Save the Socialist Standard

[alanjjohnstone]

Jacobin, may well be the exception to the rule having acquired circulation of 25-35,000, having started as online ezine. It has now 40,000 paid digital subscribers A quarterly and not a monthly magazine, something i also suggested the print Standard could become, if anyone cares to look back at my posts. But its web audience is one million, three hundred thousand.It has a paid circulation manager – 15 hours a week at $15 an hour. Someone else might tell me how many other paid positions are held. It accepts advertsThere are Jacobin Reading Groups in US – NortheastBaltimore, MDBoston, MABrooklyn, NYCape Cod, MANew Brunswick, NJPhiladelphia, PAQueens, NYSelinsgrove, PAStony Brook, NYSyracuse, NYWashington, DCUS – MidwestBloomington, INChicago, ILColumbus, OHDes Moines, IADetroit, MIIndianapolis, INIowa City, IAKansas City, KS/MOMadison, WIManhattan, KSMinneapolis/St. Paul, MNUS – SouthAtlanta, GAAustin, TXHarrisonburg, VAEl Paso, TXLexington, KYUS – WestCorvallis, OREast Bay, CAPortland, ORQuincy, CASalt Lake City, UTSan Diego, CASan Francisco, CASanta Barbara, CACanadaCalgary, ABCowichan, BCKelowna, BCMontreal, QCVictoria, BCInternationalBerlin, GermanyBrussels, BelgiumDublin, IrelandManila, PhilippinesMelbourne, AustraliaVienna, AustriaWarsaw, PolandCitoyensEditor & PublisherBhaskar SunkaraCreative DirectorRemeike ForbesManaging EditorNicole AschoffAssociate EditorShawn GudeMicah UetrichtEditorial BoardSeth Ackerman, Alyssa Battistoni, Mike Beggs, Megan Erickson, Peter Frase, Connor KilpatrickArt EditorErin SchellAssistant EditorsElla MahonyJen Hedler PhillisResearcherJonah WaltersEditorial AssistantsBranko MarceticRajeev RavisankarDuncan ThomasCarmen TriolaContributing EditorsBashir Abu-Manneh, Jonah Birch, Sebastian Budgen, Ronan Burtenshaw, Liza Featherstone, Sabrina Fernandes, Belén Fernández, Eileen Jones, Matt Karp, Cyrus Lewis, Chris Maisano, Scott McLemee, Gavin Mueller, Karen Narefsky, Catarina Príncipe, Kate Redburn, Corey Robin, Miya TokumitsuOutreach and DevelopmentJason FarbmanReading GroupsNeal MeyerCirculationKatrina FormanWeb 

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Commercial journal publishers are increasingly becoming E-only, as are libraries, so there is a chance that libraries will begin to refuse to stock the print standard (especially as it is available free online), so at the least, looking at cutting the free subs to libraries could save a few quid.

This appears to be conflating two different things. As I understand it, the only library Socialist Standard subscriptions are public libraries. The 'commercial journal publishers increasingly becoming e-only' are academic publishers and the libraries they provide are university libraries – which in any case ignores that multiple studies show students almost always prefer print to digital;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/print-textbooks-vs-ebooks_us_56ba4091e4b0b40245c4534e

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 But an absurd motion is simply insulting fellow members of your own organisation, particularly since it arose from the branch that had the Standard's ex-lay-out team in it, who i think we can say are not at all uninformed or out of touch with the Standard's production and its influences.

Would insulting a fellow member be a first strike for Tim if the branch's other absurd suggestion is taken up? 

[Anonymous]

I know we live in capitalism and have to abide by its laws but we should not base our decisions purely on the market and 'cost effectiveness. Bus routes and post offices are closed for the very same reason leaving people isolated. 

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Jacobin, may well be the exception to the rule having acquired circulation of 25-35,000, having started as online ezine. It has now 40,000 paid digital subscribers A quarterly and not a monthly magazine, something i also suggested the print Standard could become, if anyone cares to look back at my posts. But its web audience is one million, three hundred thousand.It has a paid circulation manager – 15 hours a week at $15 an hour. Someone else might tell me how many other paid positions are held. It accepts adverts

The adverts don't seem to provide the main funding for the publication.

Quote:

He's disarmingly forthcoming about the site's finances. Every full-time worker makes between $35,000 and $39,000 at the moment — "if you're a professional socialist, it's not that bad." The magazine gets insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, opting for a silver plan with a Flexible Spending Account. "People can get whatever health care they need," he says; I resist the temptation to make a cheap crack about his enthusiasm for corporatist sell-out health care reform.

Someone should e-mail Jacobin and tell them print media is dead and they need to go web-only.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Alan, if you dont like the Standard and/or don't read it or don't rate it, absolutley fine, but don't try and block others doing what they choose to do to propagate Socialist ideas.

Tim, are you trying to prohibit me from expressing my opinion on a motion that is to be put to the forth-coming annual conference of the Party and are you trying to silence me on this thread because you disagree with my contrary view to your own by creating a strawman argument, by accusing me of something i have not done? …………….. In no way am i trying to block what people do and you know only too well that i have defended some in the Party who have chosen their own way to propagate socialist ideas, from the provision of promotional items that others called trashy to uploading video to e-publishing party material as an individual………………….Once again a search of this list will show that i have been fairly consistent in my views for the party. Not only do i wish a webzine…………………..

I have no wish to prohibit you from expressing an opinion, as you well know. the point I made, which I suspect you fully understand, is that by voting to end the Standard you will be effectively "blocking others doing what they choose to propagate Socialist ideas". I am therefore putting forward the argument that you should not vote for this motion. As I understand it that is how debate works, you put forward one idea, I counter it, etc. etc. I do think the idea that I am trying to silence you on this thread (an impossible task anyway) is also dare I say it, absurd.You say that there is "No way am I trying to block what people want to do" but actually the effect of the resolution you support is precisely that.Ask yourself these questions:Do the people currently volunteering to produce the Standard "want to do" this work?Well the answer to that question must be yes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.Will voting to end production of the Standard stop them from doing that work?Yes, obviously if the Standard isn't produced, then they can't do the thing they currently want to do, can they?Therfore taking thing together, is voting for this resolution voting to stop people propagating in the way they want to? Yes, obviously it is and that is why I want you and others not to vote in favour of this resolution. It is devisive, badly timed and (in my opinion) absurd.Surely the way forward is to follow the "thousand flower" path. You say you want to produce a webzine, my view is that's fine, get enough volunteers from the Party to help you (if there's anything I can do by the way, just ask and i'll do what I can) and off you go. I don't see why you doing that should stop other members producing the Standard, if that's what they want to do and resoources aren't an issue.

[Young Master Smeet]

jondwhite wrote:

This appears to be conflating two different things. As I understand it, the only library Socialist Standard subscriptions are public libraries. The 'commercial journal publishers increasingly becoming e-only' are academic publishers and the libraries they provide are university libraries – which in any case ignores that multiple studies show students almost always prefer print to digital;

There did use to be a few academic libraries had subs, I wouldn't be surprised if they've closed them down in favour of E (for space and storage cost reasons); students may prefer print, but when they can't get access they hapily take E, and that does save a lot of cost and improve supply & access times.

[jondwhite]

Academic publishers actually have a terrible reputation (look up Elsevier) even among publishers that we would be unwise to try and emulate. They actually artificially impose supply and access restrictions on ebook availability in academic libraries and are notorious for not passing on cost savings. As for students happily taking e, I will have to take your word for it.

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Academic publishers actually have a terrible reputation (look up Elsevier) even among publishers that we would be unwise to try and emulate. They actually artificially impose supply and access restrictions on ebook availability in academic libraries and are notorious for not passing on cost savings. As for students happily taking e, I will have to take your word for it.

My experience is that most students hate ebooks, I spend a lot of time placating pissed off undergraduates who complain that there are "only four copies of the book in the library" and when I mention the e book version it doesn't really placate them much.

[alanjjohnstone]

The party has always had to pre-occupy itself with opportunity costs. Many have had their ideas blocked because the party has chosen not to fund them. It isn't undemocratic but allocating priority

Quote:

Ask yourself these questions:Do the people currently volunteering to produce the Standard "want to do" this work?Well the answer to that question must be yes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.Will voting to end production of the Standard stop them from doing that work?Yes, obviously if the Standard isn't produced, then they can't do the thing they currently want to do, can they?

Those who write for the print Standard will cease writing for the Socialist Standard e-zine and will not enjoy doing so? Is that your assumption, Tim? If so, it is one i do not share.

Quote:

You say you want to produce a webzine, my view is that's fine, get enough volunteers from the Party to help you (if there's anything I can do by the way, just ask and i'll do what I can)

The SOYMB bloggers have not heeded advice from those who wish only a few blog posts a week and we have stuck to our guns rightly or wrongly,  in producing a daily commentary of selected items from the news. And it pains us that fellow members don't even include it in their daily web surfs.  We have put out a cry in every report to conference and ADM for volunteers and contributors and these are all lost in the wind except for a few welcome exceptions. Perhaps the blog is seen as ineffective. Perhaps it is viewed as unimportant. But your generous offer of assistance is gratefully accepted, Tim.  JWD, someone should email the EC and tell them that if they are to succeed they need to first restrict access to the online version (which ALB took pleasure in poking fun at Lancaster about), employ several paid staff (even when we decline to pay a HO Organiser), accept adverts from commercial businesses some who we are expected to be hostile towards, and unlike those who say we shouldn't try to follow the example of for-profit publications on this thread, we should adopt a commercial ethos. But once more, let this be noted, there exists an amendment that if passed will still retain a print copy of the Standard (in book form) and from YMS post, i think NLB are willing to be very flexible on the frequency of this anthology. It would put a print Standard on the same quarterly standing as the print Jacobin, but allowing for a monthly e-zine same as Jacobin does which we would strive to make weekly and then update daily.  

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The party has always had to pre-occupy itself with opportunity costs. Many have had their ideas blocked because the party has chosen not to fund them. It isn't undemocratic but allocating priority

Quote:

Ask yourself these questions:Do the people currently volunteering to produce the Standard "want to do" this work?Well the answer to that question must be yes, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.Will voting to end production of the Standard stop them from doing that work?Yes, obviously if the Standard isn't produced, then they can't do the thing they currently want to do, can they?

Those who write for the print Standard will cease writing for the Socialist Standard e-zine and will not enjoy doing so? Is that your assumption, Tim? If so, it is one i do not share.

Quote:

You say you want to produce a webzine, my view is that's fine, get enough volunteers from the Party to help you (if there's anything I can do by the way, just ask and i'll do what I can)

The SOYMB bloggers have not heeded advice from those who wish only a few blog posts a week and we have stuck to our guns rightly or wrongly,  in producing a daily commentary of selected items from the news. And it pains us that fellow members don't even include it in their daily web surfs.  We have put out a cry in every report to conference and ADM for volunteers and contributors and these are all lost in the wind except for a few welcome exceptions. Perhaps the blog is seen as ineffective. Perhaps it is viewed as unimportant.

Thanks you Alan for making my point more strongly for me than I could.If the writers for the Standard wished to write for a daily e-zine then the opportunity is there for them to do that in the form of SOYMB, you have acknowledged as much.The fact that they do not indicates to me that they prefer to write for the Standard, are you arguing that we should close the Standard down in order to force the writing talent room the Standard into writing on the blog?Similarly you point out that SOYMB doesn't get the traffic you want it to, surely this is a biggest possible argument against converting the Standard to an e-zine. If the traffic to the Blog isn't great how will closing the Standard help create a bigger on line presence?

[alanjjohnstone]

Tim, I don't think we can describe the blog as a webzine. It will require a whole new design and reformatting the web-pages plus embedding music and video and increasing the mix of article themes.But a blog the nearest thing we currently have to something that can give a daily voice of the Party, since the media committee seem a bit reluctant to issue press releases.In fact, both blogs published posts on the SPGB's attitude to elections within a matter of an hour or two of May's announcement, whereas we need to await some weeks yet for the Standard's response, (Royal Mail permitting), when it is no longer news-worthy. As they say – old news is no news.And it is indeed worrisome that many members value our blogs so little and remain uninvolved with notable exceptions such as our regular poet and those who submit links of interest to follow up on.  But could this be because the blogs are viewed in some way as the "poor cousins", while an article in the Standard holds greater "prestige", bestowing authors with higher "status" and "esteem", which may well mean that the Standard is draining much-needed energy and channelling resources away from internet projects that have much to offer in potential.So you could draw the controversial conclusion that the print Standard is actually detrimental to putting forward the case for socialism (i wouldn't go as far as believing that but playing Devil's Advocate)But i am confident that with your future participation we can produce a more thought-provoking and stimulating blog which will bring new enthusiasm and a wider audience.The work entailed is no more demanding than posting on this forum. Contact:  spgb.blog@worldsocialism.org  for further detailsThe invitation is also open to anyone else who might be interested.

[alanjjohnstone]

Oh and my own apologies for neglecting to mention the sterling contributions of those members who are using Twitter and Facebook to advance the ideas of socialism. Unlike myself, they quietly get on with the task without whining and moaning.

[alanjjohnstone]

And Quora, too 

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Tim, I don't think we can describe the blog as a webzine. It will require a whole new design and reformatting the web-pages plus embedding music and video and increasing the mix of article themes.But a blog the nearest thing we currently have to something that can give a daily voice of the Party, since the media committee seem a bit reluctant to issue press releases.In fact, both blogs published posts on the SPGB's attitude to elections within a matter of an hour or two of May's announcement, whereas we need to await some weeks yet for the Standard's response, (Royal Mail permitting), when it is no longer news-worthy. As they say – old news is no news.And it is indeed worrisome that many members value our blogs so little and remain uninvolved with notable exceptions such as our regular poet and those who submit links of interest to follow up on.  But could this be because the blogs are viewed in some way as the "poor cousins", while an article in the Standard holds greater "prestige", bestowing authors with higher "status" and "esteem", which may well mean that the Standard is draining much-needed energy and channelling resources away from internet projects that have much to offer in potential.So you could draw the controversial conclusion that the print Standard is actually detrimental to putting forward the case for socialism (i wouldn't go as far as believing that but playing Devil's Advocate)But i am confident that with your future participation we can produce a more thought-provoking and stimulating blog which will bring new enthusiasm and a wider audience.The work entailed is no more demanding than posting on this forum. Contact:  spgb.blog@worldsocialism.org  for further detailsThe invitation is also open to anyone else who might be interested.

So effectively, what you are saying is that we should shut down the Standard because writers, members, sympathisers and others prefer the Standard, in the hope that they will start writing and reading the blog, which they don't currently because they prefer writing and reading the Standard.Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that the writing talents of the Standard would be willing to move over to the blog, or that the readership of the Standard would transfer to the blog, isn't that a bit like shooting all of the handsome blokes at the disco, on the off chance that you might finally get asked for a dance.

[Author]

Posts