Crucially, these writers can only support socialism as it exists in their utopian fantasies; where it can afford to have total freedom, and no state or faults at all. However, when it comes to actually existing Socialist States that do challenge the hegemony of capital (not social-imperialist countries such as Norway, or the Great Society era US) these writers always find that these States fall short of their socialist fantasy, and thus deserve no support at all.
you won’t actually be able to meaningfully grow a Communist movement beyond the Brooklyn like bubbles of middle-class intellectuals (this is particularly true if you adopt a fake British accent, and dress like a 19th-century dandy). I would not be surprised if less industrial workers read current affairs, than corporate human resources directors.
This is all legit criticism that I almost entirely agree with (and it's a good, concise summary of that Parenti chapter).
Perhaps Nathan J Robinson doesn’t hate the idea of a dictatorship of the Proletarian because it is a dictatorship, but rather because it is of the Proletarian.
"He just thinks the poors are icky" is a speculative personal attack.
a net negative to the cause of workers freedom worldwide
This is just inaccurate. Current Affairs does tons of great, regular work on immigration and anti-imperialism. They're also a space where leftists can perform all the functions traditional media performs and still earn a paycheck, which is desperately needed.
Legit criticism is one thing; my issue is that every time someone posts a twitter screenshot from this guy the thread devolves into speculative personal attacks and stuff that's flat-out inaccurate.
The issue is that the Current Affair's anti-imperialism only criticizes the means of imperialism (torture, war, destruction of infrastructure, etc.) and not the goals of imperialism (the replacement of governments which are hostile to the American Empire)
Here are some quotes:
On China,
"China’s a poor example. The party took complete priority over the workers. In reality, we’ve never seen a true socialist state"
"When anyone points me to the Soviet Union or Castro’s Cuba and says “Well, there’s your socialism,” my answer isn’t “well, they didn’t try hard enough.” It’s that these regimes bear absolutely no relationship to the principle for which I am fighting. They weren’t egalitarian in any sense; they were dictatorships. Thus to say “Well, look what a disaster an egalitarian society is” is to mistake the nature of the Soviet Union. The history of these states shows what is wrong with authoritarian societies, in which people are not equal, and shows the fallacy of thinking you can achieve egalitarian ends through authoritarian means"
"But like many other examples of radically authoritarian “socialist” regimes, the collapse of Venezuela tells us a lot more about the problems of dictatorship, corruption, and incompetence than it does about “socialism.”
This is not "great work" on anti-imperialism, it's anti-communist and anti-Global South propaganda against societies whose primary crime is challenging the supremacy of the Sword and the Dollar. That CA has done so little in the past few months to challenge the Americas propaganda buildup to manufacture consent for hostile actions against the "evil" Chinese Communists proves the net negative nature of Current Affairs.
only criticizes the means of imperialism (torture, war, destruction of infrastructure, etc.)
Even if this is what they're limited to, and it's not, there are so few media outlets who are even willing to go this far that we shouldn't be ragging on them as if they're the NYT.
and not the goals of imperialism (the replacement of governments which are hostile to the American Empire)
Because he wants to show that Trump has destroyed an America that was “actually great,” he has to rewrite the entire history of post-World War II American foreign policy. He has to dismiss unspeakable crimes as minor blips, and avoid mentioning countless instances of intervention that show American policy to have been anything but idealistic and principled...
Perhaps the best place for Krugman to begin correcting his misimpression is the excellent Wikipedia article “United States Involvement in Regime Change.” He might learn quite a bit about how his country has pursued its noble democratic ideals over the past century or so, in “some” countries including Vietnam, Guatemala, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Congo, Grenada, Honduras, Chile, Brazil, and Cuba. The United States tried to replace foreign governments 72 times during the course of the Cold War alone.... [this paragraph goes on for a while about all the shitty things the U.S. empire has done]
I think we can see here a good example of the extreme moral contortions are necessary to avoid concluding that the United States has historically been a self-interested country largely indifferent to the welfare of anyone other than its ruling majority...
It’s not surprising to see Paul Krugman defending American empire, although it’s a little remarkable to see him literally using the word “empire” as a positive. One of the central differences between liberalism and leftism is that liberals believe American dominance over the world is a good idea, but just needs to be run by decent people, while leftists believe that it’s impossible to talk of democracy while also imposing your will on others.
Bad takes (and I agree that all of those takes you quoted are bad) on existing leftist states are not the same as not caring about the Global South, or an indifference to the evils of American Empire. This is especially evident when those bad takes on existing leftist states are at least coming from a leftist (in this case, anarchist) perspective. You've read Blackshirts and Reds -- the chapter right after "Left Anticommunism" is "Communism in Wonderland," and is 13 pages of leftist critique of the Soviet Union. You don't have to agree with every leftist critique of leftist state projects to see that there's a huge difference between that and some chud hooting about "gobunism no food."
What is your criticism of the argument that if you allow power to be consolidated, 10/10 times you wind up with an oligarchy. Principles simply do not matter to people when they can get untold riches (and likely wind up getting blackmailed) by looking the other way. Why would a leftist authoritarian regime be any different?
This is all legit criticism that I almost entirely agree with (and it's a good, concise summary of that Parenti chapter).
"He just thinks the poors are icky" is a speculative personal attack.
This is just inaccurate. Current Affairs does tons of great, regular work on immigration and anti-imperialism. They're also a space where leftists can perform all the functions traditional media performs and still earn a paycheck, which is desperately needed.
Legit criticism is one thing; my issue is that every time someone posts a twitter screenshot from this guy the thread devolves into speculative personal attacks and stuff that's flat-out inaccurate.
The issue is that the Current Affair's anti-imperialism only criticizes the means of imperialism (torture, war, destruction of infrastructure, etc.) and not the goals of imperialism (the replacement of governments which are hostile to the American Empire)
Here are some quotes:
On China,
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/12/get-in-losers-were-doing-socialism
On Cuba and the USSR,
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/how-to-be-a-socialist-without-being-an-apologist-for-the-atrocities-of-communist-regimes
On Venezuela
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/what-venezuela-tells-us-about-socialism
This is not "great work" on anti-imperialism, it's anti-communist and anti-Global South propaganda against societies whose primary crime is challenging the supremacy of the Sword and the Dollar. That CA has done so little in the past few months to challenge the Americas propaganda buildup to manufacture consent for hostile actions against the "evil" Chinese Communists proves the net negative nature of Current Affairs.
Even if this is what they're limited to, and it's not, there are so few media outlets who are even willing to go this far that we shouldn't be ragging on them as if they're the NYT.
From an article directly about this:
Bad takes (and I agree that all of those takes you quoted are bad) on existing leftist states are not the same as not caring about the Global South, or an indifference to the evils of American Empire. This is especially evident when those bad takes on existing leftist states are at least coming from a leftist (in this case, anarchist) perspective. You've read Blackshirts and Reds -- the chapter right after "Left Anticommunism" is "Communism in Wonderland," and is 13 pages of leftist critique of the Soviet Union. You don't have to agree with every leftist critique of leftist state projects to see that there's a huge difference between that and some chud hooting about "gobunism no food."
What is your criticism of the argument that if you allow power to be consolidated, 10/10 times you wind up with an oligarchy. Principles simply do not matter to people when they can get untold riches (and likely wind up getting blackmailed) by looking the other way. Why would a leftist authoritarian regime be any different?