See, I think there is a discussion to be had on whether Traore is a socialist or a bourgeois revolutionary and that can be interesting discussion to be had and that is ultimately relevant to the future of Burkina Faso and its people.

But Jacobin’s particular framing of socialism and pragmatism as being mutually exclusive very quickly highlights their idealism at play. As cfgaussian noted a socialist who isn’t pragmatic is either ineffective or dead. The socialism of Jacobin is inherently Owenist to the core. They aren’t Marxists nor do they conduct Marxist analysis; there is no dialectical materialism to be found in their articles. What we find instead are pieces like this which are critical of anti-imperialist struggles without justifying that critical position - and this is crucial because it is entirely possible to validly critique anti-imperialist struggles, this is why the “critical” in “critical support” exists after all. But Jacobin doesn’t do this. It offers the criticism without the support but that’s not how it works. If you’re going to criticize Traore then there are only two positions you can be in: support or opposition. You either criticize him because you oppose him or you criticize him despite supporting him; there is no middle ground. You are either on the side of the imperialists or the side of the anti-imperialists. Jacobin, it seems, isn’t interested in siding with the anti-imperialists and that means there is only one other side to take.

I can see why Chomsky loves these guys as they have a lot in common: criticism without the support; i.e. pro-imperialism.

Non-pragmatic socialists are either dead socialists or socialists still stuck handing out newspapers. Either way, they are not seizing and wielding power to build a better world.

Captain Traoré is building a better world for his people.