TL;DR
Novara Media (NM) seems to be a useful reader-funded outlet for UK domestic politics and anti-neoliberalism, but I am growing increasingly frustrated with IRL "leftists" who regularly cite their content in political discussions. From what I can tell, their geopolitical coverage falls into a classic "third-campist" "western leftist" narratives. Despite frequently throwing around phrases like "materialist analysis," they routinely adopt liberal, mainstream framing when reporting on actually existing socialist (AES) states and multipolar geopolitics, effectively laundering empire narratives for a left-wing audience.
innehållsvarning
Novara Media (NM) describes itself as:
"... an independent media organisation addressing the issues that are set to define the 21st century, from a crisis of capitalism to racism and climate change. Within that context our goal is a simple one: to tell stories and provide analysis shaped by the political uncertainties of the age, elevating critical perspectives you're unlikely to find elsewhere."
I first noticed the extent of this issue through family members who are active in the Western organized left. NM has become their primary news source, particularly their long-form video and podcast content. Increasingly, our political discussions have been derailed by textbook liberal takes on AES states, usually cited back to a recent Novara episode.
Because I prefer written analysis over video, I am not exposed to their long-form content. Regardless, I forced myself to watch a recent episode with "China" in the title to get a feeling for their analysis.
The episode was very larpy. The guest—a US professor who wrote a book on "green capitalism" and rare earth minerals—repeatedly invoked the phrase "as Marxists, we understand..." yet proceeded to deliver counter-Marxist takes on many points. She openly admitted she was not previously a China expert (but had learned so much when researching for the book), which became immediately obvious as she pushed grossly simplified assertions regarding China's governance, internal dynamics of capital formation, and geopolitical stances. Rather than a concrete analysis of China's historical development and material conditions, the discussion often seemed to fall back on familiar Western assumptions about authoritarianism and state power. I have rarely heard someone talk so much about doing a "materialist analysis" while presenting so little material data or structural understanding.
A quick look at their recent output shows a flood of similar China content. The underlying message seems to always be the same: a lib-brained emphasis that le ebil see see pee is uniquely authoritarian and not to be trusted (even if the West maybe is just as bad).
A few quick examples that come up on their site:
Uighur atrocity-slop: Neither Washington Nor Beijing: The Left Must Stand With the Uighurs
Lib-brained Geopolitical Analysis: We Asked Post-Soviet Leftists What the Western Left is Getting Wrong on Ukraine – More invocation of "materialism" used to mask a fundamentally liberal analysis of the conflict.
To be clear, I understand that NM publishes a wide range of contributors and guests, and I am not suggesting every article reflects a single editorial line. Nor do I think everything they produce is bad. Some of their domestic reporting seems to be genuinely useful, particularly when covering issues that receive little attention from mainstream outlets within the UK.
My frustration lies in the seemingly regular larping as "materialist", "marxists", "progressives" and "structural analysts", while simultaneously laundering empire-slop to wester leftists who then actually think this is what they are. It is already hard to educate liberals, but doing it to western "leftists" who actually think they are principled and informed is even harder.
I'm curious what others here think. For those who regularly consume Novara Media, do you find their geopolitical analysis convincing? How do you assess them as a source overall? Is my criticism fair, or am I overlooking something in their work? Do you view them strictly as a localized tool for the UK Green party and domestic news?
When debating "leftists" like these, I often argue that someone who is progressive at home but imperialist abroad is simply an imperialist. If your conclusions of global politics is safely to the right of liberal realists like Jeffrey Sachs & John Mearsheimer, both of whom routinely offer more rigorous materialist assessments of global politics than Novara's presents, then you are NOT doing marxist analysis.
PS. An actual well-written article I found on their page after digging around a while, sadly I have not found any analysis like this in their video content, which seems to be the main source of information for many.
