I'm sure you mean well, but this is a terrible article, for several reasons.
First of all, it opens with the "enlightened centrist" stance, affirming liberalism as the only "good" system. Further, the author goes on to demonize communism, equating it to Nazism and fascism, erasing the link between liberalism and fascism while condemning the only real alternative. This framing is repeated throughout the article.
Secondly, the large majority of the advice is just about being a good little worker in capitalism. There's references to being "professional," there's flattery of the police and millitary, and it even just says to "pronounce things differently." It's idealist and individualist, which is why the author regularly denounces left wing ideas and supports right-wing institutions. Multiparty liberalism is seen as the only democratic formation, rather than socialist democtatic unitary systems, and there's a huge focus on Amerivan exceptionalism. It even encourages the reader to "be a patriot!"
Finally, there's no actual analysis of why the US Empire is in crisis. "Authoritarianism" is simply a policy preference in the author's eyes, there's no analysis of the basis of the state being that of class domination of one single class. Of course, to do so would show that liberalism is false, but more importantly that means that nothing in the article matters. There's one off-handed mention of getting organized, and that's it, there's no analysis of anything more material or class-related, no ties to capitalism's deterioration.
Essentially, it's a work of idealist capitalist realism, reifying Thatcher's "there is no alternative." Anyone that thinks this is a good list for resisting the problems in the US will end up surprised when none of it ends up making a difference.
- I don't think the article was meant for you or me. You're expecting a lot from someone who survived all the filters that keep the kind of people who would say all the things you would endorse from becoming a tenured professor at Yale.
  I think the article is worth sharing because he is sticking his neck out here. He's not going to lead the charge that will end capitalism, but every act that resists fascism is valuable. He's using his ivy-league platform to speak to other academics, who have been put through the same ideological filters. His words make him a target, and he's taking a significant risk by publishing. I don't mind signal boosting that energy, even if he doesn't go as far as I'd like.
  
  Ultimately, I believe that it's more important to signal-boost correct analysis that at least pushes people in the right direction. As the article stands, it identifies fascism as an enemy, but leaves the reader unequipped to actually deal with that in any real capacity. If we removed the advice that doesn't contribute to actually, materially resisting fascism, we are left with essentially the points on privacy and organizing. That's my real critique, and I think there are better articles on privacy and organizing.

6 comments