"It's not the case that big political events mean that what went before them was trivial. Actually, what went before them might matter more than we realized at the time."
Runciman brilliant as always! Great interview! However, his description of failing as gradual looming of complacency in democratic systems beyond the point of misrepresentation and then bursting in a breaking point is in contrast with what Wolfgang Streeck would consider as failing. Maybe not categories of failing, but at least the imagery and the lexicons of failing are radically different in Streeck's narrative. One is breaking, exploding, the other decaying, and chaotic. In "How Will Capitalism End?" Streeck writes: "Capitalism will for the foreseeable future hang in limbo, dead or about to die from an overdose of itself but still very much around, as nobody will have the power to move its decaying body out of the way.”
Strange to have used the metaphor of an iceberg breaking up. The slowly melting icebergs are still the most desperate problem that will confront us if we get away with the earlier stuff. What worries me in the shorter term is how people in the USA and UK will react when their Trump/Brexit gambles fail to shift power to the people.
Well,,,I suppose you could put ANY two nouns in a clause,,,its not a sentence, Wasnt there a book called From Nirvana to Nato,,,or,,From Fire to Frisbies,,or something, Theyre phrases though, I get the general drift,,,,Ive read de Tocqueville,But you cant go from the superb to in a single clause, Its a real turn off or bummer as the Americans used to say Sorry
One of the best commentators around today.
You are so brilliant, David Runicman. Thank you giving this thoughtful and insightful interview.
"It's not the case that big political events mean that what went before them was trivial. Actually, what went before them might matter more than we realized at the time."
Runciman brilliant as always! Great interview!
However, his description of failing as gradual looming of complacency in democratic systems beyond the point of misrepresentation and then bursting in a breaking point is in contrast with what Wolfgang Streeck would consider as failing. Maybe not categories of failing, but at least the imagery and the lexicons of failing are radically different in Streeck's narrative. One is breaking, exploding, the other decaying, and chaotic. In "How Will Capitalism End?" Streeck writes:
"Capitalism will for the foreseeable future hang in limbo, dead or about to die from an overdose of itself but still very much around, as nobody will have the power to move its decaying body out of the way.”
i just bought the book.
Strange to have used the metaphor of an iceberg breaking up. The slowly melting icebergs are still the most desperate problem that will confront us if we get away with the earlier stuff. What worries me in the shorter term is how people in the USA and UK will react when their Trump/Brexit gambles fail to shift power to the people.
Need to go over the subtitles
Every time he says 'liveable' I hear 'Liverpool'.
Me too.
Democracy is obsolete. We have to evolve into an Optocracy
A clear thinker not distracted by bright shiny objects. Lets use his lens to look at Naomi Klein's terrain.
Seems a very facile analysis of democracy and Trump.
Well,,,I suppose you could put ANY two nouns in a clause,,,its not a sentence, Wasnt there a book called From Nirvana to Nato,,,or,,From Fire to Frisbies,,or something, Theyre phrases though, I get the general drift,,,,Ive read de Tocqueville,But you cant go from the superb to in a single clause, Its a real turn off or bummer as the Americans used to say Sorry