Add new comment

One of the main problems with this podcast is not specific to this podcast, but is a problem with the form in general. That is, the inside-joke/jargon aspect. Of course when you get together with two or three or four of you buddies you've already established a rapport and a conversational style that promotes a certain amount of self-referential themes/phrases/assumptions. For those who aren't part of the general tendency (in this case, post-left @), it can sound gratuitously snarky, smugly dismissive of your rivals (leftists and left-anarchists), and preemptively annoyed at the possibility of being called on your conclusions. I am quite sympathetic to the broad post-left @ trajectory, and I found myself wondering who these assholes were who use "identity politics" with the same vitriol and hostility as the talking heads on Fox News? There was no acknowledgement that most people who rail against IdPol are racist scumbags. There was no attempt to acknowledge that using "leftist" as a smear has a more accepted history among reactionaries than among anarchists. If you're going to introduce the topic and bring the ideas up to the present, then you need to start with something earlier than "there was this one issue of the magazine"... For example, WHY did Bob write Anarchy After Leftism? WHY did Jason publish it? WHY was it important to solicit essays from a wider range of authors to explain and expand on the problems of leftist idiocies derailing actual anarchist theory and practice? It felt like the podcast began in the middle of the conversation rather than at the beginning. Do better next time, please.