Some criticisms of the latest @MattPolProf via the liberal-progressive divide. 1/ https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1312097831960809472

First, I am unsure whether Matt is a "Socialist" or a "Social Democrat", the two are radically different yet it always feels with Matt (like many others on the left) that he shifts between the two. This essay is written from the POV of a "Socialist" NOT a "Social Democrat" 2/

Second, "equality" and "egalitarianism" are back in a big way. This time in the radical " equality in fact". Many leftists deny that "equality in fact" is a core principle, it's interesting to see if being owned here. 3/

Third, the Marx who was a "radical egalitarian" is back! I spent most early 2019 warding off claims that I was "bad faith" for implying that Marx might have been for "equality"from the Z Books crowd, it's clear now these claims are only problem for reactionaries 4/

Just an aside @Friended4Ever is right to say that whenever you are debating Marx you are really just debating MarxIST interpretations. Marx was a poetic writer who loved hyperbole. Contradicting interpretations abound, but Marxists only enforce standards outside their group. 5/

Fourth, we certainly seem to see the progressive line shift over judicial activism. Are we against judicial activism now? Is this a principle? If so can I expect Matt to join the opposition to Obergefell v hodges, Roe v Wade, and Casey v PP? Press X to doubt. 6/

This brings me to my last point. At its core, liberalism is about principled restraint. If there indeed are no principle besides progress then we have a fundamental problem with "liberalism", the same problem is driving the divide that Matt laments. 7/

In addition to vagueness about desired "equality" sought be progressives, Matt has a fundamental problem with the liberal side of the equation. He illustrates in his article why the marriage of the progressive with the liberal is feeling frayed these days. 8/

For instance, "judicial restraint" is a liberal principle. "free speech" is a liberal principle. Both which Matt likes. The problem is that progressives are fast constructing get-out clauses so they don't have to apply these ideas to their opponents. 9/

Being for "free speech" but then de-platforming/illegalizing "hate speech" is bullshit. Being for "judicial restraint" and then supporting Roe and Obergefell is bullshit. It is transparently ideological and everyone can see it. 10/

The left today fundamentally misunderstands its problem. The problem is not that it can't get power. It has unprecedented access to power. The problem is that no one TRUSTS the left with any principle. They know that their language and meaning will invariably mutate. 11/

I would recommend thinkers like Matt work on making leftist principles sound, but I understand the constraint. Speaking clearly about trade-offs and losers will cause the left coalition to break. This is an issue for lefties but manifestly not my problem as a reactionary 12/12