Thinking after Gaza



Dehumanization, trauma and philosophy as an emergency brake

When I received the honorable invitation to give our Department's master class, I initially presented another topic of discussion. My initial idea was to talk about the tradition of critical thinking that I have been linked to since the time I was a philosophy student, occupying the same place that you occupy now. I refer to this tradition that mobilized dialectics to understand the impasses in the process of national formation and development, with its gaps between idea and effectiveness.

The same person who rigorously dedicated herself to rethinking the guiding potential of critical thinking through the recovery of dialectical logic exactly at the historical moment in which this same dialectic was rejected in the central countries of global capitalism. I would like to talk about the reasons for this interesting lag in a critical tradition that was established in a peripheral country at the exact moment when dialectics was rejected as a critical model on the other side of the Atlantic.

Talk about this gap to better think about our place of thought, as well as the crises of the present and their potential for transformation. This was still my way of paying tribute to the superlative work developed in our Department by names like Paulo Arantes, Ruy Fausto, José Arthur Giannotti, as well as Michel Löwy and, in a more distant way, but no less important in shaping this debate , by Rubens Rodrigues Torres Filho and, mainly, Bento Prado Júnior, to whom I owe much more than I could express here. Names that I hope you all can know and learn to admire.

However, days later I asked the Department to change the title of my greeting to anyone entering this course. It may initially seem that such a change would be the result of the impact on the most pressing issues in the news, as if it were a capitulation of philosophy to reading newspapers. However, it concerns something fundamental about what we should ultimately understand by “philosophy”. This change is already, in its own way, a way I found of trying to accomplish what is expected of an inaugural class, namely, a certain reflection on the nature of philosophical activity and the unique way in which each of us is linked to it. .

Michel Foucault once warned against those who ended up understanding philosophy as a: “perpetual reduplication of itself, an infinite commentary on its own texts and without relation to any externality”.[I] As if it were possible to describe the system of motivations of a philosophical text simply from negotiations with problems inherited from other philosophical texts, in a kind of closed chain of textualities that cross time like an untouchable block. As if it were desirable to read philosophical texts as someone seeking to explain their internal orders of reasons, without taking into account their responsiveness to socio-historical contexts and events.

I would like to begin by suggesting another understanding of philosophical activity. I learned this understanding from another teacher who greatly influenced me, to whom I would also like to pay tribute here: Alain Badiou. She sees in philosophy a certain type of listening to events capable of producing the collapse of the present time. This formulation insists, initially, that philosophy would be a listening focused on its exteriors, as if it were the case of stating that it would be: “a reflection for which any strange matter is useful, or we would even say for which only the matter that is strange to you.”[ii]

This phrase is by Georges Canguilhem. I believe it is the best phrase for those starting a philosophy course. Because it provides a good answer to the problem of the object proper to philosophy. So would there be a set of objects that we could call “philosophical objects”, just as we say that there are objects and phenomena specific to economics, literary theory and sociology? But if such a set of objects exists, could a philosopher speak about a literary text, make considerations about an economic problem or discuss, for example, the nature of social roles? By doing this, would he stop being a philosopher?

When Canguilhem states that only matter that is foreign to it is useful for philosophy, it is to remember that there is a specificity to philosophical discourse: it does not have objects that are its own. In a way, philosophy is an empty discourse because there are no properly philosophical objects, which perhaps explains why there cannot be, for example, a theory of knowledge without in-depth reflections on the functioning of at least one empirical science, there is no aesthetics without art criticism, political philosophy without listening to political facts, even ontology without logic. In all these cases, philosophy borrows objects that come from outside, absorbs knowledge whose development is not directly its responsibility.

But not having properly philosophical objects does not mean asserting that there are no properly philosophical questions. That philosophy is empty discourse does not mean that it is irrelevant. Rather, this is your real strength. Because there is a way of constructing questions that is specific to philosophy and this way admits practically any and all objects. The greatest characteristic of a philosophical question is its way of asking how a phenomenon or object becomes an event. In other words, it is not simply a question of functionally describing objects, nor of justifying their existence, giving objects reasons for existence based on a reflection on what should be.

In fact, philosophy tries to understand how the appearance of certain objects and phenomena produce changes in our way of thinking, in the broadest possible sense. For an event is not just a mere occurrence. It is what problematizes the continuity of time, demanding the emergence of another way of acting, desiring and judging. It is always a rupture that reconfigures the field of possibilities, leading us, even if we use the same words as always, to inhabit a totally different world.

Ultimately, it is these events, and only them, that philosophy deals with. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to say that every philosophical experience is necessarily linked to a historical event, it is the philosophical resonance of an event. Thus, Cartesian philosophy is supportive of the philosophical impact of modern physics. It is the elaboration, to its ultimate consequences, of the dissolution of the pre-Galileo closed world and the advent of an infinite universe of homogeneous and a-qualitative space.

Hegelian philosophy, in turn, can be seen as the result of the emancipatory aspirations of the French Revolution, its tensions and challenges. In other words, each original philosophical experience is born from the elaboration of the crises of time, whether this crisis is brought about by political events, by shocks in our scientific paradigm, by aesthetic experiences that carry the power to rupture language or by new orders of desires. The central point here is: such crises are produced by events that have the power to establish what has until now been removed from representation. An establishment driven by what is capable of calling into question our way of organizing names and belongings.

However, I would like to talk here about fidelity to another form of event. And here I follow a path that is not Alain Badiou's. Because it is possible for an era to be marked by events that are not potential carriers of new forms of relationships, but that are the expression of the dimension of the intolerable. We usually call these “catastrophe”. And anyone who would like to think based on events must also be able to make their thoughts stop when faced with catastrophes.

Stopping not as someone who stands before the cultivation of the incommunicable and paralysis, but as someone who understands that it is a matter of enunciating the final sign of an era that can no longer remain in any way. The term, coming from Greek, is not without a significant etymology. Kata "down", strophein “turn”, initially used in the tragedy to indicate the moment in which events turn against the main character. In other words, the moment when history is forced to brutally change direction.

Where is Gaza?

I say this because our present is faced with a catastrophe of this nature and, in my opinion, it would be obscene to use this master class to talk about something else, as if this catastrophe were not among us, corroding our days, screaming in front of our eyes. dogmatic sleep. If I were talking about something else, I would be telling you that philosophy can ignore pain, can be indifferent to the tearing apart of bodies and the genocide of populations, which in my opinion would be a terrible way to start a philosophy course. I would be teaching indifference and giving the impression that we could continue doing our work as if nothing were happening. Definitely, it is not by silencing the pain that one begins to think philosophically, but by listening to it, by making thought pass through it.

The catastrophe I'm talking about is associated with a place. It's called Gaza. I would like to start by remembering that there are several meanings of the phrase, so commonly used today, “every thought is thought from a place”. After all, should we necessarily particularize places or should we show how certain specific places allow us to grasp the functional totality of the social system of which we are part? Does a thought based on places have its normative force restricted to the place from which it emerges?

For some believe that we must assume a limitation of thought to the condition of point of view. As if I were necessarily linked to the place I occupy and that would define my point of view, a place that another could not occupy, or a place that limits my intentions to speak to anyone and everyone. Some call this “situated thinking”. But I would understand the idea that “all thought is thought from a place” differently.

Because it is up to all thought to think based on the ability to let oneself be affected by certain places that function as symptoms of the social totality. There are places that are like symptoms, in the sense of places where a global contradiction becomes explicit, an expelled truth returns, making the entire body limp. A symptom is what makes us no longer able to deviate, as it makes something emerge that can only be ignored on condition of creating a device of “not wanting to know”, a system of silencing and erasure that always fails and the more it fails, the more violent it becomes. become.

If so, “all thought is thought from a place” is not necessarily a proposition that determines that only those who are in a certain place (geographical, social) can think about certain situations. Rather, he reminds us that there are places that any thought that aspires to a content of truth cannot ignore, cannot deviate from. There is what we could call a “combat universality” and that consists of associating ourselves with a place from which we did not come, inhabited by people who do not have our social identities nor necessarily share our ways of life. However, we know that the possibility of a humanity to come, and I believe that this idea makes more and more sense, depends on us associating with them and thinking from their places. For our time, that place is Gaza.

One could start by questioning the meaning of this exceptionality given to Gaza, even though we are facing the biggest massacre of civilians in the entire 32.700st century: 2019 people so far. While all wars combined between 2022 and 12.193 killed 12.300 children, 50 children were killed in the first four months of the war in Gaza alone. Right now, 1,1% of the population of Gaza, that is, XNUMX million people, is in a condition of “catastrophic hunger”, the highest degree of hunger according to the Integrated Food Security System (IPC). “This is the largest number of people ever recorded as victims of catastrophic famine anywhere at any time,” according to the words of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

But it is not this magnitude that makes Gaza the starting point for all thought that wants to think about the catastrophe that marks our time. After all, we could enter into that macabre and meaningless exercise of comparing exterminations and genocides. In this regard, I could only echo here the words of anthropologist Luis Eduardo Soares who, faced with the contrast between genocides that aim only to limit our ability to feel the intolerable when it is before our eyes, stated in a memorable text: “the pains are not comparable, they are the same”.[iii] Yes it is true. There is no reason to compare pain because, until further notice, there are no pain intensity scales, scream meters, or thermostats for building explosions in supermarkets. You can't compare what is the same.

In fact, what makes Gaza this starting point for the thinking of our time is the conjunction between four processes: repetition, desensitization, de-historicization and legal void. I therefore wanted to talk about each of them because I understand that they are not just reactions to what comes from Gaza, but global government devices to be applied, on an indefinite scale, against populations placed in extreme vulnerability. In other words, Gaza concerns all of us because we are facing a kind of Global Laboratory for new forms of government. As we have seen at other moments in history, practices and devices of state violence and subjection developed in specific locations are gradually generalized in crisis situations. When thinkers like Berenice Bento claim that there is a “Palestinization of the world”[iv] These words must be taken seriously.

Allow me to suggest a quick macro-historical analysis to contextualize what I have in mind. We are facing an unprecedented conjunction of crises that cannot be overcome within the capitalist system that generated it: ecological, demographic, social, economic, political, psychic and epistemic crisis. Crises that tend, to a large extent, to stabilize, becoming the normal regime of government, such as the long political crisis of the institutions of liberal democracy in the last twenty years or the long economic crisis, present in the horizon of justification of the economic policies of our countries and institutions since 2008.

These crises did not prevent the preservation of the foundations of neoliberal economic management, nor the deepening of its logic of concentration and silencing of social struggles. Rather, we can even say that they provided the ideal soil for carrying out such processes. This dynamic of normalizing crises points to a mutation in our forms of governance, as these can increasingly normalize the use of exceptional, violent and authoritarian measures within social management processes, as we are in a situation of continuous fear.

Faced with a situation of this nature, some possibilities arise before us. One of them is the structural transformation of the conditions that generated such a system of related crises, another is the generalization of the war paradigm as a way of stabilizing the crisis. This second option, which currently seems the most natural to us, requires the generalization of the logic of infinite war as a government paradigm. For infinite war allows a kind of race forward that never ends in which continuous disorder is the only condition for the preservation of an order that can no longer guarantee stable normative horizons.

In the face of social decomposition, war allows some form of cohesion, while naturalizing, repeating and generalizing levels of violence and indifference unacceptable in another situation. This helps to understand why, at this historical moment, there are no longer even multilateral mediation bodies, such as the UN. Gaza marked the de facto end of the United Nations as a binding body, since even a demand for a ceasefire from its Security Council is received by the State of Israel with sovereign indifference.

But beyond the generalization of the possibility of wars of conquest between States with their redesign of cartography, the fundamental fact that I would like to draw attention to regarding the infinite war paradigm is the reorganization of civil society based on the logic of war. This means a form of social management based on the militarization of subjectivities, which will naturalize execution and extermination, which will organize themselves as militias, which will identify with the empty virility of the armed weak, which will transform indifference and fear into social affections. central.

This also requires the construction of enemies that cannot and should not be defeated, eternal enemies that must periodically remind us of their existence, through a terrorist attack, a spectacular explosion or a police problem elevated to the status of State risk. Finally, militarizing subjectivities also means imploding all possible bonds of solidarity in the name of defending my threatened community, my identity being put at risk which, because it is at risk, can produce the worst violence, as if I had the sovereign right to life and death against an enemy that is confused with another.

What I would like to defend with you is that this process has as its inflection point this macabre operation that we now see every day and which consists of making people not feel Gaza. This is the true social experiment: desensitizing subjects to catastrophes, leading people to no longer be indignant or act to prevent it. If this is possible, then Gaza will be just the first chapter of a widespread social implosion.


What actually led me to change the topic of my master class was a scene that I would like to remind you of. It is the scene of the Al Rachid street massacre in which more than 100 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army while searching for food. As Benjamin Netanyahu said, regarding this massacre: “it happens”. In other words, something that should be seen as a random fact that doesn’t deserve us to dwell too much on it.

However, this massacre occurred twice. The first, through the physical elimination of a population reduced to the condition of a starving mass, fighting for physical survival. The second through these images. The visual document that crossed the world was the reduction of this population to moving points, marked as a target in a video game. The perspective is not the human perspective of falling bodies. It is the cold perspective of the drone that makes bodies indiscernible entities, points in movement, spots on a screen.

What was valid as a document was a surgical, desensitized image from the drone's perspective, but from the drone's perspective these people were already dead. They were dots and nothing more. This was the second massacre, the symbolic massacre, perhaps even more intolerable than the first because it is the expression of the reduction of the human to a threshold between nothing and something, reduction to a point.

This monstrous image, however, showed the truth of a process of desensitization that is an insurmountable dimension of our discourses on justice, its constitutive blind spot. Our normative principles of justice and reparation necessarily contain blind spots, spaces of desensitization and dehumanization. In these places, nothing can be seen, there is a fundamental requirement to prevent the work of collective malice, public mourning, indignation.

Therefore, places like Gaza are constituents of our political order, they have always existed and, to different degrees, they continue to exist. What Gaza does is, in a way, expand this logic, exposing it in a raw way in all its brutality. To date, there has been no ideal of justice without blindness, defense of the physical integrity of subjects without the right to erase others. This could not be different in a world subject to the unlimited extension of a production system in which the possibility of radical equality is structurally denied.

It is interesting to notice this desensitization not only in global political discourses, but in philosophers apparently committed to the highest emancipatory designs of critical thinking. On November 13, 2023, fundamental names in contemporary Critical Theory, the same critical theory to which I feel linked, such as Jürgen Habermas, Rainer Forst, Nicole Deitelhof and Klaus Günther saw fit to publish a text, regarding the Palestinian conflict and its consequences, entitled “Principles of solidarity”.

Starting by attributing all the responsibility for this situation to the Hamas attacks, as if everything had started on October 7, 2023, defending the Israeli government's “right to retaliation” and making protocol considerations about the alleged controversial nature of the so-called “proportionality” of its military action, the text ends by stating that it would be absurd to assume “genocidal intentions” in Israel's far-right government, calling on everyone to be extremely careful against “anti-Semitic feelings and convictions behind all forms of pretexts”. Well, what I can say on April 3, 2024 is that so far no one has apologized for this macabre article.

What interests me here is how such an article demonstrates that universalist principles of justice may well be used strategically to atone for local ghosts of responsibility for past catastrophes, creating a bizarre desensitization to moral arguments. He shows how loyalty to a historical trauma, the feeling of responsibility towards the past, can lead us to a profound desensitization of the present. Mainly, this shows how the demand for memory that the German people went through was not a work of elaboration and reflection. In fact, it was a training operation. For reflection occurs when we understand, for example, that: “Anger is discharged on the helpless who attract attention. And as the victims are interchangeable depending on the situation: vagabonds, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, each of them can take the place of the murderer, in the same blind voluptuousness of murder, as soon as it becomes the norm and feels powerful as such.”[v]

This is a passage from Dialectic of Enlightenment, by Adorno and Horkheimer. She reminds us that we should not look at the actors of social oppression, as they can change places. The experience of oppression is not enough to produce practices of emancipation and justice. Rather, it can often only lead to the justification of community self-preservation practices in the face of the constantly reiterated memory of previously suffered violence. We were raped and we have the right to everything so that not even the shadow of this violence hovers again. And we could remember several moments in which previous oppression ended up justifying immunization practices.

She will then summon all resources and forces to immunize groups, reinforce security, establish borders. It is no coincidence that apartheid was created by a people, the Afrikaners, who had previously been victims of the first systematic use of concentration camps with extermination practices. When we are unable to reflect on processes, we train ourselves in a stagnant imaginary. Instead of structurally understanding the dynamics of violence and extermination with its possible mobility of occupants, we fixate on fixed images and representations, even though former oppressed people are massacring new oppressed people.

Against these, we must remember that “genocide” occurs every time the organic link of populations to “genos”, which is common to us, is denied. When the commander of the Israeli armed forces says that on the other side there are “human animals”, he expresses, in a pedagogical way, genocidal intentions. When the president of Israel says there is no difference between civilians and combatants and then subjects the entire Palestinian population to collective punishments, when Israeli government ministers claim that the use of nuclear bombs against Gaza is plausible and have no other punishment than the simple removal of future ministerial meetings, when we discover plans for the mass displacement of Palestinians to Egypt, when the Minister of Social Equality and Women's Empowerment claims to be “proud of the ruins of Gaza” and that 80 years from now all babies will be able to tell their grandchildren about what the Jews did there, we are not only faced with genocidal intentions, but with one of the most sordid and intolerable declarations of a cult of violence imaginable. This is a clear and unforgivable expression of genocidal practice. None of this even provoked pressure to remove these individuals from the government.

Genocide is not something linked to some absolute number of deaths, there is no number that starts to be valid for genocide. It concerns a specific form of State action in the erasure of bodies, in the dehumanization of the pain of populations, in the profanation of their memory, in the silencing of public mourning that removes such populations from their belonging to the genos.

And there is no point in using the spurious theory of the human shield in this context, a classic of colonialism against the violence of the colonized. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that an armed struggle group would take a population hostage and use it as a shield, this does not give anyone the right to ignore that same population and objectively treat it as an accomplice or as someone whose death is a mere side effect. Until further notice, they have not yet invented the right to massacre.

Allow me to also highlight one point in this debate. What the history of the State of Israel shows us is that a nation-state cannot be constructed as the guardian of the memory of a collective trauma without subsequently degrading itself. We know how the entire process of creating Israel, a unique and singular process, was made from the memory of the trauma of the Holocaust catastrophe and the global awareness that nothing similar should happen again. We also know how trauma can build social bonds. Sharing the violence to which one was subjected, remembering the deceit and loss are strong elements in creating bonds of all kinds.

Identification with collective trauma consolidates identities and removes subjects from vulnerability, as the community that is created by sharing trauma has the strength to produce the sharing of collective memories and provide the basis for struggles. But there are two moments from social bonding to collective trauma and this is just the first. Because there is a second moment in the social bonds produced from the sharing of trauma and we must know how to avoid it. Because when managed by the nation-state, the duty to remember the trauma necessarily ends up opening space for an authorization of violence against everything associated with the trauma, inside and outside the nation. It is not the nation-state that can be the guardian of social trauma, but the community.

It is up to the community, in fact, to prevent the State from taking possession of the trauma in order to prevent the experience of trauma from losing its social strength in creating bonds that do not yet exist, of communities without limits and without borders. Strength coming from the certainty that the trauma must never be repeated again, anywhere, much less in territories that I occupied illegally.

Dehistoricization and legal void

But there is still something else that impresses in the text signed by Habermas and co. It is about their dehistoricization and their indifference to the legal vacuum to which the Palestinians are subjected. Some would like to start this whole discussion from the terrible attacks of October 7th carried out by Hamas. My criticism of Hamas has been repeated several times in recent years and my absolute refusal against indiscriminate actions targeting civilians is unconditional[vi]. But it is part of desensitization practices to deprive populations of the history of their struggles.

Palestine and Palestinians have been fighting for decades against periodic and indiscriminate massacres, against a social situation of stateless people, without State or territory, constantly subjected to a precarious life, to a death without intent. The fundamental characteristic of life in Gaza is the brutal repetition of the massacre. Operation Summer Rains, in 2006; Operation Autumn Clouds, in 2006, Operation Cast Lead, in 2008; Operation Column of Cloud, in 2012, Operation Protective Edge, in 2014, Armed Conflict, in 2021. These are just the latest acts of violence against Palestinians living in Gaza, repeated constantly, being the object of the same indifference.

It can be said that all these operations were an exercise of the State of Israel's right to defend itself against a group that wants to eliminate it. However, this way of defending yourself is no defense at all. Let's do an elementary projection exercise. What will happen after the so-called Israeli “military actions” in Gaza? Will Hamas be destroyed? But what exactly does “destruction” mean here? On the contrary, isn't that exactly how Hamas grew, namely, after unacceptable actions of collective punishment and international indifference? And even if Hamas leaders are killed, won't other groups fueled by the increasingly brutal spiral of violence appear? It would be important to start from the historical fact that all attempts to militarily annihilate Hamas only increased its strength, as such military actions created the ideal narrative framework for it to appear, in the eyes of a large part of the Palestinians, as a legitimate representative of the resistance to the occupation. .

As if that weren't enough, I can't claim the right to defense when dealing with reactions coming from a territory that I illegally occupied. Contrary to what some believe, there is international law and it clearly states what must be done. International law recognizes Palestine as an “occupied territory”, an occupation considered completely illegal by UN resolutions 242 and 338 for over fifty years. In other words, the best defense is to respect international law and return the occupied territories. However, in Gaza, the law no longer has the force of law.

In fact, leaving a people without law, without a State, without citizenship is a practice of creating legal voids that takes us back to the core of insurmountable colonialism in our modern societies. Our societies remain colonial. The central question is “against whom?” We can talk about the permanence of colonialism because we are faced with a sovereign power that decides when the law is in force and when the law is suspended, in which territory it applies and in which territory it is powerless. This is what some call “democracy”. However, this is just the sharing of a geography of law typical of colonial relations.

Therefore, I would end up deploring with all my vigor academics, who claim to be guardians of post-colonial thought and who were shamefully silent in the face of a typical colonial catastrophe, who made protocol declarations, who seem more indignant in the face of pronominal problems than in front of bodies buried under bomb debris. Anyone who wants to think critically must be willing to not put their personal interests before the necessary engagements.

I really suspect that the post-colonialism of some ends within the limits of the Magazine Luiza Diversity Committee. And here I would like to take advantage of and recognize the deep coherence and intellectual honesty of these academics, such as Judith Butler, Nancy Fraser and Angela Davies, who suffered the worst retaliation and stigmatization for demonstrating solidarity with the Palestinian drama at a time when solidarity has become one of the rarest weapons.

In my opinion, I believe that some of these people understood that at these times philosophy must act as an emergency brake. You may know this fragment from Walter Benjamin: “Marx says that revolutions are the locomotive of universal history. But maybe things will happen differently. Perhaps the revolutions are the gesture of activating the emergency brake on the part of the human race traveling in this carriage.”[vii]. At a time when the organic relationships between the last barriers of Western civilization and extermination, the last barriers of democracy and catastrophe, are becoming increasingly clear, it is worth remembering how the true revolutionary gestures are those that decide to pull the emergency brake.

Therefore, I would like to end this inaugural class by appealing to this language spoken by the inhabitants of Gaza. The language that was the language of my ancestors, but that was never spoken in our homes, the language that I never heard because its silence represented the belief that there would be perfect integration into the West.

In a moment of disintegration, I wanted to end with this language silenced by the belief in an integration that never occurred in the way it was promised, as if it were a case of rescuing from the ruins what was excluded from our voice so that this silenced language can bring the pain of unfulfilled promises and continued struggles. With the language of the inhabitants of Gaza I would like to remind you that there is no freedom without land and that there is no life possible without freedom: لا حياة بدون حرية.  

*Vladimir Safatle He is a professor of philosophy at USP. author, among other books, of Ways of transforming worlds: Lacan, politics and emancipation (authentic). []

Lecture given as a master class at the Philosophy Department of the University of São Paulo, on April 03, 2024.


[I] FOUCAULT, Sayings and writings, Paris: Room, p. 1152

[ii] CANGUILHEM, Georges; The normal and the pathological, Rio de Janeiro: Forense publisher, 2000, p. 12

[iii] SOARES, Luis Eduardo ; “The words rot“, website The Earth is Round

[iv] BENTO, Berenice; “Defenders of Israel use anti-Semitism as an instrument of blackmail”, Folha de São Paulo, 18 / 01 / 2024

[v] ADORNO, Theodor and HORKHEIMER, Max ; Dialectic of Enlightenment, Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, p. 160

[vi] See, for example, SAFATLE, Vladimir; “The suicide of a nation and the extermination of a people”, Cult Magazine, October 2023

[vii] BENJAMIN, Walter; The Angel of History, Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, p. 230

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.

See this link for all articles


  • About artificial ignoranceEugenio Bucci 15/06/2024 By EUGÊNIO BUCCI: Today, ignorance is not an uninhabited house, devoid of ideas, but a building full of disjointed nonsense, a goo of heavy density that occupies every space
  • Franz Kafka, libertarian spiritFranz Kafka, libertarian spirit 13/06/2024 By MICHAEL LÖWY: Notes on the occasion of the centenary of the death of the Czech writer
  • The society of dead historyclassroom similar to the one in usp history 16/06/2024 By ANTONIO SIMPLICIO DE ALMEIDA NETO: The subject of history was inserted into a generic area called Applied Human and Social Sciences and, finally, disappeared into the curricular drain
  • Strengthen PROIFESclassroom 54mf 15/06/2024 By GIL VICENTE REIS DE FIGUEIREDO: The attempt to cancel PROIFES and, at the same time, turn a blind eye to the errors of ANDES management is a disservice to the construction of a new representation scenario
  • Hélio Pellegrino, 100 years oldHelio Pellegrino 14/06/2024 By FERNANDA CANAVÊZ & FERNANDA PACHECO-FERREIRA: In the vast elaboration of the psychoanalyst and writer, there is still an aspect little explored: the class struggle in psychoanalysis
  • Volodymyr Zelensky's trapstar wars 15/06/2024 By HUGO DIONÍSIO: Whether Zelensky gets his glass full – the US entry into the war – or his glass half full – Europe’s entry into the war – either solution is devastating for our lives
  • Letter to the presidentSquid 59mk,g 18/06/2024 By FRANCISCO ALVES, JOÃO DOS REIS SILVA JÚNIOR & VALDEMAR SGUISSARDI: “We completely agree with Your Excellency. when he states and reaffirms that 'Education is an investment, not an expense'”
  • Introduction to “Capital” by Karl Marxred triangular culture 02/06/2024 By ELEUTÉRIO FS PRADO: Commentary on the book by Michael Heinrich
  • PEC-65: independence or patrimonialism in the Central Bank?Campos Neto Trojan Horse 17/06/2024 By PEDRO PAULO ZAHLUTH BASTOS: What Roberto Campos Neto proposes is the constitutional amendment of free lunch for the future elite of the Central Bank
  • The strike at federal Universities and Institutescorridor glazing 01/06/2024 By ROBERTO LEHER: The government disconnects from its effective social base by removing those who fought against Jair Bolsonaro from the political table