Explicitly states that he's not a historian

If he is not a historian then why don't he just shut the fuck up?

>Rubin
Now this nigga is really cancer

If you listen to Common Sense, he's pretty libertarian.

In one Hardcore History episode he describes himself as a "freedom fanatic" and that about fits.

Because he's appreciated when he doesn't shut the fuck up. It's kinda like you, but in reverse.

Rubin annoys literally no one but the so-called regressives. And still he doesn't even make anti-SJW videos like all those others. He just does interviews.

When did Veeky Forums get such mad banter?

>focuses on problematic "Great man" perspectives of history
this is legit a real problem with history. Its' why I love james burke's stuff.

Yes because non-historians talking about history has to be taken seriously by people instead of it being Veeky Forums tier. Those people watching him should read from actual historians

Rubin is cancer coz he is explicitly a right wing yet constantly pretends to be neutral. He interviews right wingers over leftists like 9 to 1, and 1 is almost always a neoliberal and not a socialist or even a socdem. Him coming out on PragerU was icing on the cake claiming he quit leftism. I suspect OP has the same problem too but i can't confirm

James Burke? Interesting. I see he made a documentary about the history of science. What's his stance on middle ages? Does he think it was a dark age even though according to the Kardashev scale it was more advanced than ancient times?

No. According to people like Rubin or Sargon of Akkad they are left-wingers because they don't care what people do with their lives.Generally they don't know what is the difference between them and libertarians unless they use the strawman ancap meme.

They like people like Locke or Jefferson even though the left has never been the same since the Marxists and they know it. Some of them claim to be "classical liberals" which isn't very left wing unless they don't know what they're talking about..

They say things like "I disagree with Ben Shapiro on multiple issues" even though they only hate the idea of having a spiritual belief and they generally agree on everything else. Rubin's interview with Prager confirmed that.

Those people are explicitly right wingers at best. Rubin and Sargon have a twisted concept of political history and are simply wrong. A constant symptom in the media to silence the left by pretending centrists neoliberals are leftists. Classical liberals saturated identity politics don't make a leftist

If you want to know if someone is a leftist
>Do they dismiss the concept of private property and the State?
It is that simple, every other question is details. Hell hum the Internationale and see if they sing along.

I'm as lefty as you can get, none of those are actual problems.

I know, I know, bait post.

>sargon
>right wing at all

jesus fucking christ everyone's who's not a communist is reactionary scum to you huh

Everyone to the right of my extreme progressive views is a racist fascist nazi.

If he's really a classical liberal then if he's not a right winger there's hardly anything leftist about him. Though he said he's not interested economics. He seems to respect Hayek the most though, a pure classical liberal and not a leftists at all.

there are only communist sjws and alt-rght nazis, nothing in between

but really, the polarization of politics is really concerning, it's like the 1930s all over again, we're already seeing political violence on a regular basis

It almost makes me feel bad for being physically unfit
Like a storm is approaching and I need to prepare

t. romantic fedoralord
but still

Hey guys where can i get dan carlins podcasts for free, episodes 1-49.

Theyre like 70 dollars on his website and wont show up in the podcasts store ??

torrents, soulseek

Thanks man. Effort of torrenting then putting on to phone to listen to on the way to work. Oh well. This is the world we're living in!!

Its a good podcast unless you have studied at university the specific topic that podcast is on. In which case it might be too much of an overview.

If hardcore history was not as popular as it is Veeky Forums would not shit post about it being bad.

Idc if you are upset about the political spectrum, I am only saying it like it is

Left
>Anarchists
>Communists
>Socialists (all variants)
>left libertarians
>Social democrats (not really thought...)

Right
>Neoliberals
>Conservatives
>Ancaps
>Right-Libertarians
>Alt-right

thanks for including that image I'd be lost as to your position here if it wasn't for that

I am only posting common symbols of the left since so many people in this thread don't seem to have a clear idea of what the left is

>be rosa luxembourg
>get shot

Also

>not including fascism as being inherently anti-capitalist therefore leftist

Daily reminder that the only reason you fags won the war was because you sided with the capitalists instead of accepting that being a Tankie is for fags

>still mad about Rosa
mehhhh Fascism is centrists at best, since they still loved their private property and state

communism=everything owned by the government (and I mean actual communism not "real" communism)

fascism=private ownership, government control (in practice it still meant that whoever owned a company had to comply or he suffered consequences)

You mean communism as the end goal of a stateless, moneyless and classless utopia or the path to get there?

technically under fascism people become the state , and even under working co-ops today its still admitted that people are paid different wages based on their performance and as an agreement among the co-op to to pay people for more work, thus still operating under the labor theory of value.

But yeah I guess you're right, fascism is still radically centrist. On a more abstract level the main difference between anarchism and fascism is purely ontological, they have amore common modality than people realize. Hitler and Mussolini disagree, for instance, on the basis of race where Mussolini sides with environmental determinism and Hitler sides with biological determinism. Codreanu was mostly a syndicalist as well.

Fascism basically just sets wage caps so that no one can exploit labor and re imagines the ontological concept of the state, fascism is still incredibly leftist.

I don't see how your example supports your arguments that anarchism and fascism is the same since all Hilter and Mussolini weren't anarchists

I mean the countries whose governments based their program on the doctrines of the communist revolution and how they looked when those doctrines were put into practice.

So a top down approach to stopping exploitation? Socdem at best or welfare capitalism with a human face at worst. Most of left past socdem wants a different method of accumulation of wealth not just its redistribution. So no not 'incredibly leftist'

So Marxist Leninism? Lenin wanted to accelerate capitalism to reach communism

They're not the same they have fundamental differences in how they imagine the state in relation to the people which is far different from anarchism where anarchism wants to absolve the state based on a more personal basis, whereas under fascism the people basically are the state therefore dissolation of the state is impossible. They still have the same goal of reducing imperialism, which i know to most people who have this concept of fascism being akin to a neoliberal corporatist society, "anti-imperialist fascism" sounds like an oxymoron. Both fascism and left anarchism economically are based around extreme autarky and populism for example. Their main differences come from concepts of authority and the self in relation to the world.

NEP was the result of things going from bad to worse. Half of communists didn't believe their bullshit ideology.

No its left center but still centrist as fuck. This is why the Strasserism happened as well, Hitlerism in Germany wasn't seen as revolutionary enough.

Its more akin to syndacalism/socdem. Its inherently not welfare capitalism.

I guess... Would shit be voluntary in fascism?

Wow it is almost as socialism can only arise after capitalism and not feudalism. Lenin tried to circumvent that crucial step as his contemporaries like Rosa were skeptical of the idea

I will admit that Strasserism can be considered center left with socdem

>is it voluntary

Mostly voluntary, and the fascist concept of what makes something "voluntary" and whether or not something being voluntary is an inherent good is also something of much debate among different strands of fascism. Populism, anti-capitalism, and the pursuit of absolute truth is whats most important in fascism overall. The pursuit of absolute morality is more important than being voluntary, but the fascist concept of "voluntary" is something you'd need to read up on to truly understand, much of it centers on very abstract collectivist ideals of ontology and what defines "the self" overall. It is very based around the concepts of the collective conscious/unconscious, so you'd need to read some Jung, Hegel, and Sorel to understand it truly. Maybe even sprinkle in some Spengler though he disagreed with the nazis on many things.

Under that graph fascism passes 1,3,4,5 and 7. Sort of 6.

He is a great podcaster, but I tend to lean more towards the educational side of history podcasting. My issue is that I already know like 85 percent of what he is going to say before he does. That is why I generally prefer topics that I don't already know about or podcasters with more credentials. That being said he is still a great listen

Left and right are confusing terms and it seems like everyone has their own personal definition. Can we all agree to be slightly smarter when describing our positions.

>Do they dismiss the concept of private property and the State?
Wow I guess the entire working class is rightwing now. Marxist snowflakes are such fucking cancer.

Stop being cheap its like 100+ hours of audio that is very well made pay for some of it at least.

Does this guy have a youtube channel?

>MUH PERFECT DEFINITION
Left and right never was a thought-out syatem, it all stems back to french revolution when with revolutionaries on one side and revolutionaries on the other. Then it was jacobins on the left with girondins on the right. If you look at the policies of the jacobins there weren't antistate or anti property, so your definition of left wing is wrong by their standards - and they're the ones who set up the original left/ right dichotomy.

Now I'm not a retard and know leftwing politics have changed greatly since but I'm trying to highlight how that system is essentially meaningless, especially when you try to apply autistic standards to it. Even the forefathers of socialism believed in private property, like the utopians like st simon, as long as there was no idleness and welfare for the disadvantaged.

And today's most successful "leftwing" ideologies like social democracy and progressivism do sanction the state and private property as means to elevate the masses. Judging what is truly left or right wing by the standards of some of the fringe movements like ancom is fucking retarded. Just like to an ultranationalist or fascist, anything the mainstream conversative does seems """communist""". Hiding behind a wall of obscure definitions and terminologies doesn't make you smart, it just makes you detached and inacessible.

replace Veeky Forumsposter with decent human and you're spot on

We've been bantering ever since telepathic communication technology was lost during the Finno-Korean Hyper War.

>LGBTAQIA

not sure if bait

>He interviews right wingers over leftists like 9 to 1, and 1 is almost always a neoliberal and not a socialist or even a socdem
if only they would show up then he would interview them

>social democrats (not really though)
dude, this is THE standard left position in the current year. For safety net, for state healthcare, for staterun schools. This is what differantiates them from the right. Communists and shit hardly exist.

Fascism is neither left nor right wing
It is a third position ideology

what the fuck do you think you absolute reddit tier retard

...

>he doesn't know about the labor movement
You can start with the Paris Commune

I know it is relative. The Jacobins were left for their time. And now the socialists and anarchists post-First International are the left for our time right now.

I am dissing Social democrats for often betraying the left and getting bogged down with doing parliamentary politics with captialists. See Rosa Luxemburg

...

what's wrong with john green desu?

wtf I hate athens now

>And now the socialists and anarchists post-First International are the left for our time right now.
They are part of the left umbrella, yes. They aren't THE left though, as if you could condense the whole thing to 2 ideologies.

Of course I didn't mean just these two, but there are the most common or at least easily identified and the biggest in the First International. That's why i listed most of them here

...

everything

>read from actual historians

But that's what he's doing. Then telling everyone else what they said.

Why does that trigger you?

>all these autistic freaks sperging about Dan Carlin's credentials

There's really no such thing as a professional historian, they're just professors and/or authors. Anybody can be a "historian," it just takes some critical thinking and reverence for primary sources, that's all.

isn't he the maymay man who pretty much said Alexander the Great = Hitler ?

>I am dissing Social democrats for often betraying the left and getting bogged down with doing parliamentary politics with captialists. See Rosa Luxemburg
You have to go back,

>WE WUZ GAY AN SHEIT