When an opinion writer, and one with some academic standing, starts an article/argument with "conditions for more subordinate workers to produce more profits that will benefit our imperial masters and local national elites who have a monopoly on the modes of production", one thinks, "Oh, lord, have I clicked on SACP's or BLF's blog by mistake". (Related, listen to BLF's leader's replies to Stephen Grootes' questions about Gupta emails on 702's Midday Report today. He blamed 'white monopoly capital' and 'white' 'foreigners'.)

An academic ought to know a writer must persuade readers using reason and careful development of the his/her argument, not literally hector them with ideological and political stereotypes, jargon, mottoes and demagoguery. I gave up reading at that point. Following a run of poorly researched and developed articles this week - this is the fourth, I think - I ask DM again what does it take to be a writer?