Worst serialized publication?

The funny thing is that both left and right wingers hate Jacobin, which is justified, to be honest.

A few years ago I would have said Jacobin too, but Current Affairs is even worse.

can someone explain why is jacobin so bad?

Entry-level socialists read it. If you're a leftist and want something better read The New Inquiry or e-flux

Socialist Journals:
The Monthly Review
Counterpunch
NovaraMedia

any other suggestions (preferably from the UK)

Why do you think so? A few weeks ago I read a fairly well-researched article on the aesthetic abomination that is all of modern architecture.

There were direct references to a seminal discussion on the nature of architecture at Harvard, where one of the participants, Peter Eisenman, literally claimed that his architecture was jarring, unpleasant and disharmonious, because the world is jarring, unpleasant and disharmonious, and that it was the place of the architect to remind the populace of this. He is a bona fide misanthrope, in addition to being a hack, and it wasn't even a hit-piece, it sourced the original discussion.

>Go on the new inquiry website

>Certain forms of accusation are more media-friendly, more easily mythologized, more salacious, more influential,” Campbell writes in the panel. #MeToo’s association with celebrity and the ever blinding presence of white womanhood entrenches the notion that some rape is too known to be reported. As St. Félix writes, “reporters totally know about ‘lower-class rape,’ the rape that happens in prison or in the hood or in war zones, but normalize it as a casualty of an already criminal existence. An experience that fits the space they’ve been allotted.” St. Félix later writes that rape is as common as “currency,” which is a fitting metaphor when you consider how the enslavement and rape of black woman is the bedrock of this country’s wealth. Rape is about power and it is about sex, but it is also about wealth—the product of power’s abuse.
Ok

Literally refute that.

This autism

Attached: images (25).jpg (384x384, 7K)

God-tier critical theory

Their American liberal bias was insufferable to me.

>Why do you think so?
because he's a dipshit conservative

half of it is boring leftist grandstanding. no, the rape of black women is not the bedrock of any wealth. boko haram's rape camps haven't made them rich. the mere existence of black people in america is a net loss, monetarily speaking
>wealth—the product of power’s abuse.
wealth=power+abuse
extremely high (120 IQ) lefty logic

Bhaskar Sunkara once sent me an insulting message on Facebook.

Yes, they literally meant that raping black women would materialise gold.

What’s wrong with Current Affairs?

oh so it's a completely pointless metaphor from the mind of another brain-fucked lefty? what a shocker

jacobite is about memeing and it's great at that, you can't consider it a publication

so if it doesn't create wealth at all, what's the point of literally calling it
>the bedrock of this country’s wealth

struggleDOTws/anarchism/britain.html
Freedom news ofc (great archive)
struggleDOTws

SCHNews. (only an archive)
Rip this is happening everywhere, like to mint press news and many others. The press needs desperate attention, the OA movement needs to help independent journalism.
Fuck Facebook, Twitter and especially Google, please use good gopher.

fifthestate.org (good archive)

m.fightbacknews.org

It's going down seems to be popular among the American newbies

infoshop.org

You might be able to tell that these are all anarchyesque.

Recommend com news? I don't like revolutionary communism. I don't mind historical materialism in some contexts but communism and all kinds of state friendly socialism are not my comrades, om not even that pleased with libertarian ccomminism, beats liberal media by a long shot still.
It's not that I have anything against communidm, it's just not something to base a revolution towards. If some people want to be (anarchist)communists I think it works fine, but anarchy needs to come first.

WTF are soc Dems consuming besides Reddit?

>another brain-fucked lefty
Keep sipping that soylent kool aid, right-cuck.
But, for real, I think you have autism. You're far too literal in your reading.

Attached: excited goy.gif (413x243, 51K)

again, in what sense does bringing up wealth make any sort of sense in that sentence?

I'll spell it out for you cucks.
>the bedrock of this country’s wealth
Was slavery. Up until the Civil War, the colonies lived off a slave economy in the South - even the capitalist North profited would profit from trade with a source of very cheap (nearly free) labour. The two economies were quite symbiotic until the mid 1800s.

The writer was drawing comparisons to the violence that black people still face, in the form of neglect, police brutality, rape, etc.

except slavery is economically inefficient, wagecucking works way better

Really depends on the slaver. I remember reading that Antebellum slavers created a loan system that would mean slaves were "paid" for their overtime work so they could buy wares (tobacco, coffee, livestock, food, etc.) but all it did was make them work way harder for nearly nothing.

But I agree there's shortfalls like having to maintain your slaves quite a bit, provide bread and board, etc. Really depends on the circumstances.

If slavery is the source of American wealth, how come US is the most powerful New World country when it only received like 5% of slaves that were traded across the Atlantic?

>5%
It was more like a third lol

I think America's most recent success has something more to do with massive expansionism, and its real power was only met during and after WWII when it used all its industry for its defence force, particularly the aircraft. Does this mean the bedrock of American wealth was only around 80 years ago? No, it was what the colonies needed to start their massive expansion to the west and invasion of decrepit Spanish colonies.

I don't know how exact these numbers are since I'm not a /pol/ weirdo that obsesses about these things, but Wikipedia article on the subject states that ~40% of all slaves went to Brazil, ~20% to Spanish colonies, ~20 to French colonies, ~15% to Carribbean British colonies, and ~5% to North American British colonies. So if slavery is the bedrock of wealth how did Americans manage to overtake all these other colonials and why didn't Brazil dominate with its staggering 40% of all slaves figure?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#New_World_destinations

I had a college roommate who became a literal, straight-up academic Marxist. He published a piece with them at least once.

>I had a college roommate who became a literal, straight-up academic Marxist.
so a run-of-the-mill academic?

What don't you like OP I find they do good journalism

America's recent success is purely due it not being bombed to shit during WWII. The decline that's been going on for the past couple decades is really just a return to the norm.