The Socialist Workers Party said it sold 275 new subscriptions to the party newspaper The Militant in the first week of an “international subscription campaign.” Alyson Kennedy, the party’s 2008 vice presidential nominee, said, “Many of the Mexican workers who bought subscriptions related recent run-ins with immigration cops. Several other new subscribers expressed dislike for the health care ‘reform’ bills and were attracted by the Militant headline saying ‘Guarantee Medical Care For All.’”
Socialist Workers Party sells 275 new subscriptions to party newspaper
September 26th, 2009 · 8 Comments
Filed Under: Socialist/left parties

8 responses so far ↓
1 Gene Berkman // Sep 26, 2009 at 9:31 pm
The Socialist Workers Party is run as a business by Jack Barnes & Mary-Alice Waters. Members provide dues and free labor, producing and selling the party propaganda.
The Militant carries little real news and the most interesting part of the Militant newspaper each week is the scoreboard listing new subscriptions obtained by each local.
The number of subscriptions refers to trial 10 week subscriptions – few of the subscribers renew after 10 weeks so the SWP carries out subscription drives several times a year.
2 Trent Hill // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I find it incredibly ironic, and hilarious, that the Socialist Workers Party sells a newspaper. How capitalistic.
3 Preston // Sep 26, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I find it incredibly ironic, and hilarious, that libertarians drive on public roads and enjoy public parks.
Libertarian: “What choice do we have?”
Exactly.
4 Mik Robertson // Sep 27, 2009 at 12:49 am
I don’t think there is anything incongruous in recognizing a distinction between commons and property in libertarian thought. The idea is to maximize liberty.
Economists may joke that a libertarian is someone who lies awake at night worrying that there may be a mile of publicly-owner sewer pipe somewhere, but that is really not the case.
If you believe there is only commons and no private property, then it would be ironic to sell newspapers.
5 paulie // Sep 27, 2009 at 11:43 am
Steve Newton has a good reply at
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-talking-point-youre-hypocrite-if.html
Some of my (Delaware)Liberal friends think that the Kos-generated Teabagger Pledge is sort of the ultimate Gotcha for those who fervently believe in limited government. I’m not a Teabagger, but Libertarians are often attacked with the smug If you don’t believe in government services, don’t use them (asshole) [implied--unless donviti wrote it, in which case he is man enough to say what he's really thinking]. So cassandra, for example, appears to believe the following list is something like the final word [I have cut in my comments in bold:
Here’s the bottom line: Folks who believe in cradle-to-grave government programs to cover virtually every aspect of life not only demand that everybody else pay for them, but they also demand that we publicly pretend we agree with them.
Then they call us hypocrites when, most of the time, the government has made it either illegal or impossible to avoid using those services, which we have paid for just as well as them.
It makes for cute blogging inside a self-referential community where everybody agrees with everybody else that it is immature, improper, or inappropriate to raise the issue of what the government should or should not be paying for, but it is in fact a cheap, lying talking point on the level with death panels or doctors performing amputations because they will make more money that way that by treating their patients.
In other words, the people promulgating this bullshit know it is bullshit, but they throw it against the wall just to see where it will stick.
6 Trent // Sep 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“I find it incredibly ironic, and hilarious, that libertarians drive on public roads and enjoy public parks.
Libertarian: “What choice do we have?”
Exactly.”
Not comparable. Libertarians are forced to use public roads because of a monopoly granted by the government. The socialists, however, are free to run their own worker-owned newspapers and give them away for free!
7 scatterbrain // Oct 4, 2009 at 9:10 am
There’s a lot of things I could say, but this just couldn’t be avoided:
“Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)”
The “socialist FAA”?
You are just f****** deranged…
8 Theo Bustelo // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Newspapers and other print media are part of the public discourse and it’s been that way for hundreds of years. Every serious political current has a medium in which to express their political position and I haven’t heard of one that uses that medium as a profit making entity.
It just seems like a stupid argument to me that the SWP isn’t really socialist because of how they distribute their paper. And, of course, such arguments are always made without any reference to any argument made in any Marxist literature. Did Marx say that the paper of the communist party had to be free? How about Lenin?
I’ve read what Lenin had to say about the paper the Bolsheviks produced and I don’t remember anything about it being free.
Leave a Comment