For the last few weeks, I’ve been reading a journal called The Drift, which is a young (less than five years old) socialist periodical that’s based in New York City.
I really despair at how these progressive & socialist movements capture so much youthful energy on the left, while remaining just completely alienating to the majority of Americans who didn't go to college and don't live in rich, tech-obsessed metropolises.
Rather than attacking capitalism, which is remarkably effective at producing the kind of affordable goods people have come to rely on, I wish these movements would focus on positive goals, like building up the institutions (social, communal, spiritual, academic, artistic) that naturally act as balancing forces against capitalism.
I read one story in The Drift a few years ago. It was about a Brooklyn litbro who "explains things to women," and turns out to be raping the narrator, in a kind of nasty, Cat-Person-esque twist ending. Never touched them again.
County Highway and Harper's are the gold standard for people who are turned off by the yuppie socialist crowd. The fiction is pretty good, too.
Institution-building is for old people! Youth is for laying waste to institutions, in the name of your own institutions, that you control (which in twenty years you’ll be defending from a new generation from insurgents). Any institution that cannot survive the scorn of the youth probably deserves to die.
I would probably have agreed with you pre-internet, but social media really seems to inappropriately amplify youthful scorn. Instead of a phase, it's a lifelong pose.
Thanks for this thoughtful, engaging take! I agree with many of your points and am eager to more deeply consider others.
I rarely have reason to share this outside of chronic illness circles, so I'm leaping at the chance to share this nonfiction essay from 2023: https://www.thedriftmag.com/the-bad-patient/
It was one of the most lucid, important things I read when I was in deep in the murk of my own chronic illness 'journey,' and I'm wildly grateful to them for publishing it.
I have been a reader of The Drift since the get-go, and have had four or five Mentions published. They were all edited by Tarpley Hitt—a brilliant editor who taught me how to shape those little gems just right. So fun to work with her. She is also an accomplished reporter and writer, and authored a well-reviewed book last year called Barbieland, a fascinating history of the Barbie Doll.
I found your critique of the magazine spot-on—I read the fiction and the Mentions first, then skim the non-fiction. And like you, I find it pleasurable to hold and read—perfectly sized. I am decades beyond hip young socialists and worlds away from the New York literati scene but do enjoy the magazine.
I actually loved the Drift's Simone Weil piece. It was, strangely enough, convicting? I'm a Weil fan, and I have read so many of the wave of books and pieces about her. Her writing is precious. But we are so defined by parasocial relationships now, it's easy to assume that any of our favorite thinkers can answer all our questions, solve or problems, or fit into our favorite framework and she just...can't. She won't. It was a great reminder that when we commidify our favorite thinkers and artists to bolster our own self-identity, we reduce their humanity and reduce their ability to make us feel strange, challenged, and uncomfortable. There it is — anti-capitalism! Thanks, Drift!
I agree with much of what you've said here, though I have yet another peev with The Drift, which is that upon submitting nonfiction, I've received this canned language as a rejection: "We rarely publish essays grounded in personal narrative. In general, we look to publish argumentative essays that make sharp, surprising interventions in existing conversations." To which I've responded: "I understand that this piece might not be the best fit but I also feel compelled to state that I've received this message before... and as someone who holds a PhD in English, I take issue with the idea that an essay that contains life writing can't also make sharp, surprising interventions in existing conversations... As a political journal it's important to recognize that the personal is political. We've made great strides in the academy to recognize autotheory as a rigorous discipline and I would think that a journal like The Drift would be more ahead of the curve on these matters. Because something is personal does not mean that it can't also be argumentative or sharp."
Socialism doesn't have cultural currency outside a few social circles but stories about flying on a dragon and kissing a bad boy are for everyone, so that would be the natural point of entry for the reader... next up, why YouTube horror is or isn't socialist
> The whole point of socialism is that everyone will have the freedom to make and support the art they want.
Suggests that freedom to make and support any kind of art is unique to socialism, in contrast to capitalism. Is that true? We have unprecedented plurality of art under capitalism...
You’re right, we have considerable freedom under capitalism, but I guess I was assuming that under socialism people would have more free time and economic security, so they would spend more time making art. The point of this piece (that I am criticizing) is that people are so blunted by economic insecurity that they escape into these romantasies that (the author claims) are very bad.
I think it’s highly doubtful that Romantasy would stop existing if we had socialism, but even if that was true, that’s not really the reason to advocate for it.
I agree with you that the impulse to consume or produce romantasy, or any other kind of art, would probably exist under socialism too (although to be fair (without having read the original piece) it'd be surprising if there weren't a link between a socioeconomic system and the culture and art it produces).
But I am not sure as much and as diverse art would be produced under socialism. First, free time is a function of wealth, and capitalism has produced far more wealth than any other system. It's not that most of us don't have the time to produce art (we certainly waste years, collectively, on TikTok or Netflix), it's that we don't have the capacity to do so.
But even more worryingly... doesn't the attitude of the piece you criticise give the lie to the idea that socialism will be more welcoming to diverse viewpoints? The Left, just as much as the far Right, has proven all to willing to suppress art or expression more generally with which it disagrees.
You really are very, very good at this kind of thing. I'll add that my writing group spent an hour discussing your piece on New Yorker fiction not long ago.
I liked this story but I also kinda felt like I didn’t understand the ending. How did he die? Also, why was it told in this intercut way, with an interview and then a reminiscence. Who was interviewing him? I couldn’t tell if it was meant to be confusing or if I was just missing something.
Just finished the latest issue and thought the fiction section was fairly weak. Each short story was first-person perspective, each one (with one or two notable exceptions, like Devotchka) read the same. It could’ve just been that particular issue, though.
I did like their brief essay collection on Habermas towards the front. A few gems in there. Nonfiction, as you pointed out, was so-so. They did have a solid letter submission on Venezuela, as well.
Regardless, I’ve subscribed to them - looking forward to reading more.
I confess I don’t understand the mentality which finds unbelievable the idea that “peoples’ artistic tastes are somehow inherently diseased.” This seems obviously correct to me, whatever anxieties it may cause me to believe it. Beauty — or taste for that matter — belongs to few.
That’s fair. Presumably there’s a service to be rendered in critique. And if surgeons are any indication, some people take pleasure for its own sake in cutting away at (often incurable) diseases.
I really despair at how these progressive & socialist movements capture so much youthful energy on the left, while remaining just completely alienating to the majority of Americans who didn't go to college and don't live in rich, tech-obsessed metropolises.
Rather than attacking capitalism, which is remarkably effective at producing the kind of affordable goods people have come to rely on, I wish these movements would focus on positive goals, like building up the institutions (social, communal, spiritual, academic, artistic) that naturally act as balancing forces against capitalism.
I read one story in The Drift a few years ago. It was about a Brooklyn litbro who "explains things to women," and turns out to be raping the narrator, in a kind of nasty, Cat-Person-esque twist ending. Never touched them again.
County Highway and Harper's are the gold standard for people who are turned off by the yuppie socialist crowd. The fiction is pretty good, too.
Institution-building is for old people! Youth is for laying waste to institutions, in the name of your own institutions, that you control (which in twenty years you’ll be defending from a new generation from insurgents). Any institution that cannot survive the scorn of the youth probably deserves to die.
I would probably have agreed with you pre-internet, but social media really seems to inappropriately amplify youthful scorn. Instead of a phase, it's a lifelong pose.
Thanks for this thoughtful, engaging take! I agree with many of your points and am eager to more deeply consider others.
I rarely have reason to share this outside of chronic illness circles, so I'm leaping at the chance to share this nonfiction essay from 2023: https://www.thedriftmag.com/the-bad-patient/
It was one of the most lucid, important things I read when I was in deep in the murk of my own chronic illness 'journey,' and I'm wildly grateful to them for publishing it.
hey, I wrote that! Thank you. <3
Thank YOU!!!
Wow that was really good
I have been a reader of The Drift since the get-go, and have had four or five Mentions published. They were all edited by Tarpley Hitt—a brilliant editor who taught me how to shape those little gems just right. So fun to work with her. She is also an accomplished reporter and writer, and authored a well-reviewed book last year called Barbieland, a fascinating history of the Barbie Doll.
I found your critique of the magazine spot-on—I read the fiction and the Mentions first, then skim the non-fiction. And like you, I find it pleasurable to hold and read—perfectly sized. I am decades beyond hip young socialists and worlds away from the New York literati scene but do enjoy the magazine.
I am impressed you mastered the Mention style! That is a real skill.
Loved this!
Your fiction would be such a good fit for The Drift. Definitely one of the few outlets worth going off anon for
I actually loved the Drift's Simone Weil piece. It was, strangely enough, convicting? I'm a Weil fan, and I have read so many of the wave of books and pieces about her. Her writing is precious. But we are so defined by parasocial relationships now, it's easy to assume that any of our favorite thinkers can answer all our questions, solve or problems, or fit into our favorite framework and she just...can't. She won't. It was a great reminder that when we commidify our favorite thinkers and artists to bolster our own self-identity, we reduce their humanity and reduce their ability to make us feel strange, challenged, and uncomfortable. There it is — anti-capitalism! Thanks, Drift!
I agree with much of what you've said here, though I have yet another peev with The Drift, which is that upon submitting nonfiction, I've received this canned language as a rejection: "We rarely publish essays grounded in personal narrative. In general, we look to publish argumentative essays that make sharp, surprising interventions in existing conversations." To which I've responded: "I understand that this piece might not be the best fit but I also feel compelled to state that I've received this message before... and as someone who holds a PhD in English, I take issue with the idea that an essay that contains life writing can't also make sharp, surprising interventions in existing conversations... As a political journal it's important to recognize that the personal is political. We've made great strides in the academy to recognize autotheory as a rigorous discipline and I would think that a journal like The Drift would be more ahead of the curve on these matters. Because something is personal does not mean that it can't also be argumentative or sharp."
Socialism doesn't have cultural currency outside a few social circles but stories about flying on a dragon and kissing a bad boy are for everyone, so that would be the natural point of entry for the reader... next up, why YouTube horror is or isn't socialist
Totally tangential to your main point, but this
> The whole point of socialism is that everyone will have the freedom to make and support the art they want.
Suggests that freedom to make and support any kind of art is unique to socialism, in contrast to capitalism. Is that true? We have unprecedented plurality of art under capitalism...
You’re right, we have considerable freedom under capitalism, but I guess I was assuming that under socialism people would have more free time and economic security, so they would spend more time making art. The point of this piece (that I am criticizing) is that people are so blunted by economic insecurity that they escape into these romantasies that (the author claims) are very bad.
I think it’s highly doubtful that Romantasy would stop existing if we had socialism, but even if that was true, that’s not really the reason to advocate for it.
I agree with you that the impulse to consume or produce romantasy, or any other kind of art, would probably exist under socialism too (although to be fair (without having read the original piece) it'd be surprising if there weren't a link between a socioeconomic system and the culture and art it produces).
But I am not sure as much and as diverse art would be produced under socialism. First, free time is a function of wealth, and capitalism has produced far more wealth than any other system. It's not that most of us don't have the time to produce art (we certainly waste years, collectively, on TikTok or Netflix), it's that we don't have the capacity to do so.
But even more worryingly... doesn't the attitude of the piece you criticise give the lie to the idea that socialism will be more welcoming to diverse viewpoints? The Left, just as much as the far Right, has proven all to willing to suppress art or expression more generally with which it disagrees.
People wouldn’t have “tyrannical bosses” under socialism. That’s like the whole point lol
Of course they would…even in the Soviet Union, people had jobs, they had bosses, they had to manage interpersonal conflict.
You really are very, very good at this kind of thing. I'll add that my writing group spent an hour discussing your piece on New Yorker fiction not long ago.
Thank you!
This was great!
This was delicious. My favorite piece of yours.
I'm biased but my friend Diana's short story "Richard Leoneck" is my favorite of their fiction section https://www.thedriftmag.com/richard-leoneck/
I liked this story but I also kinda felt like I didn’t understand the ending. How did he die? Also, why was it told in this intercut way, with an interview and then a reminiscence. Who was interviewing him? I couldn’t tell if it was meant to be confusing or if I was just missing something.
Just finished the latest issue and thought the fiction section was fairly weak. Each short story was first-person perspective, each one (with one or two notable exceptions, like Devotchka) read the same. It could’ve just been that particular issue, though.
I did like their brief essay collection on Habermas towards the front. A few gems in there. Nonfiction, as you pointed out, was so-so. They did have a solid letter submission on Venezuela, as well.
Regardless, I’ve subscribed to them - looking forward to reading more.
Haven’t read the latest yet! For some reason their website always glitched when I ordered it.
Apropos of nothing, but The Bulwark had a nice write-up of your book: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-great-books-are-for-everybody-naomi-kanakia-review.
I confess I don’t understand the mentality which finds unbelievable the idea that “peoples’ artistic tastes are somehow inherently diseased.” This seems obviously correct to me, whatever anxieties it may cause me to believe it. Beauty — or taste for that matter — belongs to few.
I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t see the point of constructing a magazine around the idea of toothlessly railing against this fact of life.
That’s fair. Presumably there’s a service to be rendered in critique. And if surgeons are any indication, some people take pleasure for its own sake in cutting away at (often incurable) diseases.