I distinctly remember them manufacturing consent that led in some small part to normalizing support for the coup in Bolivia – accusing MAS of being on par with ecoterrorists, claiming Morales was more fascist than socialist, repeatedly calling Bolivia “extractivist”.
Those articles are difficult to find, now, and it seems like they’ve rectified their line… after the coup occured and was subsequently squashed. Opportunists.
This. I also remember being told that Morales was the equivalent of a dictator, that they don’t agree with the politics of the interim government but it’s complicated and we just need new elections that preclude Morales running again.
I vaguely remember them being semi-decent a number of years ago, but that was also before I was fully ML.
The vast majority of their takes can be boiled down to ‘liberalism with a socialist mask’, and that fools leftists into thinking their stances have relevancy within a serious left.
It’s a losing formula, all in all. I remember reading them and being excited by what they said. Then I’d read the references. And every time I came back to the journal, I’d moved further and further left until it was redundant and so obviously at odds with what it professed to be. It only works with those who don’t dig deeper. So they either make Marxists out of libs and lose them as readers or keep liberals reading and lead them down a dead end.
This is also my morning ritual. Wake up before the kids (because sleep disorders rule), go for a Stupid Mental Health Walk, make breakfast, go read something.
Jacobin once again proving that they’re not a radical publication.
I swear to god, anyone who thinks Jacobin is anything but a SocDem publication needs to first touch some grass, then read some theory.
I thought they were a Liberal publication
deleted by creator
I distinctly remember them manufacturing consent that led in some small part to normalizing support for the coup in Bolivia – accusing MAS of being on par with ecoterrorists, claiming Morales was more fascist than socialist, repeatedly calling Bolivia “extractivist”.
Those articles are difficult to find, now, and it seems like they’ve rectified their line… after the coup occured and was subsequently squashed. Opportunists.
This. I also remember being told that Morales was the equivalent of a dictator, that they don’t agree with the politics of the interim government but it’s complicated and we just need new elections that preclude Morales running again.
Unfortunate. Didn’t know much about them and thought they were at least somewhat socialist before seeing OP’s post
I vaguely remember them being semi-decent a number of years ago, but that was also before I was fully ML.
The vast majority of their takes can be boiled down to ‘liberalism with a socialist mask’, and that fools leftists into thinking their stances have relevancy within a serious left.
It’s a losing formula, all in all. I remember reading them and being excited by what they said. Then I’d read the references. And every time I came back to the journal, I’d moved further and further left until it was redundant and so obviously at odds with what it professed to be. It only works with those who don’t dig deeper. So they either make Marxists out of libs and lose them as readers or keep liberals reading and lead them down a dead end.
deleted by creator
This is also my morning ritual. Wake up before the kids (because sleep disorders rule), go for a Stupid Mental Health Walk, make breakfast, go read something.
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy: