Socialism for Me But Not for Thee
August 18, 2021 12:44 PM Subscribe
The founder of socialist magazine Current Affairs, Nathan J. Robinson, has fired most of the staff for trying to start a worker co-op.
A lot of the reactions I've seen so far have been about, as with knapah's comment, a lack of surprise over this. (Well, 90% of the reactions reference Robinson's wardrobe) But count me as surprised. I've found Robinson to be a very readable voice of reason, and so I'm finding myself shocked over this move. I guess there's always Jacobin.
posted by mittens at 12:56 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by mittens at 12:56 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
(Very surprised to see something new at a gawker.com link; last I heard, it had shut down in 2016 after the Hulk Hogan sex tape judgment and that was that.
Just checked wikipedia and this line is in the intro text at the top: "On July 12, 2018, Bryan Goldberg, owner of Bustle and Elite Daily, purchased Gawker.com in a bankruptcy auction for less than $1.5 million.[7] Gawker relaunched under the Bustle Digital Group on July 28, 2021, with Leah Finnegan as editor.")
posted by msbrauer at 1:00 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
Just checked wikipedia and this line is in the intro text at the top: "On July 12, 2018, Bryan Goldberg, owner of Bustle and Elite Daily, purchased Gawker.com in a bankruptcy auction for less than $1.5 million.[7] Gawker relaunched under the Bustle Digital Group on July 28, 2021, with Leah Finnegan as editor.")
posted by msbrauer at 1:00 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
msbrauer, here’s the fpp on gawker being back if you’re curious :)
posted by Gymnopedist at 1:03 PM on August 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Gymnopedist at 1:03 PM on August 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
Yep, yet another example of an avowed "socialist" who, when forced to put his money where his mouth is, instead finds his inner unionbuster. This happens all the time . And given his personality as seen on Rose Twitter, I am wholly unsurprised by Robinson being the instigator.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:08 PM on August 18, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:08 PM on August 18, 2021 [19 favorites]
This is the kind of "Socialist" who, when they become head of state, starts filling the gulags with anyone who opposes them.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:08 PM on August 18, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:08 PM on August 18, 2021 [18 favorites]
I'm not a Current Affairs subscriber but I have been enjoying their podcast from time to time and it has generally been a delight. Political but goofy, amiable, and accessible in ways that most other lefty media is decidedly not.
Which makes it particularly galling to see that Robinson has apparently fallen into the age old capitalist trap of believing that, as somebody who has some legal authority over an organization, that makes it right and just for him to not only exercise power over it but to do so in an unspoken, unchallenged manner.
I do think it's a bit early for the Stalin comparisons, though. Sheesh.
posted by ropeladder at 1:11 PM on August 18, 2021 [8 favorites]
Which makes it particularly galling to see that Robinson has apparently fallen into the age old capitalist trap of believing that, as somebody who has some legal authority over an organization, that makes it right and just for him to not only exercise power over it but to do so in an unspoken, unchallenged manner.
I do think it's a bit early for the Stalin comparisons, though. Sheesh.
posted by ropeladder at 1:11 PM on August 18, 2021 [8 favorites]
It's not a noble or even useful sentiment but I feel a little vindicated because I've never liked Robinson. He's a competent and productive writer/editor, but zealous to the point of error, the spitting image of the person who sees only nails because a hammer is all they have.
posted by dmh at 1:11 PM on August 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by dmh at 1:11 PM on August 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
New lists! New lists!
Not every group has a Beria but they're fairly obvious after something like this.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:24 PM on August 18, 2021
Not every group has a Beria but they're fairly obvious after something like this.
posted by Slackermagee at 1:24 PM on August 18, 2021
This news really makes me feel some kind of way. I’ve disliked Nathan Robinson, and I’ve also really enjoyed some of his analyses. (I might not have agreed with everything he wrote about Pete Buttigieg, but he certainly helped me think about him differently.) Mostly write now it seems like “the people with acid pens” going after one of their own. I’m also vaguely annoyed that I even know who Nathan Robinson is.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:30 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 1:30 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
It's odd seeing conservatives on social media frothing hungrily at the mouth over this event. Is it supposed to somehow brutally unravel the case for socialism, to observe that exploitation is deeply endemic to our society particularly in organizations helmed by white men?
posted by dusty potato at 1:32 PM on August 18, 2021 [26 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 1:32 PM on August 18, 2021 [26 favorites]
Tell me that Nathan J Robinson isn't a villain in a Wes Anderson movie. I'll wait.
This is so utterly unsurprising. Maybe he'll start a podcast with Greenwald and Taibbi.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on August 18, 2021 [27 favorites]
This is so utterly unsurprising. Maybe he'll start a podcast with Greenwald and Taibbi.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on August 18, 2021 [27 favorites]
It's odd seeing conservatives on social media
It's not really odd at all. This is how the internet and social media works. When a perceived enemy fails and fails because of hypocrisy, it's like a feeding frenzy. It's similar to the whole "leopards ate my face" thing.
posted by FJT at 1:36 PM on August 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
It's not really odd at all. This is how the internet and social media works. When a perceived enemy fails and fails because of hypocrisy, it's like a feeding frenzy. It's similar to the whole "leopards ate my face" thing.
posted by FJT at 1:36 PM on August 18, 2021 [7 favorites]
It's odd seeing conservatives on social media frothing hungrily at the mouth over this event. Is it supposed to somehow brutally unravel the case for socialism, to observe that exploitation is deeply endemic to our society particularly in organizations helmed by white men?
I know. They were rooting for socialism? They are glad the capital class is crushing the workers? Probably a “yes” on that second point, come to think of it.
posted by glaucon at 1:37 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
I know. They were rooting for socialism? They are glad the capital class is crushing the workers? Probably a “yes” on that second point, come to think of it.
posted by glaucon at 1:37 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is the kind of "Socialist" who, when they become head of state, starts filling the gulags with anyone who opposes them.
Lol oh please. This is a guy who gets yelled at by hard-line democrats for being a Bernie Bro as much as he gets made fun of by online lefty puritans for being a neoliberal establishment shill and Hillary Clinton apologist. He's written some fantastic stuff and made some pretty stupid takes. He wrote a plea during the 2020 primaries to ask people to stop making fun of Elizabeth Warren and people had a meltdown at him.
I've always just read him as an over-emotional man-child who was running a pretty decent little magazine with some really talented writers, and seems to have gotten in over his head with his attachment to it all as "HIS PROJECT". I agree with some of the other posts that watching this sort of implosion is surprising and unsurprising at the same time (ultimately the lesson is probably to just NEVER trust a guy who dresses like Austin Powers and talks with a weird, forced British affect).
Maybe he'll start a podcast with Greenwald and Taibbi.
I mean I'd absolutely listen to that podcast with some popcorn because if you follow Greenwald or Taibbi regularly or know anything about them you'd know they fucking hate Nathan Robinson.
posted by windbox at 1:42 PM on August 18, 2021 [18 favorites]
Lol oh please. This is a guy who gets yelled at by hard-line democrats for being a Bernie Bro as much as he gets made fun of by online lefty puritans for being a neoliberal establishment shill and Hillary Clinton apologist. He's written some fantastic stuff and made some pretty stupid takes. He wrote a plea during the 2020 primaries to ask people to stop making fun of Elizabeth Warren and people had a meltdown at him.
I've always just read him as an over-emotional man-child who was running a pretty decent little magazine with some really talented writers, and seems to have gotten in over his head with his attachment to it all as "HIS PROJECT". I agree with some of the other posts that watching this sort of implosion is surprising and unsurprising at the same time (ultimately the lesson is probably to just NEVER trust a guy who dresses like Austin Powers and talks with a weird, forced British affect).
Maybe he'll start a podcast with Greenwald and Taibbi.
I mean I'd absolutely listen to that podcast with some popcorn because if you follow Greenwald or Taibbi regularly or know anything about them you'd know they fucking hate Nathan Robinson.
posted by windbox at 1:42 PM on August 18, 2021 [18 favorites]
Well, I just disabled autorenew and deleted my payment information. What a disappointment.
posted by djeo at 1:43 PM on August 18, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by djeo at 1:43 PM on August 18, 2021 [12 favorites]
As for Robinson's accent, he was born in the U.K. and moved to the U.S. when he was six, so he's got this very unique hybrid. I remember first listening to this guy on a podcast and thinking "Where is this guy from?"
This reminds me of when there was a similar scandal at The Young Turks a few years ago: Cenk Uygur pressured staff not to unionize.
posted by zardoz at 2:19 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
This reminds me of when there was a similar scandal at The Young Turks a few years ago: Cenk Uygur pressured staff not to unionize.
posted by zardoz at 2:19 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
Unclear why Nathan Robinson is dressed like Dr. Who. Where's the reporting on that?
posted by metametamind at 2:39 PM on August 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by metametamind at 2:39 PM on August 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
Jacobin is still Jacobin, right?
You mean the brocialist mag that pays their writers 'competitive market rates' whose owner bought out, fired everyone, and ended a historically left British journal, reneging on a wage deal?
If anything, Jacobin was the first 'socialist' rag that showed how much it actually sucks.
posted by paimapi at 2:42 PM on August 18, 2021 [22 favorites]
You mean the brocialist mag that pays their writers 'competitive market rates' whose owner bought out, fired everyone, and ended a historically left British journal, reneging on a wage deal?
If anything, Jacobin was the first 'socialist' rag that showed how much it actually sucks.
posted by paimapi at 2:42 PM on August 18, 2021 [22 favorites]
Ugh this reminds me of all the white dudes in Austin and Portland that own a house, make it "co-opy," and take advantage at every turn. Looks like he was asked to put his control where his mouth was and that was that.
posted by CPAnarchist at 2:47 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by CPAnarchist at 2:47 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
As a person who considers himself socialist, I am flummoxed and floored by why other socialists seem mystified by this.
It seems like it mostly comes down to capitalists for years talking about "human nature" so anything that insinuates that power corrupts seems to get dismissed by my fellow socialists under the banner of "that's just the bullshit capitalism human nature argument."
But is it? There's research that heavily suggests that being in positions of power diminishes empathy in general, and you have to be a very strong willed person to avoid it. (Someone like Bernie Sanders comes to mind, and even he probably succumbs to it as well)
Honestly, it's why I believe Kyrsten Sinema isn't a Republican plant. She just got power, and lost empathy.
I think, moving forward, socialism has to grapple with this aspect of human biology when it comes to organizing democratically. If it doesn't, socialism will fail and fascism will win.
Anyway, I'm just tired of other socialists ranting 'BUT MUH HUMAN NATURE' at me when I politely point out that people with power lose empathy and provide research that supports that position.
So, honestly not surprised.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:49 PM on August 18, 2021 [39 favorites]
It seems like it mostly comes down to capitalists for years talking about "human nature" so anything that insinuates that power corrupts seems to get dismissed by my fellow socialists under the banner of "that's just the bullshit capitalism human nature argument."
But is it? There's research that heavily suggests that being in positions of power diminishes empathy in general, and you have to be a very strong willed person to avoid it. (Someone like Bernie Sanders comes to mind, and even he probably succumbs to it as well)
Honestly, it's why I believe Kyrsten Sinema isn't a Republican plant. She just got power, and lost empathy.
I think, moving forward, socialism has to grapple with this aspect of human biology when it comes to organizing democratically. If it doesn't, socialism will fail and fascism will win.
Anyway, I'm just tired of other socialists ranting 'BUT MUH HUMAN NATURE' at me when I politely point out that people with power lose empathy and provide research that supports that position.
So, honestly not surprised.
posted by deadaluspark at 2:49 PM on August 18, 2021 [39 favorites]
This is the kind of "Socialist" who, when they become head of state, starts filling the gulags with anyone who opposes them.
NJR is notoriously and vocally anti-Stalinist and anti-Marxist. The real answer is that the guy is just a run-of-the-mill liberal opportunist below an ideologically leftist aesthetic.
posted by smithsmith at 2:57 PM on August 18, 2021 [8 favorites]
NJR is notoriously and vocally anti-Stalinist and anti-Marxist. The real answer is that the guy is just a run-of-the-mill liberal opportunist below an ideologically leftist aesthetic.
posted by smithsmith at 2:57 PM on August 18, 2021 [8 favorites]
Boy oh boy, the statements attributed to Robinson in that PDF sure are something. In an email a day after he fired everyone:
This organization has been heading slowly for some sort of reckoning where it was going to have to be made clear once and for all what kind of authority I wanted to have over it. And I was in denial about the fact that the answer is I think I should be on top of the org chart, with everyone else selected by me and reporting to me. I let Current Affairs build up into a sort of egalitarian community of friends while knowing in my heart that I still thought of it as my project over which I should have control.And in a different (or maybe the same?) email:
I think you saw yesterday that ultimately I just felt Current Affairs slipping slowly away from me and I took an insane course of action to do what I thought would get it back. I am not good at running an organization. I freely admit this.posted by mhum at 2:59 PM on August 18, 2021 [14 favorites]
Presumably there's a reason he didn't set it up as a workers' co-op in the first place.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:59 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:59 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
"If democracy is so great, why did the king outlaw it?"
posted by AlSweigart at 3:02 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 3:02 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
Anyway, I'm just tired of other socialists ranting 'BUT MUH HUMAN NATURE' at me when I politely point out that people with power lose empathy and provide research that supports that position.
Abusing power is not an inherently human condition and that PT article does not label it as such. Studies of this nature are used to describe patterns of behaviors so that they can be identified, quantified, and for which things like therapy can be developed.
A better reason for why power is so commonly abused is because nobody fucking talks about it ever, in any organization, in any group dynamic, because we're not conditioned to think about it in a mature way. The number of radical, lefty activist groups that have imploded due to this specific inability to confront and discuss power is immeasurable, and it's something that veteran organizers have long written about.
posted by paimapi at 3:04 PM on August 18, 2021 [27 favorites]
Abusing power is not an inherently human condition and that PT article does not label it as such. Studies of this nature are used to describe patterns of behaviors so that they can be identified, quantified, and for which things like therapy can be developed.
A better reason for why power is so commonly abused is because nobody fucking talks about it ever, in any organization, in any group dynamic, because we're not conditioned to think about it in a mature way. The number of radical, lefty activist groups that have imploded due to this specific inability to confront and discuss power is immeasurable, and it's something that veteran organizers have long written about.
posted by paimapi at 3:04 PM on August 18, 2021 [27 favorites]
“I am not good at running an organization. I freely admit this.”
—Nathan J. Robinson
The doctor says, “Then don’t do that!”
posted by Monochrome at 3:10 PM on August 18, 2021 [15 favorites]
—Nathan J. Robinson
The doctor says, “Then don’t do that!”
posted by Monochrome at 3:10 PM on August 18, 2021 [15 favorites]
That said, he violated the Stringer Bell Rule with his dismissal letter, and I would imagine there are some labor law attorneys who are positively salivating at that fact.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:10 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:10 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
Unclear why Nathan Robinson is dressed like Dr. Who. Where's the reporting on that?
I always thought he dressed more like Willy Wonka, or a Marxist Tom Wolfe.
From what little I knew about him I was not surprised to learn this, although it's unusual to see such a public and blatant meltdown.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:16 PM on August 18, 2021
I always thought he dressed more like Willy Wonka, or a Marxist Tom Wolfe.
From what little I knew about him I was not surprised to learn this, although it's unusual to see such a public and blatant meltdown.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:16 PM on August 18, 2021
I personally find NJR insufferable and the living embodiment of Ignatius Jacques Reilly but he 1) is not completely irredeemable and 2) for a time actually brought together a really great group of people who were able to get their voices platformed to a reasonably sizeable audience.
Purity politicking on the internet (and in lefty groups) where someone fucks up once and then is ostracized forever is such a toxic behavior, and one of the reasons why left organizations become brittle and break up and the power and platform that was once there totally fades.
It's not too late for NJR to unfuck this situation. Whether or not he does is going to be the real test of whether or not he is actually willing to live his values, not this horrible tantrum he decided to have.
With all that said, if your sources of lefty news are only ever coming from internet-savvy cishet men from upper middle class backgrounds then it's time to consider other voices or maybe joining up with a local group yourself, and realizing how useless the writing on sites like these are for actual, on-the-ground organizing work. Good talk for sipping some alcohol over but the existence of America's hidden empire is not going to convince your city council to not shut down the last remaining no-ID homeless shelter in your city.
posted by paimapi at 3:21 PM on August 18, 2021 [31 favorites]
Purity politicking on the internet (and in lefty groups) where someone fucks up once and then is ostracized forever is such a toxic behavior, and one of the reasons why left organizations become brittle and break up and the power and platform that was once there totally fades.
It's not too late for NJR to unfuck this situation. Whether or not he does is going to be the real test of whether or not he is actually willing to live his values, not this horrible tantrum he decided to have.
With all that said, if your sources of lefty news are only ever coming from internet-savvy cishet men from upper middle class backgrounds then it's time to consider other voices or maybe joining up with a local group yourself, and realizing how useless the writing on sites like these are for actual, on-the-ground organizing work. Good talk for sipping some alcohol over but the existence of America's hidden empire is not going to convince your city council to not shut down the last remaining no-ID homeless shelter in your city.
posted by paimapi at 3:21 PM on August 18, 2021 [31 favorites]
I've always had the impression that he is self obsessed and revels in his leadership position, hence why it wasn't a shock that the threat of losing that preeminence made him retrench and lash out.
posted by knapah at 3:35 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by knapah at 3:35 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I always thought he dressed more like Willy Wonka, or a Marxist Tom Wolfe.
We could try sending him to the pub for immediate feedback.
posted by gimonca at 3:57 PM on August 18, 2021 [5 favorites]
We could try sending him to the pub for immediate feedback.
posted by gimonca at 3:57 PM on August 18, 2021 [5 favorites]
Robinson has released a statement on Facebook.
posted by mittens at 4:00 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by mittens at 4:00 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
Even though I screwed up, the truth is more complex than the 'fired the staff for wanting democracy' narrative. I've done many egalitarian things with Current Affairs.
What about all the times I didn't fire everyone in a tantrum?!
posted by Drastic at 4:07 PM on August 18, 2021 [23 favorites]
What about all the times I didn't fire everyone in a tantrum?!
posted by Drastic at 4:07 PM on August 18, 2021 [23 favorites]
Metafilter: Even though I screwed up, the truth is more complex
posted by fortitude25 at 4:34 PM on August 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by fortitude25 at 4:34 PM on August 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
I liked Nathan Robinson. I liked his rambly writing because I come from the days of nineties fanzies in which we rambled as we pleased. I liked how he dressed, because I liked that he is a short man who is confident enough to dress like a weirdo and because I personally have always liked dressing a bit like a weirdo myself. I felt and still feel that a lot of the "why does he dress like that it's so bizarre" stuff is motivated by crypto-homophobia - not so much "ew I think NJR is gay" but "ew, men who make a big show of their appearance while obviously not caring about being heteronormatively fuckable make me really uncomfortable and therefore they must be mocked even though in theory in left circles we don't make fun of people's clothes or bodies".
So anyway. Now I'm extremely disappointed and upset.
I can think of precisely two left money-making enterprises in my area which started as non-union/non-coop and went union/co-op without sabotage and union-busting. I can think of a couple with very bitter and ugly unionization campaigns and a couple where the bosses essentially destroyed the organizations rather than unionize.
It's always the same rhetoric - the same as any other union-buster but slightly tweaked for the left. Unions are fine for those other workers off over there, but our workers aren't authentically working class, they're just my friends/spoiled middle class kids/etc. We don't really need a union because it will mess up relationships. A union will get in the way of the flexibility we need to deliver on our mission. Paying a living wage will tank the project.
There was a big blow-up in my scene some years ago over which I basically lost friends. The bosses that time made a big thing about how the main organizer was this terrible, awful person who had led all the other naive employees astray and how he just wanted the union in order to destroy the organization since he'd had conflict with his boss. Now, to be fair, the main organizer was really a non-great person, but a lot of left wing people who should have known better bought into this whole pied piper of unionization thing.
As to NJR's statement, I don't see any specifics in it. When he says that he "hopes CA will make it through", well, he is still the boss, right? He hasn't been locked in the supply closet by a gang of angry Red Brigade types? I guess if I had wrongly fired a bunch of people I would probably try to hire them back, for instance.
This is why I'm an anarchist. Maybe a crap anarchist who compromises too much, but the problem is always fundamentally power and inequality.
I would hate to be NJR right now. He's never going to get back what he had, and he does seem like someone who actually values being part of the left rather than just wanting to use it as a springboard.
posted by Frowner at 5:21 PM on August 18, 2021 [36 favorites]
So anyway. Now I'm extremely disappointed and upset.
I can think of precisely two left money-making enterprises in my area which started as non-union/non-coop and went union/co-op without sabotage and union-busting. I can think of a couple with very bitter and ugly unionization campaigns and a couple where the bosses essentially destroyed the organizations rather than unionize.
It's always the same rhetoric - the same as any other union-buster but slightly tweaked for the left. Unions are fine for those other workers off over there, but our workers aren't authentically working class, they're just my friends/spoiled middle class kids/etc. We don't really need a union because it will mess up relationships. A union will get in the way of the flexibility we need to deliver on our mission. Paying a living wage will tank the project.
There was a big blow-up in my scene some years ago over which I basically lost friends. The bosses that time made a big thing about how the main organizer was this terrible, awful person who had led all the other naive employees astray and how he just wanted the union in order to destroy the organization since he'd had conflict with his boss. Now, to be fair, the main organizer was really a non-great person, but a lot of left wing people who should have known better bought into this whole pied piper of unionization thing.
As to NJR's statement, I don't see any specifics in it. When he says that he "hopes CA will make it through", well, he is still the boss, right? He hasn't been locked in the supply closet by a gang of angry Red Brigade types? I guess if I had wrongly fired a bunch of people I would probably try to hire them back, for instance.
This is why I'm an anarchist. Maybe a crap anarchist who compromises too much, but the problem is always fundamentally power and inequality.
I would hate to be NJR right now. He's never going to get back what he had, and he does seem like someone who actually values being part of the left rather than just wanting to use it as a springboard.
posted by Frowner at 5:21 PM on August 18, 2021 [36 favorites]
The thing that strikes me most about Robinson's apparent words/actions is the entitled wanting-it-both-ways of it all. Like, it's fine to have an auteurish personal project that you have 100% vision and control over. That's how some of the most interesting stuff in our society has come about! But after you *decide* to turn it into an organization-- of which a business is one type-- you can't just ctrl-Z it back into your baby once others have added significant contributions, at least if you don't want to be seen as a Boss, because that's literally what capitalism is lol.
posted by dusty potato at 5:52 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 5:52 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
I’ve also just remembered that socialist countries very definitely have private companies! That isn’t to say that Robinson is right or anything, but my sense of the discourse has become so dang skewed - in part thanks to folks like Robinson himself.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:01 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 6:01 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
Jacobin is trash, and Nathan J. Robinson is an idiot who confirms that he's an idiot regularly on social media. This is completely unsurprising.
posted by ivanthenotsoterrible at 6:10 PM on August 18, 2021
posted by ivanthenotsoterrible at 6:10 PM on August 18, 2021
I knew this guy was bad when he said modern architecture was ugly.
posted by escabeche at 6:11 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by escabeche at 6:11 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
Perhaps comrade Robinson simply wishes to remind us that class interest always comes first. Before deeply held or professed ideologies or even friendships.
posted by rodlymight at 6:12 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by rodlymight at 6:12 PM on August 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
So anyway. Now I'm extremely disappointed and upset.
...
I would hate to be NJR right now. He's never going to get back what he had, and he does seem like someone who actually values being part of the left rather than just wanting to use it as a springboard.
That captures poignantly what I've disliked about Robinson and the discomfort I feel about this. I've no doubt Robinson values being part of the left, and there is no doubt he's done a tremendous amount in service of the left, and there's no doubt he's provided valuable voice on the left, being not just a strong writer but an effective organizer / publicist. It's precisely because of all these things that I think he carries a responsibility that's perhaps bigger than himself, and I feel he's vacillated about carrying that burden across the threshold. Robinson loves the left no doubt, but Robinson also loves Robinson.
The choice to fire the staff is where I think he dropped the burden altogether. Or maybe it slipped, I don't know. That's his choice. Or maybe not. I'm sure it's not easy. None of us really know. But for me that's part of what's disappointing.
posted by dmh at 6:28 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
...
I would hate to be NJR right now. He's never going to get back what he had, and he does seem like someone who actually values being part of the left rather than just wanting to use it as a springboard.
That captures poignantly what I've disliked about Robinson and the discomfort I feel about this. I've no doubt Robinson values being part of the left, and there is no doubt he's done a tremendous amount in service of the left, and there's no doubt he's provided valuable voice on the left, being not just a strong writer but an effective organizer / publicist. It's precisely because of all these things that I think he carries a responsibility that's perhaps bigger than himself, and I feel he's vacillated about carrying that burden across the threshold. Robinson loves the left no doubt, but Robinson also loves Robinson.
The choice to fire the staff is where I think he dropped the burden altogether. Or maybe it slipped, I don't know. That's his choice. Or maybe not. I'm sure it's not easy. None of us really know. But for me that's part of what's disappointing.
posted by dmh at 6:28 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
Well, this is quite the bummer. I like Current Affairs, and when I saw them (virtually) tabling at the DSA national convention a couple weeks ago, I finally subscribed. I also got to chat with Nathan Robinson a couple times, since he and another of the CA staff set aside time to talk via Zoom with anyone who dropped in. I found him engaging and a pleasure to talk to. He also wore a good tie.
I don't know how this will shake out, but I hope that any staff that want to return can, both as part of the kind of organization that keeps things sufficiently structured for the magazine to succeed, as Robinson mentions in his FB post, and as members of a union or co-op or whatever they decide, collectively, suits them as workers.
posted by heteronym at 6:54 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't know how this will shake out, but I hope that any staff that want to return can, both as part of the kind of organization that keeps things sufficiently structured for the magazine to succeed, as Robinson mentions in his FB post, and as members of a union or co-op or whatever they decide, collectively, suits them as workers.
posted by heteronym at 6:54 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
Ugh, is everyone just completely misinformed about this? This wasn't about money. Robinson was making the same amount as every other employee. This wasn't about union busting. It was about who had editorial control. Some employees wanted editorial control. He wanted to retain editorial control.
Everyone made the same amount of money.
Perhaps comrade Robinson simply wishes to remind us that class interest always comes first. Before deeply held or professed ideologies or even friendships.
There was no class interest at play here because everyone makes the same amount of money!
A union will get in the way of the flexibility we need to deliver on our mission. Paying a living wage will tank the project.
Everyone was paid the same!
That said, he violated the Stringer Bell Rule with his dismissal letter, and I would imagine there are some labor law attorneys who are positively salivating at that fact. No, because this had nothing to do with union organizing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:18 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
Everyone made the same amount of money.
Perhaps comrade Robinson simply wishes to remind us that class interest always comes first. Before deeply held or professed ideologies or even friendships.
There was no class interest at play here because everyone makes the same amount of money!
A union will get in the way of the flexibility we need to deliver on our mission. Paying a living wage will tank the project.
Everyone was paid the same!
That said, he violated the Stringer Bell Rule with his dismissal letter, and I would imagine there are some labor law attorneys who are positively salivating at that fact. No, because this had nothing to do with union organizing.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:18 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
What's the ownership structure of Current Affairs? Wikipedia says an LLC. If the equity is solely owned by Robinson, they may have the same salaries, but they don't have the same income. A big part of class interests come from who owns the assets, not who gets paid the most.
posted by CPAnarchist at 7:32 PM on August 18, 2021 [20 favorites]
posted by CPAnarchist at 7:32 PM on August 18, 2021 [20 favorites]
Maintaining control over workers is absolutely a class interest of the owning class, literally the means of production. And the fact that the workers weren’t organizing over wages doesn’t change the fact that they were fired because they tried to organize.
posted by rodlymight at 7:38 PM on August 18, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by rodlymight at 7:38 PM on August 18, 2021 [21 favorites]
I can understand why you would want to maintain editorial control over a project like this, though
You could end up having Andrew Sullivan or Peter Beinart guiding the ideological output of your project
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:54 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
You could end up having Andrew Sullivan or Peter Beinart guiding the ideological output of your project
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:54 PM on August 18, 2021 [1 favorite]
There was no class interest at play here because everyone makes the same amount of money!
That's not how... class interest works. I don't think NJR himself would agree that the scope of class interest is limited to just paying people the same. Marx wrote about the means of control, not wages (though wages are where you're able to organize on a practical, tangible level which is why they are commonly discussed).
Presumably a socialist model of control (is NJR socialist? I thought he was just a demsoc which is absolutely not socialism at all) would involve not just him deciding what the magazine was about, how the money was divvied up, who got to say who represents CA, etc, but a shared, equitable partnership in a mutually understood project. You know, with the means of control shared and not doled out by a benevolent patriarch whose ennui and disproportionate power sometimes leads to equal wages and sometimes leads to people being unceremoniously fired in a wild over-reaction.
posted by paimapi at 7:58 PM on August 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
That's not how... class interest works. I don't think NJR himself would agree that the scope of class interest is limited to just paying people the same. Marx wrote about the means of control, not wages (though wages are where you're able to organize on a practical, tangible level which is why they are commonly discussed).
Presumably a socialist model of control (is NJR socialist? I thought he was just a demsoc which is absolutely not socialism at all) would involve not just him deciding what the magazine was about, how the money was divvied up, who got to say who represents CA, etc, but a shared, equitable partnership in a mutually understood project. You know, with the means of control shared and not doled out by a benevolent patriarch whose ennui and disproportionate power sometimes leads to equal wages and sometimes leads to people being unceremoniously fired in a wild over-reaction.
posted by paimapi at 7:58 PM on August 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
With all that said, if your sources of lefty news are only ever coming from internet-savvy cishet men from upper middle class backgrounds then it's time to consider other voices
This suggests that Nathan is the magazine, though, when in fact it’s largely women and nonbinary people who made it so good.
posted by naoko at 8:01 PM on August 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
This suggests that Nathan is the magazine, though, when in fact it’s largely women and nonbinary people who made it so good.
posted by naoko at 8:01 PM on August 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
This suggests that Nathan is the magazine, though
Yes, this entire blow-up is about Nathan wanting to have the primary and singular editorial control over the magazine, correct?
posted by paimapi at 8:05 PM on August 18, 2021
Yes, this entire blow-up is about Nathan wanting to have the primary and singular editorial control over the magazine, correct?
posted by paimapi at 8:05 PM on August 18, 2021
From Robinson's statement:
Since starting CA, I have resisted making Current Affairs 'owned' by staff not because I want to own it myself but because I don't want it to be owned at all, I want it to operate as a not for profit institution that does not belong to particular people.
Or, apparently, "I must have it, so no one can!"
posted by belarius at 8:06 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
Since starting CA, I have resisted making Current Affairs 'owned' by staff not because I want to own it myself but because I don't want it to be owned at all, I want it to operate as a not for profit institution that does not belong to particular people.
Or, apparently, "I must have it, so no one can!"
posted by belarius at 8:06 PM on August 18, 2021 [6 favorites]
This wasn't about union busting. It was about who had editorial control. Some employees wanted editorial control. He wanted to retain editorial control.
And that's not union busting....because? Amazingly, unions are not solely about money - they're about labor having a voice at the table - and when we're talking about journalistic outlets, part of that is having a say in the editorial direction of the outlet.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:22 PM on August 18, 2021 [17 favorites]
And that's not union busting....because? Amazingly, unions are not solely about money - they're about labor having a voice at the table - and when we're talking about journalistic outlets, part of that is having a say in the editorial direction of the outlet.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:22 PM on August 18, 2021 [17 favorites]
"You could end up having Andrew Sullivan or Peter Beinart guiding the ideological output of your project"
Look, if Nathan Robinson didn't want to risk other people doing things he doesn't like with the media he was creating then he should have done like Mark Hosler of Negativland said (not verbatim, original interview is long gone from internet):
Keep it for yourself, keep it in your home, share it with your friends, don't share it with the wider world, because you've already lost control, because now your ideas are out there permutating in other people's minds, going directions with your ideas you never even considered, some of which you might even find off-putting and outright dangerous. You don't have control over these ideas anymore, and your demands for ownership of them are a rejection of basic human interpersonal interaction.
When we interact with new ideas from other people, we think about them, they change in our minds, we can't control that. Someone wanting full control over the media they create is misunderstanding human interaction and socialization.
If Robinson didn't want the risk of other people's ideas diluting his auteur bullshit, then he shouldn't have hired anyone to begin with and should have been literally the only person producing anything.
I mean, I don't know, just the whole "Well I need to be in editorial control at all times and I can't have other people mucking it up into something I don't want it to be" definitely sounds pretty close to "fuck other people's ideas" which is pretty antithetical to democracy and socialism in my opinion.
I don't like Andrew Sullivan or Peter Beinart either, but I also don't think I, as an individual, am some fucking vanguard against the kind of tripe they write. If they beat me at the game, so be it, I should be able to walk away instead of fucking everything up because I believe my ideas are so much more important and correct than theirs. I mean fuck, just let them unionize, quit, and start your own website called "Contemporary Interests."
posted by deadaluspark at 8:53 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
Look, if Nathan Robinson didn't want to risk other people doing things he doesn't like with the media he was creating then he should have done like Mark Hosler of Negativland said (not verbatim, original interview is long gone from internet):
Keep it for yourself, keep it in your home, share it with your friends, don't share it with the wider world, because you've already lost control, because now your ideas are out there permutating in other people's minds, going directions with your ideas you never even considered, some of which you might even find off-putting and outright dangerous. You don't have control over these ideas anymore, and your demands for ownership of them are a rejection of basic human interpersonal interaction.
When we interact with new ideas from other people, we think about them, they change in our minds, we can't control that. Someone wanting full control over the media they create is misunderstanding human interaction and socialization.
If Robinson didn't want the risk of other people's ideas diluting his auteur bullshit, then he shouldn't have hired anyone to begin with and should have been literally the only person producing anything.
I mean, I don't know, just the whole "Well I need to be in editorial control at all times and I can't have other people mucking it up into something I don't want it to be" definitely sounds pretty close to "fuck other people's ideas" which is pretty antithetical to democracy and socialism in my opinion.
I don't like Andrew Sullivan or Peter Beinart either, but I also don't think I, as an individual, am some fucking vanguard against the kind of tripe they write. If they beat me at the game, so be it, I should be able to walk away instead of fucking everything up because I believe my ideas are so much more important and correct than theirs. I mean fuck, just let them unionize, quit, and start your own website called "Contemporary Interests."
posted by deadaluspark at 8:53 PM on August 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
"You could end up having Andrew Sullivan or Peter Beinart guiding the ideological output of your project"
Weeeeelll, you could if joining the co-op were as simple as walking in the door. But in general, the co-op projects I'm familiar with are pretty picky about who gets to join. The two most ideologically consistent projects I know are both worker collectives (which is similar) and when they're hiring, let me tell you, you go through a process. These are both projects that have been around in basically the same form for over twenty years. I'd be more worried about a co-op stagnating ideologically than about it being hijacked by rightists.
Also, look, either you believe in worker control or you don't. If you don't, fine, sure, whatever, but you don't get the space on the left that belongs to socialists and anarchists and other universally pro-union people. If the workers want to organize and you want to maintain any kind of left rep, you have to let them. Further, if you're looking at a hand-picked crew of writers, designers and administrators and thinking, "these people say that they want equal say in the running of the magazine, but actually I know so much better than all of them and I should keep control" then something is really wrong.
posted by Frowner at 9:21 PM on August 18, 2021 [24 favorites]
Weeeeelll, you could if joining the co-op were as simple as walking in the door. But in general, the co-op projects I'm familiar with are pretty picky about who gets to join. The two most ideologically consistent projects I know are both worker collectives (which is similar) and when they're hiring, let me tell you, you go through a process. These are both projects that have been around in basically the same form for over twenty years. I'd be more worried about a co-op stagnating ideologically than about it being hijacked by rightists.
Also, look, either you believe in worker control or you don't. If you don't, fine, sure, whatever, but you don't get the space on the left that belongs to socialists and anarchists and other universally pro-union people. If the workers want to organize and you want to maintain any kind of left rep, you have to let them. Further, if you're looking at a hand-picked crew of writers, designers and administrators and thinking, "these people say that they want equal say in the running of the magazine, but actually I know so much better than all of them and I should keep control" then something is really wrong.
posted by Frowner at 9:21 PM on August 18, 2021 [24 favorites]
This scandal led me down kind of a rabbit hole looking at different models of employee ownership and collectives. I'm nowhere near finished reading the links I found.
United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives
Democracy at Work Institute
Difference Between Cooperatives and Collectives
List of Worker Cooperatives
And then there are employee owned companies, which are different thing:
Successful Employee Owned Companies
List of Employee Owned Companies
Of course, I guess anyone who has an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) kind of owns a part of their company. Come to think of it, old school law firms kind of were cooperatives of a sort depending upon how they divided up income once you made partner. Those days are long go though.
From what I've gathered, Current Affairs has some or sort of board that apparently has the power to suspend publication, which they've done until September. It sounds like the board isn't happy with NJR right now. Hopefully everyone can reconcile and cooler heads prevail. If not, hopefully they employees can form the cooperative they intended and NJR can go independent through something like substack since it seems this whole battle arose over editorial control. Still, its not a good look for him.
posted by eagles123 at 10:45 PM on August 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives
Democracy at Work Institute
Difference Between Cooperatives and Collectives
List of Worker Cooperatives
And then there are employee owned companies, which are different thing:
Successful Employee Owned Companies
List of Employee Owned Companies
Of course, I guess anyone who has an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) kind of owns a part of their company. Come to think of it, old school law firms kind of were cooperatives of a sort depending upon how they divided up income once you made partner. Those days are long go though.
From what I've gathered, Current Affairs has some or sort of board that apparently has the power to suspend publication, which they've done until September. It sounds like the board isn't happy with NJR right now. Hopefully everyone can reconcile and cooler heads prevail. If not, hopefully they employees can form the cooperative they intended and NJR can go independent through something like substack since it seems this whole battle arose over editorial control. Still, its not a good look for him.
posted by eagles123 at 10:45 PM on August 18, 2021 [10 favorites]
Also, look, either you believe in worker control or you don't.
Where I start to have sympathy for NJR is that you can believe in worker control, and at the same time, look around you at the actually-existing workers, and question whether a particular project can continue with them in control. I mean, I think he made the wrong decision, but I could see where, if you're facing disorganization in a business that is marked by deadlines and public expectations, and you are the sort of person who works insanely hard putting out not only the magazine, but a book or two a year, articles for other publications, plus regularly engaging in social media, you might think that your current workers wouldn't be able to keep the magazine at its current quality, schedule and image on a co-op model.
People are acting like this is a failure of ideology, and quite a few like it is a typical tale of a capitalist in sheep's clothing, but it seems clearer to me that it's fear over the survival of a valuable enterprise, and a fear that really could have been worked through with the writers, in private, at a slow pace that respected everyone. I'm not sure what the negotiations would have looked like, or what effect moving to a co-op model would've had on CA (anarchy is hard work!), and maybe NJR's fears would've been realized, or the board would've shut them down, or the magazine would've been fine, who knows. But by precluding the possibility, it does look like he might have killed this thing he wanted to control, and that's pretty sad.
posted by mittens at 4:14 AM on August 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
Where I start to have sympathy for NJR is that you can believe in worker control, and at the same time, look around you at the actually-existing workers, and question whether a particular project can continue with them in control. I mean, I think he made the wrong decision, but I could see where, if you're facing disorganization in a business that is marked by deadlines and public expectations, and you are the sort of person who works insanely hard putting out not only the magazine, but a book or two a year, articles for other publications, plus regularly engaging in social media, you might think that your current workers wouldn't be able to keep the magazine at its current quality, schedule and image on a co-op model.
People are acting like this is a failure of ideology, and quite a few like it is a typical tale of a capitalist in sheep's clothing, but it seems clearer to me that it's fear over the survival of a valuable enterprise, and a fear that really could have been worked through with the writers, in private, at a slow pace that respected everyone. I'm not sure what the negotiations would have looked like, or what effect moving to a co-op model would've had on CA (anarchy is hard work!), and maybe NJR's fears would've been realized, or the board would've shut them down, or the magazine would've been fine, who knows. But by precluding the possibility, it does look like he might have killed this thing he wanted to control, and that's pretty sad.
posted by mittens at 4:14 AM on August 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
Weeeeelll, you could if joining the co-op were as simple as walking in the door. But in general, the co-op projects I'm familiar with are pretty picky about who gets to join. The two most ideologically consistent projects I know are both worker collectives (which is similar) and when they're hiring, let me tell you, you go through a process. These are both projects that have been around in basically the same form for over twenty years. I'd be more worried about a co-op stagnating ideologically than about it being hijacked by rightists.
Also, look, either you believe in worker control or you don't. If you don't, fine, sure, whatever, but you don't get the space on the left that belongs to socialists and anarchists and other universally pro-union people. If the workers want to organize and you want to maintain any kind of left rep, you have to let them. Further, if you're looking at a hand-picked crew of writers, designers and administrators and thinking, "these people say that they want equal say in the running of the magazine, but actually I know so much better than all of them and I should keep control" then something is really wrong.
I think this poses an interesting problem. While it's entirely to possible hand pick the staff he was to work with, when it comes to actual governance, which is what CA and all it's like minded readers are presumably interested in, there is a line where control by one person is appropriate, and where it isn't. To paraphrase another (formerly) public asshole, you go with the populace you have, not the populace you wish you had. This is where the wheels always fall off when it comes to socialist and socialist-adjacent, or any kind of collective endeavor, really. Particularly in a place like the U.S. You don't have to look far. We can see, right now, city councils, school boards and so on, paralyzed because everyone has a right to their input, which basically means a right to poison the well.
Hand picking the content creators seems to me committing the same sin as firing the staff for demanding editorial control. You simply hope that nobody notices or cares and everyone manages to square that circle over the belief/illusion of worker control.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:03 AM on August 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Hand picking the content creators seems to me committing the same sin as firing the staff for demanding editorial control. You simply hope that nobody notices or cares and everyone manages to square that circle over the belief/illusion of worker control.
I am confused by this - it seems like you're saying that real worker control can only exist if CA is an open source publishing platform where anything that gets submitted is typeset. If that's where you're going, I feel like that's an unproductive level of abstraction - kind of the equivalent of saying "anarchism means no rules so I can do literally anything I want or else it's not anarchism".
Similarly, I'd say that a school board is really, really not a worker co-op. It's not a worker anything; it's a governing board. It does not just govern itself and the work it produces as a worker co-op would. It does not select its own members and in general its members are selected by a really borked "democratic" process that isn't very representative. City councils and school boards are not collective projects of any kind - they don't exist to run an enterprise and they are not truly representative of the popular will.
Even if they were, though, I still wouldn't buy the "unions and co-ops are bad because the workers might decide to do something bad or unwise". First, because owners do bad or unwise things all the time and either they are too big to fail or they destroy their enterprises*. Second, because "unions might do dumb stuff" is rooted in the belief that owners are in fact smart and workers are in fact dumb and therefore of course the, eg, business managers and editors and so on can't run a magazine as well as the lone genius with a vision.
Third, and maybe most importantly, "if you are free to act you might do something dumb so therefore you must not act" is a rule you use for a toddler on a harness, not adults. Either workers' rights to organize are fundamental to the left or they're not. Saying that workers should only be allowed to organize when the bosses believe that they are good enough and smart enough to run the show is the same as saying that there are no organizing rights.
*A project I really, truly loved collapsed after its mad genius founder made a really obviously stupid decision - like, a decision that would not have been made by the organization as a whole because it was so transparently stupid. But the stupid decision carried a bunch of short term money with it and a big boost for the genius, so on they went.
posted by Frowner at 6:14 AM on August 19, 2021 [15 favorites]
I am confused by this - it seems like you're saying that real worker control can only exist if CA is an open source publishing platform where anything that gets submitted is typeset. If that's where you're going, I feel like that's an unproductive level of abstraction - kind of the equivalent of saying "anarchism means no rules so I can do literally anything I want or else it's not anarchism".
Similarly, I'd say that a school board is really, really not a worker co-op. It's not a worker anything; it's a governing board. It does not just govern itself and the work it produces as a worker co-op would. It does not select its own members and in general its members are selected by a really borked "democratic" process that isn't very representative. City councils and school boards are not collective projects of any kind - they don't exist to run an enterprise and they are not truly representative of the popular will.
Even if they were, though, I still wouldn't buy the "unions and co-ops are bad because the workers might decide to do something bad or unwise". First, because owners do bad or unwise things all the time and either they are too big to fail or they destroy their enterprises*. Second, because "unions might do dumb stuff" is rooted in the belief that owners are in fact smart and workers are in fact dumb and therefore of course the, eg, business managers and editors and so on can't run a magazine as well as the lone genius with a vision.
Third, and maybe most importantly, "if you are free to act you might do something dumb so therefore you must not act" is a rule you use for a toddler on a harness, not adults. Either workers' rights to organize are fundamental to the left or they're not. Saying that workers should only be allowed to organize when the bosses believe that they are good enough and smart enough to run the show is the same as saying that there are no organizing rights.
*A project I really, truly loved collapsed after its mad genius founder made a really obviously stupid decision - like, a decision that would not have been made by the organization as a whole because it was so transparently stupid. But the stupid decision carried a bunch of short term money with it and a big boost for the genius, so on they went.
posted by Frowner at 6:14 AM on August 19, 2021 [15 favorites]
This is where the wheels always fall off when it comes to socialist and socialist-adjacent, or any kind of collective endeavor, really. Particularly in a place like the U.S. You don't have to look far. We can see, right now, city councils, school boards and so on, paralyzed because everyone has a right to their input, which basically means a right to poison the well.
This sounds more like a criticism of representative democracy than socialism, one that betrays a poorly-informed perception of both, but also ignorance about how city councils and school boards actually operate.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:06 AM on August 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
This sounds more like a criticism of representative democracy than socialism, one that betrays a poorly-informed perception of both, but also ignorance about how city councils and school boards actually operate.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:06 AM on August 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
He should have just let them organize, then waited for the Mensheviks to split from the Bolsheviks and the Trotskyists from the Leninists, and then taken over again.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:32 AM on August 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:32 AM on August 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
"It's odd seeing conservatives on social media frothing hungrily at the mouth over this event"
No it's not, as long as you remember that the sole organizing principle of the contemporary right is opposition to the contemporary left. Anything bad or embarrassing for leftists is, by that definition, good for rightists. You want to see Sean Hannity disown Ronald Reagan? Easy. Just have AOC give a speech about "the positive aspects of Reagan's legacy". Leaving aside the question of whether such positive aspects exist, because that's not the point. The point is that if AOC makes a claim that there are some positive aspects of Reagan's legacy, Reagan is therefore contaminated and should be renounced. Pwning libs is the only thing standing behind right-wing media/social media and complete nihilism.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:28 AM on August 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
No it's not, as long as you remember that the sole organizing principle of the contemporary right is opposition to the contemporary left. Anything bad or embarrassing for leftists is, by that definition, good for rightists. You want to see Sean Hannity disown Ronald Reagan? Easy. Just have AOC give a speech about "the positive aspects of Reagan's legacy". Leaving aside the question of whether such positive aspects exist, because that's not the point. The point is that if AOC makes a claim that there are some positive aspects of Reagan's legacy, Reagan is therefore contaminated and should be renounced. Pwning libs is the only thing standing behind right-wing media/social media and complete nihilism.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:28 AM on August 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've been seeing a lot of logic-chopping on twitter about co-ops versus unions. (Union organizing falls under the NLRB, co-op reorg would not.) This would matter a lot if it was, like, Verizon or something, but it doesn't matter much if we're talking about a small left-wing magazine because the principle is what's at issue. If you are a socialist, anarchist or other pro-worker type, the moral implications of "I am firing you because you want to form a union" and "I am firing you because you want this business to operate as a co-op" are not that different because the issue is worker power not the form it takes. We don't have unions because unions are the platonic ideal of worker power; we have unions because historical circumstances have meant that these are the forms that worker power has been able to take under capitalism.
If you are a socialist/anarchist/similar, you tend to believe that workers ought to control their working conditions. If you are the boss of a small left publication and in theory you believe that workers ought to control their working conditions but you fire a bunch of people after a long re-org process that does not go your way, well, that's not very good.
We don't expect Verizon to do anything but fire union organizers and we don't expect to go to Verizon and say "our preferred working conditions are a co-op, please". Therefore, the process with Verizon would simply be what is possible under law. It's not hypocritical for Verizon to union-bust, even though it's shitty, because Verizon did not pretend to support the rights of workers to control their working conditions. For a socialist, however, it's a bit different.
posted by Frowner at 9:38 AM on August 19, 2021 [11 favorites]
If you are a socialist/anarchist/similar, you tend to believe that workers ought to control their working conditions. If you are the boss of a small left publication and in theory you believe that workers ought to control their working conditions but you fire a bunch of people after a long re-org process that does not go your way, well, that's not very good.
We don't expect Verizon to do anything but fire union organizers and we don't expect to go to Verizon and say "our preferred working conditions are a co-op, please". Therefore, the process with Verizon would simply be what is possible under law. It's not hypocritical for Verizon to union-bust, even though it's shitty, because Verizon did not pretend to support the rights of workers to control their working conditions. For a socialist, however, it's a bit different.
posted by Frowner at 9:38 AM on August 19, 2021 [11 favorites]
Gawker has a follow-up article up today, with some additional reporting on the sequence of events along with statements from Robinson and three staffers, "The Implosion at Current Affairs". I found this little tidbit particularly interesting:
The day after the Zoom, the staff had two planning meetings for the next year of the magazine and its in-house podcast. But Robinson cancelled those in an email, adding “further information to come.” The further information, it turned out, was that Silcox had been removed from Slack. As had another employee. [...]posted by mhum at 9:48 AM on August 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
For the next few hours, the staff said “it was absolute chaos.” No one knew who was staying or leaving. They were in the middle of a print issue — some first drafts had already come in. Eventually, Gold, Silcox, and Gauthreaux each received emails from Robinson asking for their immediate resignation.
Technically, he wasn’t allowed to fire them. A few months earlier, the staff had implemented an “employment protection policy” — which required that Robinson implement a two-week performance plan for any firing other than “harassment or gross misconduct.” The emailed requests, Silcox said, reflected “some awareness” that he couldn’t legally fire them.
Robinson’s emails included some “extremely nasty things” about their performance, their dedication to the magazine, and how they had disappointed him. But within 24 hours, he sent them all apologies, saying — by way of Silcox’s paraphrase — “Okay, all the stuff I said yesterday was not true. I was trying to be as hurtful as possible.”
“They really seemed like almost the kind of email a character gets when they’re fired from their office job in a movie,” Gauthreaux said. “It was very like ‘Thanks for your work. Not a great fit. Best to you. Bye.’”
If Robinson has any sense of awareness, he would step down from the EIC position. His statement, however, makes me wonder if he can even understand the damage he has done.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:08 AM on August 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:08 AM on August 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Are Mommy and Daddy funding this? Real question, like I see it joked about on Twitter and don't know for sure.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 12:45 PM on August 19, 2021
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 12:45 PM on August 19, 2021
I am confused by this - it seems like you're saying that real worker control can only exist if CA is an open source publishing platform where anything that gets submitted is typeset. If that's where you're going, I feel like that's an unproductive level of abstraction - kind of the equivalent of saying "anarchism means no rules so I can do literally anything I want or else it's not anarchism".
I was referencing the comment, "either you believe in worker control or you don't." Control is control. If you hand pick all your unionized employees because you want to maintain editorial control, the notion of worker control starts to become a fiction. You've done your best to pre-determine your preferred outcome.
City councils and school boards are not collective projects of any kind - they don't exist to run an enterprise and they are not truly representative of the popular will.
It's kind of strange to say city councils and school boards are not collective projects or are not truly representative of the popular will. I have no idea where that comes from, unless you've got some special conditions defining popular will. Additionally, they do exist to run an enterprise. Just not usually a commercial one.
Even if they were, though, I still wouldn't buy the "unions and co-ops are bad because the workers might decide to do something bad or unwise".
Well then it's a really good thing I didn't argue that!
This sounds more like a criticism of representative democracy than socialism,
It's a criticism of both. The reason is that their success is determined by good faith participation and just plain reasonable wisdom. Having seen socialist identifying groups splinter into absurdity back in the day due to lack of either, the organizational momentum weaker and the irony is stronger.
one that betrays a poorly-informed perception of both, but also ignorance about how city councils and school boards actually operate.
If only, my friend, if only. Having seen both city councils turn and one school board almost get hijacked by a puzzling mysterious faction (and countered by a massive parent effort), I have to say my experience differs from yours.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:21 PM on August 19, 2021
I was referencing the comment, "either you believe in worker control or you don't." Control is control. If you hand pick all your unionized employees because you want to maintain editorial control, the notion of worker control starts to become a fiction. You've done your best to pre-determine your preferred outcome.
City councils and school boards are not collective projects of any kind - they don't exist to run an enterprise and they are not truly representative of the popular will.
It's kind of strange to say city councils and school boards are not collective projects or are not truly representative of the popular will. I have no idea where that comes from, unless you've got some special conditions defining popular will. Additionally, they do exist to run an enterprise. Just not usually a commercial one.
Even if they were, though, I still wouldn't buy the "unions and co-ops are bad because the workers might decide to do something bad or unwise".
Well then it's a really good thing I didn't argue that!
This sounds more like a criticism of representative democracy than socialism,
It's a criticism of both. The reason is that their success is determined by good faith participation and just plain reasonable wisdom. Having seen socialist identifying groups splinter into absurdity back in the day due to lack of either, the organizational momentum weaker and the irony is stronger.
one that betrays a poorly-informed perception of both, but also ignorance about how city councils and school boards actually operate.
If only, my friend, if only. Having seen both city councils turn and one school board almost get hijacked by a puzzling mysterious faction (and countered by a massive parent effort), I have to say my experience differs from yours.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:21 PM on August 19, 2021
I think the confusion arises from the use of the term "collective". It's in one of my links. Basically, the word "collective" as applied to organizing individuals to complete a task refers to a specific kind of organization with specific rules regarding decision making. As representative bodies (whether chosen through votes or appointed), school boards do not meet that definition.
Also, I think its worth separating the outcomes of a decision making body from the structure leading to that outcome. Having worked in organizations ranging private sectors corporations, to academia, to the public sector, both unionized and not, it seems to me that "bad decisions" and conflicts of interest are dangers faced by all organization types. Of course, one person's bad decision may be a sound strategy to another person. Needing to vote on something implies conflict between two viewpoints; one has to lose.
Having watched my share of school board meetings, I know that they feature closed door sessions, sessions open to the public, and periods where the public can make comments. Parties disrupting the meeting's proceedings can be removed. Doctrinaire individuals adhere to certain political philosophies may object to the threat of or actual use of force to enforce those procedural rules, but they are followed. As such, schools across the country educate, feed, transport, and in many cases counsel and cloth millions of students every day.
Now, given that this is America, I am sure there are elected school boards who implement policies with which I would vehemently disagree on grounds of equity, morality, sanity, and/or scientific basis. However, I'm not sure I can fault the organizational structure as opposed to the voters and elected leaders making the decisions for the outcome. All organizations, from academia, to private companies, to athletic teams make bad decisions. Its a hazard of working in groups and being human. I certainly wouldn't say that organizational structure and decision making rules aren't important factors for influencing positive outcomes, but experience convinces me that there is no one structure that is suited to every field or role, and all are vulnerable to bad actors, groupthink, and all the other numerous afflictions inherent in being composed of imperfect humans operating with imperfect information in a complicated world.
posted by eagles123 at 8:29 PM on August 19, 2021
Also, I think its worth separating the outcomes of a decision making body from the structure leading to that outcome. Having worked in organizations ranging private sectors corporations, to academia, to the public sector, both unionized and not, it seems to me that "bad decisions" and conflicts of interest are dangers faced by all organization types. Of course, one person's bad decision may be a sound strategy to another person. Needing to vote on something implies conflict between two viewpoints; one has to lose.
Having watched my share of school board meetings, I know that they feature closed door sessions, sessions open to the public, and periods where the public can make comments. Parties disrupting the meeting's proceedings can be removed. Doctrinaire individuals adhere to certain political philosophies may object to the threat of or actual use of force to enforce those procedural rules, but they are followed. As such, schools across the country educate, feed, transport, and in many cases counsel and cloth millions of students every day.
Now, given that this is America, I am sure there are elected school boards who implement policies with which I would vehemently disagree on grounds of equity, morality, sanity, and/or scientific basis. However, I'm not sure I can fault the organizational structure as opposed to the voters and elected leaders making the decisions for the outcome. All organizations, from academia, to private companies, to athletic teams make bad decisions. Its a hazard of working in groups and being human. I certainly wouldn't say that organizational structure and decision making rules aren't important factors for influencing positive outcomes, but experience convinces me that there is no one structure that is suited to every field or role, and all are vulnerable to bad actors, groupthink, and all the other numerous afflictions inherent in being composed of imperfect humans operating with imperfect information in a complicated world.
posted by eagles123 at 8:29 PM on August 19, 2021
As for Robinson's accent, he was born in the U.K. and moved to the U.S. when he was six, so he's got this very unique hybrid.
Not how accents work. Without a conscious effort (or perhaps continued *peer group* exposure to his natal accent, not via his parents), no six year old is permanently equipped with their final “accent” if they then grow up around speakers of the same language with a markedly different phonology.
He’s almost certainly affecting it. Which would be totally in character for the man and the ideology.
posted by spitbull at 2:16 AM on August 20, 2021
Not how accents work. Without a conscious effort (or perhaps continued *peer group* exposure to his natal accent, not via his parents), no six year old is permanently equipped with their final “accent” if they then grow up around speakers of the same language with a markedly different phonology.
He’s almost certainly affecting it. Which would be totally in character for the man and the ideology.
posted by spitbull at 2:16 AM on August 20, 2021
Are Mommy and Daddy funding this? Real question, like I see it joked about on Twitter and don't know for sure.
I am a member of a facebook group for Current Affairs readers (set up by some subset of the CA staff a couple of years ago). Another member of the group appears to be Robinson's mother, who has made comments that sort of suggest that's not the case: Mommy and Daddy are not wealthy, although Robinson's mother explained it in terms of her (and Nathan's father's) comparatively modest amount of formal education, which is a standard weird American way of being vague re: questions about wealth and class.
So, I don't think Robinson is the trust fund kid of the jokes, but there is also something vaguely telling about seeing the parent of an adult my own age in a facebook group for his (now largely and correctly irate) readers, defending his tantrum.
This is a disappointing-but-not-surprising incident. It speaks to indiscipline and unseriousness on Robinson's part. If nothing else, if he really intended CA as a mouthpiece of a serious resurgent left, then he'd have known that the optics of an incident like this one are bad enough that it's basically job #1 to avoid this sort of situation assiduously and with a 100% success rate.
I feel like the spirit of those Robinson-as-trust-fund-kid jokes have some merit, even if it's not literally true, because of Robinson's educational/professional background.
From personal experiences unrelated to CA, I think that many people who have spent significant time in elitist educational settings --- people like Robinson and some of the other CA contributors --- have internalised (pernicious, superstitious) attitudes about personal achievement that make it very difficult for them to participate in building socialism, even while in good faith espousing it. I think this is borne out by Robinson's vague, toothless statement/apology on facebook. People like that can play useful roles, but are often motivated by values alone (not usually a sufficiently robust motivation), and carry the burden of a specific type of egotistical drive that's not always easy to square with those values. So their political work requires a very high level of self-awareness that's usually not inculcated by anything in their background.
This incident is very sad --- I'm skeptical of some of the positions I've seen CA take, but it's also an excellent publication. From a reader's perspective, the idea that Robinson is somehow the creative driver doesn't make sense --- there are outstanding contributions from many people.
Anyway, I hope Robinson gets around to reading this article in "his" magazine.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:19 AM on August 20, 2021 [11 favorites]
I am a member of a facebook group for Current Affairs readers (set up by some subset of the CA staff a couple of years ago). Another member of the group appears to be Robinson's mother, who has made comments that sort of suggest that's not the case: Mommy and Daddy are not wealthy, although Robinson's mother explained it in terms of her (and Nathan's father's) comparatively modest amount of formal education, which is a standard weird American way of being vague re: questions about wealth and class.
So, I don't think Robinson is the trust fund kid of the jokes, but there is also something vaguely telling about seeing the parent of an adult my own age in a facebook group for his (now largely and correctly irate) readers, defending his tantrum.
This is a disappointing-but-not-surprising incident. It speaks to indiscipline and unseriousness on Robinson's part. If nothing else, if he really intended CA as a mouthpiece of a serious resurgent left, then he'd have known that the optics of an incident like this one are bad enough that it's basically job #1 to avoid this sort of situation assiduously and with a 100% success rate.
I feel like the spirit of those Robinson-as-trust-fund-kid jokes have some merit, even if it's not literally true, because of Robinson's educational/professional background.
From personal experiences unrelated to CA, I think that many people who have spent significant time in elitist educational settings --- people like Robinson and some of the other CA contributors --- have internalised (pernicious, superstitious) attitudes about personal achievement that make it very difficult for them to participate in building socialism, even while in good faith espousing it. I think this is borne out by Robinson's vague, toothless statement/apology on facebook. People like that can play useful roles, but are often motivated by values alone (not usually a sufficiently robust motivation), and carry the burden of a specific type of egotistical drive that's not always easy to square with those values. So their political work requires a very high level of self-awareness that's usually not inculcated by anything in their background.
This incident is very sad --- I'm skeptical of some of the positions I've seen CA take, but it's also an excellent publication. From a reader's perspective, the idea that Robinson is somehow the creative driver doesn't make sense --- there are outstanding contributions from many people.
Anyway, I hope Robinson gets around to reading this article in "his" magazine.
posted by busted_crayons at 3:19 AM on August 20, 2021 [11 favorites]
Not how accents work
This is a frickin derail and I've no knowledge of Robinson's personal habits but... as someone who
* spent a few very young years in English speaking Country A
* spent all the rest of my growing up years in hidebound Area 1 of English speaking Country C, being mocked for my accent and with much effort managing to only sort of hide my natural way of speaking (at least when not stressed, when I either went monotone or it came out full force)
* moved to more cosmopolitan Area 2 of Country C as a young adult where my, one could say, hyrbrid accent was assumed to be from English speaking Country H half the time (but was not mocked for it even when I said nope):
maybe accents work in many ways.
Again, this is not a comment on Robinson's speaking patterns of which I know naught.
posted by to wound the autumnal city at 7:41 AM on August 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is a frickin derail and I've no knowledge of Robinson's personal habits but... as someone who
* spent a few very young years in English speaking Country A
* spent all the rest of my growing up years in hidebound Area 1 of English speaking Country C, being mocked for my accent and with much effort managing to only sort of hide my natural way of speaking (at least when not stressed, when I either went monotone or it came out full force)
* moved to more cosmopolitan Area 2 of Country C as a young adult where my, one could say, hyrbrid accent was assumed to be from English speaking Country H half the time (but was not mocked for it even when I said nope):
maybe accents work in many ways.
Again, this is not a comment on Robinson's speaking patterns of which I know naught.
posted by to wound the autumnal city at 7:41 AM on August 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
A further update from Robinson. There is an insistence that no one has, in fact, been fired, which was the same message sent from the CA board yesterday. Not that there's a huge distance between "fired" and "still employed but at an imploding magazine that won't survive into next month."
posted by mittens at 7:48 AM on August 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mittens at 7:48 AM on August 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
I really hope that he manages to walk back his original idiocy. I'm willing to believe that he threw a particularly stupid tantrum, did retaliate against people in the heat of the moment but regrets it.
Unless this second statement is a tissue of lies* it does sound like there were problems at the magazine that precipitated the crisis and that were structural rather than the fault of any one person. I was present for a big crisis, split and then decline in a long-running collective project (ten years ago now - where are the snows of yesteryear?) and it was true that structural problems and wrong political-personal choices were both factors. We might have been able to work through one or the other, but the two together were fatal. It would be a mistake to say "this project collapsed because of X and X alone".
Ugh, I have to say that it must be incredibly shitty for everyone involved to have this play out on the national stage. It was bad enough in just a section of the Minneapolis left.
Busted_crayons is probably right about fundamental unseriousness. You can't be an early thirties man running an actual magazine with a national profile on which people's livelihoods depend and pitch a fit the way you would if you were, say, a teenager in a small activist group.
It particularly disappointed me that he was so quick to try to fire people - no socialist should rip away someone's income without way, way better cause and way more process.
*Based on the internet, ie I follow him on twitter, I don't think NJR would just make shit up and see if people believe it although I canbelieve that he'd tell a story in the way most flattering to himself. But a mitigating factor: this whole thing is getting played out on the internet with an audience of thousands, many of whom didn't like CA much and many more of whom really didn't like NJR, often for dubious reasons. This is going to put a lot of pressure on everyone to spin things, or if not "spin" exactly, tell them as you'd tell them to a friend, with a little too much emphasis on your own side.
This whole thing is really sad. Honestly, one of the things I liked about NJR was that he never said mean things or made fun of people on twitter - virtually the whole of left twitter, especially socialist/communist twitter, is built around saying really cruel things about people all across the political spectrum, making fun of people's turns of phrase, making fun of bodies and clothes, making fun of age and background, etc. NJR never did that and it was refreshing.
posted by Frowner at 8:13 AM on August 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
Unless this second statement is a tissue of lies* it does sound like there were problems at the magazine that precipitated the crisis and that were structural rather than the fault of any one person. I was present for a big crisis, split and then decline in a long-running collective project (ten years ago now - where are the snows of yesteryear?) and it was true that structural problems and wrong political-personal choices were both factors. We might have been able to work through one or the other, but the two together were fatal. It would be a mistake to say "this project collapsed because of X and X alone".
Ugh, I have to say that it must be incredibly shitty for everyone involved to have this play out on the national stage. It was bad enough in just a section of the Minneapolis left.
Busted_crayons is probably right about fundamental unseriousness. You can't be an early thirties man running an actual magazine with a national profile on which people's livelihoods depend and pitch a fit the way you would if you were, say, a teenager in a small activist group.
It particularly disappointed me that he was so quick to try to fire people - no socialist should rip away someone's income without way, way better cause and way more process.
*Based on the internet, ie I follow him on twitter, I don't think NJR would just make shit up and see if people believe it although I canbelieve that he'd tell a story in the way most flattering to himself. But a mitigating factor: this whole thing is getting played out on the internet with an audience of thousands, many of whom didn't like CA much and many more of whom really didn't like NJR, often for dubious reasons. This is going to put a lot of pressure on everyone to spin things, or if not "spin" exactly, tell them as you'd tell them to a friend, with a little too much emphasis on your own side.
This whole thing is really sad. Honestly, one of the things I liked about NJR was that he never said mean things or made fun of people on twitter - virtually the whole of left twitter, especially socialist/communist twitter, is built around saying really cruel things about people all across the political spectrum, making fun of people's turns of phrase, making fun of bodies and clothes, making fun of age and background, etc. NJR never did that and it was refreshing.
posted by Frowner at 8:13 AM on August 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
Also, were I NJR, I would not have put all those texts in the statement. I can see why someone would think that was a good idea, but it escalates things. Like, who wants dueling statements full of texts, people parsing each individual text, etc? I don't want to do that. I don't want to have to have that kind of opinion. I want CA to patch itself back together if at all possible with NJR accepting responsibility for causing the blow-up despite larger structural problems in the background.
On another note: a problem with the otherwise-good mainstreaming of socialism is the fusion of the socialist social world with national media landscape stuff. In some ways this is good because it does mean that it's a lot harder to be an abusive loon running a tiny platformist press but in other ways it makes stuff really, really, really about personalities among people who don't and can't know much about the actual people.
Like, in the nineties I had not the foggiest about the people who ran World War Three Illustrated. I was sure that they were really cool and from New York and were probably tall and stylishly thin with bohemian haircuts and interesting profiles, but I was not privy to their day to day thoughts, feelings and issues. This meant that if there were any conflict in the group, there was a level of privacy that I think is more good than bad, and it also meant that media! personalities! didn't really have any interest in any problems that might arise. You'd never see the Sun publishing an article about some disagreement among the artists.
It seems like the star/personalities treatment that used to be more common among mainstream journalists has totally taken over the left and this makes problems worse.
posted by Frowner at 8:39 AM on August 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
On another note: a problem with the otherwise-good mainstreaming of socialism is the fusion of the socialist social world with national media landscape stuff. In some ways this is good because it does mean that it's a lot harder to be an abusive loon running a tiny platformist press but in other ways it makes stuff really, really, really about personalities among people who don't and can't know much about the actual people.
Like, in the nineties I had not the foggiest about the people who ran World War Three Illustrated. I was sure that they were really cool and from New York and were probably tall and stylishly thin with bohemian haircuts and interesting profiles, but I was not privy to their day to day thoughts, feelings and issues. This meant that if there were any conflict in the group, there was a level of privacy that I think is more good than bad, and it also meant that media! personalities! didn't really have any interest in any problems that might arise. You'd never see the Sun publishing an article about some disagreement among the artists.
It seems like the star/personalities treatment that used to be more common among mainstream journalists has totally taken over the left and this makes problems worse.
posted by Frowner at 8:39 AM on August 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
something vaguely telling about seeing the parent of an adult my own age in a facebook group for his (now largely and correctly irate) readers, defending his tantrum.
Thank you for sharing this, this is worse than living on Mommy's dime!
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:28 AM on August 20, 2021
Thank you for sharing this, this is worse than living on Mommy's dime!
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:28 AM on August 20, 2021
Maybe. Maybe not. People generally have control over whether or not they accept and spend their parents’ money, but less so over their parents’ internet activity.
posted by eviemath at 10:37 AM on August 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 10:37 AM on August 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
A response to NJR's latest from Adrian Rennix (one of the best CAers, imo) breaking their Twitter silence for the first time ever.
posted by naoko at 12:40 PM on August 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by naoko at 12:40 PM on August 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
Ugh. This just gets worse and worse, doesn't it. This just has to be so incredibly awful to go through. I feel so sorry for everyone who was friends with NJR. It is so awful to have that weird void after being friends for a long time. Drifting apart from someone over time is one thing; having them shatter the friendship, especially over something that feels like it really didn't need to happen - that's so disorienting, it feels like you've somehow slipped over into a parallel universe.
posted by Frowner at 2:25 PM on August 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Frowner at 2:25 PM on August 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
I've just been catching up on this today and I'm really disappointed. I've been a CA reader for several years, and generally liked NJR. I also liked most of the CA staff on the podcast and their work on the magazine / website. I was initially having a bit of a hard time parsing their various accounts of what happened. Nathan's response downplayed things and seemed mostly apologetic (although the tone of some of his text screenshots seemed suspicious to me and they also seemed to really hide a lot of context). But the full write-up by Rennix (linked by Naoko) absolutely sealed the deal for me; Rennix has always been highly credible and their discomfort with personal publicity I think further gives power to them publishing this statement. One of the more shocking lines that I haven't seen discussed much :
"Before the board informed him that his attempted firings were invalid, he reached out behind our backs to offer our colleagues' positions to other individuals that the staff had interviewed for the recent open editorial position, without telling them that he had purged the staff that had interviewed them. I have since heard from several people devastated to learn that these job offers were not real and upset about the conditions under which they were proffered."
What made me most upset though was that this magazine which I have really enjoyed completely imploded rather than somehow trying to deal with these issues internally. This falls 95% on NJR (he literally kicked them off slack, etc.), but I do wish they all had some sort of meeting to say "look, for the broader interests of the left and our beliefs, we really shouldn't turn this into a huge twitter drama and give fodder to the pundits." The existence of the board (and the fact that the members I'm aware of are entirely against NJR on this situation) seems to indicate they could have had some power to dictate how things would move forward and set terms. However, I know that several people were literally finding out their source of income was gone in an extremely disrespectful and unexpected way, and I can't blame them for wanting to quickly publicly denounce it and call it out.
posted by unid41 at 3:51 PM on August 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
"Before the board informed him that his attempted firings were invalid, he reached out behind our backs to offer our colleagues' positions to other individuals that the staff had interviewed for the recent open editorial position, without telling them that he had purged the staff that had interviewed them. I have since heard from several people devastated to learn that these job offers were not real and upset about the conditions under which they were proffered."
What made me most upset though was that this magazine which I have really enjoyed completely imploded rather than somehow trying to deal with these issues internally. This falls 95% on NJR (he literally kicked them off slack, etc.), but I do wish they all had some sort of meeting to say "look, for the broader interests of the left and our beliefs, we really shouldn't turn this into a huge twitter drama and give fodder to the pundits." The existence of the board (and the fact that the members I'm aware of are entirely against NJR on this situation) seems to indicate they could have had some power to dictate how things would move forward and set terms. However, I know that several people were literally finding out their source of income was gone in an extremely disrespectful and unexpected way, and I can't blame them for wanting to quickly publicly denounce it and call it out.
posted by unid41 at 3:51 PM on August 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maybe he'll start a podcast with Greenwald and Taibbi.
The most pertinent collaborators would be Cenk Uygur and Diane Morales.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:45 PM on August 20, 2021
The most pertinent collaborators would be Cenk Uygur and Diane Morales.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:45 PM on August 20, 2021
That response from Adrian Rennix naoko linked above is measured and damning.
posted by mediareport at 8:01 AM on August 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:01 AM on August 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
« Older Mash Up Stir It Up MIX IT | These People Who Work From Home Have a Secret:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by knapah at 12:51 PM on August 18, 2021 [14 favorites]