The objective of this article is to analyze the nature of public intervention in the economy that has become necessary following situations of economic crisis caused by recent global emergencies. In particular, it is highlighted how more than forty years of economic policies of liberalization and privatization of the former public monopolies, accompanied by a constant and intense criticism of the State and of the public administration and by an exaltation of private enterprise, have contributed to create a contingent condition for which it appears difficult to return to direct management by the State in some economic sectors which are fundamental for the quality of life of citizens.

Social sciences are called upon to play a more important role than ever before. The challenges are manifold and of crucial importance for the future of humankind: from growing social inequalities to climate and pandemic emergencies, from current post-democratic drifts and authoritarian temptations to the risks of digital surveillance systems and artificial intelligence. They will only be able to do so if they break with the hegemony of the neoliberal paradigm of market competition, that is, if they stop “making merchant’s ears” and open themselves to new priorities, values and needs. This contribute aims to draw a new agenda for the social sciences in the so-called Anthropocene era, starting from the realisation that humanity can no longer arrogantly represent itself as the master of the planet, rather must begin to think and act as nothing more than one of the many, heterogeneous and entangled hosts.

Are the studies of political culture compatible with a materialist approach? This article will try to answer this question considering the evolution of this term in the academic field of real socialism. To do this, a brief history of the origins and development of the concept will be traced, taking into account the historical, political, intellectual and ideological contexts in which was generated.

"Capital comes into the world dripping blood and mud from every pore, from head to toe" (Marx 2014, 646) and reproduces itself, according to Valenzuela, with traces of blood and fire. This book is in line with a critique of capitalism as an economic model that resorts to necropolitics in order to reproduce itself. Specifically, it is a model that develops strategies that produce life and death, that determine who should or deserves to die. During the 123 pages of his book, Valenzuela tells us about precarious lives, lives that can be sacrificed, disposable lives, lives that are expendable, lives on the edge, young lives exposed on the verge of juvenicide, death, corruption, unimaginable pain; all of these are destructive features of capitalism and the globalised condition of the world. Traces of blood and mud, juvenicide, classism and inequality, biopolitics, necropolitics, snuff torture and bioresistances are some of the concepts that the author brings to the discussion and which serve to define and analyse current social problems in Latin America which, although they may seem alien to us Europeans, are correlated with the moment of multiple crises in which we find ourselves and where the death of young people is not physical, but moral. In this line, Valenzuela mentions Carles Feiza (2015) who, from the set of strategies of social exclusion, economic juvenicide (destruction of youth employment) and symbolic juvenicide (media and cultural stigmatisation of young people), gives content to what he himself calls moral juvenicide. In order to cover such a complex subject, the author appeals to cases of crime, violence and also the resistance of young people in Latin America; scenarios that have occurred in recent decades and which are presented in this book as references that make explicit current phenomena to be problematised by the academy. The aim is to study the past in order to explain the present and to understand how power relations function from the perspective of biopolitics (control/resistance of the body) and bioproxaemia (symbolic dimension of the body-space/territory relationship). Finally, the author ends by calling for the struggle for freedom as a commitment to life in the face of the strategies of death that neoliberal capitalism systematically reproduces.José Manuel Valenzuela Arce, a sociology graduate, is currently a professor and researcher in the Department of Cultural Studies at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. His work has been of great importance for the understanding of the socio-cultural processes that define the border between Mexico and the United States, as well as for explaining youth movements in both countries, a field in which he is an expert. He stands out mainly for his great ability to create and apply concepts, filling them with content that helps us to describe and understand current phenomena. &nbsp

This article offers a review of the contribution of Marxist theory to urban studies. It focuses on four central themes in this field of research: first, the dynamics of capital accumulation and the organization of the built environment; second, the uneven geographical development in relation to the study of urbanization processes in peripheral regions of the planet; third, the processes of spatial segregation and related problems, such as ghettoization, displacement or gentrification; and fourth, urban social conflict. The current influence of Marxism in these fields is unequal. Marxist perspectives are most prominent in studies focussing on the role of space in the circulation and reproduction of capital. In the other fields, it has not achieved hegemony or has been displaced by poststructuralist or liberal approaches. After a period of academic consolidation of Marxist urban studies in the 1970s, these positions have been losing popularity, even within the academic niche of critical studies. Nevertheless, Marxism remains a driving force in current debates within urban studies and, in the authors' view, indispensable in addressing current urban processes from a materialist perspective.

Today a mode of production emerges and asserts itself in which life and work are increasingly closely associated. To study this new situation, a radical change is needed in the way of observing and questioning cultural processes: the transition from an economic-centric approach, polarized on production and the economic dimension, to a cultural-centric approach focused on distribution, consumption and use. It is a question of considering, namely, the cultural industries as a system where both are integrated together: those who work directly in creative activities such as artists, musicians, cartoonists, decorators, photographers, writers, etc.; and others whose profession is in principle not immediately close to the artistic and intellectual sphere. It is, therefore, a question of overturning the traditional analysis of the relationship between the arts and industry for which the realization of products is linked to services such as tourism, advertising and design, to annex them to its non-cultural sphere; to understand how, on the contrary, it is industrial activities that are becoming practically subordinate to them almost to the point of turning into a subset of the creative industries and its fabric of micro-enterprises. The set of practices selected and highlighted on the basis of the cultural-centric perspective then corresponds to initiatives that refer to a conception of culture that involves everything that manages to promote an existence that wants to be both singular and plural. Able to make life a political object: to focus attention on oneself, on what one is capable of doing, but in such a way that the question of the art of living is at the same time put to the test of oneself and relationship with the other, with others.

Coeducation is an educational model that is based on a feminist theoretical framework and whose main objective is to internalize real equality in all areas of life. To build a coeducational school, we must articulate real, effective and measurable strategies that permeate the day-to-day life of schools. Transforming unequal relationships, behaviors, roles, and practices require cross-cutting strategies, which are continuous over time and adapt to changing or unexpected situations for the establishment of an egalitarian culture at school. The objective of this article is to establish what elements and strategies should be followed so that educational centers move towards coeducation, posing a series of questions to analyze whether the educational practices that are implemented are coeducational. On the other hand, we provide some guidelines to be followed so that the centers begin to work in coeducation, generating a culture of equality consolidated over time. It is important to bear in mind that every action that we develop from the educational center is an educational action, we are transmitting values, principles, and models, and these must always favor participation and equal conditions.