I’m a Jacobin

I’m very happy to say that I’ll be joining the Editorial Board of Jacobin; actually, it seems I already did in December!  Since it appeared about a year or so ago, Jacobin has been publishing some of the most interesting stuff on the web. Anytime Peter Frase or Mike Beggs or Seth Ackerman has something posted over there, I drop everything and read it right away. Also, they’ve got Remeike Forbes, the smartest and coolest designer I’ve had the pleasure of talking (and listening!) to since I worked with Ginny Blaisdell at HERE. Lastly, they’ve got Bhaskar Sunkara, the young visionary behind it all, an intellectual and political impresario I insist on describing as the “Philip Rahv of our age.” Here’s hoping.


  1. Gabriel Noah Brahm February 1, 2012 at 11:57 am | #

    We know. 😉

  2. Virginia Blaisdell February 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm | #

    I applaud your excellent taste and discerning eye, but you are way too kind.

  3. Philip Wohlstetter February 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm | #

    This is good. Not only a terrific magazine but a welcome solution to my nomenclature problem. I’ve become tired of calling myself a Radical Democrat. I did it so as not be confused with a ‘Democrat’ (as in acolyte of that party). But I dislike limiting Democracy with any adjective (whether ‘Liberal” or–as Pinochet liked to call his, ‘Protected Democracy’). Now I’m just calling myself a Jacobin. Your blog actually led me to the magazine. I followed the link to Peter Frase’s brilliant ‘the anti-Star-Trek society’ , from there to his blog, from there to the magazine. Three degrees of separation.

  4. Seth Ackerman February 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm | #

    The sentiment is most assuredly mutual, Corey. Welcome aboard!

  5. Arthur Yang February 3, 2012 at 9:58 am | #

    Hmm… Mike Beggs’ attack on David Harvey in Jacobin’s “Zombie Marx” article was quite shallow. He mischaracterizes Harvey’s argument with DeLong in the very same way that DeLong did, and then proclaims, supposedly contra-Harvey that “The limits to stimulus have been political, not financial.” But that is exactly what Harvey argued in the first place.

    Beggs then argues that neoclassical economics is “a mature, prestigious academic discipline” while Marxism is “academically marginal”. Good grief. As the documentary “Inside Job” so effectively dramatized, academic economics is a deeply corrupt and intellectually dishonest exercise. The fact that it covers itself in academic “prestige” just shows how irrelevant and out of touch the academy has become.

Leave a Reply