This is a cross post by Mikey
The other day I had a guest post on Shiraz Socialist where I suggested that the requirement for members of revolutionary socialist parties to sell a party newspaper should be redundant in the age of the Internet. The post is copied below. In the comments section there, no one put up a solid defence for the newspaper, one wonders if they will here.
Time to ditch the paper: the Leftover Left and the newspaper
Last night I went to a debate betweenLaurie Penny and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (“AWL”). Others can write about what went on in the meeting, I just wish to rant about one point, an elaboration of the one I made from the floor: the redundancy of the printed newspaper for revolutionary socialist organisations.
Looking back over the last quarter of a century, Marxist parties have not grown: they have either become smaller or struggled to remain the same size. This is despite the fact that the key aim for a Trotskyist party is to build the party for the forthcoming revolution.
A standard method for recruitment, one that has remained unchanged since prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917, is that of publishing a newspaper and selling it. The acceptance for the need of the newspaper to spread ideas about the party and the revolution is unquestioned. The party is as wedded to the newspaper as a heroin addict to a syringe. Arguably more so: heroin addicts have been known to break their addiction.
Despite the fact that sales of national newspapers have been in a substantial decline, AWL have made the flabbergasting decision to increase the frequency of distribution.
Last night it appeared accepted by the majority that the revolution could not happen by anarchists on Twitter, those dubbed “Anarcho-Tweeters” by Laurie Penny. A vanguard party was needed for, if nothing else, to produce placards for demonstrations. I do not wish to discuss the need for a vanguard party, but simply whether the vanguard party needs a newspaper.
I list below some of the objections to doing away with a newspaper that I have heard, including some from last night, together with my own retorts:
1: Not everyone has access to the internet.
This is true, but most people do. In fact far more people have access to the internet than have access to the newspaper. This is because AWL do not have newspaper sellers all across the country. Far from it: the coverage of the country by AWL newspaper sellers is miniscule.
2: You need a newspaper for those without access to the internet.
If one were to take that argument to the extreme, then one could say that you need to produce a newspaper in numerous other languages for those that do not speak English and an audio version for the partially sighted and for those that cannot read and write.
3: Not everyone can afford to have an Internet connection.
This is certainly true. But what makes one think that if someone cannot afford an Internet connection that they can afford to purchase a newspaper. Yes, it is true that the cost of a subscription to a weekly produced revolutionary newspaper is a lot lower than the cost an internet connection, but it is not massively so. If finances are so tough then items likely to be cut from weekly budget are likely to include the newspaper. This is aside from the fact that by the end of this year all libraries should have free internet access. I very much doubt that all libraries subscribe to Solidarity, the weekly newspaper of the AWL.
4: People do not read articles on the Internet.
This is a myth, they do. One can consider the Guardian’s Comment is Free web site where not only are the articles widely read but thousands of comments are left per day on the Internet published articles. It is aside that I believe that if AWL spent some time redesigning its web site it might pick up more readers. A simple change for the better could be ensuring that instead of articles having over 25 words per line as they currently do, a more standard 12-15 words per line were used.
5: People are more likely to read an article if they pay for it.
I am not sure there is any good current evidence for this for articles that someone is interested in and are brought to their attention. I read far more articles that are free to me on the Internet than ones that I pay for. Besides, how many people take a subscription to a journal and get so behind in their reading that copies remain unopened from one week to the next to the point where the backdated copies are simply thrown away?
6: Selling newspapers is an excuse to chat to people about politics.
I have news for those who make that claim. I, like many people, have spoken for numerous years to different people about politics and have never once tried to sell any of them a newspaper.
7: When the revolution comes, the ruling class will cut off access to mobile phones and the Internet.
This argument was provided from the floor last night. By this logic I should use candles to read with because come the electricity strike my electric lights will not work. It is a ridiculous argument. Even revolutionary socialists must accept that the conditions are far away from the working class starting a revolution. Besides, just as I can keep candles in a bottom draw to be prepared for an electricity strike, revolutionary parties can keep their printing presses on standby for the eventuality that the Internet is switched off.
8: You cannot express complex ideas in a Tweet that is restricted to 140 characters.
This was another argument from the floor last night. This is true but Twitter allows links. As such, in less than 140 characters, a Tweet can be written suggesting an article is read with a link provided to that article. As an example: “Read this article on the UK Uncut campaign. Great Interview with activists. http://tinyurl.com/ukuncutinterview #ukuncut”
9: Selling newspapers is a discipline. Party members need to be disciplined and selling newspapers, tough as it is, shows commitment.
One former leading activist within AWL informed me of a fact that makes logical sense—selling papers costs more members than it gains. For every new member attracted to the movement as a result of purchasing a newspaper, more than one drops out as they get fed up spending their Saturday afternoons standing outside Sainsbury’s or knocking on doors trying to sell the blasted things. The revolutionary parties could make the revolution fun, but that is not what they want to do—they want to make it miserable. Perhaps the revolutionary parties could ponder this point.
In so far as discipline, members can be encouraged to engage in politics on line by writing blogs, commenting on other people’s blogs, entering into debates on Facebook and Twitter, things that many members possibly do already and do not mind doing. In such discussions, members can encourage others interested to attend a party meeting and potentially even join the party.
10: Both can be done. We can produce and sell a newspaper and encourage members to have an online presence.
I do not think you get the key point above—people do not enjoy selling newspapers. They might enjoy talking to people about politics, but they do not need to sell them a newspaper to do that. It is not a necessity of a political conversation that a newspaper changes hands.
It is true that people could spend, for example, four hours a week involved in on line debates and two hours a week selling newspapers, but if you cut out the time selling newspapers they could spend six hours a week in on line debates. Two hours of on line time I would think should be much more productive than two hours knocking on doors.
None of what I am saying stops the party asking members to hand out free flyers to people on a demonstration inviting them to attend a party meeting on a given subject; it just removes the dreaded paper sale. I know, I expect to get a comment on this article from the one person who loves going out in the snow and selling newspapers for the party they devote their life to. I ask them to consider not just themselves but all the other party members. Unsold newspapers stacking up under the beds of party members have been a long running truism for many in Trotskyist parties.
Laurie Penny has over 12,000 followers on Twitter. Her high profile cannot simply be put down to the fact that she is a journalist for the “bourgeois press.” There are plenty of otherjournalists for that press, including senior journalists who have nowhere near the amount of followers that she has. Part of the reason that she has gained so many followers is, without the benefit of a party, she has been very active tweeting about anti government demonstrations for the benefit of activists.
The official Workers’ Liberty Twitter account currently has a grand sum of 65 followers. Had less time been spent on producing and selling a newspaper and more time on developing an Internet presence, this sorry state of affairs might not have occurred. Someone might even have found the time to use the account to send a Tweet advertising last night’s debate.
Rant Over.