial revolutions. It's the next topic within the book. And we had a little bit of a conversation about, you know, how one portrays anti-colonial revolution from the perspective of a book on European history, as well as, you know, how European history has an impact within these, you know, former colonies at this point. But at the time, very much were colonies. And also, you know, how it's, they're inexplicably tied, you know, how the European project in many ways is built off of the profits that are extracted from the colonies. You know, there's many, any webs that we had in this conversation. So Adnan and Brett, in case you want to add anything into this little bit here as we toss over this, you know, ridiculously large topic to the professor, you know, hop on in and say anything that you want on the topic of anti-colonial revolution. Brett? Yeah, the anti-colonial revolutions in that period of time was obviously very crucial.

And if we see World War II as a huge transition moment for the West in general, with many possibilities, although they were collapsed into a certain formation afterwards, we have to see these decolonial movements and these anti-colonial uprisings as a huge shift and a huge transition for France as well, or not France, for Europe as well. So I just wanted to kind of like highlight the importance of it. I'm really interested in how you draw these connections specifically to political economy and capitalism's interest in maintaining colonies abroad and what the, what these anti-colonial revolutions did from the perspective of

capitalist economics and the home countries that benefit economically from the resources and labor of these colonies. Well, the anti-colonial revolution is a very easy story to do because

it's finished already and what we have now is neo-colonialism dramatically everywhere. So we know the end of story and the end of story is terrible and the Mediterranean has become

a cemetery and has become a cemetery because Africa the dream of an independent autonomous Africa where people could be could have their life in their hands

was destroyed already in the 70s, when the IMF, the European Union, etc., have imposed, for example, loans and debt in change. In countries like Mali, I'm quoting Oxfam, they have imposed that the workers, the peasants have to destroy their crops and buy it to multinationals in Europe, the products. The results of this, the monoculture in Africa, the domain of the multinationals of Europe and U.S. in Africa, have destroyed, so the peasant society was already destroyed by colonialism in 19th century. 20th century, what was left from, but it was mainly a peasant society,

when the intensification of colonialism after the bernarine at the end of the 19th century started. Of course, there was slavery before, which was, as you know, another piece of a nightmare in history of humankind, but when, so the colonies have been destroyed as a peasant society and they were not minimally developed as industrial societies. So these are virtually destroyed societies. And they were not,

and the European government, US, lied to complain the corrupt dictatorships, which of course play their role. I have no doubt about this. But they played their role as subsidiary of the governments and the multinationals in Europe and U.S. So the main responsibility for this strategy is here. And when I say here, I don't think the unions in Europe or U.S.

have played important role fighting this. On the contrary, the charity policies have substituted the solidarity. policies, the social pact as substitute the supporting of struggles, etc. So this is the picture nowadays

and couldn't be worse. When we see the number of children that die every day with things like diarrhea, so this is a reality. This is not a reality

of Africa. This is a reality of European and U.S. governments, and this is their responsibility. And you cannot solve this by asking to some nice singers to do a music towards Africa. People have to have development and control of their agriculture and industry. There is no other way to develop science, health, whatever, culture, which, of course, everybody is entitled. But all this started with a different promise That was absolutely wonderful These, the African workers were incorporated in the armies

In the Second World World World and when they went back They revolt themselves With most of them with a very progressive ideology Socialist ideology or national liberation ideology and they have done this the anti-colonial revolutions is a process of thousands of people dying, fighting to end

poverty in Africa, to end dependence, to end exploitation. This is at Portugal had colonies in Africa until 74 And the wages, I would tell you by, it is in my people's history of the Portuguese Revolution, but it is, I think, ten times bigger if you were white than if you were a black person. So it's a system, the colonial system is a system of brutality, barbarism, and violence. And this ended, the formal colonialism. It didn't end it because there was in Europe governments very keen of human rights.

It ended because these people, supported by the peasants, started struggles and they've made their revolutions and they have defeated the armies. The French army in Algeria, in fighting the army in Morocco and in Tunisia, The Portuguese army in Guinea, Mozambique, Angola, in the Belgium, the Indonesia, the Dutch, the Congo in Belgium. So all this is a process of revolution. Why it is a revolution? Because it is not just an armed struggle. It's a national armed struggle based on the support of the masses.

This was not armed struggle, as you have. some guerrilla movements in the cities, in the 70s, even in Europe. This is a massive process of support of the peasants, which makes this a revolutionary process. It's a massive process. In this case of peasants also workers, but most of them were peasants' revolutions. What went wrong?

Well, nationalism is definitely not the answer, because you had men like Chegevara, Ben Barka, Emil Carr-Cabral, which had an idea of internationalism putting all the workers together in the world. White, black, doesn't matter. Our struggle is not against, it's not from one state against the other. It's about solidarity between workers. And this was substituted by a national approach, which is all the Guinea should. should be together, even with the bourgeoisie or what was starting to be a bourgeoisie.

And so all this nationalist approach was definitely not a good option because what the dominant class is made in this country was a negotiation, was not an association with their workers, was a negotiation with the bourgeoisie of Europe and US. Yeah, I wanted to sort of maybe round out the discussion with asking you a little bit about what you see as the importance or significance and value of your book and of writing and studying the history of Europe for our contemporary struggles. I think you've talked a little bit about some of the other chapters, you know, the breakdown of this welfare pact. sort of the direction that Europe is going, uh, toward the neocolonialism that has globalized itself. But I was just wondering, um, you know, we're, we're actually going to be talking with, uh, Professor Harvey J.K. very soon about his book, the British Marxist historians. And of course, you know,

that was a very influential group for studying European history and even global history, people like Eric Hobsbaum. For example, somebody who I know you, um, you know, quote, um, in, in, in book and so i'm just wondering what you know what's your what your goal and object was here what you think the value of studying this history is and the way in which history is a contested ground and i'm thinking here of an interesting quote from walter benjamin that harvey j k mentions in his new edition for his book on the british marxist historians where walter beniamine said in his thesis on the philosophy of history, only that historian will have the gift of fanning the spark of hope in the past, who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe

from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious. So, you know, history is alive in the projects of the victors. It's not just that the victors write the history, but writing a people's history is some kind of an act of resistance on the ground of history. So I just wanted you to maybe talk about what's your project for writing this kind of history of the people's history of Europe

for us today? Well, I started as a story, you know, of the Portuguese Revolution, and I've always been ideologically an internationalist. When I start studying the Portuguese Revolution, I was astonish by how people could change themselves when they change a country and how they can, when they change the country, they change themselves. So changing, it is what fascinates me. I don't think the working class is this nice group, dogmatic, very orthodox, where they behave always well, this Takanov idea. No, I provoke my students when they say they want to study workers' culture.

And I say, which one? The domestic violence one? The pedophily one? or the revolutionary one or the strikes one because this essentially essentialized idea of the working class. I'm not, I'm a story and I study societies. I don't study individual people, but I know that individual people can behave in them,

it doesn't matter your class. You can behave in the most wonderful and worst as humans. So, I was not in love by the people themselves, but by the people in revolutions. I want to understand how people can make, it doesn't matter what they have done before, how can they make the most incredible things and change dramatically society for better. why working class first of all because I don't believe in inequality I believe we should all be equal

in order to be different secondly because I think the bourgeoisie has threatened to humanity again you can have a bourgeoisie that is bad for his wife he's a terrible man you can have a bourgeoisie which is a very decent, nice man.

It's not about individual people. It's about your social rule. Bourgeoisie threatens our life systematic. It's a threat to humanity. And working classes have inside themselves the possibility of doing a beautiful,

fair, good world. This possibility is not the hands in the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie wants to conserve the power and they have shown in the last 200 years they are willing to do everything to conserve the power and they claim they have defended civil rights etc this is not true most of the rights we do we have not just the labor rights the social rights the political rights they have been conquered by the working classes and they have been conquered in revolutions They have been conquered by workers in generally,

peasants, workers, whatever. But of course, the challenge for me was when I saw these people making the most incredibly human things, which fascinates me when you study the revolutions and you see people were really brave, they were really big, They were really given, they were really solidar. They faced the most terrible things for the other one,

for the idea of a decent collective life. And I'm in love with this. But the big challenge is to understand how this happens and how it develops. So I wanted to understand not, first of all, I wanted to bring to the floor based very much on our Zin people's history, on the people's history in general, on the social history of Britain,

which has a big influence of me, on Marxism. Of course, all of this is connected with Marxism. I wanted to bring these people to the floor saying, look, if you want to understand the history of Europe, you have to understand the European Union, what the bourgeoisie has done, what Jamona has done. This is all important. This is part of history, but there is another history, which is also part of history, and that one is forgotten. I wanted to bring this part to the floor.

The second thing I want to do, which it's a project I have for the next 10 years or 20, I don't know, it's to understand how revolutions happen, why happen, and how they develop. because what are the key factors of revolt and how they developed and how they fail and why they fail? I think this is what makes me writing and thinking and doing research nowadays. But I think I should add something else. I'm a Marxist and I don't think this is a problem

to my scientific work, on the contrary. All the tools I have learned with Marxism were absolutely fundamental to what I am as a historian. There are many different types of Marxism. I'm learning every day. I was reading the last two months a book of Marx and I already read it four times and I don't understand everything that is there.

So I find ridiculous the critics of Marx done by people that never read it, don't understand it. But I think that I don't think we can have a life without a future. So struggling for socialism is a sense of life very important for me. I'm a socialist. I'm a part of the struggle for socialism in the sense that I think we as a society,

the same way that we are not animals, we are humans. And humans produce a conscience of what they want. They project life. We don't do the things because we don't. do. A B does things because they do. We have a conscience. And the conscience is about plan.

We have to have a social plan. Resignation is a pathology. We cannot accept a society we live and we have really to fight for a different society. So having an ideology for me

it's a it's a characteristic of basic mental health. I don't understand how people can be happy without an ideology that says, look, I want to be better, and I want to have a better society. So this is absolutely basic for me. I hope my books can, at least when the working classes, read them,

because every day they tell to the working classes you are not good enough you are not worth it we don't need you we have done the things because Einstein by the way Einstein was a socialist

but you know Einstein Churchill just big and I don't think so the society is mainly based of and of course I have big admiration for Einstein and land by church, but there were two big men, no doubt about it.

But I think the role of the working classes in history is fundamental. And I hope that not just my colleagues, but when the workers read my books and lots of workers from unions read my books and tell me, I become very proud of this because I wrote the book knowing that I had the privilege of be born in a society, in a family where political conscience was almost given to me as a present. And I know most of the people are not. And I hope when they read my books, they understand they are part of history. And the history is in their hands.

Yeah, beautifully said, beautiful work. We really salute your contribution. I deeply appreciate, you know, the points about just committed egalitarianism that we can't be our full human selves in a class society that divides us up and says some deserve everything, some deserve nothing. And that the bourgeois class as a whole is increasingly an existential threat to life on earth. I mean, literally at this point. And then as well, the critics of Marx, I mean, I'm somebody who's been studying Marx for over a decade, still am learning new things all the time, still finding things that I thought. I understood are more complicated. And so I share that basic sensation or that that sense that the most dogged critics of Marx who've never even read him can just say anything at all,

anything anti-communist, any anti-Marxist. And it gets picked up and gets a lot of play when they know literally, they don't engage in good faith with the actual, you know, work and history and tradition. And the last thing you said is over the next 10 and 20 years, you're going to study more of the mechanics of revolution, how they succeed and how they fail. And I think over the next 20 years we're going to see a lot of history happening we're already starting to i i get the sense that we're at the beginning of like a decade or two decade long process of real tumult and and turning over of old ideas and who knows where that leads but it's going to be incredibly exciting so i look forward to to more of your work and thank you so much for for coming on our

show and sharing it with us thank you thank you so much and um well it was wonderful thank you for your instigated, instigated question, provocations, challenging was really nice. Thank you so much. Yeah, absolutely, Professor. I also really enjoyed the conversation. And I hope that in the future we'll be able to bring you on to talk about a people's history of the Portuguese revolution. If you'd be up for that. I know that we would love that. So, again, absolutely. Our listeners, again, our guest was Professor Raquel Varela, professor at the new University of Lisbon, author of a people's history of Europe. Pick it up, and we'll be right back with the wrap-up.

And we're back with the wrap-up. And we're back with the wrap-up. On a people's history of Europe, another really fascinating conversation. And as I alluded to earlier, like an aspect. avalanche of information coming at you whenever she is speaking, it's really a pleasure to just sit back and listen, even when in many cases, and maybe not many cases, but in some cases I do, you know, have some problems or disagreements with her analysis. But overall, I find, you know, the amount of information and analysis that she's providing to be really tremendous. So I really enjoyed the conversation. Just before I turn it over to you guys, Brett, you mentioned that the critics of Marx that have a read marks before and still find ways to criticize him being laughable. It reminds me of something that you and I had a conversation with, with Professor Richard Wolfe about an interaction or a lack of interaction with Jordan Peterson. And Jordan Peterson is like the perfect example of

somebody who clearly has not read marks, at least not past the first half of the communist manifesto and literally nothing else, who yet despite that has made, you know, at least part of his reputation as a Marx understander and basher, which is very, very ironic. But yeah, let me turn it over to you guys. We'll get initial thoughts out there. And yeah, Brett, why don't I turn it over to you first? Yeah, I also want to say like a James Lindsay is another one of these figures. Oh, absolutely.

That literally he's now, you know, pretending to teach Marxism to his right wing audience. Like as if he's an expert and you go and you listen to it and it is like a kindergartner trying to explain physics. But, you know, if your audience is uneducated enough and ignorant enough and as inherently and intuitively committed to anti-communism as many people are, it's an easy way to make money. But, you know, there's so much more to talk about. And one of the questions we didn't quite get to in this episode is, you know, and she alluded to a couple things. She made some forecasting. But like, you know, where is Europe heading? And right now we're in a situation where, of course, the obvious thing is the Ukraine and Russia war, but also the energy crisis that's

being, you know, a product of it. And then if you zoom in on that dreary little island up in the northwest, the UK is in shambles right now. You had a situation in which Boris Johnson's resignation, you know, the Tory government picked Liz Truss, and she attempted. And I think this is very telling. I think we'll look back at this moment as like the final death nail in this neoliberal era. She tried to reanimate the corpse of Thatcherism, of Reaganism and Thatcherism with this, you know, just slashed taxes for the rich and, you know, this whole bullshit. And it immediately backfired, immediately tanked the economy. And she's now out after six weeks of being prime minister, which I believe is the shortest term that any political leader in UK history has ever had.

And this, of course, if somebody's going to attempt to reanimate a dead neoliberalism, it's going to be the UK. But the other failure of it and that, you know, maybe. even the destruction of the Tory party as we know it right now. I don't want to get too ahead of ourselves. But a lot is happening on the political front, certainly, but on the economic front as well. And I really see us now, and many people talk about the end of neoliberalism, but I really see Liz Truss's last gasp as like a really important, you know, hinge point in the death of neoliberalism, which you could probably say technically died in the 2008 financial collapse and has been a zombie ever since. But this last hurrah attempt at it and its utter failure really is a turning point.

What comes next? I'm not quite sure. The neoliberal globalization that we've come to know is certainly sort of retracting and perhaps even dying. But winter, this winter is going to be one of the roughest, certainly in modern history for Europe. And that's opportunity for many tragedies, opportunity for a lot of suffering, especially amongst the poor and the working class. also an opportunity for social unrest, for uprisings, for people's movements fighting back against a dying economic and political order. So there's a lot to think about as far as what comes next in Europe and having a deep understanding of where Europe has been, specifically over the last century, is really crucial to kind of getting your bearings when it comes to

where Europe might be going now. But it's definitely entering a period, as the whole world is, And certainly the U.S. is included in this as well, a period of crises and tumult and uprising. And climate change is, of course, the background to all of this. So very interesting stuff. Yeah. And for the listeners who are curious, we are recording this on October 20th. And Liz Truss resigned about three hours before we hit record, which is why it might be fresh in our minds that, you know, we have this example. Yeah.

Well, I think also from my perspective, One of the great things about this book that doesn't come out in these short conversations is the full scope of Dr. Varela's analysis and the way in which this history from below perspective of a people's history turns on its head a lot of the conventional mythologies, you might say, because they're more mythologies than they are history. but they're in historiographic form, these arguments that are made and are part of popular discourse about the past that inform present politics and political interests. So she takes apart a lot of these. And I think the conclusion, for example, really brings together, like all of these big themes that she's dealing with about, you know, how and why Europe's history really needs to be looked at from a class struggle perspective because none of the developments,

none of the institutions of the welfare state or, you know, all of these things that are credited as part of perhaps, say, some kind of consensus of Europe, she points out over and over, these are all as a result of class struggle, you know, and conflicts that get resolved in this particular way. So I think that's a really healthy reminder. and I would encourage people to get the book and really read the conclusion. I might actually do have to do a Patreon, since we didn't get to sort of get to all of these extras, I'll do sort of a Patreon reading of the conclusion and maybe extend some of these about why this history is so important. I think it's a great book. It's thought provoking on so many levels. And, you know,

at least what I would say is just that taking up that point of class struggle. analysis. That's the kind of important bedrock, really, of her analysis and why this is a fresh take on modern European history that's worth engaging. I mean, it's a synthesis, really, of left positions that have been worked out historically, but it's great that she brings it together in one book. And that's a real service for us. And I think as Brett mentioned, that we are undergoing a big transition. So understanding what some of the forces and alignments that have brought us to this position, as we're witnessing, the breakdown and the collapse of not only the welfare state, that's already over,

but also the neoliberal dismantling of the welfare state is itself also in crisis. And we're undergoing some kind of transition. It's going to be very fascinating to see whether a new revolutionary moment might be more successful than those of 1917 and its aftermath. But one final thing that the book really does is it shows that how much that 1917 revolution was significant for the subsequent history of Europe and that there is a debt, as she says, that the rest of so-called more developed or advanced Western Europe actually has to pay that has not been recognized to the Russian Revolution as that singular, you know, world-changing moment of demonstrating

that workers and peasants can remake their world for a better future. Yeah, absolutely. And the last thing that I'll say, and then perhaps, you know, one of you will have something to say in terms of other things that you would have liked to get to in the conversation. I mean, there's so much more that we could have talked about and that I would have liked to have talked about, especially, you know, given her class analysis perspective of history, you know, it would have been great to talk about how, like, migration flows within the European Union are, you know, the bedrock of many of the major businesses within Western Europe,

like these, these, what we would consider to be the successful European countries, Germany, France. A lot of these, you know, major corporations are predicated upon migration flows from Eastern and Central Europe, essentially is a brain drain from Eastern Europe and perpetuates, you know, the relative underdevelopment of these areas. You know, we don't think of underdevelopment in terms of Europe very often when we think of underdevelopment, at least people who have read well throughout me, we're thinking of Africa. That's a great, that's a great point, Henry. And just to follow up on, you know, other things that might have been worth talking about,

There's so much, so I don't want to belabor this. We should, you know, probably wrap up. But, you know, I was interested in talking a little bit more even about Vatican II, which is discussed in the book in the same chapter that's dealing with the welfare pact, the social pact. And in some ways, although it wasn't explicitly mentioned, it's clear that there's an underlying analysis when you look at it this way, is that maybe the very same forces that led to the necessity. to create, you know, the social pact, you know, to save capitalism. Perhaps in some ways, Vatican II, you could really analyze in the religious and cultural terms as, you know, the social pact in religion, you know, is that the way for it to survive, like Catholicism to survive was to make its peace on some level with at least some elements of

the social changes and movements that are taking place. think about the cultural shifts that are taking place. When you think about it, Vatican 2 actually precedes the big 60s revolution. So it's not that it's a product of the 60s. It in fact actually in some ways is already pointing to changes that are taking place socially in Europe. And that's a good point for us to remind ourselves that the 60s era and the revolutions of 68 are themselves, you know, byproducts of the major changes that happened in the post-war period, not themselves, just agents of cultural change themselves. So there's just so much in this book that, and because this history is so important and rich

to talk about them, so I do hope, you know, listeners will read it. And I don't know if, Henry, if you have any other thoughts that you want to share. Well, yeah, I know I'll just, you know, let the listeners know that my computer is on the fritz. And so I dropped out a couple of times. I'm not sure where I got cut out exactly, but, you know, I was just saying that, you know, it's, it would, it's nice to hear analysis, and it would be nice to have heard her analysis on this particular episode about, you know, how these labor flows are draining, Eastern and Central Europe in favor of the Western European countries. Similarly, it would be great to have had some conversation within this episode of how, you know, Italy and Greece particularly were absolutely devastated by the policies dictated. by Western Europe in the fallout from 2008, which is something that, you know, it's a huge event in modern European history. And it's something that will have repercussions in terms of not

only European wide politics, but domestic politics within these individual countries, which we may actually be seeing the results of in Italy, particularly right now. Yeah. You know, so that's, it would have been great to have conversations on that. Well, what you're saying in a way is that we should have had a third episode. Yeah, yeah. I mean, and I, of course, I, I would. have also liked to, you know, have pushed back on some things, like, you know, push back on

the characterization of like Molotov-Ribbentrop, you know, it would have been nice to push back and say, hey, you know, there were previous attempts between the Soviet Union and Western Europe before that that pact was signed like April 16th, 1939. There was a direct proposal from the Soviet Union to have a military pact with France and the UK to directly oppose, you know, Germany. This is four months before Molotov-Ribbentrop is signed. And that goes beyond, you know, Western powers were also signing pacts with, uh, with Nazi Germany at the time, you know, four powers pack, 1933. That was UK, France, Italy and Germany, Anglo-German Naval Agreement, 1935, UK and Germany, uh, German-British non-aggression pact, 38,

German-French non-aggression pact, 38. Like, I mean, there was a lot of these things, But it seems like we dwell on Molotov-Ribbentrop. So that would have been something that I would have liked to push back on Hungary, 56, you know, like the perspective that some of the most organized factions within Hungary in 56 were pretty much explicitly fascist factions. So, you know, if you had massive social upheaval, what would have come out of the rubble of that? It's something that, you know, whether you agree or disagree with, as they say, the tanks rolling into Hungary in 50s. you know, it would have been nice to have a little bit of pushback and say, well, assume that that didn't happen. Some of the most organized factions within Hungary were fascists.

So, you know, how do you square a criticism of the events given the material conditions within that site at the time? So, like, these are things that would have been nice to have conversations about, and it's things that, like, I feel open to say. I know that she'll take it in a comradly way because I mean it in a comradly way. It's a tremendous work. She's a tremendous scholar. We can have these disagreements, and it's an incredibly important work.

Absolutely. And I would say that, you know, the threads of that kind of question are, of course, so relevant to the issue of, you know, Orban's Hungary and why it is that there's been such a resurgence in Eastern Europe and particularly also the whole refugee crisis that, again, she does discuss. And so it's good to see how this kind of idea of Europe, where these kind of new far-right movements are coming out of. And one could say that it is, of course, you know, as a consequence of the collapse of the neoliberal order that already undermined and destroyed the social pact, the social welfare pact, and of course the end of communism in Eastern Europe and the devastating way in which that was, you know, managed, if you want to put it euphemistically, you know, it just left society in such a, you know, demoralized and fragmented way with a full onslaught. of neoliberal policy, you know, just implemented in Eastern Europe and Russia.

So these are all really huge questions and problems that I'm sure we'll be thinking about and talking about and discussing in the future, you know, but I'm really glad that we had the chance to stimulate some of these thoughts by reading this book. And I, again, encourage listeners take a look at it. You'll learn a lot and also, you know, be provoked into just like Henry, you know, some counter views and so on. This is the stuff of real guerrilla history to work to work out. Yeah. And just really quick to bounce off Henry's point about the Molotov-Ribbon-Trope pact, you know, what you said, Henry is absolutely correct. And I think, you know, aside from

her views on the issue, because we couldn't really get into him, so I can't speak for her, but broadly, over-emphasizing this, this is something that liberals do, reactionaries do, anarchists do. It serves a very convenient ideological role to kind of de-contextualize all the other packs made before this whole thing happened and then just try to it's kind of like a horseshoe theory extension it's like oh we'll see the the bad communists they try to team up with the with the Nazis and it also is fed into this idea when most Americans don't know the sacrifices the Soviet Union made to defeat the Nazis and put the victory at the feet of the UK and the US almost exclusively you can see how this all fits into an ideological ecosystem that is

you know vociferously anti-communist and so that's why I think we we have a an obligation to at least probe these ideas and expand and add the context. And if we had more time, you know, push back and have a discussion. Because I would love to hear her, her opinions on those things. I don't think that she, obviously, she's not a liberal or an anti-communist. So I think we could have really gotten into something very interesting there. But that was a great point. And it's just worth considering the ideological role that it plays if we don't push back on it. Right. That's exactly why I brought it up. You know, it's not as if we were having a debate with a liberal. You know, if that was the case, I would have jumped in and pushed back immediately.

We know that we're having a conversation with a comrade who has a lot of knowledge and expertise to provide. It's worth mentioning that there are other narratives. There are other frameworks to view these things. And I, in many cases, choose an alternative framework to one that she chooses. But I understand that it's coming from a comradly perspective. And so I know I'm going to have people complain like you should have jumped in at that moment.

no. This is not a debate show. We're not going for like clicky, clickbaity, you know, content, you know, this person sniping at this person and insults being hurt. No, you're going to get information from principled comrades that have different tendencies, different ideologies, broadly speaking, on the far left. But, you know, we're not going to have like explicitly Maoists every single episode. We're not going to have Marxist Lennonists every single episode. We're not going to have Marxist Lennonists, every single episode we are going to have a somewhat ecumenical approach these people have so much to teach us regardless of where you come from as a listener so i know i've seen some people complaining on twitter you brought on nome chomsky he's said things against communists before okay if you listen to that conversation it did not learn a single thing from it like congratulations you're brilliant but you know i i don't come from the same ideology as noam chomsky i learn from Noam Chomsky, I think that that's a principled position to hold that we can learn from people that are coming from other principled positions, even if we don't ideologically

adhere to their ideology. It's just my perspective. Feel free to complain on Twitter some more. It's not going to stop us from bringing on people that you don't like. Sorry. In any case, why don't we wrap up on that note, guys, me insulting some of our listeners. Never a good idea. Everybody's welcome, you know, if you have.

No, you're welcome. Don't expect us to, like, you know, tout to your specific predilections based on your complaining on Twitter. You know, that's all that it is. But I just, I do love people that have things to teach you. Yeah, but I do just love when people are actually invested enough in history to debate and discuss it.

So, you know, I welcome the different views. Let's just be constructive. We're here to learn. Totally. And, you know, let's have good debate and discussion. I think that's what being a guerrilla historian is,

is like taking a survey of what's going on and then being able to activate the relevant information that you receive through your survey and reconnaissance on the past and use that and activate it in your actions to try and change the world. So that's what we're here to do. Yeah, I mean, here's the last thing I'll say

before I read us out. You know, you have people say, you brought on Nome Chomsky, you're not real communists, or you brought on, I just saw this one today, you brought on Comrade Joma onto the show, your Maoist trash, like, you know, this is another criticism that we just came on. Okay, if you can't bear to listen to a conversation with Noam Chomsky, I really would not like to see you have a conversation with an average person in the street that is not like on the far left. If you can't bear to listen to Noam Chomsky, have fun communicating with ordinary people that

aren't, like, ultra-tuned into far-left political and ideological debates. Have fun. That's all I have to say. All right, Brett, on that note, how can folks listen to your other excellent podcast and find everything that you do? You can find everything I do at revolutionary left radio.com. Great. And I highly recommend it.

And you can also find similar things, you know, things that you are going to love and things that you're not going to love on Revolutionary Left Radio. And again, if you can't handle that, have fun. interacting in the real world. Adnan, how can folks find you and your other excellent podcast? Well, follow me on Twitter at Adnan A. Hussein, H-U-S-A-I-N, and check out the Mudgellis, M-A-J-L-I-S for Middle East Islamic World Muslim diasporic history culture talk and discussion. And also check out my website, www.adn-Husain.org, where you can find.

out information about ongoing free, open online courses that I'm offering so that you two can be a guerrilla historian. Let's do it. Absolutely. So again, the spelling there, A-D-N-A-N-H-U-S-A-I-N.org. Highly recommend you check out his new website. As for me, listeners, you can find me arguing with people on Twitter at Huck-1995. I actually don't argue that much. I'm just making fun of some people that, you know, they really make me laugh rather than actually get angry. But anyway, you can follow the show on Twitter at Gorilla underscore Pod, G-U-E-R-R-R-I-L-A-U-L-A-U-Skore you can subscribe to our free newsletter, which is another good resource for political education. It's absolutely free.

GorillaHistach.com. Again, G-E-R-R-I-L-A-History.substack.com. And you can help support the show and keep us up and running by going to to patreon.com forward slash gorilla history. One last time, G-U-E-R-R-I-L-A history. And until next time, listeners, solidarity. Thank you.