RE: Replacing _The Nation_ ? was: Re: The Nation Magazine's tain ted liberalism

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>

"The most urgent task for the left is to develop a mass-circulation
alternative to the Nation Magazine that relies on the grass roots rather
than liberal millionaires. Such alternatives are taking shape right now with
the Counterpunch web and print editions, but much more is needed with the
survival of the human race at stake."

- - - - - - -

I am trying to make up my mind about this proposition, whether it's true,
what it would mean, etc.  The following are not rhetorical questions, they
are intended as 'real discussion':

(a) While a mass-circulation left publication would certainly be good, I'm a
tiny bit confused about why it should be pitched as an "alternative to the
Nation".  In my experience, not more than one out of 50 of the people whom
we engage with have actually bought The Nation.  A larger proportion have
seen the website, but they aren't guided by it in their activities.  So my
question, Louis, is whether you are thinking that we need something that can
get specifically at the stratum of people who DO relate to The Nation.  The
follow-up question would be whether this is a logically possible idea, or
whether that stratum relates to The Nation precisely because they are
committed to the kind of politics that The Nation actually represents.

(b) For the sake of discussion, how would this hypothetical publication
differ from (1) Mother Jones, (2) the old Guardian newspaper of the 1960's,
or (3) Z?  or (4) some other existing thing?  OR, for that matter, (5) the
Marxmail digest?

(c) Is there some existing entity, Counterpunch for example (on
conflict-of-interest grounds I am not mentioning swans.com), that could be
'boosted' into a more prominent role?  Or would it be better to start fresh?

(d) If it were better to start fresh, how to deal with the following
contradiction: if one or two editors with a vision in mind get it up and
running, then they won't be representative, accountable, etc.; but if some
big left committee gets it up and running, it will be like a 'typical
committee product' and won't print opinionated stuff.

(e) How important is the paper side of it all?

Louis? anyone?

LPa


Response: I believe that a mass-circulation and reporting/unifying
publication is necessary for the obvious reasons; the same reasons "The
Spark" was necessary for mass movement building towards the Bolshevik
Revolution.

At the risk of being a bit parochial, some may take a look at old copies of
Dark Night Field Notes--the operative word in the title is "Field" as in
from the Field. There are lessons to be learned and shared; there are useful
"facts on the ground" that can only be gathered in the Field where they are
occurring by those intimately involved in the conditions
generating/embodying those facts; there are contending forces vying for
legitimacy some of which appear radical but can only be assessed by
examining their actual work, ideologies and connections in the Field; there
are opinions more worthy of being considered (facts, reasoning, evidence,
closeness to issues/conditions being written about etc) than others; there
are scattered and scarce radical resources that need to be integrated and
shared; there are setbacks and advances that need to be learned from; there
are movements in need of exposure and support from others; there are
isolated individuals, proxies for whole groups and movements, in need of
exposure and support; there are theoretical and data sources in need of
being shared and spread; there are pseudo-radicals and pseudo-radical
doctrines in need of exposure. These are but some of the needs and
imperatives in need of being addressed for which a national mass-circulation
periodical would be useful.

Jim Craven

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.