Jacobin60%

Richard Wolff on the Left’s New Openings in 2026 82%

By Richard D. Wolff0%

7/16/2026, 10:09:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 71.9% saturation with 192 hits. Analysis detected 1,049 faulty-reasoning hits from 267 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.7% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,999 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.70% of the article peer group.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, as Russia’s feudalism ended and its empire tottered, the great Russian novelist, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, reflected the deepening concerns and anxieties of his time in his 1863 novel, What Is to Be Done? 
It offered a socialist answer. 
Forty years later, a crude and rapacious capitalism had rushed in to replace Russian feudalism. 
The ex-serfs then began to understand that they had not escaped from exploitation as they had hoped and dreamed. 
Rather, they suffered a new form of it as industrial workers. 
Vladimir Lenin reflected the concerns and anxieties of that form in his pamphlet, with its deliberately repeated title, “What Is to Be Done?” 
It too offered a socialist answer. 
Today a declining US empire upsets and undermines US capitalism as it rattles and shakes the world economy. 
International laws are increasingly ignored, and crude authoritarianisms increasingly haunt domestic politics. 
Many around the world are asking that old question yet again  as well they should. 
Here is yet another socialist answer. 
The Collapse of the Old Empires and the Rise of the American Empire 
Emerging from the fogs of politics and war, each continuing the other by different means, a historic global reset is now underway. 
On the surface, the world today is caught up directly or indirectly in the US-Israeli war on Iran, the Russia-Ukraine-NATO war, and their effects. 
Below the surface, as the reset’s contours become visible, they can help us to better grasp our own history and thereby better shape where we go from here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Richard D. Wolff: 4.5%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Richard D. Wolff: 6.7%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.1%Richard D. Wolff: 2.4%Jacobin: 1.7%Hindsight Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 5.5%Jacobin: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Richard D. Wolff: 17.7%Jacobin: 6.8%Framing Effect19.5%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%Richard D. Wolff: 10.5%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 12.4%Richard D. Wolff: 6.4%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias12.4%This article: 40.8%Richard D. Wolff: 15.1%Jacobin: 8.1%Negativity Bias40.8%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Richard D. Wolff: 7.9%Jacobin: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error23.6%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Richard D. Wolff: 1.5%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 15.0%Richard D. Wolff: 5.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect15.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Richard D. Wolff: 2.9%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 4.9%Richard D. Wolff: 1.6%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.6%Richard D. Wolff: 7.1%Jacobin: 8.0%Hasty Generalization8.6%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%Richard D. Wolff: 6.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 16.1%Richard D. Wolff: 5.4%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion16.1%This article: 6.4%Richard D. Wolff: 2.1%Jacobin: 1.6%Begging the Question6.4%This article: 6.7%Richard D. Wolff: 2.2%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.7%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.5%Richard D. Wolff: 3.5%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof10.5%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 30.0%Richard D. Wolff: 10.0%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)30.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 71.9%Richard D. Wolff: 46.8%Jacobin: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice71.9%This article: 22.8%Richard D. Wolff: 19.4%Jacobin: 3.2%Indoctrination22.8%This article: 44.9%Richard D. Wolff: 29.1%Jacobin: 7.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias44.9%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard D. Wolff: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

267 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.6%attributed speech244writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageVladimir Lenin • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Vladimir Lenin

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+60.2 ptsWriter: 39.8%Vladimir Lenin: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+30.7 ptsWriter: 69.3%Vladimir Lenin: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-25.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Vladimir Lenin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.