Are your favorite academic theorists really CIA spooks?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 чер 2024
- Talking to Gabriel Rockhill, professor and director of the Critical Theory Workshop. Ever wonder why the CIA thought it was worthwhile to sponsor European left-wing academic theories? We talk about Derrida, Foucault, Arendt, and why even if you think obscure academic theory isn't important, you might be mistaken. Author or editor of nine books, Rockhill is currently working on a book tentatively titled The Intellectual World War: The CIA’s Failed Attempt to Kill the Idea of Communism.
Sharing this! Thank you. The last bit especially resonates with me learning about the Rothschilds by accident as a video popped up on my dog walk. It wasn't political, just historical. It made me realize how philanthropy completely shapes our culture - when do we see Palestinian art? Music? Never.
As an undergraduate I feel like this episode just saved me so much frustration and time
Justin, what a great guest! I've been following Gabriel for a little while now and he is such an underappreciated Leftist who really deserves a much wider audience, as do you and all your excellent work. So I was incredibly ecstatic to see this link on my Twitter feed! Your interview was definitely not a disappointment.
Gabriel is also an expert on Fascism and you should invite him back on to give the scientific explanation of Fascism for your audience.
I wish I had caught this interview live, I would have spammed you with Superchat questions for Gabriel!
I always learn so much from Professor Rockhill. Thank you so much
Very interesting topic and thanks for covering. One personal feedback: I think the host needs to let the guest communicate and develop his ideas with less interruptions and without constantly injecting his own experiences. The viewer is less interested in what books the host has casually read as a U of T student than what the guest has researched and written.
100%!
That's a bit harsh. The guest often appreciated Justin's feedback which was hardly excessive
This is really helpful and accessible. Just sent to my students for some background as we're reading Rockhill's "Radical history and the politics of art" right now!
What names does Rockhill give starting at 58:55? I caught Michael Parenti, Domenico Losurdo, Eduardo Galeano, and Vijay Prashad, but could not understand the other two.
Annie Lacroix-Riz
Jacques Pauwels
Parenti openly criticized Chinese neoliberalism but Rockhill prefers to treat it as if it's a kinder gentler neoliberalism.
Few ever ponder how a television network could develope, build, and launch a sattelite in the 1970's, but they did marvel at seeing Elvis in Hawaii (Live Via Sattelite).
You have won a new Subscriber. You are a brilliant interviewer, and deeply intelligent. Well done young man! As for Gabriel, what a brilliant guest. I'd advise we all go and subscribe to him as well.
_Extremely_ interesting discourse!
(Oh, and thanks for the heads-up on Rockhill's upcoming book, it's duly noted!) . . .
I always love it when Justin Podur is a guest on The East is a Podcast. Until youtube put this episode on my homepage, it escaped my notice that he hosts podcasts of his own!
I've heard Prof. Rockhill present this history several times on different platforms, but it never gets old. It really is stranger than fiction.
fantastic interview, Justin!! thanks so much for bringing on this kind of speaker!! so valuable!!
Would love to hear more of him and to have you both drill down into the disarray of the left in the anti-war movement in relation to Ukraine. Nothing could pose more clearly the issue of how ‘leftist’ ideas can be infiltrated and coopted by the CIA than to have the anti war movement geared to supporting Ukrainian nationalism on the grounds that Putin is an imperialist, while ignoring the red and black banners on their solidarity demos
Based on leftist principles of egalitarianism and justice, one can support Ukranians in self-defense of their freedom and autonomy against Russian imperialism without having a specific opinion about Ukranian nationalism.
I've been critical and suspect of the Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin. On one hand he's a brilliant geopolitical analyst and biographer. On the other hand, as a historian, his choice of Stalin as a subject always struck me as a way of framing his cold warrior mentality as an historian. His Stalin project was conceived as a study of power in the Foucalt tradition, because Kotkin studied under Foucalt. Now I see the anti-communist connection, and Kotkin has become increasingly conservative and reactionary in tone e.g. refusing to concede terms of discussion like "Global South" or "multipolar world."
I would rather see Kotkin in the context of mainstream Western political science rather than Foucaldian philosophy. I'd say he's much more influenced by classic liberal and neo-liberal schools of political thought than by "poststructuralist" thought of mid 20th century French philosophers.
@@AntonMochalin No I agree Kotkin is not a philosopher at all, but his Stalin project was motivated by a specific philosophical interest which he has stated publicly was inspired by his studies with Foucalt. To me Kotkin is a cold war aka cultural conservative, not a liberal or neoliberal. Kotkin is out to defend the American way of life and Western institutions more broadly. But he's strictly a historian, he doesn't try to theorize like Foucalt. It's strictly Foucalt's theory of power that motivates his study of Stalin.
@@jason8434 can't you for a moment admit that there could be other motivations for his study of Stalin - maybe just his desire to move forward his career and some scientific or personal interest in the events of USSR's history - outside of trying to save American way of life etc? And again, the overall ideological atmosphere of American academia is still very much classical liberal and neoliberal (in that most mainstream "Reagan/Thatcher" sense) rather than poststructuralist/postmodernist so isn't Kotkin by his study of Stalin just trying to fit in? Yes he could be interested in Foucault personally but he could easily apply Foucauldian approach to for example any period in the history of Western societies if he wished to - but would probably meet a lot of resistance to such kind of study in American academia. The whole neoliberal school was developed in active opposition to socialist and Soviet projects which by the way Foucault discusses for example in his "The Birth of Biopolitics" lectures. The neoliberal thought tries to demonstrate that free market, political competition and competition of ideas - "supermarket of ideas" as they call it - is inherently more efficient than any etatist projects like the Soviet one in dealing basically with any kind of issues. So studying Stalin who is probably the most demonized figure among Soviet leaders and personifies the opposite of the "values of free world" for an average American is just a way of showing "look what happens to state and society when they don't follow the ideals of freedom and democracy" so to speak. And by the way Foucault's view of both Soviet regime and neoliberal ideology is very far from trying to support any kind of Western conservatism so promoting Foucauldian analysis of power (which is mostly the analysis of "micropower" rather than of political leaders' actions and influence) is by no means a good way of supporting Western liberal and/or conservative ideology.
@@AntonMochalin Of course he had many motivations for writing a Stalin biography. But one of the main reasons was to use Stalin as a case study in power, which Kotkin has stated was directly connected to his studies with Foucalt. Kotkin has also appeared with Slavoj Zizek at the New York Public Library.
@@jason8434 you're mentioning Žižek as if he was somehow one of the main figures in defending Western values and way of life while he calls himself a communist (probably not in a strictly Marxist sense) and spends much more time criticisizing Western ideologies rather than any kinds of communist/socialist projects. And there's not much of a connection between Foucault and Žižek - Žižek wouldn't call himself a Foucauldian but rather a Hegelian. Is it possible for you to agree that there can be some non-Marxist thinkers who are not involved in defending the capitalist/"imperialist" status quo but rather just try to develop their theories trying to better understand social processes rather than to take part in never ending ideological battle? And who could probably view both communist and neoliberal ideologies as two sides of the same coin - which, like any philosophical view - can have more or less relation to "objective reality" and day to day social interactions?
Pertinent to the events today (and even before operation Claudio, which began in the early '50s) before even the formation of the CIA, the US secret intell service covertly funded and supported Nazi collaborators in Western Ukraine to cause havoc in the Soviet Union. In fact, i met an old guy in western Ukraine who had worked with the US at the time. ... Don't let popular media narrative lead you astray. There are fascists in Ukraine today, which the US has supported with military advisors and over $2B worth of weapons for the last 8 years.
i spent time studying Derrida, Foucault etc., ... postmodernism ... within the context of anthropology, a discipline that has always had a close relationship with history. Then, years ago, i heard Chomsky (who you can always safely fact check) tell us that before and at the beginning of WWII, when the Nazi monstrous war machine appeared to conquer Europe, the US Council of Foreign Relations thought it was ok. The US could work well with a Nazi Europe in dominating the world. They kept this view until Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk when the Soviets turned everything around, when the Nazis were really defeated. In fact, it was Churchill himself who said by the time US and UK forces entered the war the Soviets had already gutted the the Nazi war machine. ..
Not sure about Chomsky - a precise reference would be helpful - but there's a relationship between the Royal Institute of International Affairs who had founded the Council on Foreign Relations and British appeasement policy - forcing some form of reunification of the American colonies by provoking the build up of a continental power (e.g. by ignoring reports on covert German re-armament).
Canadian historian John Kendle had written about the 'Imperial Conferences' that precede the current G-7 conference circus and the social networks of these institutions are rather telling (e.g. Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, Halford Mackinder, Carnegie, Rockefeller).
That Standard Oil was rather devoted to help the Germans to synthesize petrol after the Nazis were winning elections creates another narrative than that of gallant Western 'democracy' - and so did the Soviets perceive that their interest were rather played against the Germans by British foreign policy.
Opération G adio )Sword)
Applaud Professor Rockhill's incisive comment at 31:30 about Culture and Imperalism re Edward Said for his interviewer's edification (as a Chomsky fanboy). Noting Noam's review that "Said helps us understand who we are, and what we must do, if we aspire to be moral agents, not servants of power".
Regardless of anyone being a CIA agent or not their ideas have just the same correspondence to reality or lack of it. Foucault in the famous debate with Chomsky rightfully accused communist movement of being unable to solve "biopolitics" as he calls it saying that motivations of Soviet people remained bourgeois even 50 years after the October revolution. And we can now be sure to say the same about Chinese project - in the end what drives Chinese society now and makes Chinese people produce all sorts of things and innovate technologically are the same old bourgeois motivations. I guess the root of communists' aversion to Foucault for example is exactly this - we can remember that Foucault was a marxist for some period of time but later demonstrated the failure of marxist movement to change anything.
In regards to cultural Marxism you've not mentioned the greatest (and most successful) lunatic of them all: Herbert Marcuse.
only anti-wokies are obsessed with marcuse he's boring to most contemporary "leftists"
SAME W MARX
Unfortunately I met his son Peter at a housing rights conference. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Peter was a controlled opposition POS. Long story short- When I confronted him about being an agent, his only reply was, "Well, I hope now you'll stop calling me!"
This just popped on my feed and i loved it, great work.
This put so much about my undergraduate experience at a small liberal arts college into perspective. Inspiring me to go back and read read read!
Hundered Schools of Thought 2000 years ago in China gave us Confusionism and Taoism a.o. Hopefully new western thoughts can give us a religion and a political system rooted in peace (respect) and human needs : healthy food, companionship (security, care and joy) and a meaningfull job/life.
As well as Agriculturalism, which could provide the basis for a proto-Marxist critique
Excellent interview
Banger of an episode. Thanks 🙏
Doing searches on Gabriel's recommendations, I cannot find anything by Jack Powell, if that is the correct spelling. Would appreciate a link or clarification. I'm enjoying your newly discovered channel, thanks
Jacques Pauwels
Thanks for this!
Fantastic!!
Subscribed. Appreciate the coverage of actually existing imperialism as well as discussions related to the bourgeois ideology that justifies it.
Brilliant
Academics on CIA payroll reminds me of FBI coming to Indiana Jones and asking him to find Ark of Covenant.
Question - so how do you square Edward Said's acknowledged debt to Foucault, noted in his introduction to Orientalism with your own critique of Foucault? - "I (Said) have found it useful here to employ Michel Foucault's notion of a discourse, as described by him in The Archaeology of Knowledge and in Discipline and Punish, to identify Orientalism. My contention is that without examining Orientalism as a discourse one cannnot possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage - and even produce - the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period. Moreover, so authoritative a position did Orientalism have that I believe no one writing, thinking, or acting on the Orient could do so without taking account of the limitations on thought and action imposed by Orientalism." Said, Orientalism, p. 3. In other words, given Said's acknowledged debt to Foucault how would you value the contribution Orientalism to the struggle against colonialism and imperialism? As a side note - in a preface added to the text on the twenty-fifth anniversary of its publication Said elects to label the broad nature of his direction to his critical approach as “humanism.” A word he states, he stubbornly continues to use “despite the scornful dismissal of the term by sophisticated postmodern critics.”
sadly I cannot give you the exact video, but during one of the videos on the Critical Theory Workshop channel Gabriel directly addresses this question - might be worth having a look to see if you can find what he says
i need that list of writers who a materialists? please post and book titles
fantastic
Said it's like religion, but more like dungeons and dragons.
Yeah, probably!
03:09
At about 30 min. Guest says US wanted Nazis to defeat USSR. Didn't we give Russians lots of material?
Rockhill again loses the plot in the structure and abstract forces. Needs to pay more attention to critiques of the criminality of empire such as Aaron Good's book American Exception: Empire and the Deep State.
Imagine a long talk with these two-Aaron Good and Gabriel Rockhill!
All this intellectual theorizing is utterly worthless unless it is part of a real political process. As far as I can see, there are no socialist movements at all in the USA or in Europe. In the USA, we don’t even have labor unions any more, never mind a socialist movement. All of this theoretical disputation among intellectuals seems as irrelevant to the lives of working people as the ivory tower philosophers who teach about metaphysics. Materialism v. Idealism? It’s ridiculous to debate this stuff today. I have no patience for this any more. I don’t care about anyone’s belief system as long as they are willing to organize working people and educate them about the system we live in.
my god...
Interesting guest. Could do without the heavy rhetoric, though. We need to talk to Americans in plain English
most of this interview is literally about moving things in that direction.
Prof Rockhill is using the "plain English" of his field. Believe me (I know him), he's making it as simple as he can.
We have to spend time listening to PhD-level discussions in any field to become more familiar with the vocabulary of their everyday trade/talk.
Honestly, it's the same as talk between expert car mechanics and plumbers.
Probably the terrible interviewer at the moment