You're viewing a single thread.
nathan j robinson fired a bunch of staff at current affairs mag for trying to organize a workers co op so you'll forgive me if i disagree with 'most vindicated man alive' on principle
I wish I could find his response to this 'cause it was stronger than I thought. Most of those writers are as bad if not worse than him politically and want control over something that was mostly his work and already run fairly horizontally.
Edit: found it here: https://yasminnair.com/march-what-really-happened-at-current-affairs/
What happened at Current Affairs is not the story of a malevolent overlord oppressing his minions but a much more mundane one about the inevitable fate that befalls too many left institutions: the magazine was overtaken by what Jo Freeman has termed “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” This is the mistaken idea that informal structures with ill-defined positions are more truly radical and leftist than those with systems of accountability.
This was my impression as the story unfolded, and I've seen similar things in lots of other small groups that take on big projects. At some point you have to grow out of the ad hoc stage, and that can cause issues between folks who have contributed to different degrees.
So basically, the staff's story was that they were all fired for trying to organize, when in reality they were not fired and they were not trying to organize.
honestly stunning.
A lot of folks here and elsewhere on the left ate it up uncritically, too. Calls for some self-crit on how we respond to these sorts of accusations in the future.
Yeah wow. I just read most of it. Just... absolutely embarrassing. That one guy who literally didn't even work at the magazine and followed Nathan into a store screaming at him is really blowing my mind. And honestly, I really am just like "why" and "how".
I remember reading that and my main takeaway was that it's a buddy of Nathan's that lacks a lot of actual knowledge and substance and relies heavily on tone and innuendo.
Nope, not what happened, he's already been vindicated for it. Most vindicated man alive.
is there a cliff's notes for this incredibly meandering, lengthy article?
tldr as far as I remember:
Nathan Robinson: Guys can we please come up with some kind of structure to this magazine that is my actual full time job so that it ships out on time and our Patreon supporters get their rewards? Also, the person we hired to answer the phones and do basic secretarial work isn't doing the thing we're paying her to do.
Current Affairs writers: ummm idk like we just like doing this cool thing with our friends, um it's like socialist which means anyone does what they want whenever cause it's just like whatever man
Nathan Robinson: Dawg I got my mom doing administrative work for free here because there's no organization, I'm open to anything, maybe a company structure or a co-op or whatever, but shit needs to get done.
CA writers: Umm maybe a co-op because we're epic socialists. Also the secretary we hired can be an artist or some shit, also this other person you refused to hire needs to get another job and we don't like the person you did hire.
Magazine implodes
CA writers: Nathan Robinson fired us for doing co-op socialism :angery:
Damn is this really what happened hahahah
Having read through way too much of that lengthy article (that has plenty of receipts), basically yes. Robinson can be criticized for not being a great manager (though he was in a difficult situation, too), but the stuff about union busting and even simply the accusations of firing people hold zero water.
There's also a fair amount about how the departing staff were informed they would be getting severance pay, and Robinson even suggested more severance pay than they initially asked for, but they were still seeking donations on Venmo and CashApp. If there's a grifter here it's not Robinson.
Yeah this is absolutely embarrassing and sad. I feel petty bad for Nathan here. Tbh I used to listen to the podcast and it was good. I found it actually kinda surprising that Nathan did union busting but I didn't know him so I was just like "damn that sucks". But now this really sucks, because I thought he was a funny little guy and read him as legitimately caring about the left (even if I disagree with him on quite a few things).
stop feeling bad for kautskyites and grow up. politics isn't about the feelings of political figures.
Oh fuck off. No need to be aggressive with me or talk to me like I'm a child. I can have empathetic feelings towards people who are getting death threats because they were lied about. It has nothing to do with my understanding of what politics are
No. Grow up and stop getting parasocial attachments to leftoids that lead you into doing mental gymnastics to excuse social imperialists. I will talk however I want.
Divert your empathy towards the actual oppressed and workers of the world and not rich dandy parasocial mini-celebs who don’t give a shit about them and encourage imperialism against the actual suffering people.
Fascists and libs and Chuds all get death threats too. Doesn’t vindicate any of them or make any of their political positions more correct
No
tyvm
Guys can we please come up with some kind of structure
radlibs will shit on Stalin and then follow his exact leadership style for their dogshit rag lol
You already nailed it, it's very repetitive and mostly relies on telling you what conclusion to have rather than laying out a compelliy case. It's also a buddy of Nathan's that, I believe, joined after a lot of this has gone down or was otherwise not personally knowledgeable of it, being someone that wrote very rarely.
Also failed to address the key accusations.
As an example of how it relies on innuendo, it spends a lot of time talking about an alleged harassment campaign and saying someone who wasn't an employee was engaged in it and how this is all terrible. It's even convinced several hexbears in this thread. Of course, badmouthing a conniving employer on Twitter and telling him he sucks in a grocery store when you happen to randomly see him is not exactly a harassment campaign, it's just basic naming and shaming we tend to celebrate here. And that person that wasn't an employee? Well they're the long-time partner of an employee that was in the thick of it and went through this ordeal with them. Nothing strange about that.
Yeah, I read a bit of the italicized intro that started out saying they're definitely not writing this to defend their friend, then sort of smoothly transitions into just defending their friend in a fairly weird, immature way (paragraphs of describing mean things said about their friend) and gave up when I got to the "ackshully he didn't even have the authority to fire the people he told were fired" which is far from a defense of Robinson and more like yet another shitty thing Robinson has done
my conclusion is that probably most of the people involved are a little bit too impressed with themselves and robinson still sucks
Yeah I'm annoyed I have to think about this again lol. Not annoyed at anyone here, lol, just don't think this is worth spending time thinking about but can't help myself
I have a hard time believing we read the same thing.
rather than laying out a compelliy case
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
Also failed to address the key accusations.
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing." It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
Doesn't it make it clear that Robinson told people they were fired, or should resign, when he didn't have the authority to do so?
He asked for a few people to resign, yes, and he didn't have the authority to fire them, yes.
What's the difference between this and firing someone? They knew he couldn't fire them (which makes their "I was fired here's where you can donate" tweets extremely bad in my eyes), so they could and did refuse to resign, and they kept getting paid even as the magazine went on hiatus and they did no work.
Asking people to resign when you don't have the authority to do so isn't really redeeming, to me
- Person A is a little more senior in an organization than Person B, and Person A delegates some work to Person B.
- Over time, there is some dispute over how well Person B is doing their job.
- Person A asks Person B to resign.
- Person B stays, and keeps getting paid, because they know Person A can't fire them.
- Person B tweets out "I've been fired, donate here."
Is "Person A fired Person B" at all a fair characterization of that situation? I don't see any way someone who claims they were fired and asks for money while still drawing a paycheck is in the right -- they're just straight-up lying.
There's room to criticize Robinson for not handling a difficult situation particularly well (and for not setting up a better group structure in the first place), but this is wildly different than "he fired employees for unionizing." There's was certainly no effort to unionize, in any case.
This is all based off a single, extremely badly written diatribe, right? I truly don't understand why one screed suddenly has more weight than any other screed, particularly when it's quite clear it's just NJR's friend defending their friend. The best I'm willing to grant is that it sure sounds like every single person involved in the dispute is insufferable and shouldn't be published or paid attention to.
Have you read the original Twitter thread + Google doc?
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
Evidence for what? They didn't even lay out a coherent rationale given the original accusations backed up by the rest of the staff.
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing."
No it isn't lol. That isn't even their accusation.
It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
They already had a union. NJR firing them was precipitated by him getting cold feet about collectivizing as a co-op. He then sent out messages asserting his status as The Boss, got pushback for reneging, and then started firing people, and it became a shitshow from there.
Dithering about whether he technically 🤓 had the power to do so isn't particularly relevant unless someone is going to start suing. He used his position of power as the founder and active editor to start telling people they need to go and they reasonably understood he was firing them. Also, being at a small workplace where the main person wants you gone isn't exactly a great environment, especially when they are this incompetent, so I would've doubted anyone was super excited about suing to get their job back.
damn I owe dandy lad an apology
I will never apologize for saying he looks stupid. Dressing like Dr Who is bad.
It's me. I hate boomers and boomer culture. Fuck john lemon beetles songs sucked.
libeling a fellow traveler because i get a little psychic rush, and i get to show off my orthodox bona fides, without doing any research on the accusations, is cool and good actually.
He's not a fellow traveler he's a Rosa Killer in a pimp suit
It’s amazing how generation after generation of western “leftists” fall for this same shit
He’s a social fascist who attacks Marxist revolutions from his cozy spot in the imperial core. Fuck him he’s no ally
He's not a Marxist? Damn I guess it's good to spread libel then
What Libel? He is social democrat westerner who attacks AES that his nation is at war with (such as DPRK). This is fact. He’s a social fascist. Sorry you don’t like facts that correctly identify your parasocial friend as a Kautskyite opportunist
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/04/attempting-to-understand-north-korea
Why is his “socialist” publication repeating all the western talking points about DPRK, a country he knows nothing about and even admits as much before repeating “authoritarian dictatorship, mountains of human suffering” BS.
I'd like to add John Lennon really does suck ass and the Beatles suck (this is not a joke, the original bit about a guy who gets a rush out of trashing Lennon sucks, you should trash people, it's fun)
social fascist
This implies he supports U.S. imperialism, which he does not.
Making up shit about other leftists and throwing "fascist" around like "asshole" is actually bad and counterproductive
All social democrats in the imperial core are social fascists. Sorry you don’t like reality “social fascist” is a specific term you should look up, it fits here and was invented for this very use against “fellow traveler” imperialists
He attacks DPRK, a country his nation is at war with. That supports US imperialism
Same. Current Affairs was one of my go-to publications back in the day and now I don’t even visit it. Grifter ass britisher wannabe.
Wrong, he's super vindicated, most vindicated man alive
I hate Robinson's weak tea ass ideas of "socialism" but I find the case here incredibly convincing, he did nothing wrong
There are some good lessons here in how not to respond to accusations:
The Current Affairs matter is not simply a fight among friends that spilled out: left institutions got involved without getting multiple sides of the story. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) branch in New Orleans ejected Robinson as a member with a statement that erroneously copied the charge of “union busting.” This was in violation of DSA procedure, because there was no hearing or opportunity to rebut the charges, only a public notification that Robinson was out. The International Workers of the World Freelance Journalist Union issued a solidarity letter condemning Robinson’s “authoritarian act” of “retaliatory firings.”
No investigation, no right to speak, and certainly no right for an organization to take action against a member.
Edit: Forgot the wildest part of that anecdote
Robinson filed an appeal, pointing out that he had not been granted due process. In a bizarre twist of events, the DSA’s National Harassment Grievance Officer [corrected to reflect proper title], Paula Brantner, wrote to him in March 2023 that not only was his expulsion to continue but that he was now accused–and found guilty of–“charges of harrassment, threats, and attacks on another member’s character.” Robinson pointed out that these charges, of which he has been found guilty, were unknown to him and that he had been given no chance to dispute them. In response, Brantner wrote, “The DSA grievance process is not a legal process, and so the same ‘due process’ guarantees” …are not part of this process” (she is paid a controversial salary of of $360,000, as a part-time consultant, to engage in such fulsome communications).
$360K to not even do basic stuff like "hey maybe we should hear from this guy like our procedures mandate," and not even do it full time.
Brantner wrote, “The DSA grievance process is not a legal process, and so the same ‘due process’ guarantees” …are not part of this process”
I thought the point of organizing and setting up parallel structures was that you took them seriously and they had legitimacy when you went and replaced the old ones you're overthrowing with the new ones you've been using
Still making my way through it since you posted it. Got other stuff to do today too. But damn.
I’m sorry Bri’ish boy.
This "NJR's bravest soldier" bit has more legs than I originally thought, well done
Same. I now file him under “compatible left” along with Chomsky and most of the New Left/Frankfurt School.
Yeah, the specific false accusations are irrelevant when his actual beliefs on socialist states are public and dogshit
As I recall, his views on AES states are anarchist critiques, which I don't personally agree with but (at least on Hexbear) are well within the realm of "I can work with this person."
Would really like to see what the guy thinks of Michael Parenti.
Nope Americans don’t get to attack Marxist states. He’s an imperialist
Why? Being an 'American' automatically makes their critique irrelevant? Or is every Marxist state completely above critique? I am not the type of American that shuns AES states like many 'left' in the US but I don't think any group or state is magically above judgement. In my view, this type of dogmatism and 'imperialist' labeling only helps shun potential comrades that could be brought further into the fold.
For every member of parliament, every editor, every secretary of a labour union, every journalist and public leader can always gather the information kept secret by the government and the financiers that reveals the truth about the real basis of imperialist deals. A socialist’s failure to fulfil this duty is a betrayal of socialism. There need be no doubt that no government will allow, especially now, free publication of exposures of its real policy, its treaties, financial deals, etc. That is no reason to renounce such exposures. Rather it is a reason to renounce servile submission to the censorship and publish the facts freely, i.e., uncensored, illegally.
For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.
He is not an internationalist who vows and swears by internationalism. Only he is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites.
(b) In every country the Socialist must above all emphasise in all his propaganda the need to distrust not only every political phrase of his own government, but also every political phrase of his own social-chauvinists, who in reality serve that government.
He fails this test. He fails his duty. He is an imperialist social fascist because he fixated on the enemies of his nation instead of revolutionary defeatism of his own nation. This is the litmus test for being “in the fold”. He can drop his chauvinism and correct his behavior, or he can continue being a social fascist Kautskyite.
Thank you for helping elucidate this concept for me. I suppose the disagreement I had was just labeling anyone as such, in my view people are not their actions, while people have patterns of action and often can't break from that pattern, I don't believe anyone truly is anything and can change depending on their conditions, so it was more of a reaction to the phrasing. But arguing semantics is a waste of time, so I see now your original comment was a fine descriptor, I don't know much about Robinson though tbh. A nice thing about hexbear is that you can be more blunt with language, and generally around here people will know what you are getting at.
I have to perfectly honest, once one steps into the realm of being a political figure one loses all individual sympathy or human qualities. One willingly becomes a symbol representing a certain type of politics and certain interests, based on one’s statements and actions and associates. To clearly define and label these political figures into their historical tendencies is not only permissible, it’s essential to navigating and understanding politics. “Campism” is often thrown as an insult at Marxists who understand history and see reoccurring patterns and types. The reason we study old revolutions and read Lenin is to be able to recognize the new Lenin when we see them, and the reason we learn about Kautsky and his ilk is to recognize them when they appear.
I recognize a Kautskyite opportunist and I say so. He can change if he doesn’t want to be what he is, but he should be labeled clearly
Why? Being an 'American' automatically makes their critique irrelevant?
It makes it imperialist intrigue. His critiques are made of ignorance and he knows nothing about the history, context and conditions of the nation he criticizes. A revolutionary is to avoid imperialist intrigue and attacking the enemy of their current state, as that is chauvinism. He exists as part of the grand western tradition of social chauvinism and does not attempt to break from it.
Very good point, I wasn't viewing the critique from a revolutionary/conflict lens, but more abstractly or theoretically. In the current climate I would argue there are many more worthwhile critiques to be made than those that are against Marxist states, so I do agree that it serves the motives of imperialists even if the critique might be accurate.
Public political figures such as owners and editors of supposedly socialist publications are also held to a different standard in their official media than a random socialist making Marxist critiques as well. He’s not just some leftist on the internet, he wants to sell himself as a major commentator and thought leader. That means he has a very strict duty to avoid imperialist intrigue and he fails at it
Nate proving that material contradictions overcome any amount of individual moral compass. Employers and employees cannot be on the same side regardless of ideological commitments
