Evans co-hosted a mini podcast series called "Behind the Police", where he examined the history of policing in America. The purpose was to show that the police have always been unnecessary, racist, and unaccountable. The podcast got a lot of traction, and may have even helped some people realized how uniquely bad the modern institution of policing is. What about "Behind the Police" is a bad take?
So, no, you don't actually think that Evans has bad takes on literally everything. He probably has some bad takes on current international issue. I don't really know enough about his work to have examples of these. The thing is, though, that very few of the commenters here have any example of a bad Evans take where they explain why the take is bad and how it is caused by the US gov funding Evans indirectly gets. No, "Robert Evans supports Hillary Clinton's slave trade in Libya" , or "Robert Evans supports the Kurds", are not examples. Why is Evans a NED anti-communist? Because he said some bad things about the USSR? What does that make Noam Chomsky?
Painting someone as "a fed", "a radlib", or "a trot" without having any reason why what they say corresponds with that ideology, and any reason why that ideology is bad, is pointless and harmful.
Also, he's literally some random journalist/writer. Even if Evans is a full blown CIA agent, none of his critics here really say what we should do with this information. Should we never read anything he writes because it will pollute our minds with CIA mind control? In that case, what about the New York Times?
Painting someone as “a fed”, “a radlib”, or “a trot” without having any reason why what they say corresponds with that ideology
He is LITERALLY funded by the NED which is LITERALLY US government and capitalist funded. The correspondence is he literally does not support any existing socialists (not even Morales in Bolivia) , and bashes them and other enemies of the US frequently.
From my comment elsewhere in this thread:
Riot cops don’t uphold American global hegemony, the CIA and military do. The US government doesn’t care if some anarchists spar with white supremacists in the US. The US has completely military and police control inside its own borders. The entire grift of people like Robert is that they can look radical by supporting the most radical policies within the US, like rioting or changing economic policies (because they will never happen in this political system) but then turn around and repeat the CIA/State Dept lines on any foreign policy issue, to get other so called radicals in the US to become useful tools of the government in carrying out imperialism. Robert isn’t actually challenging any propaganda or narratives about anyone other than some activist teenagers and cops in the US. On the contrary, he further reinforces narratives about official enemies of the US and about communists historically like the USSR. He is completely hostile to “tankies”.
Thank you! This actually explains what you mean. You do have a good point that his version of anarchism struggles to meaningfully oppose US imperialism. And, far all, US imperialism is the most worst thing around. The thing is, I don't see how your overall position here is feasible.
Suppose Robert Evans had good politics. He would criticize every action of American empire, and explain how nearly all domestic politicians and policies work to enhance it. Bellingcat would publish articles about how all nations need support in their fight against Western aggression (Oh, you don't mean I should support ISIS? How do I know when a foreign group America is fighting is bad then? If you think that any criticism of the USSR is "reinforcing narratives about America's enemies", even though the USSR doesn't exist any more, you've definitely left the "critical support" realm...). Evans would be a vocal critic of Bernie Sanders. Bernie wanted to reduce military spending, end some of America's foreign occupations, and limit the intelligence communities. However, during Bernie's time in congress he voted for certain military action, such as (I think) the was in Afghanistan and bombing of Libya. As president he wouldn't have given up every foreign military base, ended all alliances with liberal Asian countries, and gotten rid of all the nukes. Since, in your view, the evil of America empire vastly trumps any good or bad things for workers within the United States, these failures make Bernie a problem. If Evans is against Bernie for these reasons, then presumably he's against all sorts of American electoralism.
Woke Evans should also be against American labor organizing, The last time labor had any power was after World War II, also the war which saw America become dominant global superpower. Maybe there are good, anti-imperialist unions? Which ones? The IWW and its minuscule membership. "Nah, they're all bad", says woke Evans. "Labor unions are a grift because they make workers imagine that that working conditions can be changed without overthrowing the government." Sure, Evans can tell me to join a local revolutionary group. We will organize for the glorious day when the proletariat overthrow the empire! Unfortunately, any time one of these groups gets going the FBI breaks it up. Most never get going, though, since they have a long laundry list of qualities which bar membership: being a veteran, having worked at a company who contracts for the military, thinking the wrong thing about North Korea, etc.
I guess the only good thing to do, if you care about socialism, is to leave any Western country, and join a nation fighting the good fight against the imperialists. Just roll up to a country of your choice in the Global South, and tell them you're done with Liberalism. Too bad if you're gay or trans, better bury that part of you in the name of the cause.
Some might say that it is possible to be both against American empire, and critical of bad regimes abroad (again, like ISIS). It is also possible to be for social democratic reform in America and want to end American aggression. You can organize for change or revolution in your own country, while critiquing the problems of failed revolutions in the past. But maybe the new Robert Evans is right. America is the evil empire, and its sins permits no nuance. Death to all Americans!
Evans co-hosted a mini podcast series called "Behind the Police", where he examined the history of policing in America. The purpose was to show that the police have always been unnecessary, racist, and unaccountable. The podcast got a lot of traction, and may have even helped some people realized how uniquely bad the modern institution of policing is. What about "Behind the Police" is a bad take?
So, no, you don't actually think that Evans has bad takes on literally everything. He probably has some bad takes on current international issue. I don't really know enough about his work to have examples of these. The thing is, though, that very few of the commenters here have any example of a bad Evans take where they explain why the take is bad and how it is caused by the US gov funding Evans indirectly gets. No, "Robert Evans supports Hillary Clinton's slave trade in Libya" , or "Robert Evans supports the Kurds", are not examples. Why is Evans a NED anti-communist? Because he said some bad things about the USSR? What does that make Noam Chomsky?
Painting someone as "a fed", "a radlib", or "a trot" without having any reason why what they say corresponds with that ideology, and any reason why that ideology is bad, is pointless and harmful.
Also, he's literally some random journalist/writer. Even if Evans is a full blown CIA agent, none of his critics here really say what we should do with this information. Should we never read anything he writes because it will pollute our minds with CIA mind control? In that case, what about the New York Times?
He is LITERALLY funded by the NED which is LITERALLY US government and capitalist funded. The correspondence is he literally does not support any existing socialists (not even Morales in Bolivia) , and bashes them and other enemies of the US frequently.
From my comment elsewhere in this thread: Riot cops don’t uphold American global hegemony, the CIA and military do. The US government doesn’t care if some anarchists spar with white supremacists in the US. The US has completely military and police control inside its own borders. The entire grift of people like Robert is that they can look radical by supporting the most radical policies within the US, like rioting or changing economic policies (because they will never happen in this political system) but then turn around and repeat the CIA/State Dept lines on any foreign policy issue, to get other so called radicals in the US to become useful tools of the government in carrying out imperialism. Robert isn’t actually challenging any propaganda or narratives about anyone other than some activist teenagers and cops in the US. On the contrary, he further reinforces narratives about official enemies of the US and about communists historically like the USSR. He is completely hostile to “tankies”.
Thank you! This actually explains what you mean. You do have a good point that his version of anarchism struggles to meaningfully oppose US imperialism. And, far all, US imperialism is the most worst thing around. The thing is, I don't see how your overall position here is feasible.
Suppose Robert Evans had good politics. He would criticize every action of American empire, and explain how nearly all domestic politicians and policies work to enhance it. Bellingcat would publish articles about how all nations need support in their fight against Western aggression (Oh, you don't mean I should support ISIS? How do I know when a foreign group America is fighting is bad then? If you think that any criticism of the USSR is "reinforcing narratives about America's enemies", even though the USSR doesn't exist any more, you've definitely left the "critical support" realm...). Evans would be a vocal critic of Bernie Sanders. Bernie wanted to reduce military spending, end some of America's foreign occupations, and limit the intelligence communities. However, during Bernie's time in congress he voted for certain military action, such as (I think) the was in Afghanistan and bombing of Libya. As president he wouldn't have given up every foreign military base, ended all alliances with liberal Asian countries, and gotten rid of all the nukes. Since, in your view, the evil of America empire vastly trumps any good or bad things for workers within the United States, these failures make Bernie a problem. If Evans is against Bernie for these reasons, then presumably he's against all sorts of American electoralism.
Woke Evans should also be against American labor organizing, The last time labor had any power was after World War II, also the war which saw America become dominant global superpower. Maybe there are good, anti-imperialist unions? Which ones? The IWW and its minuscule membership. "Nah, they're all bad", says woke Evans. "Labor unions are a grift because they make workers imagine that that working conditions can be changed without overthrowing the government." Sure, Evans can tell me to join a local revolutionary group. We will organize for the glorious day when the proletariat overthrow the empire! Unfortunately, any time one of these groups gets going the FBI breaks it up. Most never get going, though, since they have a long laundry list of qualities which bar membership: being a veteran, having worked at a company who contracts for the military, thinking the wrong thing about North Korea, etc.
I guess the only good thing to do, if you care about socialism, is to leave any Western country, and join a nation fighting the good fight against the imperialists. Just roll up to a country of your choice in the Global South, and tell them you're done with Liberalism. Too bad if you're gay or trans, better bury that part of you in the name of the cause.
Some might say that it is possible to be both against American empire, and critical of bad regimes abroad (again, like ISIS). It is also possible to be for social democratic reform in America and want to end American aggression. You can organize for change or revolution in your own country, while critiquing the problems of failed revolutions in the past. But maybe the new Robert Evans is right. America is the evil empire, and its sins permits no nuance. Death to all Americans!