jacobin magazine

Yeah, it's just, I have such low expectations of the Jacobin I guess...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/07/bosnian-war-nato-bombing-dayton-accords/

This from last summer is probably the nadir of this bullshit website

Coates' response to Johnson is pretty good: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/why-we-write/459909/

This is pathetic. The magazine publishes a report on the changing class base of the Democratic party, kinda interesting, pretty obvious, a change taking place all over the world. Then it gets to 2016, and this happens:

This attitude has contributed to the success of Bernie Sanders’s bid. Sanders has placed the issue of wealth inequality at the center of the Democratic Party’s agenda for the first time in generations. Still, while Sanders’s populist platform and stump speeches express support for organized labor, it is educated professionals (or aspiring professionals) — not blue- and pink-collar workers — who have mostly turned out at his rallies and donated to his campaign. [Editor’s note: Recent evidence suggests Sanders is attracting low-income voters in greater numbers.]

If you can't let your writers write measured criticism of a candidate, without editorial popping in with comments to the contrary, give it up.

jim, what don't you like about the bosnian war article? (not challenging you; just read it and legitimately curious about yr critique)

jacobin sez: meryl streep's speech "worst thing to happen since trump's election"

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/meryl-streep-speech-trump-golden-globes/

The tilt of her jaw, the lift of her nose like something out of an old portrait representing aristocratic Anglo-German inbreeding, the toss of that shiny blonde mane

mmmmmmmm

can't figure out what i like less about this magazine's name - that they named themselves after the architects of the Reign of Terror, or that in contrast to their revolutionary forbearers they're pretty staid

jim, what don't you like about the bosnian war article? (not challenging you; just read it and legitimately curious about yr critique)

― Mordy, Monday, February 8, 2016 8:45 AM (eleven months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ah, almost a year later i answer this question. classic leftist anti-nato whataboutery and muddying of the waters in the article that kind of boil my blood:

"While Serb soldiers are most to blame for the massacre, the Bosnian government also contributed to the tragedy. According to Swedish diplomat Carl Bildt, who served as the European Union mediator during the Bosnian War, Bosnian officials deliberately allowed Srebrenica to fall to the Serb military. In his memoirs, Bildt notes that Bosnian government forces assigned to protect Srebrenica were “not putting up any resistance. Later it was revealed that they had been ordered by the Sarajevo commanders not to defend Srebrenica.”

Bildt’s account is supported by military correspondent Tim Ripley, who provides copious evidence that the Bosnian government ceded the town to Serb forces, possibly as part of the Izetbegović government’s broader strategy to expose civilians to Serb attacks and garner sympathetic intervention.

Retrospective efforts to whitewash the actions of the Bosnian government, and Izetbegović in particular, have played an important role in establishing the Srebrenica massacre as a morally simple affair, with villains and heroes, thus retroactively justifying US military involvement in Bosnia. Equally important, widespread mischaracterizations of the massacre have served to portray interventions in Bosnia and elsewhere as acts of benevolence."

First off I would suggest that it's somewhat controversial of a take to say that the Bosnian government let Srebrenica fall because they wanted their people to be massacred for propaganda purposes. The mainstream narrative usually has it that the Bosnians were on the back foot in the war and retreated to avoid further military losses and to consolidate the territory they had under firm control rather than protect enclaves. e.g. this from the NYT obit of Izetbegovic:

"Determined to cut losses and establish contiguous territory in a war that was now going against them, Gen. Ratko Mladic's Bosnian Serb forces overran the eastern Muslim enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa in the summer of 1995."

Now even if we accept that Izetbegovic was playing 12 dimensional chess and allowing the Bosnian populace to be terrorized and abused by the Bosnian Serb forces it does not necessarily follow that he could have predicted that the worst massacre in Europe since the Second World War was going to happen. Neither is allowing something to happen as bad as carrying out the bad thing (imo). I'm generally sympathetic to looking at the Yugoslav wars through a non-binary prism - shit was definitely murky. But imo to try and cast Srebrenica as a "both sides are as bad as each other" sort of thing is obtuse and/or disingenuous.

Subbed 2 Catalyst, their new journal thing.

is it supposed to be more academic stuff?

recent piece i enjoyed:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/after-piketty-capital-twenty-first-century-naidu

got catalyst no 1. the first two articles (lead editorial and the sociology one) are dire and full of jargon to the point of near unreadability, and also not particularly new or interesting in any sense if yr familiar with the sort of traditions they come out of. there are some decent pieces in the rest of it, at least in the sense they're readable. not really sure what exact territory its trying to stake out when monthly review, new left review, etc. are still kicking around, except maybe they think that more people will read those sorts of articles if they're yoked to the jacobin brand

but not if they're written like those first two articles, nobody will

(also the capsule summaries in front of each article are some condescending cliffs notes nonsense that remind me of the "teachers guides" for reading comprehension exercises in sixth grade)

jacobin writer: the fact that elizabeth warren has such awesome and detailed policies is actually evidence of her weakness as a candidate, and here's why

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/04/elizabeth-warren-policy-bernie-sanders-presidential-primary

I don't disagree with part of the central thesis, that Warren lacks Sanders' mass appeal and is trying on a different strategy, but the notion that it's a desperate attempt to mask a lack of support or w/ever is needlessly mean (and unfounded)

trying on taking

well, Sanders' mass appeal depends on his 2016 run. I've seen her work a room and a crowd as adeptly as he. After all, it's only April 2019.

Here's an article calling Sanders vs Warren another version of....Debs vs Brandeis.

warren is promoting a positive vision sanders is promoting a reactionary one that's why the radicals prefer him - negation will always sound more dramatic and exciting than reform.

It’s almost as if they complete each other and would be terrific running mates.

to sander's credit (and what is oft pointed out) his rhetoric sounds more revolutionary than it is and it's certainly possible to marry pragmatic structural revamps w/ the glossy veneer of "revolution" but it is funny that jacobin types seem to want to play this dichotomy on both sides - when convenient bernie is offering the more "radical" approach and when he's critiqued for being too radical he's merely a european style social democrat. to me the lacuna between the two positions is cause for concern whereas warren is presenting (politically) a coherent package.

Put bluntly, Warren is turning her campaign into a policy factory because she’s had trouble inspiring people with a broad-strokes political vision the way her closest ideological competitor, Bernie Sanders, has.

iow, she hasn't generated enough popular enthusiasm to rise in the polls, yet. you can figure that part out by looking at the polls.

But we shouldn’t see her policy blitz purely as a sign of strength. It may actually be an SOS message, a panicked response to her campaign’s shortcomings in the field of mass politics.

(my bolding)

To say that these policies are being delineated because she thinks this will help her generate more enthusiasm is just the author drawing that rather simplified conclusion and asserting it as true. Presidential campaigns are complex and multiform and notoriously difficult to win. This article is the usual weak-assed punditry as most campaign reporting. Where it is right, it is stating the obvious. Where it is adventurous, it is empty speculation. Call back in a year.