Save the Socialist Standard

[alanjjohnstone]

JDW, what the SWP do (and what the WRP did) was to demand (conscript) their rank and file members into selling a quota of their paper. Has anybody actually seen Alex Callincos clutching a supply of Socialist Workers and selling them. I would be very surprised if anyone has. And we all know from our own participation on protests that the huge numbers of the Socalist Worker sellers (they don't even agree to do swapsies with me, so i am a bit hostile) is one of near-ridicule.Their reason for a print -run is more to do with party disciple, imho. Their rationale presented in your quotes are simply camouflage.I think anyone who has been a member or associated with their members will not recognise this representation they seek to present to the public about the relationship of people with their paper.The Trotskyist movement have decades and decades of putting forth arguments for a "worker paper". It is a core element of their structure – putting out a party-line. Perhaps if we are seeking to make comparisons,it should be apples with apples than apples and pears which would be closer and more valid for us to compare. 

[Anonymous]

Lew wrote:

Here are a few reasons for discontinuing the printed Standard:Sales of the printed Standard have been in decline for many years. There is no forseable and realistic change to that trend.

The Party membership has been in decline for some years. There is no reason to suppose that in the foreseeable future (foreseeable by most of us now living, that is) that trend will change. Should we therefore pack up shop and spend our lives doing something arguably more enjoyable and/or productive?

Quote:

More people read the Standard online than in print. It is reasonable to expect that trend to continue

There are still many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it.  What about them?

Quote:

The printed Standard consumes valuable resources in terms of money and members time. For the effort involved it reaches relatively few people.

The net cost of printing the Standard in 2014 (the most recent figures I can lay my hands on readily) was about £1500 and, according to last years’ Head Office Assistant, the total time spent dispatching the Standard each month by one person is around 6 hours. Hardly a drain on the party’s "valuable resources".

Quote:

Our website consumes very little resources in comparison to the printed Standard. For the effort involved its reach to the working class is limitless.

Agreed.  But the printed Standard and the online Standard are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Currently we have the Standard appearing monthly online, by which time some or all of the content is out of date. It's anachronistic to wait until the printed Standard comes out to see the Standard online

Quite possibly, but it's no argument for discontinuing the printed Standard.  The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

If articles for the Standard were edited and uploaded for as they arrive this would improve the "stickiness" for the website and people may return more often.

.Quite possibly, but it's no argument for discontinuing the printed Standard. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

We should be championing free access rather than following a failing model of capitalist consumerism.

We champion free access {i.e. the idea of socialism) by publishing the Standard which includes the printed version for the benefit of the many workers who would otherwise not hear about it.

Quote:

Last, but by no means least, this does not preclude HO, branches or individuals from printing off PDF copies of articles or whole Standards as required.

So instead of consuming "valuable resources" (i.e. that of cost and members' time) at Head Office it is proposed to transfer the effort to members elsewhere.[/quote]

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

The net cost of printing the Standard in 2014 (the most recent figures I can lay my hands on readily) was about £1500

Could you expand on this information.I note this it is net sum – so what are the sales figures that produce this.And is the sales figures Paul paying Peter ie the branches and members under-writing the cost than the actual "many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it." going out to buy each month's issue.2016 conference report for 2015 states that the cost of the Standard was £10,452 and i don't believe this includes the postage (But i stand to be corrected). 

[jondwhite]

I would say its not Leninist to have a printed regular publication but the Chris Harmam article is interesting enough to read in fullhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1984/xx/revpress.html

[alanjjohnstone]

JDW, my point was that an important element in the SWP's Socialist Worker was explained in a Socialist Standard article on leadership, referring to how the Trots use paper selling as "credential indicators" for new members. Again, come back to me when you see Chris Harman on the streets selling his party's paper. At least, i can safely say i have seen our EC members and Socialist Standard editors putting their "money" where their mouths are and actually selling the SS.As for his article written in 1984 before the advent of the internet, his evidence goes back to the early 19th C.And for all its historical interest and worth, scarcely an up-to-date analysis for even the 80s when magazines were just emerging from the days of the hand-cranked duplicator.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

The net cost of printing the Standard in 2014 (the most recent figures I can lay my hands on readily) was about £1500

Could you expand on this information.I note this it is net sum – so what are the sales figures that produce this.

Printing = £9615;  Sales, including subscriptions = £8388.  No separate figures available for Standard postage.

Quote:

And is the sales figures Paul paying Peter ie the branches and members under-writing the cost than the actual "many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it." going out to buy each month's issue.

Who knows?  But neither is there any guarantee that workers will read the Standard online.  That's why it's patently obvious we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket…

[Lew]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

There are still many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it.  What about them?

There are vastly many more workers who will never have the chance of buying a printed Standard. What about them?

Quote:

So instead of consuming "valuable resources" (i.e. that of cost and members' time) at Head Office it is proposed to transfer the effort to members elsewhere.

I did include HO (Head Office). But if members elsewhere want to take on that work, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Quote:

But neither is there any guarantee that workers will read the Standard online.  That's why it's patently obvious we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket…

 There is no guarantee that workers will read the Standard online or in print. But we do know that more and more workers are reading the Standard online. Nobody has suggested that we put all our eggs in one basket. All that is asked is that we redirect resources away from a media which is dying into a media which is thriving.– Lew

[alanjjohnstone]

Thanks for this Gnome.What is needed is more facts and information, so we can have a fully informed debate. I think it is vital for us to try and answer the "Who knows?" What is the total print-run?What is the SS postage separate from our general postage How many paid subscribers do we possessHow many institutions such as libraries get free copies (and can we determine if they are on display to be read)What are the branch bulk ordersWhat are the companion parties bulk orders.How many copies do the individual branches actually sell?How many does an individual member pass on to a fellow-worker?I can talk from being a branch lit sec that our branch subsidised our monthly order of a couple of dozen of Standards. We stocked the local "radical" bookshop with 5 or 6 issues for free and only very rarely did they sell them all. Just a few friends and sympathisers bought or were given a copy. Over the months we acquired a substantial amount of unsold excess Standards which were then distributed free at political events. What we must find out from the Internet Committee is how many "unique" visitors do we have to the online Standard, rather than just the Party website.How long are they staying on the website so to judge that they are indeed reading articles rather than using google search and then very quickly clicking on to the next website.What is the global geographical traffic sources and audience of the Online StandardHow many online comments are placed compared with letters to the editors (very few for either is my initial impression)I'm sure others can think of the questions they seek an answer from both the existing SS editors and the Internet folk and they should be posting their queries here and now. But just to briefly address your "we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket." We should not confuse or conflate an online digital version of the Standard with an e-zine. We are currently almost solely focused on the print edition with our resources going to that and have stopped short of expanding and enhancing the Standard into a fully fledged webzine.As i said in my initial post, i do not expect this Lancaster motion to succeed, but the issue ain't going away with one defeat and we need to know and understand fully what are the facts and what is at stake.  Let's not simply let our hearts rule our heads as many have done on this thread by declaring those sympathetic to change are crack-pots, crazy, thoughtless, acting detrimental to the Party (and i, myself, should be reproached for describing those defending the Standard as dinosaurs so apologies for that.)We'll be returning to this topic next year or the year after so let's  have answers for the "who knows' and understand what the ins and outs are for both sides of the argument. 

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

The net cost of printing the Standard in 2014 (the most recent figures I can lay my hands on readily) was about £1500

Could you expand on this information.I note this it is net sum – so what are the sales figures that produce this.

Printing = £9615;  Sales, including subscriptions = £8388.  No separate figures available for Standard postage.

Quote:

And is the sales figures Paul paying Peter ie the branches and members under-writing the cost than the actual "many workers who don't read the Standard online because they don't have online access and quite possibly choose not to have it." going out to buy each month's issue.

Who knows?  But neither is there any guarantee that workers will read the Standard online.  That's why it's patently obvious we should keep any and every option open and not place all our eggs in one basket…

Even the proposers of this absurd motion estimate that the standard runs at a loss of only about £1,000 per month, (which from my working of the figures is an over estimate.) Looking at party funds and balances, this means that one of the recent legacies to the party gives enough funds to run the Standard at present costs for the next 25 years! Surely the issue here is not cost, none of our propaganda activities have ever been set up to make a profit!The Standard reaches many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet (my mother is a long time member who is now pushing 91 and the Standard is her only monthly contact with the party), there are many others in a similar position. The difficulty with the net is that there is such a lot of stuff out there in cyber land that we can get lost in, unless your looking very specifically for our material your not likely to happen across it. The Standard, in public libraries, left lying on trains, etc. meets that particular area.If we restrict our propaganda activities to the internet, we are restriciting our contact with potential socialists, why would we chose to do such a thing?We also need to think long and hard about the message that this gives out. Our opponents would view it as us throwing in the towel and the message to companion parties across the world would be very, very disheartening.it seems to me that there has been a change of momentum in the Party, new and potentially successful ways of putting the party case have been initiated (Whiteboard, magazine inserts,etc.), Ithink morale about activitiy is picking this motion gives the Private Frazers of the gloom merchant wing of the party another chance to tell us that we're all doomed!

[Anonymous]

A powerful,closely argued posting from Lew which blows ALB's 'crackpot' thesis clear out of the water. And an equally cogent response from Gnome. How to decide? I am going to side with Gnome from a purely selfish motive, and it is this: what about those of us who like to read the Standard while ( or is it "whilst"? ) sat on the lav? 

[jondwhite]

Whether EC, CC or 'rank and file' (ugh hate that term) you can't sell / give me a PDF / e-zine in the street, at a meeting or on a demo. At least (if it were on a USB stick) not as easily, appealingly or cheaply as a printed magazine. (Particularly if you are Chris Harman who can do neither, since he died in 2009). This is one of the points that comes across in the SWP pieces (most written after the internet's popularity) and its not worth dismissing simply because of the fact they expect cadre to fulfil paper sale quotas, even if out of their own pocket.If everyone already has access to the internet on their phone in the pocket, you have to ask why online publications haven't already replaced printed publications? Why do printed publications still exist and advertisers still buy adverts in them?

[Anonymous]

Bob Andrews wrote:

what about those of us who like to read the Standard while ( or is it "whilst"? ) sat on the lav? 

I can just picture the lonely old  man – Bob Andrews – sitting for hours on the bog with constipation and no socialist standard to read.  Boring.Thanks for sharing that with us.I prefer to read it on line but I am not in favour of the Motion,  for the sound reasons given by Gnome, jondwight, Robbo, Tim and others. Alan makes some good points and it probably will be discussed again in the furure but the motion is not for today. It should be voted down. 

[alanjjohnstone]

"Even the proposers of this absurd motion"Tim, as i posted, we should not be using such perjorative words. It isn't absurd but a reasonable viewpoint that others may well disagree with. Claims and counter-claims are being made about the influence of both mediums and what is needed is what i have asked for – those in the respective committees, the SS and the Internet, begin to tell us the facts. Just what is the coverage of our circulation for the print standard and what could our audience be for a possible e-zine with all the bells?It is being argued by you that the print Standard is reaching "many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet" and by "restricting ourselves to the internet"  but who has actually proposed such a policy that we all become armchair activists in front of a key-board – (even those are redundant – it's all touch screen now) As world socialists many, many, many more fellow-workers and potential members are not receiving or having the Standard available to them and, imho, we should be reaching out to them the best we can at the least cost. As i mentioned to Robbo, there appears to a silence on the other item for conference – moving on from a branch based party to a nationally centred organisation with all the ramifications of restricting our contacts with other workers and being seen as throwing in the towel as you suggest your concerns are with an e-zine/webzine being made our priority. This well-known Private Frazer is trying his utmost to reverse the pessimistic prognosis i hold of the Party's future and becoming much more effective on the web is one such strategy which is well suited to incorporate our new ventures such as whiteboard animations. 

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"Even the proposers of this absurd motion"Tim, as i posted, we should not be using such perjorative words. It isn't absurd but a reasonable viewpoint that others may well disagree with. Claims and counter-claims are being made about the influence of both mediums and what is needed is what i have asked for – those in the respective committees, the SS and the Internet, begin to tell us the facts. Just what is the coverage of our circulation for the print standard and what could our audience be for a possible e-zine with all the bells?It is being argued by you that the print Standard is reaching "many people who do not have access to or the ability to use the internet" and by "restricting ourselves to the internet"  but who has actually proposed such a policy that we all become armchair activists in front of a key-board – (even those are redundant – it's all touch screen now) As world socialists many, many, many more fellow-workers and potential members are not receiving or having the Standard available to them and, imho, we should be reaching out to them the best we can at the least cost. As i mentioned to Robbo, there appears to a silence on the other item for conference – moving on from a branch based party to a nationally centred organisation with all the ramifications of restricting our contacts with other workers and being seen as throwing in the towel as you suggest your concerns are with an e-zine/webzine being made our priority. This well-known Private Frazer is trying his utmost to reverse the pessimistic prognosis i hold of the Party's future and becoming much more effective on the web is one such strategy which is well suited to incorporate our new ventures such as whiteboard animations. 

With all due respect Alan, I'll use whatever terms I choose to describe the motion. I think it is an absurd and badly timed motion, as that is my view I will express it. Hope all is well in the funeral parlour.Kind regardsTim

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

If everyone already has access to the internet on their phone in the pocket, you have to ask why online publications haven't already replaced printed publications? Why do printed publications still exist and advertisers still buy adverts in them?

Good question, JWD,  whereupon i reply why is the biggest corporations with the largest advertising incomes Google, Facebook, Twitter etc etc. The days of Hearst is past and the days of Murdoch is numbered. The press barons have been replaced by Zuckerman and other social media CEOs. The press all have online versions of their papers which are increasingly reducing their print-run and hard-copy circulation and as i said in another post, using various methods of pay-walls for revenue.A look at the American progressive/liberal outlets demonstrates it is the online ones that have high volume traffic figures. And perhaps one day we can aspire to a Democracy Now tv channel.  As you are a member who has promoted much more written material then i suggest we can hand out many more pamphlets. I have already proposed that we attend and distribute more leaflets/newssheets/special printed issues of the Standard at political occasions and where we have the opportunity.  

[Author]

Posts