For example, an analysis of voting preferences recently presented by two Polish sociologists from Warsaw’s SWPS, Mikołaj Cześnik and Oliwia Szczupska, shows that social class significantly influences the differential support for Tusk’s broad-tent Civic Coalition (KO) and the Left, as compared to right-populist PiS. Belonging to the middle or upper class increases the likelihood of supporting KO and the Left, with the upper class showing a particularly strong preference for KO, even considering control variables. Both the middle and upper classes consistently express stable support for left-wing forces. This leads to a paradox, already described in previous research, that the lower classes around Central and Eastern Europe tend to vote for the far right, despising leftist proposals.

Polish politics, then, is not driven by class positions but by the performance of representation. Even in the heyday of Solidarność or during the transition period, the Left was given voice not by workers but by intellectuals and urban professionals speaking in their name. This has not changed. Left-wing forces today — both Biejat’s and Zandberg’s — are still coalitions of the educated, the managerial, and the downwardly mobile middle class.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/poland-elections-class-rezem-lewica/

Over the last eight years of Trump mania, news coverage has become increasingly sensationalist and facile, focusing less on stories that affect ordinary Americans and lively, high-quality debate about pressing issues than on the next outrageous installment in the Trump saga. Even stations that are critical of Trump allow his bombastic provocations to set the parameters of their coverage. American political media is increasingly difficult to distinguish from a Trump reality show — and functionally close to useless for educating citizens, exposing them to thoughtful articulations of new perspectives, and equipping them to participate in democracy.

Robert McChesney mapped out clear plans for news and info systems that work for all with a system called he called “democratic media,” with outlets funded by the public but free from both market greed and state meddling.

McChesney’s most fully realized proposal, created with John Nichols, is the Local Journalism Initiative (LJI):
- it'd distribute federal funding for journalism democratically at the county level, by allocating about 0.15 percent of GDP annually (roughly $34 billion) to this project, amounting to $100 per person in each county
- This approach draws inspiration from an American tradition: in the 19th century, postal subsidies for newspaper delivery effectively represented 0.21 percent of GDP. We understood then that delivering reliable and accurate information to American citizens was a fundamental component of a functioning democracy and worth pooling our resources to pay for.
- The key innovation is that citizens themselves would determine how funds are distributed. Every three years, adults would receive three votes to allocate among qualified nonprofit news organizations in their county. This multivote system would deliberately encourage media diversity, as no single outlet could receive more than 25 percent of a county’s funding. To qualify, organizations must be locally based nonprofits, operating for at least six months, producing original content regularly, and maintaining independence from larger entities.
- Administered by the US Postal Service, the LJI would establish no government editorial oversight — the only controls would be basic qualification requirements and citizen voting. All content produced using these funds would be freely available online. The system would revive competition in local journalism, replacing the “one newspaper town” model that dominated the late twentieth century with multiple independent voices in each community.
- Pickard offers complementary proposals that address media reform at a more structural level. He envisions a “public option” for journalism. At the funding layer, he proposes a national trust fund of approximately $30 billion annually, supported through multiple revenue streams including taxes on communication oligopolies, proceeds from spectrum sales, and levies on platform monopolies like Facebook and Google
- Particularly relevant to the current debate over NPR and PBS is Pickard’s idea that a public media system would allow journalists to “practice the craft that led them to the profession in the first place.” He calls for worker-run cooperatives and collective ownership models, strengthened by robust unions that democratize newsrooms from within.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/public-media-journalism-npr-pbs/

These challenges must be the focus of the labor left’s energies in the months and years to come. It goes without saying that workplace organizing remains a key task. But something fundamental must also change in the labor left’s electoral orientation. At the very least, a much more confrontational approach toward a party that has actively encouraged class dealignment is needed.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/dealignment-democrats-clinton-obama-trump/

There was still patriarchy in Eastern Europe — getting rid of capitalism doesn’t automatically eliminate patriarchy. But they detached patriarchy from its role in upholding wealth inequality, and that blunted it. There were also still inequalities, but these were inequalities of privilege, not wealth. Even at the highest level of Communist society, there were limits on how big your apartment could be. You couldn’t have a mansion. It was very difficult to get a car, and if you did, it was the same car everyone else got. People showed off by bragging about how many books they’d read and what month they got assigned to visit their communal seaside resorts. (July was the most high-status month to go, by the way.)

In order to attract partners and get social esteem, men were not invested in making more money, which wouldn’t work in a socialist society anyway (because there wasn’t anything to buy). In this context, women chose partners based on attraction, mutual compatibility, shared interests, and affection — not on whether the man could pay the rent, which was irrelevant, because you had housing from the state. These states also provided child allowances, childcare, and paid job-protected parental leave. Under socialism, men had to be attentive and good partners in order to attract women.
"After socialism, once wealth became important for attracting women, men found that it was much easier to just get money than to be interesting."

The result, as I documented in my book Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, was that men ended up investing in being interesting guys that women wanted to be with. Of course, this improved gender relations!

After socialism, once wealth became important for attracting women, men found that it was much easier to just get money than to be interesting. This shift was obviously bad for women, but it was also bad for men. I’ve talked to men who grew up under socialism who say that after 1989 or ’91, they were never really sure if women were with them because they loved them or because they needed their money. They have an idealized view of relationships before capitalism because if a woman was with you, it was because she genuinely liked you. That made men feel secure.

In a society where everything is about wealth, we need other metrics of achievement — you earn esteem not just because you’re rich or ripped, but because of your accomplishments. These kinds of institutions promote self-esteem and prosocial behavior.

But beyond class struggle and civic organizations, the main thing we need is good jobs. Workplaces can serve the same purpose, but in capitalism they absolutely don’t.

Everybody needs money. But beyond that, everybody wants the same thing: to be appreciated, validated, and recognized for who they are and what they give to the world. That’s why Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life was such a huge bestseller. It was a book talking to young men and telling them, “Here are some ways you can get esteem.” They’re hungry for it.

As socialists, feminists, and humanists, we absolutely must understand this. Our politics must be grounded in it, and we should propose viable alternatives that can make people feel better about themselves.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/manosphere-tate-gender-wealth-inequality/

Una risposta a questa domanda la offre la Knesset in questi giorni, approvando una serie di leggi e leggine che, lette nel loro complesso, spianano la strada all’annessione per via amministrativa del 60 per cento del West Bank, ossia la Cisgiordania.

In sostanza il governo Netanyahu lancia una sorta di offensiva burocratica contro i 200mila palestinesi che vivono nella cosiddetta Area C, per spossessarli delle loro proprietà o costringerli a svenderle. Alle scorribande dei coloni protetti dall’’esercito si affiancherà uno stuolo di impiegati, magistrati e periti, incaricati di chiudere la partita.

Sarà l’atto finale di un espansionismo per così dire “democratico”, a norma di legge. Il quotidiano centrista Yedioth Aronot le illustra in un articolo opportunamente intitolato “Come Israele sta muovendo quietamente verso l’annessione de facto del West Bank”.

Tra gli interventi legislativi previsti, i principali mirano a trasferire alle autorità israeliane catasto, perizie e sovrintendenze archeologiche, attualmente in carico all’Autorità palestinese; a riclassificare aree del West Bank come "terra di stato (israeliano)”, scippandole ai proprietari con il pretesto di vaghezze nel titolo di proprietà in origine giordano; a connettere gli insediamenti dei coloni alla rete nazionale del gas; a ribattezzare il West Bank col nome biblico di “Giudea e Samaria”; a cancellare i limiti che attualmente frenano l’acquisto di proprietà palestinesi da parte di cittadini israeliani.

Gli effetti saranno presto visibili. Diventeranno legali gli avamposti che il movimento dei coloni e l’esercito hanno disseminato strategicamente per spezzare la continuità del territorio palestinese.

Altri insediamenti sorgeranno su terreni palestinesi riclassificati come terreni demaniali. E i 200mila palestinesi che vivono nell’Area C vedranno progressivamente svanire quel minimo di legalità che possono ancora opporre alle invasioni dei coloni.

La pressione perché emigrino crescerà. E le tensioni generate saranno occasione o pretesto per altri interventi militari sul genere di quelli occorsi a Jenin e Tulkarem, cittadine del West Bank (Area A, cioè formalmente sotto il controllo diretto dell’Autorità palestinese) “gazaficate” negli ultimi mesi mediante la distruzione delle reti idriche ed elettriche, oltre che di strade ed interi palazzi. Risultato: l’espulsione di 40mila abitanti.

Continuare la guerra di Gaza, oggi sotto occupazione per il 70 per cento, è l’altro versante della manovra a tenaglia israeliana, aggravata dalle sempre più feroci polemiche interne: martedì 20 maggio quella intorno al leader della sinistra Yair Golan, che non ha esitato di dire che oggi Israele «sta diventando uno Stato paria», che «uccide bambini per hobby».

https://www.editorialedomani.it/politica/mondo/la-manovra-a-tenaglia-di-israele-per-annettersi-la-cisgiordania-re1rh1gy

Challenging that orthodoxy is surely one of the most urgent tasks today on the Left. Toward this end, I have argued that, whatever else it entails, a materialist theory does not require conceiving of agents as being one-dimensional or cold, calculating utility machines. Materialism simply recognizes that the need to secure economic and physical well-being is the central precondition for the pursuit of any other goals. It does not always have to overwhelm other goals, but where they come into conflict, social agents can ignore it only at great cost. Therefore, while particularly committed individuals might choose to accept enormous hardships at the expense of their physical well-being, most people typically will not. They will be more likely to reject choices that call for such sacrifices as the intensity of those sacrifices increases, and they will accommodate themselves to their circumstances’ demands.

materialism not only provides a means for universal resistance to capital but a profoundly democratic approach to that resistance. The foundation for any democratic engagement is to treat other people with respect. And this is impossible if you assume that they suffer from cognitive deficiencies, are easily duped, or are simply the products of their culture. For people who do political organizing, it is absolutely essential to approach the task with the view that they are dealing with a conscious, reflexive constituency to whom they have to make a compelling case to resist their overlords in some particular way. And they have to assume people will accept a political strategy on rational grounds, not just through brainwashing or — as is so common among today’s leftists — shaming and cajoling.

How do we make sense of the fact that workers vote in large numbers for parties wedded to their enemies, like the Republican Party in the United States and conservative parties elsewhere? Two points are important here. First, to say that rational actors pursue their interests is not to say that they are always successful in this endeavor. This is a claim about their motivation, not about their success in pursuit of their interests. I can very well undertake an action because I believe it to be in my interest even as its effect is disappointing or runs counter to what I had intended.

The best description of this state of affairs is not that working-class voters are irrational but simply that they are misinformed. As I have argued, being misled or misinformed can, however, indicate irrationality if actors do not change their actions upon observing their effects. To go back to the example of health care, if it turns out that the course of action prescribed to me by my doctor only makes my condition worse, I would indeed be irrational if I continued to pursue it. We can apply the same standard for workers who vote conservative. Surely, after a few instances of making such a choice, we should expect them to alter their judgment.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/materialism-socialism-democracy-left-wing/

This republican conception sees freedom not as the absence of interference (as liberalism would have it) but as the absence of domination by others: of their arbitrary power over you.

the spine of Leipold’s argument is that Marx and Engels, starting with a purely political democratic republicanism, were persuaded to a communism that was initially anti-political (as were the communisms of the “utopian socialists” later criticized in The Communist Manifesto and elsewhere), but then moved to a new form of communism, which placed democratic political revolution first — not as the end point, but as the necessary first step toward communism. And at the same time Marx and Engels grounded this possibility on the struggle for political power of the proletariat as a class.

The conception of the democratic republic as the necessary first step to communism was Marx’s conception: Leipold has, I think, shown this beyond rebuttal. But it is still possible to argue that Marx was wrong on this question. And it is also possible to argue that Marx’s and Engels’s conception of the road to socialism is superseded by twentieth-century developments.

I put on one side the argument for the “coalitions of the oppressed” approach. It has resulted in handing the issue of class to the right wing, producing “Vote Harris: Get Trump” and analogous results across the world, and as a result far worse outcomes for the oppressed than the old conception of prioritizing the working class.

Democratic republicanism is essential to effective economic planning; and because it is essential to effective economic planning, it is also essential to believable socialism.

The second and more immediate is that at a low level, capital rules through the support of the managerialist labor bureaucracy — from its right wing in the “AFL-CIA” to its left wing in the full-timers of the Trotskyist left. We need to overcome this managerialist labor bureaucracy in order to actually challenge capital.

https://jacobin.com/2025/05/republicanism-karl-marx-leipold-review/