Talk:Daily Worker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Was the British Daily Worker the same paper or another publication? TIA, Mmartins
DJSilverfish: as the CPUSA articulates, the CPUSA was a Comintern organization, and not a domestic enterprise seeking a domestic agenda; neither were its objectives limited to domestic politics. Its funding sources also, were not entitely domestic. This is a disception, to state that the New Masses were a Communist Party of the USA publication, because both adhered to the Communist International Party line, and this needs to be clearly articulated, given Comintern activities worldwide in the 1920s, 30s & 40s. Nobs01 18:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The relationship of the CPUSA to the ComIntern is well known and has been clearly articulated in the CPUSA entry. The Daily Worker outlasted the ComIntern by more than ten years, so the emphatic reference to DW being "a Comintern publication" in the first sentence is factually incorrect. To go further and insist that the CPUSA was not even a domestic organization is to overstate the international character of the movement. It did have domestic roots after all and filled a domestic niche, like the Socialist Workers Party (US). Foreign funding may have helped the CPUSA out compete groups that did not receive such funding, but its speculative to say even that.
Regarding the publications, it is more correct to say that "New Masses" was a publication of the Communist Party USA, since this is how the magazine was collected, printed, distributed and sold. Beyond that we can characterize the publications in different ways at different times. The editorial line in the "New Masses" and the "Daily Worker" was more or less rigid depending on the politics of the party: more rigid in the Third Period, less rigid in the Popular Front period. As the article on John Gates explains, the Daily Worker reacted in a fairly open way to Kruschev's Secret Speech and the Hungarian Revolution. It is your opinion that the CPUSA was a wholely foreign enterprize and this POV is clear in your edits. The history of the party is more complicated than that. Your sources are interesting, so I appreciate your research. Eventually, balance will be restored, incorporating your work. DJ Silverfish 19:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Very good, and thank you. My point being in its origins til the dissolution of the Comintern 1943 it can be considered a Comintern publication, and it's founding or start up costs in all probability came from the Soviet Union. I would suspect this Comintern enterprise probably became self supporting and didnt need assitance later (just a guess though). It probably, as commercial enterprises go, was one of the Comintern more successful ventures.Nobs01 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This publication appears in an episode of Seinfeld (S6 E10, "The Race") - worth mentioning?
