True, you heard it right. Ljubljana is a beautiful old town with centuries-old historic buildings, narrow streets, beautiful Baroque churches and monuments, numerous street cafes and restaurants. But Ljubljana is more than that. There are also buildings and areas in the center of town that once served military or manufacturing purposes and were abandoned due to contemporary political, social and economic circumstances. Since then these areas have been populated by squatters, artists and bohemians, who have turned them into zones of creativity, liberal thought, solidarity with marginalized social groups and into zones of independent arts.Join us on this tour, where we visit alternative parts of town, and we also walk through the old town past the sights that testify to the rich history of the city from the ancient Romans through the Middle Ages to the present.
Russell sets forth the idea that political ideals must be based upon the ideals that best benefit the individual to create the best life possible. He details the issues that his current economic system and the unequal distribution of wealth present in achieving said ideals. He puts forth his beliefs on what the purposes of an economic system should be, including production and security. He criticizes monopolies and all the damage that they have done. Russell then moves toward a critique of socialism and the connection between the distribution of power and the distribution of wealth. From there, he discusses individual liberty and public control and then expands to national independence and internationalism. He finishes with his belief that men must improve their feelings toward each other and mankind as a whole in order to fix the larger problems at hand. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a British philosopher considered to be one of the founders of analytic philosophy. He was considered a liberal, a socialist, and a pacifist, as well as a historian, logician, mathematician, and social critic. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and wrote several volumes on his views. 1. Language: English. Narrator: Peter Bishop. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/gdan/001379/bk_gdan_001379_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.
In this short and powerful book, celebrated philosopher Martha Nussbaum makes a passionate case for the importance of the liberal arts at all levels of education. Historically, the humanities have been central to education because they have been seen as essential for creating competent democratic citizens. But recently, Nussbaum argues, thinking about the aims of education has gone disturbingly awry in the United States and abroad. We increasingly treat education as though its primary goal were to teach students to be economically productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable and empathetic citizens. This shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our ability to criticize authority, reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and different, and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems. And the loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a decent world. In response to this dire situation, Nussbaum argues that we must resist efforts to reduce education to a tool of the gross national product. Rather, we must work to reconnect education to the humanities in order to give students the capacity to be true democratic citizens of their countries and the world. Drawing on the stories of troubling - and hopeful - educational developments from around the world, Nussbaum offers a manifesto that should be a rallying cry for anyone who cares about the deepest purposes of education. 1. Language: English. Narrator: Tamara Marston. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/adbl/003545/bk_adbl_003545_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.
In a series of revolts starting in 1820, four military officers rode forth on horseback from obscure European towns to bring political freedom and a constitution to Spain, Naples, and Russia; and national independence to the Greeks. The men who launched these exploits from Andalusia to the snowy fields of Ukraine - Colonel Rafael del Riego, General Guglielmo Pepe, General Alexandros Ypsilanti, and Colonel Sergei Muraviev-Apostol - all hoped to overturn the old order. Over the next six years, their revolutions ended in failure. The men who led them became martyrs. In The Four Horsemen, the late, eminent historian Richard Stites offers a compelling narrative history of these four revolutions. Stites sets the stories side by side, allowing him to compare events and movements and so illuminate such topics as the transfer of ideas and peoples across frontiers, the formation of an international community of revolutionaries, and the appropriation of Christian symbols and language for secular purposes. He shows how expressive behavior and artifacts of all kinds - art, popular festivities, propaganda, and religion - worked their way to various degrees into all the revolutionary movements and regimes. And he documents as well the corruption, abandonment of liberal values, and outright betrayal of the revolution that emerged in Spain and Naples; the clash of ambitions and ideas that wracked the unity of the Decembrists' cause; and civil war that erupted in the midst of the Greek struggle for independence. Richard Stites was one of the most imaginative and broad-ranging historians working in the United States. This book is his last work, a classic example of his dazzling knowledge and idiosyncratic yet accessible writing style. The culmination of an esteemed career, The Four Horsemen promises to enthrall anyone interested in 19th-century Europe and the history of revolutions. 1. Language: English. Narrator: Greg Wagland. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/adbl/018762/bk_adbl_018762_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.
This is a book of "political poetry", one that does force the listener to face being honest with themselves...not the image of what they might have thought mere moments before listening to something within. I challenge either side of the aisle to see and decide which of the two birds, either an eagle or an ostrich, they closer resemble - these conclusions must then be addressed personally and patriotically. Do you know which one you are? I'm willing to bet the answer you come to might surprise you! For way too long, we have been running on the fumes of patriotism, the ideals vs. the reality, the thoughts vs. the truth of who we are, and the "what" we have become. Just on torture alone, a criminal act, we fail to exhibit and justify the notion of freedom - or how we should use the freedom we have. When what freedom we take, as Fredrick Douglas once felt, I'm sure deprives another of their freedom. It makes freedom a mockery and renders those using it wrongly to bare naked mockery themselves. Still think you know freedom? I hope you will find this book both eye-opening and informative, with a viewpoint you might not have had before listening to it. If you say you are a conservative or a liberal, these thoughts contained within this book will challenge your beliefs. The thoughts expressed in this book, with the poetry on freedom, will confront notions of what it truly means to be independently minded - if indeed freedom is worthy of the pursuit we give it for the purposes we were taught from youth. The question really comes down to: have we strayed from what we learned about freedom or find we don't know the meaning of freedom at all - being removed from the ideals first known? 1. Language: English. Narrator: Michael Welte. Audio sample: http://samples.audible.de/bk/acx0/046840/bk_acx0_046840_sample.mp3. Digital audiobook in aax.
Managed Care is an administrative apporach to distributing health care resources. It has been developed and integrated within the neo-liberal market of the United States from where it has been exported globally. Justifications for adopting managed care lie in purported claims to higher levels of efficiency and greater consumer choice. However, under managed care, it can be seen that the pursuit of cost control, if not actual profit, becomes the primary objective of health care activity. Accordingly, the ethical purposes of health care provision are displaced by the economic purposes of the so-called 'free' market. In this way, the integrity of both health care practitioners and communities is corrupted. At the same time, it can be seen that the claims of managed care proponents to higher levels of efficiency and consumer choice are largely unfounded, indeed, consequent to market competition, costs have escalated while access has diminished. Nonetheless, when protected within a non-market or solidarity-based context, subject to the requirements of justice, a limited number of managed care techniques can assist in efforts to conserve health care resources.
EVEN THOUGH WE’RE ALL INTERNATIONALISTS, FOR NOW THE BOOK WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE IN GERMAN.With contributions from Damir Arsenijevic, Alain Badiou, Étienne Balibar, Gracie Mae Bradley, Cédric Durand, the European Space Agency (sort of), Sara Farris, Alexandre Kojève, Maurizio Lazzarato, Sandro Mezzadra, Toni Negri, Thomas Piketty, Beatriz Preciado, Bernard Stiegler, Martin Wolf, Slavoj Žižek.And to top it all off, check out our exclusive “Europe from Detroit” mix that comes courtesy of acid legend Carlos Souffront.No, not another debate on Europe, not just the usual policy proposals, no moralising appeals. We simply want to take stock of our ignorance in order to turn it into something more productive. Call it recycling if you will. The contributions in the volume do not reflect anything like a unity of vision. Often, they agree on very little. But that doesn’t mean the texts assembled here do not resonate with one another. Philosophers, economists, journalists and activists comment on past and present manifestations of Europe. Taken together, these essays are exercises in defamiliarisation. Sure, we don’t fully understand what is going on. Then again, experts didn’t fare too well either, as a quick glance at the pre-2008 forecasts of economists, the analyses of geopolitical pundits or the trajectories of the expert-led transitional governments in Europe’s South reveals. That’s why we have no desire to wallow in passivity and fatalism. On the contrary, creating a sense of distance between Europe and ourselves will perhaps enable us to relate to it in new ways.Ever since the postwar reconstruction, Europe vacillated between grand political designs and economic expediency. The introduction of the Euro in 2002 and the ongoing crisis of 2008 have accelerated a shift in the balance of power. Nation-states lost some of their prerogatives and now have to accommodate the demands of unelected supranational entities in charge of implementing the precepts of economic rationality. A sense of powerlessness has become widespread. It has given a new lease of life to nationalism and xenophobia across Europe. Young people in particular wonder what could possibly be the point of having democracy conform to markets if capitalism cannot even make good on its one spellbinding historical promise: to enable wealth creation for the masses through individual effort and hard work? As is stands in 2014, giving up democratic principles in order to purify the operations of the markets seems like the surest way to the worst of both worlds: a technocratic caesarism. Economists tentatively hail Greece’s return to the capital markets, they rejoice at the first signs of positive growth rates and welcome, give or take some accounting tricks, the sound budgets in member-states that are testament to the efficacy of the austerity measures. Meanwhile, unemployment in many parts of the EU remains stubbornly high. And let’s not even talk about wage levels. Far from marking the end of history and the triumph of liberal market societies, 1989 could have turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for capitalism, a possibility for which even François Furet allowed in his very last essays. Before its long overdue collapse, ‘real existing socialism’ - imperialist, authoritarian, unjust, inefficient, and downright depressing as it was - nonetheless inspired a fear among the governments of the so-called Western world that tamed capitalism in ways not seen before or after. Did bureaucratic state capitalism in the East protect the liberal capitalism of the West from what it wanted? Even when the latter seemed to be on excellent form after 1989, it often turned out to be pumped up on a diet of monetary steroids: soaring private and company debt sustained the boom times.Capitalism’s hold over the planet is neither uniform nor exclusively imposed by force. It emerged out of a contingent history of the “universalisation of a tendency”, as Deleuze and Guattari put it. However, a European left that has yet to come to terms with the full extent of its political insignificance seeks solace in the idea of an economic matrix that structures every fold of the social fabric: it is plausible, inescapable and terrifyingly good at harnessing even the forces of resistance to its own purposes. While the therapeutic aspect of this sort of thinking cannot be dismissed, its analytical virtues are more questionable. Still, as we survey the political landscape in 2014, no serious – and politically desirable – alternative exists. And yet liberal market societies struggle with ever more intense degrees of disaffection among their supposedly blessed populations. We observe the striking comeback of inequalities of wealth reminiscent of the Belle Époque. If current trends continue we could soon live in societies so unequal one would have to go back to the pre-industrial age to find anything comparable. This is certainly not a process of differentiation that is synonymous with modernity, as some commentators, grotesquely misinterpreting Luhmann, would have us believe. To reduce the potential of social differentiation to the acceptance of economic disparities betrays a poverty of thought that speaks volumes about the state of mind of a “brute bourgeoisie”, itself a symptom of a deeply dysfunctional society. In Merkel-land, it found a new party-political home in the “Alternative for Germany”.But opposition to the Euro also gains currency on the left. This is unsurprising given the intransigence of monetary hawks in the central banks and the institutional set-up of the Eurozone. Another Euro was possible, one that would have attempted to pave the way for an optimal currency area, rather than simply presupposing its existence.This would have required large-scale investments and significant redistributive efforts to harmonise - and raise - living standards in all of Europe. We need to unearth these counter-histories of the single European currency. As long as genuine political and social union is but a distant possibility, the imperative of price stability and the impossibility for individual Euro states to devalue their currency reduces the available range of political responses to economic distress to just one: the downward adjustment not just of economies but of entire welfare systems in order to restore competitiveness. However, there is no economic automatism here. These are deeply political decisions. As so often, economic liberalism knows very well when to portray itself as the arch-foe of oppressive states and undemocratic post-national institutions - and when to enlist their help in order to get its doctrinal way. Some conclude from this state of affairs that, provided it can be made politically productive, a break with the Euro regime should no longer be considered a taboo. Others are wary of reductive explanations that, for the sake of conceptual and political convenience, denounce the Eurozone as a monolithic neoliberal bloc. We stand to benefit a great deal from learning how to spot and exploit political divisions. Even inside the European Commission, there is room for forms of militant bureaucracy that deftly maneuver the legal labyrinthe (ranging from the 1953 European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance to the measures towards greater coordination of social security systems passed in 2004). Recent attempts to bully Merkel’s government into potentially widening access to welfare payments for European citizens living in Germany lent credence to this claim. One day, these regulatory squabbles might bring us a minuscule step closer to a Europe-wide unconditional basic income. Let the robots do the crap jobs. Given the jingoistic mood of most electorates, even many leftist parties are taking leave from demands for postnational social rights that are legally enforceable. They fear such a move would be tantamount to political suicide.Nonetheless, the track record of European institutions and the general tendency of intergovernmental decisions taken during the last two decades or so suggest that it would be insane to rely on emancipatory political action from above. Yet the question of exactly how to reclaim Europe as a battleground from below is close to intractable. What effective form could a dialectic between “institutional and insurrectional” politics take? New forms of entryism might play a role, as those who support Alexis Tsipras’ candidacy for the presidency of the European Commission argue. Mass pressure from the street would open a second flank. But even though they have been theorised for many years, European social movements worthy of their name continue to be conspicuous by their absence. Or should we push for individual states to give up their sovereignty and merge with their neighbour, thus creating political forms that mark an intermediate stage between the nation-state and and a European polity? It all sounds rather far-fetched. Interestingly, the recent protests in Bosnia oppose not just corrupt local elites, but also the institutions of the international community that purports to have pacified the remnants of former Yugoslavia. The revolution in the Ukraine that has courageously overthrown a deeply corrupt regime, on the other hand, did appeal to a EU that embodied hopes for a better political and economic life even as parts of the crowd openly displayed their neo-Nazi sympathies.We need to address the underlying identity issues haunting this continent as a whole and the individuals that inhabit it. It is impossible to overlook the signs of libidinal exhaustion. Europe has a problem with desire. The economic, political and social systems no longer produce pleasure. We’re all tired but we haven’t done nearly enough to explore and invent new lives. The family rushes in to fill this void. We grew accustomed too quickly to the omnipresence of “family-friendly” policies, by now a staple of European political language. We could have known better. In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari had warned us. As capitalism marches onward, all existing social relations will cede to its pull. But that’s not the same as simple disappearance. Quite the opposite. The family was first emptied of all historical functions, only to be reinvented as a bulwark against some of the more troubling and pathological aspects of contemporary capitalism. It offers respite from the constant flexibility that is expected of us, it helps pool resources as welfare states are being dismantled, it pays lip service to feminist struggles by singing the praise of the care work done by stay-at-home mums. In France, reactionaries are marching through the streets in their thousands. Their opposition to same-sex marriage forms part of a wider struggle to combat the rampant “family-phobia” in today’s societies. We want none of it. The hypocrisy is plain for everyone to see. There is significant overlap between the defenders of good old family values and the milieus in which shameless hostility to migrants has once again become acceptable. But some migrants are better than others. The latest version of the mother-father-family relies on cheap non-unionised female labour, the army of nannies recruited from abroad. These are some of the migrants that made it to Europe. Many others don’t even get that far.The activities of Frontex seem blissfully oblivious to the very colonial past they incessantly conjure up. The same fervour that was at work in the historical project of European expansionism is now observable in the systematic efforts to stop migrants - to ensure successful “border management”, as official parlance has it. Europeans used to invade foreign lands to enrich themselves, now they keep others out to protect their privileges. Images of drowned, starved or deported refugees don’t prevent European politicians for a second from invoking ‘our’ grand cultural tradition, preferably while lecturing other parts of the world on the West’s civilisational achievements: philosophy, human rights, dignity, you name it. Perhaps the treatment to which migrants are subjected has something to do with Europe’s historical self-understanding after all. These corpses float in the same Mediterranean sailed by cunning Ulysses. They’re dying to reach the shore they might have otherwise called home. This much is clear to us: as long as other people are treated like garbage in our name, we betray the potential of EURO TRASH.The costly insistence on rigid borders is not just a European problem. It’s a cosmic one. Space is a place where quaint attempts to divide it up according to the time-worn logic of sovereignty must fail. As Donald Kessler has pointed out as early as 1978, the debris piling up in the orbit, if unchecked, will reach a point where space travel becomes too dangerous. And little does it matter whether the out-there is littered by NASA or ESA. We might be stuck on this planet at the precise moment when we’d be well advised to leave it behind. Borders have a funny way of shutting in the people they claim to protect.There were concerns about a possible lack of German voices in this collection but acid legend Carlos Souffront came to our rescue and his exclusive “Europe from Detroit” mix dispels them in the most unexpected, poignant and concise way possible. Kraftwerk’s 1977 “Trans-Europe-Express” imagined the continent as a haven of post-historical nostalgia. We asked Carlos to reimagine Europe as a province of Detroit in order to invert the usual perspective. Often, the Motor City is an object of European musical desire, filled to the brim with projections even, and especially if there is post-industrial desolation to be admired. Let’s try it the other way around. The mix expertly strides between delicacy and a sense of impending dread that culminates in a brief sequence where German history unmistakably rears its ugly head. But there is life beyond that, there has to be. This is not a mind trip, this is a body journey.WE’RE THE EDITORS,WE’RE SVENJA BROMBERG, BIRTHE MÜHLHOFF, AND DANILO SCHOLZ.
High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles! The inauguration of White Australia as government policy is generally taken to be the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the new national parliament upon federation. The bill had support from the labour movement. The policy was dismantled in stages by successive Liberal governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration. From 1973 on, the White Australia policy was for all practical purposes defunct, and in 1975 the Australian government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal.