The newspaper as a polemical alternative

[Q]

I'll be proposing this idea at our next national meeting as a new direction for our paper. I was wondering at how people thought about it here as I think this problem touches many organizations. I excuse myself for any translation mistakes I made as the proposal was drafted in Dutch.


Our newspaper is the means to intervene in the labor movement. But if you look to our subscribers, this is at an extremely low level. This is odd considering that right now there is a growing need in the search for answers and alternatives to the current misery. So how do we explain this discrepancy? Of course there are several factors, including our little impact and the fact that the labor movement isn't that active due to the treacherous role of the union leadership, but I also think that the setup of our paper raises a threshold for ourselves.

The old slogan of the Marxist movement in terms of party building is agitation, education, organization and my position is that we focus too much on agitation. It is in fact only agitation. And although of course agitation has a function in the mobilization of the movement around a slogan, this must be balanced. Agitation alone will not develop the movement. I think most of us when selling the newspaper will know the argument that people already know what the paper will say and indeed we repeat points quite often. And although in itself not bad to repeat, we can by this, by the tone of agitational discourse and by the fact that we have limited space, never really go in depth. It necessarily remains at superficial slogans and texts that call for something.

I therefore propose a change so we can give more attention to those other two words in that old slogan - education and organization - and thereby give more attention to political deepening. How? For that we can look back to historical examples. Die Neue Zeit before 1914 edited by Kautsky played a central role in the theoretical development of the labor movement, it was a political center, which means a focus point of the movement. The other example is probably better known by the comrades and was based on Die Neue Zeit, namely Iskra edited by Lenin.

Now, what was so special about these newspapers? That was the setup. For it was in the first instance a place of discussion and debate. Not only between the party and the masses, but also comradely differences of opinion were cleared on the pages of these papers. It was in this respect the foundation of the democratic traditions of both the SPD and RSDLP and later the Bolsheviks.

Why is an open platform important? There are four arguments to clarify. First, the political education of the labor movement. If we open up the paper for discussion and debate it will inevitably form a direct reflection of developments in society. Of course we already follow developments closely, but we treat the worker as a consumer who reads them and not as a potential activist who can help along and can think of a better world and a stronger labor movement. If that discussion therefore reflects on our pages, we can thus gain a central position in the public debate with the aim to try and form the political leadership of the labor movement. In other words, a political center in the labor movement with the central question of how the labor movement can be build and what strategy and programmatic issues needed to achieve this, is central to building a revolutionary party.

Reason two is the same logic but applied to the organization. If we publish critical letters or even articles that attack our political positions, then that compels us to elaborate further on our positions, where necessary to further develop them and present them in a clear way. It is thus an ideal tool for cadre training of our comrades. But the point goes deeper. Disagreements within the organization due to new members or new developments in society in this situation should then be clearly formulated, so the discussion reaches higher quality. From this flows again an educational value to the rest of the labor movement. There is a reciprocal relationship between the organization and discussion within the wider public debate, we are then much more an integral part of the movement.

Point three is also related to points one and two, but is more specifically about other leftist organizations. And I think it would be good to discuss more about the shortcomings and differences with other leftist organizations. Examples are primarily the SP, but also IS and NCPN / CJB - who have some influence on the movement. Of course this does not mean that we must use all our resources in polemics with other organizations, but where they have an influence we must address them mercilessly and provide political clarity.

Reason four and last but not least is one reason around the aspect of unity and organization. If we build a revolutionary party then discussion and debate is inevitable and the more open we are about it, the better it is in terms of building and safeguarding unity. To demonstrate this point, I raise the negative example of the Trotskyist movement today. If you follow the history of our tradition there are roughly two reasons for splits: political disagreement and the undemocratic climate of the organization, and in fact, these reasons only two sides of same coin.

If we want unity to develop between the revolutionary forces on a principled basis, then we can not escape to discuss this. And not only internally, but rather public so not only clarity can be reached and political training in ideas, but also to pro-actively search the unity with other forces in the movement.

In summary: I note that our newspaper in its current form simply is not capable for the job. Even if we increase our subscribers up to one hundred times, it still offers no platform on which we can build the labor movement on a revolutionary basis. I therefore propose a polemical alternative to our newspaper in which it will play the role of political center on which basis we have an educational and organizational function for our organization and the working class in general.

[KC]

Edit

[Q]

Newspapers are dinosaurs. Advocating any kind of newspaper is just trying to live in the past. Ditch the newspaper and use the resources elsewhere.
A fair enough point. But what do you then suggest? To simply rely on websites, blogs, youtube, etc? I think that is a mistake. Websites don't let you intervene in the class struggle. Of course, in a few years time when e-paper becomes common, I expect this topic to change dramatically in a qualitative sense.


Why on earth would you want a newspaper to play the role of political center? Why do you think it's even possible? Or are you just going along with that line because that's what the Bolsheviks did?
Basically yeah ;)

Seriously though I think I elaborated on the mechanism why political centers are necessary for building a party in the OP, here:

Of course we already follow developments closely, but we treat the worker as a consumer who reads them and not as a potential activist who can help along and can think of a better world and a stronger labor movement. If that discussion therefore reflects on our pages, we can thus gain a central position in the public debate with the aim to try and form the political leadership of the labor movement. In other words, a political center in the labor movement with the central question of how the labor movement can be build and what strategy and programmatic issues needed to achieve this, is central to building a revolutionary party.

[KC]

Edit

[Die Neue Zeit]

Could food banks also serve as political centers?

[Devrim]

What purpose does a newspaper serve that a website cannot that can't be augmented in other, more productive ways?

Here's my argument in a nutshell. Most organizations put a ton of financial and labor resources into producing their newspaper. They typically don't break even, and often operate at a loss (here, for example, Socialist Alternative sells copies of their paper Justice at cost, so any papers that aren't sold generate a loss, which is monthly, because nobody sells every single copy of a paper). Now, in my opinion it would be much more beneficial to move the entire operation online (most organizations already have copies of their paper online, anyways), which will significantly reduce both financial and labor costs. This frees up a ton of resources that the organization can divert elsewhere.

I think that you have a good point here. I think the importance of the Internet will change the way we relate to our press in many ways. I don't think that it destroys the need for a paper completely though.

For example, our organisation runs a website in 19 languages, publishes papers in 9, and has a theoretical magazine in 8 (It may be higher. I am not sure about all the papers). I think we need to rethink what where we allocate resources, and have advocated turning the theoretical magazine in Swedish, for example, into a purely on-line thing. It is a country, which I imagine has high internet access, and I presume that most people who buy our theoretical magazine know who we are, and our web address already. On the other hand I wouldn't advocate this with the English version as I think that it is important to have an English language publication, and also because we sell most copies of it in India, which I'd imagine doesn't have the same internet access.

I think you have to assess each case individually.

Devrim

[cenv]

For example, wouldn't it be better to show up at a strike with a pamphlet specifically written towards the strikers which can go into more detail than a newspaper article plus maybe some other kind of support such as coffee, food or money towards a strike fund? Why would you think it's better to just show up with a newspaper (I'm assuming resources remain constant, of course)? Why do you think the only method of "interven[ing] in the class struggle" is by distributing a newspaper (not that you're alone in this; the entire left is that delusional)?I agree with this. Everyone and their dog has a newspaper now, and passing out newspapers isn't going to turn many heads. But putting together specific pamphlets that make people look at things in new ways and start asking questions can accomplish a lot.

Another problem is that newspapers tend to become by communists for communists. Analyses of contemporary events inevitably slip into Marxist jargon, and there's no room to explain the basic ideas behind the paper's perspective. So while communists will read along and nod their heads, most workers will be immediately turned off -- and the result is that instead of agitating, educating, or organizing, we end up preaching to the choir.

Of course, newspapers can be a helpful tool, but they aren't the tool. Presenting the news and shaping the way we see "current events" is one of the cornerstones of the reproduction of bourgeois ideology, and if we try to fight the battle of ideas only on the level of the news, we're fighting on a plane completely saturated by bourgeois power. By focusing our struggle around the form of the bourgeois newspaper, we just end up in a shouting match with the bourgeoisie.

However, I agree with Q's point about making publications more polemical. We need to make sure we engage people in critical discussion and thought, as opposed to trying to pound our slogans and analyses into their heads.

[KC]

Edit

[Devrim]

I said this in the other thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1552008&postcount=61):

Fair enough, I think you are right that we have to reconsider the way that we look at the question of a paper. I think there is too much of a do it because we have always done it that way attitude. We have to take lots of things into consideration though.

I think that we need an English theoretical journal because English is such a widely used language and because of India. The same applies to Spanish with respect to South America. I don't think that we need for a example a French one, but our French section is our largest, so it is comparitivly a smaller tax on our resources.

With regard to the alternatives, these also have to be considered carefully. In Turkey, I think that leaflets for example are a very worthwhile option. Few groups actually produce them. Having gone on demonstrations in London, and having come home with enough leaflets to reconstitute half a rain forest, I would doubt whether the same applies there. If people buy a paper, I think that they are more likely to read it than any one of numerous leaflets.

An important issue is the allocation of resources. Most of our publications cost us money to produce and don't make a profit. We must recognise this. For us the price on a paper isn't about making back the outlay. Sure, we don't want to lose money, and would like to lose less, but we also think it is important that workers contribute towards the cost of revolutionary organisations as well as the aforementioned fact that people are more likely to read something they have paid for.


I agree with this. Everyone and their dog has a newspaper now, and passing out newspapers isn't going to turn many heads. But putting together specific pamphlets that make people look at things in new ways and start asking questions can accomplish a lot.

Things are already tailored towards events. I think that during the last long running strike in this country, the Telekom strike, every cover we did was on that strike. If there is a big demonstration coming up, of course the cover is tailored towards that. However, maybe we also want to address people on other issues as well as the specific one they are concerned with.


Another problem is that newspapers tend to become by communists for communists. Analyses of contemporary events inevitably slip into Marxist jargon, and there's no room to explain the basic ideas behind the paper's perspective. So while communists will read along and nod their heads, most workers will be immediately turned off -- and the result is that instead of agitating, educating, or organizing, we end up preaching to the choir.

But then I think you have to look at your audience and what you want to say to them. I think Q recognises this. I also think his proposal is very influenced by the CPGB.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

Point three is also related to points one and two, but is more specifically about other leftist organizations. And I think it would be good to discuss more about the shortcomings and differences with other leftist organizations. Examples are primarily the SP, but also IS and NCPN / CJB - who have some influence on the movement. Of course this does not mean that we must use all our resources in polemics with other organizations, but where they have an influence we must address them mercilessly and provide political clarity.

What if they aren't interested in polemicizing with you? If that happens, will the paper just publish any old gossip about those groups, just like the WW? Or will it be something like this site (http://sptransparant.blogsome.com/), but for the entire left? :lol:

As for the wider paper discussion, I can't help but notice a bit of Soviet nostalgia in the way some people idolise the role of the paper. As if we're still in the early 20th century, and our papers are close to having the potential impact of Iskra and Pravda back then. But the communist paper should not be disposed of entirely, either. Younger sympathizers still often express that they would like to have a well-made paper of the communist youth, to have something concrete in their hands to work with instead of just referring people to some website.

Still, the role of the internet will be indispensable in the end. First of all, the emergence of social networking is important, and our group has taken a modest step in that direction by forming a group on Hyves (the Dutch equivalent of Myspace I guess) that has over 400 members now. However, much more importantly, there is a lot of technology available that should be used. If you have a few people with journalistic experience, a good camera and a Youtube account, you can already start producing quality video news of actions, but also broader things. At the moment, all left groups only do this sporadically. I guess developing this is also a matter of time, because the left is small and skilled people aren't readily available. But I think it will be inevitable.

Just my €0.02.

[RHIZOMES]

A fair enough point. But what do you then suggest? To simply rely on websites, blogs, youtube, etc? I think that is a mistake. Websites don't let you intervene in the class struggle. Of course, in a few years time when e-paper becomes common, I expect this topic to change dramatically in a qualitative sense.

e-papers are already common, and fast replacing newspapers as the main source of information for most people. The problem is bourgeois news sources have been far more quick to realize this than the far left has been.


If you have a few people with journalistic experience, a good camera and a Youtube account, you can already start producing quality video news of actions, but also broader things. At the moment, all left groups only do this sporadically. I guess developing this is also a matter of time, because the left is small and skilled people aren't readily available. But I think it will be inevitable.


This is something I'm really keen on doing - investing in a good camera and contributing to the Workers Party Youtube channel (which currently only has videos mostly from the Wellington branch).

[Tower of Bebel]

We have similar discussions in Belgium because of our own planned reforms. Instead of producing a weekly or bi-monthly the party's leadership opted for keeping the monthly. Regarding news the focus should be on the website while the monthly paper should be some sort of a huge pamflet (12 pages of A3 paper) with more articles focused on tactics and strategy. This will define a new balance between paper and other media: the newspaper will be used for activism and the website as a daily source of news.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My letter (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/797/letters.php): Two papers



Regarding the recent article, ‘The polemical alternative’, ideally, the CPGB should have two papers and not one (December 3).

The current Weekly Worker has a mix of at least four things: “reporting on and polemicising against other sections of the left” (what ill-informed leftists would call ‘gossip’ and ‘rumour’); the economy, as suggested by Yassamine Mather; ‘speaking to the masses’, à la Socialist Worker, The Socialist and Morning Star; and political programme.

Right now, I see a bit of a deficiency in the area of political programme (albeit one acceptable for a newspaper of the current mix). To be sure, comrade Paul Cockshott has contributed his programmatic two cents on this core, and Arthur Bough has written about cooperatives in the past, but so many other aspects need to be covered.

The ideal is indeed two newspapers, à la Vorwärts and Die Neue Zeit of the pre-World War I Social Democratic Party of Germany. Clearly, one paper is more agitational, while the other educational. Put ‘speaking to the masses’ and both commentary and theory on the economy in the agitational newspaper, and both the ‘gossip’ and political programme in the educational newspaper. Some might argue that this is a broad, economistic set-up, but I would cite the SPD precedent.

Jacob Richter

[Tower of Bebel]

Both German papers were organizationally weak and this also affected their agitational and educational characteristics. The only time when there was some serious discussion about organization was when Luxemburg brought the SPD's bureaucratism to the fore. And everybody knows the strenghts and weaknesses of Luxemburgs arguements. I think that the Pravda was a far better example. It was the combination of the two, but stronger on the aspect of organization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If you're suggesting three newspapers, one for each part of Wilhelm Liebknecht's famous slogan, then I'm in agreement with you. I was just suggesting the next step for the CPGB (having the education, now building up the agitation). ;)

BTW, I think the modern Vorwarts is more organizational these days. The neoliberal SPD doesn't have much stuff to educate and/or agitate its members on.

[MarxSchmarx]

Everything said about moving to online/multimedia model is key if we want to retain a healthy leftist journalism scene. We should also continue producing dead trees, but these can no longer be a viable center piece of our messaging.

Indeed, if we are to have actual paper-news papers, I think the Belgian approach described above, where the website has more discussions that lend themselves to interactive approaches (e.g., theoretical discussions) is a natural place to start.



Regarding the recent article, ‘The polemical alternative’, ideally, the CPGB should have two papers and not one (December 3).

The current Weekly Worker has a mix of at least four things: “reporting on and polemicising against other sections of the left” (what ill-informed leftists would call ‘gossip’ and ‘rumour’); the economy, as suggested by Yassamine Mather; ‘speaking to the masses’, à la Socialist Worker, The Socialist and Morning Star; and political programme.

Right now, I see a bit of a deficiency in the area of political programme (albeit one acceptable for a newspaper of the current mix). To be sure, comrade Paul Cockshott has contributed his programmatic two cents on this core, and Arthur Bough has written about cooperatives in the past, but so many other aspects need to be covered.

The ideal is indeed two newspapers, à la Vorwärts and Die Neue Zeit of the pre-World War I Social Democratic Party of Germany. Clearly, one paper is more agitational, while the other educational. Put ‘speaking to the masses’ and both commentary and theory on the economy in the agitational newspaper, and both the ‘gossip’ and political programme in the educational newspaper. Some might argue that this is a broad, economistic set-up, but I would cite the SPD precedent.



This is a valid point, although one must admit that the one paper format has several concrete advantages such as:

- reduced production and distribution costs
- easier archiving for readership
- wider audience

Also, it has less tangible benefits like branding and avoiding bureaucracy between staff. Finally, maybe having the "gossip" stuff moved to a website would be another way to address the different needs you point out.

[Q]

This discussion has somewhat focused not on the political point of the polemical paper, but more on the presentational point of how it is published (internet versus printed paper). Let me be clear I fully agree on the presentational point made in this discussion and it has strongly influenced my proposal. So I now have two points in my proposal: a political and a presentational one in which I argue for an online publication and specific leaflets for intervening in the class struggle. This is particularly valid in the Netherlands where the internet penetration is one of the highests on the planet. Maybe I'll translate the updated proposal aswell.

But are there more thoughts on the political point behind the polemical argument?

[Tower of Bebel]

If you're suggesting three newspapers, one for each part of Wilhelm Liebknecht's famous slogan, then I'm in agreement with you.
Just one should be fine. And it should be a website instead of a paper. Either the amount of papers you produce should be small, or the paper should be reduced to something looking like a pamflet or acting like it. But I wonder whether their is sufficient democratic leaverage to keep a website open to all opinions.

[MarxSchmarx]

This discussion has somewhat focused not on the political point of the polemical paper, but more on the presentational point of how it is published (internet versus printed paper). Let me be clear I fully agree on the presentational point made in this discussion and it has strongly influenced my proposal. So I now have two points in my proposal: a political and a presentational one in which I argue for an online publication and specific leaflets for intervening in the class struggle. This is particularly valid in the Netherlands where the internet penetration is one of the highests on the planet. Maybe I'll translate the updated proposal aswell.

But are there more thoughts on the political point behind the polemical argument?

I gather you are referring to the points about e.g., encouraging debate, compare/contrast with other groups, opennness, etc...?

Since you ask, I don't think these points should be controversial. At least not at this stage of the struggle.

It's also worth pointing out that what you call the "presentational" points also greatly facilitate many of these goals. For instance, as someone pointed now anybody can post a video of a demonstration or something on youtube taken on a phone right away. This can do a lot to promote many of the stated political objectives.