Selling newspapers. Is it worth it?

[Bitter Ashes]

There's so much that we as leftists want to achieve and currently we're still confined to the limitations of capitalist society to establish the infrastructure for change. In other words, we try to raise funds to finance our work for a better future.

Nearly every group charges a membership fee and many also print vast numbers of newspapers which are not only distributed to thier members, but also intended for sale to non-members.

I'm questioning how effective such a tactic is. When The Sun is 20p and (unfortuantly) the most popular paper in the UK, what chance does Industrial Worker, Resistance, Socialist Appeal, Socialist Worker, etc stand as a monthly produced tabloid (I'm reffering to the opinionated style of writing here) that costs £1 and up? I mean, has anyone ever imagined a worker who is not class consicous seeing someone selling these things at a picket line, or on the street and think "OOH! A socialist paper! I've got money burning a hole in my pocket for that!". Come on. Surely this doesnt actualy happen.

Of course, I may be totaly wrong and a dozen people are going to post that they are very successful in selling the copies of thier group's newspaper to the general public. If so, please by all means, give your accounts of how you made these papers seem attractive! :)

[mannetje]

I read a leftwing newspaper every day and i can't do without it, I already read the paper since i can read.

[jake williams]

I think that's an extremely good question.

[The Idler]

I will defer to those who have actually sold these to the public, but in my opinion trying to sell them to the public on the street isn't very productive. Let alone for the fact that only a small proportion are aimed at the general public as oppose to existing members. If the style, language, tone and content are about dialetics for example, your average Sun reader is unlikely to want to pay to read that.

Newspapers tend to be mainly for members and supporters to keep them in touch with what is going on (but hopefully without being financially loss making).

I think the best way of getting the general public to read the newspapers is for distributors to buy the newspapers from the central office and then to give them away for free. In fact, this is something I am trying to in buying up lots of copies of Socialist Worker but I don't think central office are keen. I e-mailed them and they told me to contact my local branch, which I'm wary of doing.

[Pogue]

There's so much that we as leftists want to achieve and currently we're still confined to the limitations of capitalist society to establish the infrastructure for change. In other words, we try to raise funds to finance our work for a better future.

Nearly every group charges a membership fee and many also print vast numbers of newspapers which are not only distributed to thier members, but also intended for sale to non-members.

I'm questioning how effective such a tactic is. When The Sun is 20p and (unfortuantly) the most popular paper in the UK, what chance does Industrial Worker, Resistance, Socialist Appeal, Socialist Worker, etc stand as a monthly produced tabloid (I'm reffering to the opinionated style of writing here) that costs £1 and up? I mean, has anyone ever imagined a worker who is not class consicous seeing someone selling these things at a picket line, or on the street and think "OOH! A socialist paper! I've got money burning a hole in my pocket for that!". Come on. Surely this doesnt actualy happen.

Of course, I may be totaly wrong and a dozen people are going to post that they are very successful in selling the copies of thier group's newspaper to the general public. If so, please by all means, give your accounts of how you made these papers seem attractive! :)

The reasons you outlined are some of the main reasons we don't sell Industrial Worker over here in the UK and also why my group, L&S, does not bother with making a newspaper (although we do aid with the sale of 'Freedom' from time to time).

[Eat the Rich]

Personaly I think that having a paper is a good way to start discussion with ordinary people in protests, the street, schools etc. In protests, I tend to walk with Fightback (our paper) or La Riposte (our paper in French) on display. People then come up to me, they ask me what it is and I explain, along with the ideas. In general I tend to sell on my own about 20 papers in a big event and 5-10 papers in a small event. Through those sales, I usualy tend to have many discussions, explaining the ideas of Marxism and my party and ultimately recruit.

Also, the paper is the public face of my party. It is a place where people can find out about our ideas, get agitational and theoretical articles (along with our website). The advantage of having a paper though is the face to face discussion and clarification of peoples' queestions.

Another way where the paper is useful is that it acts as a collective organizer. Canada is a huge country, which extends to 4 time zones. Therefore with the paper, we unite supporters and sympathizers from all over the country, get information on Labour struggles accross the country and learn from the successes or defeats of the different movements.

I don't think that papers should be distributed for free. This is because it is a hefty cost in the budget if it is free and also people usualy throw away stuff that doesn't interest them but get it for free. So the price acts as a filter, which means that the paper is purchased by people who are actualy intersted on our ideas and analyses. Of course if someone doesn't have money to pay but is really interested in Marxism, I just give the paper for free. But usualy people buy it.

Also a paper is a good way of raising finances. Our paper has a circulation which reaches the thousands, so it brings a lot of money in that can be used for organizing events, pay wages of full-timers and pay for travel expenses of comrades.

[YKTMX]

Selling the paper on the street can be difficult, but it can also be very rewarding. My comrades in the party sold 175 copies of our paper (the Socialist Worker) in ONE DAY on the Glasgow Uni campus just the other day - we also recruited a significant number of people, which is good.

The value of the paper isn't just about numbers. The worth of having a paper can not only be determined by numbers. The purpose of the revolutionary paper, of course, is to reach as many people as possible, but it's also about having a real basis around which activists and militants can organize and get their ideas. This is obviously a two-way process - it shouldn't be about the editors "pumping out" analysis centrally.

Of course there are other ways of doing that - blogs, website and, umm, message boards are also important. But I still think the physical paper is indespensible in terms of trying to establish real links and bridges with people on the street.

[Arlekino]

I am selling papers almost every Saturday in Nottingham, yes is difficult to sell and raise finances but we doing best. Another problem I see how we can change working class to read Socialist papers, seems they more read Sun, Mirror.
Yours struggle

[Hit The North]

Comrade YKTMX does a good job of summing up the role of the revolutionary paper and its importance.

Here is a pretty decent article about Lenin's arguments about the centrality of the paper:

http://socialistworker.org/2004-1/502/502_08_Lenin.shtml

Btw, I think this should be moved to Learning.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I sell a paper and agree with how comrades outlined the role of the paper in the Leninist tradition.

In addition to that, in the US it really helps to create a presence for radicalism in general: we don't get media coverage and our arguments and most of the time socialism is brought up by officials or teachers or politicians is to say that it is anacronistic or "foreign" or from a by-gone era.

In the recent past all sorts of non-socialists and even non-radicals sold papers on the street in order to meet people and get their ideas out there. In times of radical upheaval we always see a flowering of zines and newsletters and newspapers and so having a paper that can be sustained in the down-times as well as the up-times helps the left build some continuity and the ability to learn over time rather than reinventing the wheel when the next upsurge in struggle happens.

It's really not that different than having a blog - if you said, we have great ideas, should we have a blog to get those ideas out there - no one would say it's a waste of time. The advantage of the peper is the ability to have one-on-one conversations and if a co-worker buys a paper they are probably going to read it whereas the link to a blog could be read or easily ignored.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm questioning how effective such a tactic is. When The Sun is 20p and (unfortuantly) the most popular paper in the UK, what chance does Industrial Worker, Resistance, Socialist Appeal, Socialist Worker, etc stand as a monthly produced tabloid (I'm reffering to the opinionated style of writing here) that costs £1 and up? I mean, has anyone ever imagined a worker who is not class consicous seeing someone selling these things at a picket line, or on the street and think "OOH! A socialist paper! I've got money burning a hole in my pocket for that!". Come on. Surely this doesnt actualy happen.
Well, Resistance is free, which helps a lot. ;) Hard to say how many people actually read it as opposed to just taking it and chucking it away tho. It's a tricky issue. I always admired Class War's approach of producing a paper that was fun and not boring, even if their politics were crap at times.

[Tjis]

I read a leftwing newspaper every day and i can't do without it, I already read the paper since i can read.
Which newspaper? I can't think of any daily left-wing publication in the Netherlands.

Personally I see selling papers as a rather outdated concept. I can't speak for other areas, but over here we have 2 newspapers that are freely distributed at train stations for commuters. These are the only newspapers over here that are still popular. All others are losing sales quickly, probably because people read their news online more and more.

So how could we possibly sell a newspaper to the general public with our limited resources, considering big capitalist enterprises with many times more resources than we could possibly ever have are having trouble with this model of information distribution?

I think that if we want to reach the general public, as opposed to the limited group of people that is already interested, we have to focus on free newspapers. Websites are nice, but newspapers are taken more seriously than a website or a blog. The obvious downside of course is that they are expensive to make, since there's no compensation. However an organization could possibly finance this with membership fees and donations and publish monthly or at least quarterly. This paper can then be distributed in commute hours at big train stations, at workplaces, in schools, etc.
Also, paper publications should have an internet presence with a digital version of the paper, as well as frequent updates. People that became interested because of the paper can stay in touch that way, and tell their friends about it easily.

But I see no future for selling newspapers.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Party papers will always sell, CPGB-ML publishes Proletarian and we are affiliated with Lalkar, both are bi-monthly and cost £1 each, every member supports the papers and many sympathisers and friends of the Party also have subscriptions, this is true with most party papers, Socialist Worker, Socialist Standard, Weekly Worker, etc. all have dedicated followings. I do not think that the future is so bright for more independent publications though, these days The Morning Star is very detached from CPB, and they struggle to meet costs every month.

[Bitter Ashes]

Aye. The Morning Star was a great example of how NOT to sell a paper. It was on the shelves of a shop I used to work at and me and other shop assistants used to make fun of it and compare it to an East German car (It's small, only comes in one colour, costs a fortune and is out classed by every other paper/car). Having it sat on the shelves there alongside the mainstream newspapers was a major mistake. It was like the poor sick little buffalo calf that straggled behind just waiting to get picked off by predators.

[Revolutionary-Socialist]

Comrade YKTMX does a good job of summing up the role of the revolutionary paper and its importance.

Here is a pretty decent article about Lenin's arguments about the centrality of the paper:


Btw, I think this should be moved to Learning.

That's absurd. Lenin lived about 80 years ago, before the time of the internet and even television. Even radio wasn't as widespread and important as it later became.

I think Lenin would be ashamed if he read that today. You're totally missing the point of why Lenin stressed the importance of the paper at the time.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having something along with you to discuss with people on the streets. Instead of a crappy newspaper that's written by mostly inexperienced and lame writers, you could bring something explaining Marxism.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Party papers will always sell, CPGB-ML publishes Proletarian and we are affiliated with Lalkar, both are bi-monthly and cost £1 each, every member supports the papers and many sympathisers and friends of the party also have subscriptions, this is true with most party papers, Socialist Worker, Socialist Standard, Weekly Worker, etc. all have dedicated followings.
Do you live in the same universe as me? What's the circulation of Proletarian or Lalkar?

[mannetje]

Which newspaper? I can't think of any daily left-wing publication in the Netherlands. de volkskrant.

[Das war einmal]

de volkskrant.


I don't consider that a left wing newspaper at all, at best it is leaning against social-democratic standpoint and then a little left from the center, certainly not more


On-topic: Depending where you are and who you try to inform, internet can be a good alternative to spreading newspapers. Its better for the environment too.

[Q]

de volkskrant.
Sorry, but that is most certainly not a leftwing paper, despite what geenstijl or de Telegraaf say about it. It fully embraces the logic of neoliberalism and bourgeois culture.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Do you live in the same universe as me? What's the circulation of Proletarian or Lalkar?
What? I made no claims regarding the numbers of copies sold, what I did say was that both papers have a dedicated readership comprised of members and non-members alike, so I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. I'm just going to assume that you are making an unnecessary dig at the papers due to their Marxist-Leninist nature, I will not indulge in that kind of thing, but I do challenge you to actually read a copy.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What? I made no claims regarding the numbers of copies sold, what I did say was that both papers have a dedicated readership comprised of members and non-members alike, so I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
But there are five of them. Do you not see that as a problem?

I'm just going to assume that you are making an unnecessary dig at the papers due to their Marxist-Leninist nature, I will not indulge in that kind of thing, but I do challenge you to actually read a copy.
No, I'm making a dig at the fact that no-one actually reads them. The Daily Worker of the old CPB was a Marxist-Leninist paper, but I can still acknowledge that at its peak it was a genuine mass paper influencing tens of thousands of working-class people. Lalkar and Proletarian on the other hand...even I'm barely aware of them, and I spend far more time around the revolutionary left than can be healthy.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Well Comrade that depends on what your definition of "revolutionary left" is, I do not know you but judging on what you have said I highly doubt you spend much time with staunch Marxist-Leninists like myself and my Comrades, and no, members of the revisionist CPB do not count. As for your claim that we have five members, I really don't know what to say to that because of course it's completely ridiculous, I don't know where you get your information on such matters from. Five members protesting outside a Labour Party conference? Sure! Five members at a Stalin Society meeting? Maybe! Five members nationally? No, I think that is a great underestimate. If we only had five members how would we generate enough capital to produce a paper? Why would workers' parties in Cuba, Korea, Venezuela, Nepal, Vietnam, Brazil, and other countries take us so seriously? How would we attract official representatives of such countries to come and speak at our gatherings? Seriously Comrade, as an anarchist I do not blame you for disliking the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), but please try to be a little more creative and thoughtful with your arguments against them, otherwise I simply cannot take these things you say seriously.

[Hit The North]

That's absurd. Lenin lived about 80 years ago, before the time of the internet and even television. Even radio wasn't as widespread and important as it later became.


So what? Are you advocating that revolutionary organizations use television or the internet? Fine, many organizations use the internet. But are you arguing that either of these mediums can perform the same function as the newspaper? Can revolutionaries afford the resources to launch a national TV channel? Can activists take the internet site with them to demonstrations and picket lines?


You're totally missing the point of why Lenin stressed the importance of the paper at the time.


This is what the article claims Lenin's position to be:


A national newspaper for Lenin, then, was not only a means to disseminate propaganda--ideas about the nature of capitalism, the way to overcome it and achieve socialism--but as a means to create a national organization of militants linked together by common experience.


Although electronic media can perform the first function of disseminating propaganda, it displaces the face-to-face interaction of worker with worker and is incapable of creating a national organization of militants linked by common experience.


Instead of a crappy newspaper that's written by mostly inexperienced and lame writers, you could bring something explaining Marxism.


Such as? A party pamphlet? A classic like the Communist Manifesto? Although these are valuable tools, they lack the flexibility of a weekly newspaper which can stay abreast of events, report on actions in different parts of the country and link people together.

[redasheville]

Publicly selling newspapers is the principle way that revolutionaries can engage people who are interested/potentially interested in socialist politics. It is also a good gauge of organizational activity and can give us a sense of the political climate on the streets.

Plus all the other reasons comrades have discussed already.

[chegitz guevara]

There are good reasons for selling papers, but papers sales are also one of the principle ways organizations maintain control over comrades. People have (explicit or implicit) quotas they have to make or they start getting in trouble. I've known a lot of people to drop of out of groups simply because they couldn't keep up with what they thought was expected of them, especially the ISO. The guilt that comrades feel about not being able to do something so simply makes them more easily manipulated.

In Western society, the paper should, ideally, be a way to start up a conversation with people about socialism. Unfortunately, with some groups (SWP-US) it becomes their only reason for existence. What I really hate is reading an article in The Militant or Revolution about how some Black kid bought a copy of their paper.

Kasama has been getting a lot of attention without a paper, and there are no plans to start one. We're happy with a blog and pamphlets. I'd actually been encouraging the SPUSA to go the same route a couple years back, but we have a lot of elderly comrades who don't use the internet as well as institutions who buy subscriptions. We're trying to reinvigorate the The Socialist. We'll see what the results are in a couple of years whether it was worth the effort.

[Q]

I think the days of a regular revolutionary paper that you're going to sell are going to be numbered sooner rather than later. Developments like epaper make the whole concept pretty much redundant. I'm not saying next week epaper is going to be massively embraced by everyone, but in 10 to 15 years I see the traditional paper papers dieing out.

The upside of course is that there are much less costs for producing papers (no paper, no printing), if any. But yeah, we're going to reinvent papers and papersales in the next period.

[Bitter Ashes]

Wow. Yeah. That's something I'd not thought of before (I'm somewhat ashamed to say). The internet has opened up a new world where news is (almost) free. If our papers couldnt compete with a 20p Sun, then what hope is there when you have a 0p BBC Online? Do I buy a mainstream paper anymore? Nope. Only my local one when I'm expecting to want to make a cut out. I certainly wouldnt pay for a copy of the Socialist Worker, or whatever.

What I HAVE done recently though is carry a few copies of Industrial Worker with me when I'm expecting to meet somebody from another group/party/etc. Why? To swap! It is nice to have a look (and sometimes a giggle if I'm honest) at how the other groups are viewing the world and maybe seeing some important issues that we as a branch are neglecting.

A bigger part of the future will of course be how to get the current and following genenration of workers to read about ideas that they havent ever heard represented fairly in the mainstream media. I do believe that the best way that can happen is the net. Not only with webpages, or wikipedia, but all things where we interact with others. Chatrooms, message forums, even MMORPGs! A multi-pronged approach online is something that could really yield results imo. For once we are not contristed by lack of funds to produce a way for workers to find our information and this is a BIG opportunity.

There is a hazard though. Censorship. To stop papers reaching hands requires a physical act of removing a person, which of course is going to be noticed. If a website crashes, or somebody drops off WoW or a message forum unnanounced, then there's no concerns raised. What we gain in vocalisation, we may be losing in security and credability.

Despite this though, I do think the net is the way forward and we must learn new ways to ensure that the message gets out. That said though, there is a place for newspapers and I think that is with members, to keep them informed about the world around them without a mainstream bias and to rally morale. They do feel a bit inspiring when they're in your hands don't they? :)

[The Idler]

There are good reasons for selling papers, but papers sales are also one of the principle ways organizations maintain control over comrades. People have (explicit or explicit) quotas they have to make or they start getting in trouble. I've known a lot of people to drop of out of groups simply because they couldn't keep up with what they thought was expected of them, especially the ISO. The guilt that comrades feel about not being able to do something so simply makes them more easily manipulatedSales quotas?! Seriously?! It doesn't sound very left-wing.

There's certainly a place for blogs but not all the working-class have computer literacy or internet access.

[redasheville]

To be clear, there are no sales quotas in the ISO.

[KC]

The only good thing about paper sales is that it gives you a means of connecting with people and spreading your ideas in interpersonal communication. The newspaper really only serves as a means for this. Sure, they will go read your paper later probably, but the fact is that the majority of socialist organizations are operating their paper production mostly at a loss, and if they're lucky they will break even, so it is actually costing the organization financial resources.

So is it worth the massive amount of work and the financial losses to produce something that serves merely as a means to interpersonal communication? I certainly don't think so. It is very easy to come up with something else that one can do or have to give out that will not be either as logisticially difficult or financially burdensome.

Newspapers are a thing of the past. Embrace it!

[Jimmie Higgins]

The only good thing about paper sales is that it gives you a means of connecting with people and spreading your ideas in interpersonal communication. The newspaper really only serves as a means for this. Sure, they will go read your paper later probably, but the fact is that the majority of socialist organizations are operating their paper production mostly at a loss, and if they're lucky they will break even, so it is actually costing the organization financial resources.

So is it worth the massive amount of work and the financial losses to produce something that serves merely as a means to interpersonal communication? I certainly don't think so. It is very easy to come up with something else that one can do or have to give out that will not be either as logisticially difficult or financially burdensome.

Newspapers are a thing of the past. Embrace it!

Even if papers are sold at a loss, it is still worth it - printing placards never makes money for any organization but unions, radical groups and even NGOs do it because it is useful for projecting your demands or message and rallying people.

I have no problem with blogs and I would love an all radical TV network and would volunteer to program the radical horror movie time slot on Saturday nights 10-midnight. However, as people have said, the left in the US or UK is not yet in a position where this would even be feasible.

If we were in this position, a newspaper would still be important for grassroots radicals trying to build parties and movements.

We can have all the blogs we want (and we should have as many as possible) but we will still be ignored by the mainstream. 50 radicals at a protest with papers builds the profiles of the people with the papers and leads to one-on-one discussions of politics. And having a large profile means that it will be harder for the mainstream to simply ignore radicals.

As a time when traditional establishment papers are losing credibility - what better time to put out our own papers and encourage people to ignore the lies in the corporate press and hear arguments instead from papaers that were right about the wars, right about the economy, right about Obama's limitations.

[Искра]

Hmm...
My organisation is making newspapers and they will be available as regular newspapers. There are no left papers in Croatia, and our will be the first. So, tell me the reason why shouldn't we make them?
I read this whole discussion and I still think that papers are not "shit" and that they are extremely useful.

[chegitz guevara]

To be clear, there are no sales quotas in the ISO.

I've known people who weren't expelled from the ISO, but were made to not feel welcome anymore because they couldn't keep up. Since this was in Chicago, it can't really be claimed that this was some local out of touch with the actual organization. Now, it's been over a decade since I've had any real contact with the organization, and they've changed since then, so maybe they've changed on this. I'm not in a position to say.

[Revy]

Having socialist print or online press is important. Selling it...not as important. Socialists shouldn't be obsessed with selling papers. If you can't afford to give it out for free, well, make a "lite" version.

[redasheville]

I've known people who weren't expelled from the ISO, but were made to not feel welcome anymore because they couldn't keep up. Since this was in Chicago, it can't really be claimed that this was some local out of touch with the actual organization. Now, it's been over a decade since I've had any real contact with the organization, and they've changed since then, so maybe they've changed on this. I'm not in a position to say.

At least one of these sentences is correct.

[chegitz guevara]

In fact, all of them are. I've had quite a bit more experience with the ISO than you, comrade. I personally knew most of the national leadership of the ISO for years. Hell, lived, literally right across the street from one of them. We could wave at each other from our 3rd floor apartments.

[redasheville]

In fact, all of them are. I've had quite a bit more experience with the ISO than you, comrade. I personally knew most of the national leadership of the ISO for years. Hell, lived, literally right across the street from one of them. We could wave at each other from our 3rd floor apartments.

Not sure what this has to do with dishonestly insinuating that the ISO has paper quotas (besides I have people in the national leadership's numbers saved in my cellphone, and one of the architects of the current SW website is my neighbor...we went on a bike ride the other day). San Francisco has one of the oldest, strongest and largest branches in the US, and there is no implicit or explicit quotas that one has to meet in order to remain a member.

[Q]

and there is no implicit or explicit quotas that one has to meet in order to remain a member.
I think CG was more referring to peer/social pressure rather than (formal or informal) requirements.

[The Idler]

There are good reasons for selling papers, but papers sales are also one of the principle ways organizations maintain control over comrades. People have (explicit or implicit) quotas they have to make or they start getting in trouble


I think CG was more referring to peer/social pressure rather than (formal or informal) requirements.

I think if you re-read the post, CG was specifically alleging formal or informal requirements aka "(explicit or implicit) quotas".

[chegitz guevara]

I think CG was more referring to peer/social pressure rather than (formal or informal) requirements.

Nope, top down pressure from leadership. A number of ex-ISO comrades complained to me in the 90s they simply couldn't keep up. As far as I know, there were no specific requirements, but if they weren't doing enough, they'd get the talk. Kinda like the flair thing in Office Space.

Perhaps they've changed. ISO used to have a 100% turnover rate, i.e., they were losing people as quickly as they were recruiting replacements. They've almost doubled in size since then, so maybe they learned some lessons and changed they way they did things.

[KC]

Not sure what this has to do with dishonestly insinuating that the ISO has paper quotas

I don't think chegitz guevara was being dishonest in saying that, or trying to slander the ISO, and I don't think it's very respectful or productive to automatically assume that he was attempting to be so. In the future please figure out what someone is trying to say before automatically accusing someone of being slanderous/dishonest. It is completely unproductive and does more harm than good. This is supposed to be a productive discussion on tactics (specifically the tactic of producing a newspaper) and not a mud-slinging contest.

[redasheville]

I don't think chegitz guevara was being dishonest in saying that, or trying to slander the ISO, and I don't think it's very respectful or productive to automatically assume that he was attempting to be so. In the future please figure out what someone is trying to say before automatically accusing someone of being slanderous/dishonest. It is completely unproductive and does more harm than good. This is supposed to be a productive discussion on tactics (specifically the tactic of producing a newspaper) and not a mud-slinging contest.

I'm sorry if I was a little defensive, but CG (whose posts I have appreciated on various forums for years) said that papers were a means of controlling and manipulating members through sales quotas and then specifically named the ISO in the same paragraph. It was only until AFTER his initial post that he said he was basing this on anecdotal evidence over a decade ago and that he had no real knowledge of how things are in the organization at this time. That is dishonest, and he should have qualified his statement from the beginning.

Also I never accused anyone of being slanderous.

I'm done talking about this on this thread though.

[KC]

I'm sorry if I was a little defensive, but CG (whose posts I have appreciated on various forums for years) said that papers were a means of controlling and manipulating members through sales quotas and then specifically named the ISO in the same paragraph. It was only until AFTER his initial post that he said he was basing this on anecdotal evidence over a decade ago and that he had no real knowledge of how things are in the organization at this time. That is dishonest, and he should have qualified his statement from the beginning.

I don't think it was dishonest at all; I certainly don't think that he intentionally omitted that information from his first post, and probably just realized it after you responded to him.


Also I never accused anyone of being slanderous.Not explicitly, but you implicitly did when you accused him of dishonestly (i.e. intentionally) stating baseless facts.


I'm done talking about this on this thread though.I just don't think it's productive to presume the worst in your allies.

I'm not trying to attack you or anything; it just upsets me that there is this general attitude of rivalry between different organizations. Sorry if I came across as being overly critical.

[chegitz guevara]

I think redashville was correctly pointing out that I had written my initial response in such a way as it could be easily misinterpreted. I was sloppy in my writing. It was not, however, dishonest, and perhaps the discussion could have been done a little more constructively.

[redasheville]

I think redashville was correctly pointing out that I had written my initial response in such a way as it could be easily misinterpreted. I was sloppy in my writing. It was not, however, dishonest, and perhaps the discussion could have been done a little more constructively.

Fair enough. High five, comrade.

[KC]

I have no problem with blogs and I would love an all radical TV network and would volunteer to program the radical horror movie time slot on Saturday nights 10-midnight. However, as people have said, the left in the US or UK is not yet in a position where this would even be feasible.

Actually I think it is in a position that is more than feasible. In terms of putting newspapers online this is obviously easily done, as most organizations already do this. The internet also provides us with much more possibilities regarding timely news updates and instant access that print simply cannot provide.

As for a regular revolutionary news network, I see absolutely no reason why this is not possible. Some organizations already come out with weekly podcasts, and to have a weekly online television show over say Youtube would not be difficult at all. Hell, many people have their own regularly updated news channels on Youtube that are run by either individuals or a small group of people. I know, for example, that the Worker Communist Party of Iran has their own regular Youtube news show (http://www.youtube.com/user/WPITV).

The technology is there; the revolutionary left has yet to embrace it to any meaningful extent.


If we were in this position, a newspaper would still be important for grassroots radicals trying to build parties and movements.

We can have all the blogs we want (and we should have as many as possible) but we will still be ignored by the mainstream. 50 radicals at a protest with papers builds the profiles of the people with the papers and leads to one-on-one discussions of politics. And having a large profile means that it will be harder for the mainstream to simply ignore radicals.Yes, of course it is important to have something to provide people with in order to open discussion and disseminate our views in person and in situations where we do not have access to a computer. But I think this can be satisfied much more substantially with printed flyers or pamphlets regarding specific issues that are being addressed at the time. These would target the issue being discussed at the specific event, provide a more detailed analysis than can be offered in a newspaper article, and would lead those interested to our online media which will cover our views on various different topics.

Not only does this provide us with a more tailored approach to various demonstrations and campaigns, which makes us look better prepared and more organized, but also completely does away with the incredible amount of work and financial costs that go into printing a regular paper. It's a win-win situation.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that putting more work into online content will make this information universally accessible and thus will further open up communication on various issues and I think will also contribute to closer collaboration between different organizations. I would be thrilled to see a revolutionary leftist website with a regular news channel, podcasts, and news/analysis collaborated on between various different revolutionary organizations. I think it would really be something that could help quench the rivalry attitude encountered so often on the left and could lead to closer relations in general.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's a good post and interesting ideas KC, but I don't think the left is in a position in the US to have a real descent TV network - even online. Even if we had the network, we do not have the level of organization to be able to fully utilize such a thing to its potential. I have no doubt that someday (sooner than later) people in the mid-west will be flipping through channels and in between an all christian preacher channel and an all infomercial channel there will be a radical network that has shows produced by different major radical parties or orgs as well as general-left programs and good docs and movies too.

I also agree that some publications encompassing a broad range of writers and views from the radical left would be a good development - but I think party papers will still be useful for radicals trying to argue their perspective on a grass roots level. Every once in a while I meet a comrade who says: why not buy a news stand instead. I think this misses the point of the one-on-one contact selling papers on a street-corner or at work does. If this is what having a paper was all about, then yes, blogs and other things could be cheaper alternatives.

For me selling papers has been very useful because I work in a non-union workplace where we do not have a break room and so it is difficult to have in-depth conversations with my coworkers. Having a few papers with me allows me to find out which co-workers are interested in radical politics and which ones are potential allies.

Selling papers in my neighborhood allows me to have lots of conversations with people I wouldn't normally talk to. Selling the paper can often be slow and frustrating when the movements are not doing much or people are generally demoralized, but it is worth it when the situation changes. We had been selling papers for a year in my neighborhood which has a lot of immigrants living there and then when the large immigrant rights protests were organized we easily sold scores of papers in an hour and people identified us as the (non immigrant) people who had been talking about immigrant rights issues all along and who were 100% for full rights. People even came to us to report what racists and the ICE (immigration enforcement) were doing which allowed us to try and build an emergency phone-tree to call people out to instantly protest a immigration raid or counter protest the Minutemen.

One of the appeal of the Black Panthers was their uniform look - people saw them in their working class neighborhoods and knew if they had a problem with the cops or a crooked landlord, maybe the Panthers could help them out - or at least were on their side of the issue. Well, I hate uniforms and I don't think it's a good image for the left, but organizing small paper sales and being out each week talking to regular people helps accomplish the same thing.

Blogs, magazines and podcasts are all important (radicals in the 20s and 30s had radio shows while they still had their party papers as well as broad-left magazines) but they do not create that 1 on 1 organizing that selling a radical paper allows.

[KC]

It's a good post and interesting ideas KC, but I don't think the left is in a position in the US to have a real descent TV network - even online.

Why, though? You don't explain why you think this is the case. If a handful of individuals can put together a regular Youtube show or podcast then what is stopping an entire organization or the entire socialist movement (i.e. a collaboration between orgs) from doing it?


Even if we had the network, we do not have the level of organization to be able to fully utilize such a thing to its potential.What do you mean by "level of organization" and why don't you think we have it?


I have no doubt that someday (sooner than later) people in the mid-west will be flipping through channels and in between an all christian preacher channel and an all infomercial channel there will be a radical network that has shows produced by different major radical parties or orgs as well as general-left programs and good docs and movies too.I don't think I ever mentioned a cable or network news network. That is completely unrealistic.



I also agree that some publications encompassing a broad range of writers and views from the radical left would be a good development - but I think party papers will still be useful for radicals trying to argue their perspective on a grass roots level. Every once in a while I meet a comrade who says: why not buy a news stand instead. I think this misses the point of the one-on-one contact selling papers on a street-corner or at work does. If this is what having a paper was all about, then yes, blogs and other things could be cheaper alternatives.

For me selling papers has been very useful because I work in a non-union workplace where we do not have a break room and so it is difficult to have in-depth conversations with my coworkers. Having a few papers with me allows me to find out which co-workers are interested in radical politics and which ones are potential allies.

Selling papers in my neighborhood allows me to have lots of conversations with people I wouldn't normally talk to. Selling the paper can often be slow and frustrating when the movements are not doing much or people are generally demoralized, but it is worth it when the situation changes. We had been selling papers for a year in my neighborhood which has a lot of immigrants living there and then when the large immigrant rights protests were organized we easily sold scores of papers in an hour and people identified us as the (non immigrant) people who had been talking about immigrant rights issues all along and who were 100% for full rights. People even came to us to report what racists and the ICE (immigration enforcement) were doing which allowed us to try and build an emergency phone-tree to call people out to instantly protest a immigration raid or counter protest the Minutemen.

One of the appeal of the Black Panthers was their uniform look - people saw them in their working class neighborhoods and knew if they had a problem with the cops or a crooked landlord, maybe the Panthers could help them out - or at least were on their side of the issue. Well, I hate uniforms and I don't think it's a good image for the left, but organizing small paper sales and being out each week talking to regular people helps accomplish the same thing.

Blogs, magazines and podcasts are all important (radicals in the 20s and 30s had radio shows while they still had their party papers as well as broad-left magazines) but they do not create that 1 on 1 organizing that selling a radical paper allows.I already responded to this issue in the post above yours.

Anyways, summarizing I think that the only positive point that can be brought up about printing papers is the one on one aspect that you refer to. Everything else is simply a burden - from the layout to the publishing to the financing to the distribution. So if we can come up with something that can be utilized as a means of sparking one on one conversations like a paper does (as you pointed out above), and doesn't have all of these burdens that come with it, then why shouldn't we do it?

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm really not sure if this should be on the learning section tbh.

After all, the intention is looking to the future, rather than just stating the present state of affairs.

[bricolage]

When they are talking about cancelling the Observer you really think there is a future for the numerous papers of all these left wing groups?

A paper sale on the street does nothing and neither does just handing out papers at any and every demo but that doesn't mean you should completely abandon it is a method of communication. However the first stop should always to actually be involved with something before trying to pass out the propaganda. If there is a strike, occupation, sit in, whatever, go to it offer support and solidarity but also produce a pamphlet or just a short leaflet about the issue and the take of you or your organisation on it. That's a better way of getting to people than just pushing papers all day then thinking you've made the revolution by adhering to a quota that may or may not exist. Although that being said handing out free papers in the street could still be worthwhile but then again most papers people on the left make are so esoteric, confusing and boring most people tend to get bored or lost very quickly but that's a whole other matter.

[redasheville]

When they are talking about cancelling the Observer you really think there is a future for the numerous papers of all these left wing groups?

A paper sale on the street does nothing and neither does just handing out papers at any and every demo but that doesn't mean you should completely abandon it is a method of communication. However the first stop should always to actually be involved with something before trying to pass out the propaganda. If there is a strike, occupation, sit in, whatever, go to it offer support and solidarity but also produce a pamphlet or just a short leaflet about the issue and the take of you or your organisation on it. That's a better way of getting to people than just pushing papers all day then thinking you've made the revolution by adhering to a quota that may or may not exist. Although that being said handing out free papers in the street could still be worthwhile but then again most papers people on the left make are so esoteric, confusing and boring most people tend to get bored or lost very quickly but that's a whole other matter.

I disagree that a paper sale does nothing. If one expects selling/handing out any type of literature on the street or at a demo will do much to raise the overall level of class consciousness, then you'd be right to scoff at the idea. However, we use our paper sales to reach out to people to try to engage them in a discussion of socialist politics. A significant number of our members' first contact with our organization was through paper sales. Those people are now committed revolutionary socialist activists. Hardly a pointless endeavor, I'd say.

Revolutionaries need to find their audience, since we are more or less on margins in many countries. Distributing literature, however the method, can be a way to reach that audience.

[chegitz guevara]

Know what would be awesome? Is if instead of having a dozen weeklies, a few monthlies, etc., we all pitched together for one daily.

[bricolage]

A significant number of our members' first contact with our organization was through paper sales. Those people are now committed revolutionary socialist activists. Hardly a pointless endeavor, I'd say.


I'd imagine however that the vast majority of those people had already formulated a lot of their views on capitalism, revolution and the like, it may have been their first contact with your organisation but I doubt it was their first contact with the issues and ideology your organisation subscribes to. As I said paper sales aren't going to create class consciousness, they might well, as you pointed to, get a few people to join organisations but joining organisation x doesn't a revolution make.

[Spawn of Stalin]

You're right that paper sales don't inspire many people to become revolutionaries, but joining an organisation generally helps existing revolutionaries to get active, and to stay active, thus becoming more effective revolutionaries.

[redasheville]

I'd imagine however that the vast majority of those people had already formulated a lot of their views on capitalism, revolution and the like, it may have been their first contact with your organisation but I doubt it was their first contact with the issues and ideology your organisation subscribes to. As I said paper sales aren't going to create class consciousness, they might well, as you pointed to, get a few people to join organisations but joining organisation x doesn't a revolution make.

While obviously people who are willing to talk to socialists on the street are moving in our direction in one way or the other, it is definitely not been my experience that people are necessarily won to the ideas of revolution/workers power/marxism. Most aren't, actually.

Who said getting a few people to join an organization makes a revolution? Selling papers takes up approx 50-60 minutes of each members time, weekly, it is hardly the extent of revolutionary activity. But you knew that.

[redasheville]

Know what would be awesome? Is if instead of having a dozen weeklies, a few monthlies, etc., we all pitched together for one daily.

As long as whoever put PSL members on the cover The Socialist and then (badly) photoshopped over their signs doesn't make any executive decisions concerning cover design, I'm all for it. :)

[Revy]

As long as whoever put PSL members on the cover The Socialist and then (badly) photoshopped over their signs doesn't make any executive decisions concerning cover design, I'm all for it. :)

I vaguely recall this bullshit "controversy". I doubt that photoshopping was involved.

[Kassad]

As long as whoever put PSL members on the cover The Socialist and then (badly) photoshopped over their signs doesn't make any executive decisions concerning cover design, I'm all for it. :)

I missed this. Link?

[cenv]

Not to mention that Lenin was unable to foresee that new communication technologies like the internet, cell phones, and TV would revolutionize the way people interact with each other and introduce a new stage for the propaganda war.

Plus, the issue of what we say and how we say it is more pressing than the question of where we say it. A well-presented argument that commands the attention of even the apolitical will be effective whether it's presented in a newspaper or somewhere else. But if the content of a given newspaper is ideological and hard to relate to, we can stand on the street corners selling newspapers until we keel over dead, and class consciousness will remain just as elusive.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Full metal smackdown from Barabbas.


Who said getting a few people to join an organization makes a revolution? Selling papers takes up approx 50-60 minutes of each members time, weekly, it is hardly the extent of revolutionary activity.
You guys are getting soft. When I was in the SWP, we were expected to do a minimum of one 90-minute sale per week, with the constant pressure to do an extra one or two during the week.

And here's what Lenin said himself:

"The necessity to concentrate all forces on establishing a regularly appearing and regularly delivered organ arises out of the peculiar situation of Russian Social-Democracy as compared with that of Social-Democracy in other European countries and with that of the old Russian revolutionary parties. Apart from newspapers, the workers of Germany, France etc. have numerous other means for the public manifestation of their activity, for organising the movement -- parliamentary activity, election agitation, public meetings, participation in local public bodies (rural and urban), the open conduct of trade unions (professional, guild), etc., etc.
To be fair, parliamentary activity and election agitation are far, far worse mediums (media?) than paper sales. There are lots of legitimate criticisms to be made of paper sales, but they're nowhere near as bad as the car-crash that usually results when lefties run for office.

[KC]

You guys are getting soft. When I was in the SWP, we were expected to do a minimum of one 90-minute sale per week, with the constant pressure to do an extra one or two during the week.

Do you know if the SWP sells its paper at a loss? I know Socialist Alternative does (as they charge people a $1 donation, which is the cost to print it, so they would break even if they sold every single copy but they give a lot away and also they don't distribute all of them).


To be fair, parliamentary activity and election agitation are far, far worse mediums (media?) than paper sales. There are lots of legitimate criticisms to be made of paper sales, but they're nowhere near as bad as the car-crash that usually results when lefties run for office.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, much in the same way that I'm not arguing for a general halt to the publication of papers. However, given the circumstances of the US and many western European states (i.e. the very wide access to the internet and connection speeds) it is possible in my opinion to move online.

I don't think writing off any tactic as inherently bad regardless of circumstance is a good thing, and only goes to arbitrarily limit ourselves.

[Crux]

Our paper definatly serves a purpose in gaining and keeping sympathizers. While there may be otehr channels to do this aswell, a has been mentioned a paper is easy to bring with you to demonstrations and elsewhere and a good way to keep both emembers and sympathizers informed and a way for sympathizers to donate money. I think we have about 3000 subscribers which is apretty significant number here in sweden, especially for a paper such as our own.

[bricolage]

While obviously people who are willing to talk to socialists on the street are moving in our direction in one way or the other, it is definitely not been my experience that people are necessarily won to the ideas of revolution/workers power/marxism. Most aren't, actually.

Maybe they don't have a perfect Marxist programme in their head but when the push comes to shove they will be on our side. They aren't the people we should talking to, they are the ones who will go the effort of looking up things on the internet or looking for blogs, we need to be looking for the people who are saying yes this is shit but what's the alternative... then we present the alternative.


Who said getting a few people to join an organization makes a revolution? Selling papers takes up approx 50-60 minutes of each members time, weekly, it is hardly the extent of revolutionary activity. But you knew that.True, but you have to admit certain groups do place a ridiculously large emphasis on paper sales, it becomes almost an end in itself and a way of supposedly measuring how well they are doing. If you want to hand out papers for an hour or so then sure it's worth doing but don't make it anything more than it is.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Also, I think there's an argument to be made that local papers like the Hereford Heckler (http://herefordheckler.wordpress.com/) are more useful than national ones. They give more autonomy to local groups and individual members, and are more likely to be relevant to people on the street as well.

[chegitz guevara]

Local papers basically multiply the amount of work times the number of papers you have. Instead of one paper, you had dozens or hundreds. Then, the whole part is involved in making local papers.

One national paper not only unites the party, and saves a tremendous amount of effort, it also helps the workers see the struggles from around the country and realize they are part of something bigger.

Also, in a situation where the party is not a legal organization, having one paper (produced outside the country), makes it much less likely that the police can disrupt the organization.

All of the above makes up the final chapter of Lenin's What Is to Be Done?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Local papers basically multiply the amount of work times the number of papers you have. Instead of one paper, you had dozens or hundreds. Then, the whole part is involved in making local papers.
Yes, everyone has a say in how the party represents itself. I don't see this as being a bad thing.


Also, in a situation where the party is not a legal organization, having one paper (produced outside the country), makes it much less likely that the police can disrupt the organization.

Well, that's as may be, but seeing as the vast majority of posters here come from countries where revolutionary groups are legal, it's not very relevant.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yes, everyone has a say in how the party represents itself. I don't see this as being a bad thing.

What is this supposed to mean exactly? I can't understand what point your trying to make. Sorry.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What is this supposed to mean exactly? I can't understand what point your trying to make. Sorry.
I think that where you have a single centralised newspaper, there's an obvious limit on the amount of people who can contribute to it, so you end up with a small group of people (often physically centralised in the big cities) having a vast amount of control over how the entire organisation is perceived. Maybe this is inevitable, and obviously it's not always going to lead to problems all the time, but I do think it's a potential source of difficulties and something we should aim to avoid where possible. With local papers, you can counteract this to an extent by giving all grassroots members of an organisation the chance to express their views, which seems a lot healthier. In contrast, chegitz was complaining that "[t]hen, the whole party is involved in making local papers", in a way that clearly implied he saw it as a bad thing.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think that where you have a single centralised newspaper, there's an obvious limit on the amount of people who can contribute to it, so you end up with a small group of people (often physically centralised in the big cities) having a vast amount of control over how the entire organisation is perceived.

Why is this so necessarily? Why can you not have a centralised paper without having an unregulated and dictatorial editorial clique?

Also, I don't think it's true to say that a centralised paper limits the quantity of individuals able to contribute. If there is a problem with papers (qua regular publications) it is not their being too regular or too large!


Maybe this is inevitable, and obviously it's not always going to lead to problems all the time

Yes, this is true, and I said the same above (your qualification here makes my contribution somewhat redundant in this regard).


I do think it's a potential source of difficulties and something we should aim to avoid where possible.

But what is the correct means to avoid this difficulty? Is the solution to do away with centralised publications in favour of a myriad of local papers?


With local papers, you can counteract this to an extent by giving all grassroots members of an organisation the chance to express their views, which seems a lot healthier.

(Disregarding some contexts I won't consider here), I don't think a healthy organisation would have to resort to such drastic means.


In contrast, chegitz was complaining that "[t]hen, the whole party is involved in making local papers", in a way that clearly implied he saw it as a bad thing.

Obviously we can agree that what Chegitz has said here is rediculous, I think he may just have been expressing himself poorly. Chegitz, do you mean to say: "then, the whole of the party's energies are devoted in making local papers" - this by contrast is a legitimate concern.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why is this so necessarily? Why can you not have a centralised paper without having an unregulated and dictatorial editorial clique?
Obviously not everyone in the organisation can have a say in the paper's contents before it comes out. Trying to enforce that would just be completely unworkable.


Also, I don't think it's true to say that a centralised paper limits the quantity of individuals able to contribute. If there is a problem with papers (qua regular publications) it is not their being too regular or too large!
I agree that they're not too regular or too large. But, since revolutionary groups usually don't bring out large daily papers, there's obvious limits on the amount of space we have, meaning that there are physical limits on the amount of writers we can feature. And there are also limits on how big a functioning editorial committee can be - trying to get a group of 20 editors to agree on every article before a paper can come out would be a nightmare. So yes, I think there are very clear limits on how many people can contribute to any one paper.

But what is the correct means to avoid this difficulty? Is the solution to do away with centralised publications in favour of a myriad of local papers?
I never advocated doing away with centralised publications. But I think having both national and local papers gives a healthy balance, and prevents control over the group's image from being monopolised by a small group of people.

Chegitz, do you mean to say: "then, the whole of the party's energies are devoted in making local papers" - this by contrast is a legitimate concern.
Yes, if a party isn't capable of carrying on propaganda work and doing anything else then that is concerning. The local paper I'm involved with is four sides of A4 every two months, and if we didn't feel capable of doing that we could just do two sides. If having local groups putting their efforts into producing papers like that really makes a national organisation unable to do anything else, then something is badly wrong.

[chegitz guevara]

Yes, everyone has a say in how the party represents itself. I don't see this as being a bad thing.

The problem is, then they aren't doing anything else. If everyone is working on the local newspaper, who's organizing?

[chegitz guevara]

Obviously we can agree that what Chegitz has said here is rediculous, I think he may just have been expressing himself poorly. Chegitz, do you mean to say: "then, the whole of the party's energies are devoted in making local papers" - this by contrast is a legitimate concern.

That is what I meant. :blushing:

[The Ungovernable Farce]

The problem is, then they aren't doing anything else. If everyone is working on the local newspaper, who's organizing?
Everyone. I don't accept this dichotomy where people are unable to put out propaganda and do practical work. Producing a 4-page newspaper once every two months will not destroy a functioning group's ability to do anything else.

[The Idler]

There is a graphic about the decline of newspapers (http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/the-death-of-the-newspaper/?display=wide). Does this apply to small left newspapers aswell?

[UlyssesTheRed]

I don't think it's worth it anymore. It's like civil war re-enacting. One of the reasons I instantly liked the SEP was that they run a professional website that gets updated daily instead of going through the motions on paper sales.

[chegitz guevara]

Everyone. I don't accept this dichotomy where people are unable to put out propaganda and do practical work. Producing a 4-page newspaper once every two months will not destroy a functioning group's ability to do anything else.

A four page sheet every two months is not a newspaper. That's a club news letter.

[Red Saxon]

Contributing to some national fund for leftists could work, but if the feds would find out they'd confiscate the money fairly quickly and shut down the whole operations on the grounds of stopping a Revolution from taking place ( which is ironically what the British did before 1776 ).

Another thought, there will come a point where people will start robbing more and more banks. We could do this to help fund the Revolution, but the current climate isn't ripe for that.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Comrade being as I am new here and not too familiar with the rules I would not take my advice as gospel, but I do not think advocating bank jobs on a public forum which the police monitor is a good idea. Just a friendly warning.