Very sleek stuff, but reading the analysis gives bad vibes - what is their deal? Trot stuff? Can someone give me a good workup (I’m lazy)?

    • Tofu_Lewis [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah! The vibe is so weird, I’ll be looking at an elegant graph demonstrating income inequality and the next page is an article like that

      • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.netM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s academia brained “acceptable” socialist rhetoric. They are allowed to point out iniquities but when it comes to discussing What Is To Be Done lenin-shining they limit themselves to liberal electoral politics and cannot offer anything revolutionary because when it comes down to it they are almost entirely wealthy intelligentsia afraid of risking their cushy ivory tower positions.

        • CantaloupeAss [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Let alone Jacobin for a second:

          You think getting one article placed in a magazine makes you wealthy intelligentsia? Lol how much do you think writers make?

          Unless they are already independently famous as an author, or it’s a mega publication, the author of most magazine articles you’ve read probably made somewhere between 2 and low-4 figures for weeks worth of work

          • Chronicon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            yeah this is true. Jacobin might trend a bit wealthier than a similarly (small) sized general interest mag, and intelligentsia I would say applies to the majority of their writers regardless (as professors and think tank people,) even if though they probably aren’t wealthy. Article writing itself is generally not lucrative, and honestly neither is most levels of academia.

            It’d be convenient if they were just rich but I think they’re mostly genuine libs. It is probably still true that they would risk their jobs by advocating revolutionary actions

            • CantaloupeAss [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I think there’s also simply the problem that magazine editors today will not print “I would like to behead my landlord”, and that magazine may not even be its own landlord to be able to print that. What makes it into published periodicals is not necessarily the most left thought the author or the editor has ever had.

        • SkingradGuard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          wealthy intelligentsia

          What’s funny about this is that academics are cushy but they’re not even close to the wealth and power of the bourgeoisie. Yet another case of a group of people captured by liberalism because they earn a bit more than everyone else.