i am not thinking of bakunin, and russian revolution period was quite a golden age for repressions. camps like gulags were staples of virtually all regimes well into the twentieth century. i would feel silly claiming the anarchists of 1910s had done without atrocities given the chance. and if prisons and detention count, we are now well into the twenty first, and no country managed to exist without them yet.
words maybe are just pointers, but we are just splitting the degrees of how much elected government is allowed to deliberate and do and over what population and territory, their authority is for the lack of a better word ultimate.
you will need to educate me how land is split up between homesteaders in an anarchy. seems not realistic or practical. how do cities work?
You can’t claim what you aren’t using is a good start.
The anarchists in 1910 Ukraine did have the chance to commit atrocities. I guess you could speculate that they would have in time if they weren’t defeated by the Red Army. They did generally just let captured Red Army soldiers go, but maybe they would have changed that policy if they ultimately won.
i didn’t mean the chance to commit atrocities, but the chance to govern at least until the next political crisis or idea-based opposition. but yeah i think i agree with you.
I’m not laying out something to be enacted. Sure Liberal States can be fine. They should at least learn more from Anarchists. Like Iceland. It’s not an Anarchist country, but property is not worshipped. There actually is a degree of anarchic (not democratic/voting) freedom.
In the US everything is property and as long as you get to vote you are supposedly free.
you are allowed to stay on national forest land, with the caveat that park rangers may ask you to to move at least 5 miles every 30 days or something. i was told that by a park ranger. essentially they were arguing everyone should own an rv for hard times.
Way late to the party here but holy shit, this. Guy sounds like he has this really logical thesis but its just a bunch of historical vignettes in a never-ending stream of consciousness. The conclusions he insists on often don’t even seem to have anything to do with the evidence he’s presenting either. Really odd that this got made by a MSM outlet.
Pretty amazing. I’m a fan of The Majority Report and Sam Seder. Anyways, Ethan Klien and H3, huge youtube channel, tricked Crowder into debating them but snuck on Sam Cedar instead.
Crowder freaked out and ducked out. Apparently he’s done this a couple times, they were scheduled to debate at some other political thing and Crowder last minute pulled out.
I haven’t ever watched Sams debates but apparently everyone on the right refuses to debate him so I guess he must be good? Anyways, fun just to watch Crowder melt down and freak out.
They tried to do it the week before but Sam did his show early and ended it early and Crowder sensed it coming so at the last second Crowder cancelled and said he had to rush his wife to the hospital.
So they taped the show early this week and pretended it was live to trick Crowder, and Crowder basically admits he cancelled and made up the lie about his pregnant wife needing to go to the hospital to avoid debating Sam.
He’s in a spot where he more or less can’t be told no due to the regard for his earlier work. At this point it’s better to just focus on the anecdotes he relates and not really pay too much attention to the big, grand conclusions he’s drawing.
As an example of the change from his earlier work to his later, in the TrueAnon episode discussing him, they mentioned his explanation of Cold War dynamics as an exclusive function of the like psychic demons of the respective heads of state (those demons themselves being rooted, Fisher-King-style, in the political, social and economic malaises and vicissitudes of each country). They dismissed it with a laughing reference to the doom-mongering of Team B in the '70s and '80s. But Curtis extensively discussed Team B in The Power of Nightmares! I only heard about them because of Curtis. And now it’s as if he hasn’t heard of them. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I only have ever seen a couple of hours worth of Sam Seder’s content. I watched more content from his former co-host Michael Brooks, who passed away suddenly last year. Brooks had a better sense of humor and was more my style, Sam is a lot drier. I know @Smacc_25 dug Brooks as well.
I like it because it’s current events with a leftist bend.
Any other podcast fit that? On them media, citations needed, and other leftist podcasts go in depth on certain stuff when I’m just trying to get current even need.
I don’t love him but he’s decent at his job. Think his takes are pretty close to what’s being said here
