On this week’s show, I’m in Germany! So there were no call-ins, sadly. We cover headlines: sea level rise, India/Pakistan, corporate/military intel surveillance. Then we dive into Baudrillard’s philosophy as death for standing in for indeterminacy, then his angle on terrorism and hatred which are sweeping the globe.
Today I gave some comments on the democratic debates, principally on the rhetorical power of Williamson and the 4th wall breaking / environmental bleakness from Yang. Then I moved on to talking about the dire results of abrupt climate change predicted by Guy McPherson, who believes every human being will be dead by 2030 as we make the planet unlivable for ourselves.
It might seem bleak and no fun, but don’t worry Baudrillard theory is also here to help us see that despair is only the first step to a new game we can play with each other and the world. Tune in next week to hear more from Baudrillard on death, mourning, and the environment.
PS: the next two shows will be pre-recorded or not happen since I’m traveling to visit my dying grandmother in Germany.
The show from July 11th, on which we discuss headlines as well as identity abolitionism, as opposed to identitarianism in its various stripes.
On this Valentine’s Day episode of Speaking Broadly, we discussed why people remain so steadfast in their allegiance to a concept of nation or race which doesn’t serve the social good. Everyone values their groups and the hardships that they have endured together, meaning that we have to find a way to work through our issues and not try and get around them.
Last week’s show, introducing socialism and communism, didn’t record right. Many interesting call ins were missed, including someone warning about Karl Marx’s satanism. Sadly these words of wisdom are lost to history.
On this episode, you mainly hear my thoughts about socialism and communism, with a couple calls mixed in. I talk about the need to wonder why these two remain relevant, and not just playing into the simpleminded dismissal of these concepts so common in the US. Other topics like anti-communism, critiques of Marxism from the left, and more are covered.
In this edition of Speaking Broadly, I compare America in 2019 to Germany in 1913 to emphasize the danger of war in times of internal tension. Then we start talking about international finance and antisemitism, and a caller calls in to say that he’s sick of people calling white people racist. Always exciting times on Speaking Broadly!
Dr. Peter Lindsay is a professor of Philosophy and Political Science at Georgia State University, and a member of the GSU Prison Education Project. The three main goals of the PEP (from its website) are to:
- Increase the number of incarcerated students and facilities we serve.
- Engage on-campus students and provide them learning experiences by arranging academic exchanges between classrooms within prisons and those on traditional campuses.
- Offer guidance to incarcerated students to help them continue their education after they are released from prisons.
Join us as Dr. Lindsay talks about the origin and status of the GSU PEP, and of the importance of education for rehabilitation and of rehabilitation for the betterment of society.
This week I spoke with Eugenia Almand and James about the Earth Federation envisioned by the World Constitution and Parliament Association, WCPA. The group seeks to create a World Parliament which provides self-government on a global level.
We discuss how the idea of a world government has been turned into a boogeyman, and how global problems and problems within nation-states are driving us toward finding a political solution at the global level.
This week on Speaking Broadly we discussed property: how do we decide who gets to control what? Dr. Peter Lindsay is a professor of Philosophy and Political Science at Georgia State University, and writes in support of changing the way we normally think of property. From an abstract of one of his published papers:
“In our commonplace understanding of property, the ‘‘right to exclude’’ is
seen as its central and defining feature: to own is to exclude. This paper examines the
cost, to conceptual and normative clarity, of this understanding. First, I argue that the
right not to be excluded is a crucial if overlooked element not simply of liberal
understandings of ownership, but even of the right to exclude itself. Second, I argue that
our neglect of the right not to be excluded severely undermines the clarity and precision
with which matters of ownership are debated within both contemporary politics and
Dr. Lindsay and I discuss the matter of property relations, and his argument that billions of people in the world today have no interest in upholding respect present unjust property relations, and no moral obligation to do so.