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.
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.