The death of east London's most radical bookshop(the-londoner.co.uk)
the-londoner.co.uk
The death of east London's most radical bookshop
https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/scarlett-letters-closure-left-wing-bookshop/
190 comments
https://old.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/142etak/heartbroke...
> The owners of the Pink Peacock Cafe faced an uphill battle against prejudice, discrimination, and hatred, making it nearly impossible for them to continue their noble mission of creating a safe space for everyone.
Top comment:
> Your place was an absolute fucking disgrace. You displayed more hatred and bigotry than any of the folk you are accusing. You didn't fall because of 'the system', you failed because you are a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk with staff who are abusive. Fuck off and good riddance.
Also:
> You failed because opening whenever you could be bothered while selling piss-poor coffee and average food in a cafe which often resembled a messy student's bedroom isn't going to bring the punters in.
> And be honest here, you're closing because you can't afford to fix the disabled toilet. You'll all be fine though. You've got trust funds and wealthy parents who'll help fund your next doomed to fail venture but those poor wee sods that did rely upon you will be let down by nobody but you.
> The owners of the Pink Peacock Cafe faced an uphill battle against prejudice, discrimination, and hatred, making it nearly impossible for them to continue their noble mission of creating a safe space for everyone.
Top comment:
> Your place was an absolute fucking disgrace. You displayed more hatred and bigotry than any of the folk you are accusing. You didn't fall because of 'the system', you failed because you are a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk with staff who are abusive. Fuck off and good riddance.
Also:
> You failed because opening whenever you could be bothered while selling piss-poor coffee and average food in a cafe which often resembled a messy student's bedroom isn't going to bring the punters in.
> And be honest here, you're closing because you can't afford to fix the disabled toilet. You'll all be fine though. You've got trust funds and wealthy parents who'll help fund your next doomed to fail venture but those poor wee sods that did rely upon you will be let down by nobody but you.
woodpanel(2)
And don’t forget City Lights in San Francisco has been open since 1953! I wonder how they avoided drama like this.
According to their website[0] they will be taking on New York soon!
[0] - https://pinkpeacock.gay/
[0] - https://pinkpeacock.gay/
Radical left-wingers subdivide into two groups:
1. Those who intuitively understand power dynamics and endeavor towards a "don't kill, and don't be killed[0]" mentality, even if they understand that the radical change they want is generational
2. People who want to wear the boot
To be clear, every organization and movement has #2. Libertarian conservatives are chock full of Trump bootlickers, neoliberals were basically completely coopted by corporate bootlickers, Free Software activists have an unsavory habit of falling in with whatever RMS says, anarchists have to deal with people who want to break windows for fun, socialists have "tankies" that just want Soviet Russia to invade and oppress, etc.
The book "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" covers this tendency if you want to read more.
[0] There are a lot of Floweys out there.
1. Those who intuitively understand power dynamics and endeavor towards a "don't kill, and don't be killed[0]" mentality, even if they understand that the radical change they want is generational
2. People who want to wear the boot
To be clear, every organization and movement has #2. Libertarian conservatives are chock full of Trump bootlickers, neoliberals were basically completely coopted by corporate bootlickers, Free Software activists have an unsavory habit of falling in with whatever RMS says, anarchists have to deal with people who want to break windows for fun, socialists have "tankies" that just want Soviet Russia to invade and oppress, etc.
The book "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" covers this tendency if you want to read more.
[0] There are a lot of Floweys out there.
It's called "pragmatists versus theologians" (or fundamentalists, depending on the translation), and it was extremely common in any left wing movement in Europe from the '60s to the '90s.
Umberto Eco wrote a fair bit about it. it's not exclusive to left wing movements but historically has been very apparent in such groups[1].
In short, You got a group of people whose main objective is to improve the condition of their community and it's inclined to bend the purity of their message in order to achieve some realistic objective (to the point sometimes of fully betraying the original ideology altogether)
And then you got a group of people whose idea is that philosophy trascends their or anyone else life, and the point is the fight itself. As an italian song of the '70s cynically puts it (very loosely trasnlated) "The fight has to be endless, comrade, otherwise I won't be a general for the people anymore."
Truth is, you need both of them to make a movement capable of actually going somewhere, despite ironically having in itself the main cause of its own collapse.
[1]https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1232
Umberto Eco wrote a fair bit about it. it's not exclusive to left wing movements but historically has been very apparent in such groups[1].
In short, You got a group of people whose main objective is to improve the condition of their community and it's inclined to bend the purity of their message in order to achieve some realistic objective (to the point sometimes of fully betraying the original ideology altogether)
And then you got a group of people whose idea is that philosophy trascends their or anyone else life, and the point is the fight itself. As an italian song of the '70s cynically puts it (very loosely trasnlated) "The fight has to be endless, comrade, otherwise I won't be a general for the people anymore."
Truth is, you need both of them to make a movement capable of actually going somewhere, despite ironically having in itself the main cause of its own collapse.
[1]https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1232
There's much more variety, but it depends on what you call radical. There are stances which are radical in the eyes of the general public which are not violent, nor revolutionary.
phoronixrly(1)
> Since opening, the Scarlett Letters hadn’t made a month-by-month profit, but had been kept afloat by savings and a monthly donation of £10,000 from an anonymous “angel investor”.
Sounds like it wasn't so much a business as a piece of performance art.
Sounds like it wasn't so much a business as a piece of performance art.
A museum in my city closed because they were very unprofitable and couldn’t continue attracting more and more donations to handle their costs.
A lot of people were angry and upset that it was closing, but whenever you pressed someone about it they would admit they hadn’t visited in a decade or more. Of those who had, the experience wasn’t very good. The museum had become more interested in poor digital displays and other disappointing museum things that simply weren’t interesting to view.
It didn’t stop people from being mad that it was closed or even getting angry at donors that pulled their funding. Some people like the idea of something existing in their city even though they don’t want to pay for it with their own money.
A lot of people were angry and upset that it was closing, but whenever you pressed someone about it they would admit they hadn’t visited in a decade or more. Of those who had, the experience wasn’t very good. The museum had become more interested in poor digital displays and other disappointing museum things that simply weren’t interesting to view.
It didn’t stop people from being mad that it was closed or even getting angry at donors that pulled their funding. Some people like the idea of something existing in their city even though they don’t want to pay for it with their own money.
Sounds like a microcosm of democracy
Also true of favorite restaurants and childhood haunts. Things change and interests move on.
And nightclubs. There was one in the small city I went to university in and (later on) lived in for about a decade, that catered to a fairly specific subcultural melange (goth, punk, alt rock). Bit of a dive it must be said, but cheap drinks when we were students.
It didn’t change with the times at all and the subcultures themselves went into decline or just aged-out of being club-goers. On closing night it was rammed with people who were sad to see it go, who wished it could stay there. The owner asked “where have you all been?”
Well, we’ve been ageing, hanging out in craft ale bars and doing that a lot less often. Our appetites for hanging out in a loud, semi-subterranean dive are satisfied by an annual or biannual visit to a place we thought fondly of and thought would always be there, but didn’t really want to be in when it came to it.
It didn’t change with the times at all and the subcultures themselves went into decline or just aged-out of being club-goers. On closing night it was rammed with people who were sad to see it go, who wished it could stay there. The owner asked “where have you all been?”
Well, we’ve been ageing, hanging out in craft ale bars and doing that a lot less often. Our appetites for hanging out in a loud, semi-subterranean dive are satisfied by an annual or biannual visit to a place we thought fondly of and thought would always be there, but didn’t really want to be in when it came to it.
Very true. Many of my favorite nightlife places have closed too. Then again, I gave up drinking, so I put their kids through college like I used to!
[deleted]
I've actually been in there, didn't love it.
I'm very much on the left, from an economic perspective at least, and a bibliophile, but I found the selection underwhelming. There weren't that many shelves and I just don't read much gender stuff, which was very much the focus.
I did buy a few books, none of them particularly good. The vibe there was also a bit odd, now I reflect on it.
I can definitely recommend Bookmarks off Tottenham Court Road for this sort of stuff. Great range, friendly staff, some nice merch. Got my prized Jeremy Corbyn tea towel there.
I'm very much on the left, from an economic perspective at least, and a bibliophile, but I found the selection underwhelming. There weren't that many shelves and I just don't read much gender stuff, which was very much the focus.
I did buy a few books, none of them particularly good. The vibe there was also a bit odd, now I reflect on it.
I can definitely recommend Bookmarks off Tottenham Court Road for this sort of stuff. Great range, friendly staff, some nice merch. Got my prized Jeremy Corbyn tea towel there.
This is insane overhead if you want to try and run a "leftist" business. It sounds like Scarlett is a trust fund baby with more money than sense.
I've been running a retail business with similar inventory costs for a couple years. I have one employee and I pay them generously. I personally chip in about 20-30k annually to keep the whole thing afloat. It's definitely possible if you keep things small.
Edit to add: 10k in inventory just doesn't add up. In retail you need to turn over inventory multiple times annually to cover your fixed expenses like staff, rent, etc. if you only have 10k worth of inventory and you're burning >10k a month that means you're selling everything in the store every couple weeks. I don't think books move that quickly, although I could be corrected. Usually the retail standard is turning over inventory 4-5 times annually.
I've been running a retail business with similar inventory costs for a couple years. I have one employee and I pay them generously. I personally chip in about 20-30k annually to keep the whole thing afloat. It's definitely possible if you keep things small.
Edit to add: 10k in inventory just doesn't add up. In retail you need to turn over inventory multiple times annually to cover your fixed expenses like staff, rent, etc. if you only have 10k worth of inventory and you're burning >10k a month that means you're selling everything in the store every couple weeks. I don't think books move that quickly, although I could be corrected. Usually the retail standard is turning over inventory 4-5 times annually.
Seems like you are assuming they sold the books to cover their monthly burn. But seems it was kept afloat due to donations more than due to inventory sales
My point was that this was indeed a vanity project by someone with more money than sense. At no point does it seem like they had any business plan or conception of how to make money from actually operating the business. It's just cosplaying.
> vanity project > trust fund baby
It is rather objectionable to label people with your assumptions. Unless you have some inside information you are just making shit up based on your own judgemental bigotry.
People start "hobby" businesses for many reasons, and those reasons are not always status oriented. All too often I've seen idealistic people with the best intentions crash into reality (often financial reality, but often other causes as in the article).
It is rather objectionable to label people with your assumptions. Unless you have some inside information you are just making shit up based on your own judgemental bigotry.
People start "hobby" businesses for many reasons, and those reasons are not always status oriented. All too often I've seen idealistic people with the best intentions crash into reality (often financial reality, but often other causes as in the article).
If you have 120k a year to burn on a "hobby business" I think it's pretty safe to say you're in the top 1%. Calling it a "donation" doesn't change that.
I understand the dynamics of book stores and see how you could carry something like this for a long time with a not-crazy amount of money but what weirds me out are the people involved in the project who get mad at the "angel investors".
Did you notice in the story that their anger started with invoking their own prejudices or victimhood, each and every time? Getting mad at an angel investor and trying to steal an entire bookstore seems normal for this group of people.
The toilet story was in April, and it says "less than 6 months after the shop opened"...
kinda a weird headline for a store open less than a year in the end? Or am I misunderstanding something
kinda a weird headline for a store open less than a year in the end? Or am I misunderstanding something
Lot of drama for not much of a business.
That’s probably true of most book stores at this point.
Not really, margins on coffee are extremely high and a library-like environment can attract paying customers if you play it right.
Independent bookstores stay afloat if they own their building, usually.
At least the ones I know of that have remained open are in a building owned by the owner (so they don't have to pay rent).
At least the ones I know of that have remained open are in a building owned by the owner (so they don't have to pay rent).
A business that is only reasonably profitable if it doesn't have to pay rent is not really profitable. If the owner owns the building, he might as well rent out the place and get majority of income without doing any work. The bookstore is just a hobby on top of rental income, which he chooses to plow into his own bookstore.
The dirty secret of small businesses is that a vast number of them are not really profitable, because something is not counted on the books - either rent, or labor, or other things.
[deleted]
Being in hospitality is not high margin. You want people to buy a coffee and breakfast or lunch and go away fairly quickly.
no. bookstores are low margin endeavor but they still manage to stay in business and have been growing: https://www.uschamber.com/co/good-company/launch-pad/modern-...
will be interesting to see what happens with this trend in the current economy
will be interesting to see what happens with this trend in the current economy
So, a tech startup.
Non-profit's exist. And if we're judging whether or not something is a business based on how much profit it's making that would make Silicon Valley the global centre of performance art.
There’s a difference between a non-profit, and not making a profit!
Non profits still try to make as much profit as possible. There are just extra legal restrictions on how money can be spent or extracted from the business.
OP is more interested in hearing about organizations that take on ambitious investment without apparent return in the fight for unicorn status profits in the future, rather than a fight for something non-financial
I think that the non-profits you are referring to are likely not-for-profits.
SanjayMehta(2)
> To Parker’s mind, for a project started with the aim of platforming sex workers [...] to have reached such a point was mortifying. How had things gotten so bad?
I’m intentionally omitting all the objectives that actually make sense for a book store to have, in order to highlight what apparently was the main one...
This was a remarkable story. I’m sensing a pattern. When people of certain ideologies band together under ostensibly noble causes (cue all the aims previously omitted above) they tend to implode rather quick. Often, the objectors feel as though it's the responsibility of the other side (usually the leadership) to afford them with some sort of power of their own.
Also I'm a bit let down it never disclosed how Blaise Agüera y Arcas wound up there. If a Google employee is introduced in the beginning of a story it must be explained as to why. But if I was watching my competitors face legal issues for supposed illicit processing of intellectual property, I’d definitely send my guys out to embattled book stores to get their stock for the cheap.
I’m intentionally omitting all the objectives that actually make sense for a book store to have, in order to highlight what apparently was the main one...
This was a remarkable story. I’m sensing a pattern. When people of certain ideologies band together under ostensibly noble causes (cue all the aims previously omitted above) they tend to implode rather quick. Often, the objectors feel as though it's the responsibility of the other side (usually the leadership) to afford them with some sort of power of their own.
Also I'm a bit let down it never disclosed how Blaise Agüera y Arcas wound up there. If a Google employee is introduced in the beginning of a story it must be explained as to why. But if I was watching my competitors face legal issues for supposed illicit processing of intellectual property, I’d definitely send my guys out to embattled book stores to get their stock for the cheap.
> Also I'm a bit let down it never disclosed how Blaise Agüera y Arcas wound up there.
I'm assuming the article forgot to mention (or weren't certain) that they were the angel investor, given that it was heavily implied.
I'm assuming the article forgot to mention (or weren't certain) that they were the angel investor, given that it was heavily implied.
>> This was a remarkable story. I’m sensing a pattern. When people of certain ideologies band together under ostensibly noble causes
I think this is the issue - they didn't band together. They all shared the noble cause but one was employing the others. Wrong business structure if the aim is to 'band together' and all equalling share in the hurt of running the business.
I think this is the issue - they didn't band together. They all shared the noble cause but one was employing the others. Wrong business structure if the aim is to 'band together' and all equalling share in the hurt of running the business.
> Often, the objectors feel as though it's the responsibility of the other side (usually the leadership) to afford them with some sort of power of their own.
reading this story, it sounds like leadership was also just bad. The toilet story is just odd!
> Keen to thwart any further opportunistic toilet-users, Scarlett had a new policy. Staff were to personally escort anyone who asked to use the toilet to ensure they didn’t steal any stock or snoop around the staff area.
Like this just is weird, right?
A lot of these stories (and stories like what happened with DHH and basecamp a couple years back) seem to have an important crux: leadership who might be lacking certain management abilities. These fights end up getting framed as "about politics" but "management making me babysit people who go to the toilet" feels just like more basic of an issue.
To me a more competent manager would just say "toilet's not for customers" and be done with it.
reading this story, it sounds like leadership was also just bad. The toilet story is just odd!
> Keen to thwart any further opportunistic toilet-users, Scarlett had a new policy. Staff were to personally escort anyone who asked to use the toilet to ensure they didn’t steal any stock or snoop around the staff area.
Like this just is weird, right?
A lot of these stories (and stories like what happened with DHH and basecamp a couple years back) seem to have an important crux: leadership who might be lacking certain management abilities. These fights end up getting framed as "about politics" but "management making me babysit people who go to the toilet" feels just like more basic of an issue.
To me a more competent manager would just say "toilet's not for customers" and be done with it.
Yes. The leadership was also just (as) bad.
But combine incompetent leadership with impetuous personnel and I’m sure some other lame issue would’ve been set to fester for the dissolution of this bookshop.
And I’m not one to try to inject politics into every issue but it’s a good place to start and it sure has a way of being evoked by the parties under question one way or another.
But combine incompetent leadership with impetuous personnel and I’m sure some other lame issue would’ve been set to fester for the dissolution of this bookshop.
And I’m not one to try to inject politics into every issue but it’s a good place to start and it sure has a way of being evoked by the parties under question one way or another.
I think if you serve dine in food you are legally required to have a customer toilet.
In this case I've had success explaining the problem to people, stating my proposed solution that they won't like, and asking if they have a better idea. If they have a better idea, then the problem is solved. If not, then they've thought of it from my perspective and it is shifted from me imposing something unpleasant to there being something unpleasant that none of us know how to get rid of.
It's a bookshop right? Maybe I missed a detail. Granted, you're right that the situation on the ground has texture that I am not aware about, as a person who did not know about this place existing 36 hours ago.
Performative radicalism that freaks out wider society instead of slow steady progress has led to the near complete irrelevance of the left in the west, especially the anglosphere. I mean, UK Labor is a centrist pro-capital party now. It's over.
Naive idealism mixed with immaturity leads to these things. Wishing for things to be so doesn’t make them so.
Someone somewhere has to work for things to happen.
To me it feels like when a parasite finds a weak host. Neither will survive long. The relationship can be symbiotic but that requires effort as well as conscientiousness on both sides. The place was not running at break even but they wanted more despite that. They wouldn’t even accept cuts in staffing… They bled it to death with idealism.
Someone somewhere has to work for things to happen.
To me it feels like when a parasite finds a weak host. Neither will survive long. The relationship can be symbiotic but that requires effort as well as conscientiousness on both sides. The place was not running at break even but they wanted more despite that. They wouldn’t even accept cuts in staffing… They bled it to death with idealism.
Business is hard. It's hard enough to "start a bookshop". And while I admire folk who have a bigger vision, the whole thing rests on the business being successful.
Given the right priorities, it can work. A business can be profitable, and also embody progressive principles. It can be both an income, and socially responsible.
But most businesses fail. 90% or so don't survive 5 years. That's before adding externalities.
So starting a business with goals orthogonal to successful business is twice as hard.
I was struck by the demand by employees to be a collective. Thats an unusual request. It suggests that, even hired, that was floated as a path. It suggests the owner wanted employees to be "part of the family". So suddenly getting decisions from on high was jarring for them.
Unionising is a strange response. (Even the union was surprised.) Frankly the writing was on the wall at that point. A more experienced business person would just have closed then and there.
Obviously the employees thought that they could have succeeded had they just got the stock for free. I suspect not. They wanted more pay, would have had no incoming monthly investment, and would be short at least 1 worker (enough was likely doing a lot of work.) Doesn't sound like a solid business plan to me.
So yes, idealism is fine, but it doesn't make the business work. And I agree, in this case it killed it. But frankly, starting a bookshop these days is a pretty doomed approach. A (good) coffee shop (with some books) may have had a chance.
Given the right priorities, it can work. A business can be profitable, and also embody progressive principles. It can be both an income, and socially responsible.
But most businesses fail. 90% or so don't survive 5 years. That's before adding externalities.
So starting a business with goals orthogonal to successful business is twice as hard.
I was struck by the demand by employees to be a collective. Thats an unusual request. It suggests that, even hired, that was floated as a path. It suggests the owner wanted employees to be "part of the family". So suddenly getting decisions from on high was jarring for them.
Unionising is a strange response. (Even the union was surprised.) Frankly the writing was on the wall at that point. A more experienced business person would just have closed then and there.
Obviously the employees thought that they could have succeeded had they just got the stock for free. I suspect not. They wanted more pay, would have had no incoming monthly investment, and would be short at least 1 worker (enough was likely doing a lot of work.) Doesn't sound like a solid business plan to me.
So yes, idealism is fine, but it doesn't make the business work. And I agree, in this case it killed it. But frankly, starting a bookshop these days is a pretty doomed approach. A (good) coffee shop (with some books) may have had a chance.
What I wonder is how this didn't also happen to the right.
A) It does, sometimes.
B) The far right has a lot of wealthy donors because it is safe for capital. In this case, I think money would have smoothed over most of the issues.
B) The far right has a lot of wealthy donors because it is safe for capital. In this case, I think money would have smoothed over most of the issues.
Didn't it? But then, the pendulum swung. It will continue swinging.
Because it's simply incorrect. "Performative radicalism" doesn't "freak everyone out" and destroy a movement.
> What I wonder is how this didn't also happen to the right.
Well, the "right", or more aptly conservatives, actively resist change in culture and society. They conserve it (hence the name).
Well, the "right", or more aptly conservatives, actively resist change in culture and society. They conserve it (hence the name).
Also incorrect. The current crop of so-called conservatives are extremely radical.
No true Scotsman? Yes, there are conservative loonies today (just as there always have been). There are also hangers ons/co-opters/johnny come latelys who adopt the "conservative" label as a means to legitimize their platforms. None of these are relevant to what is being discussed in this thread.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on conservatism is exactly what I mean:
> Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.
By promoting the incumbent ideas, there's no chance that they "freak(s) out wider society" as the OP said. The ideology is simply to resist change, which will almost always be less controversial than advocating for change.
The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on conservatism is exactly what I mean:
> Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.
By promoting the incumbent ideas, there's no chance that they "freak(s) out wider society" as the OP said. The ideology is simply to resist change, which will almost always be less controversial than advocating for change.
The so-called conservatives are radical centrists at best. While today’s „far-right“ would have been considered moderate conservatives not so long ago.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The current "far right" is rounding up the brown people (except the ones they agree with) and sending them to concentration camps. That would have been unthinkable a few decades ago, even on the right. And it's definitely not centrist.
As a european, US migration situation is insane. And it’s hard to cal US „right“ that tolerated such policies promoting illegal migration for decades a „right“ wing.
And european mainstream right is no longer right for the last few decades on those topics. Today’s „far“ right sound like what mainstream right would say 10-20-30 years ago depending on exact country.
And european mainstream right is no longer right for the last few decades on those topics. Today’s „far“ right sound like what mainstream right would say 10-20-30 years ago depending on exact country.
You are saying that for you, last decade's right is centrist or left. And you are saying that last decade's right would call the current right centrist or left. So what are you?
Good question. My views didn't change. But somehow from voting moderate centre-right or even classical liberal I had to start voting for far-right instead. So... who am I?
Your views changed.
You said it yourself - even the right used to tolerate illegal immigration. But you were okay voting the center right at that time. And now you're voting the far right who are putting them in concentration camps. So you're far right, but you didn't used to be.
You said it yourself - even the right used to tolerate illegal immigration. But you were okay voting the center right at that time. And now you're voting the far right who are putting them in concentration camps. So you're far right, but you didn't used to be.
My views didn't change. I voted moderate right before it was tolerating migration.
Here „far“ right offer is to deport illegals and curb new migration.
Also, we have detention centers since forever. What do you propose to do with illegal migrants waiting deportations instead? Put them in prisons? That's a wee to harsh, isn't it?
Of course, then people can start talking BS about muh concentration camps with allusions to soviet and nazi camps. But those camps had some specific features that ain't present in detention centers.
Here „far“ right offer is to deport illegals and curb new migration.
Also, we have detention centers since forever. What do you propose to do with illegal migrants waiting deportations instead? Put them in prisons? That's a wee to harsh, isn't it?
Of course, then people can start talking BS about muh concentration camps with allusions to soviet and nazi camps. But those camps had some specific features that ain't present in detention centers.
The “far right” has become just a schoolyard name calling label to brand anyone the left disagrees with
More like a nice way of saying fascist
Calling today’s „far“ right fascists/nazis/etc is just a disgrace to victims of the real thing.
Why do you think so? Would it not be better to recognize fascism/nazism as early as possible? Hitler was in power for several years, doing various increasingly bad stuff, before he started the holocaust.
Nowadays this label is overused so much that it pretty much lost it's meaning. It's not fascism-nazism to be against mass migration. Nor it's fascism-nazism to not fully support whatever letter comes next to join LGBTQAZ+ or whatever it is now.
Just like it's not communism to advocate for better welfare, labor rights, affordable housing and so on.
Just like it's not communism to advocate for better welfare, labor rights, affordable housing and so on.
[deleted]
It did. The War on Terror was so bad for the political actors who took part in it in the US (and by ripple effect in Europe), that they were trounced by Obama, who is still the highest approved US President in the 21st century.
Trump won, partly by saying the War on Terror was a disaster and the Republicans were disasters. He distanced himself from a right wing which had done the same thing, made itself irrelevant to the mainstream with performative patriotism while we actually lost lives and trillions of dollars in a quagmire people didn't want about 1-2 years into it.
Whoever brings the left back will have to distance themselves from the party in a similar way
Trump won, partly by saying the War on Terror was a disaster and the Republicans were disasters. He distanced himself from a right wing which had done the same thing, made itself irrelevant to the mainstream with performative patriotism while we actually lost lives and trillions of dollars in a quagmire people didn't want about 1-2 years into it.
Whoever brings the left back will have to distance themselves from the party in a similar way
Having a set of beliefs tethered to reality probably. Also as a general principle the right/centre don't believe the job of the government is to interfere in every aspect of peoples lives. This at least limits their ability to reproduce the empty gestures and moral lecturing of the left.
[deleted]
rjbwork(2)
Or maybe something unrelated happened (business becoming more capital-intensive perhaps?), and everyone except the most radical moved on to other things?
The extremely effective general strike that happened in Italy of a few days ago didn't start from academia, but dock workers in Genoa. Grumpy, robust, very left-wing dock workers.
The biggest issue of most "performative", as you call it, left wing movements is the lack of direct experience with everyday politics. Real-world politics are extremely messy, often in direct conflict with our ideals. Stuff like, How far you can push your message, how far can you pull the strings of the people and the institutions around you.
Those workers have a very good understanding of working both with strong forces and delicate equilibriums (...equilibria?). Both in their everyday work and their contractual situation. Otherwise people die, for real. They knew exactly what they were doing to get their end goals.
I see the same approach in people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Interestingly enough, she has too a working class background in a field where power balance is paramount. On the other hand I can't think of a single well-known British Labour politician who shares the same.
The biggest issue of most "performative", as you call it, left wing movements is the lack of direct experience with everyday politics. Real-world politics are extremely messy, often in direct conflict with our ideals. Stuff like, How far you can push your message, how far can you pull the strings of the people and the institutions around you.
Those workers have a very good understanding of working both with strong forces and delicate equilibriums (...equilibria?). Both in their everyday work and their contractual situation. Otherwise people die, for real. They knew exactly what they were doing to get their end goals.
I see the same approach in people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Interestingly enough, she has too a working class background in a field where power balance is paramount. On the other hand I can't think of a single well-known British Labour politician who shares the same.
AOC does not come from a working-class background. Her father was an architect and the family owned a house in Westchester.
But she worked as bartender[1] - which is one of those jobs that teaches you how "Fuck Around, Find Out" works in real life, very quickly. Again, it's not matter of social or economic status, but coming to understand extremely diverse social dynamics outside of the academic field.
Both her and the dock workers were pretty effective in their causes because they have experienced first-hand how going for an half-assed or whimsical approach even in everyday politics bites you hard.
[1]Also wikipedia says that her mother was a house cleaner and school bus driver?
Both her and the dock workers were pretty effective in their causes because they have experienced first-hand how going for an half-assed or whimsical approach even in everyday politics bites you hard.
[1]Also wikipedia says that her mother was a house cleaner and school bus driver?
Someone who spends most of their career working in bars and restaurants could be called working class. Not someone who does it as a temporary job for a few years after their university degree while waiting to find something better.
Bartending does not give you a "working-class background"
Not really. Don't know about what really happened here, but if a place is performative, and mostly unneeded and irrelevant, it tends to blow itself up, and then the problem clears itself away. Movements that stick around and achieve things have their vicissitudes as well, but they get through them.
Sure fascism is getting some power, but not because of left radicalism.
It got powerful because millionaire CEO sponsored them, due to them loving the idea of techno feudalism. And by being enabled by those who said "ignore them they are just trolls". And by support from Russia.
It got powerful because millionaire CEO sponsored them, due to them loving the idea of techno feudalism. And by being enabled by those who said "ignore them they are just trolls". And by support from Russia.
If you say "loving the idea of network states" instead of "techno fuedalism" you'll get more upvotes
Labour has been "Blairite" ("centrist pro-capital," or just say neoliberal) since the SDP sabotage and the endless, worthless reign of Kinnock. This happened at the same time the New Democrats were stomping the Rainbow Coalition into the ground to finalize the transformation of the US Democrats into the exact same thing.
UK Labour has been a "centrist, pro-capital party" for probably your entire life (or at least most of it.) The only reason Corbyn even ended up in front is that a bunch of centrists nominated him as a joke candidate, and they hadn't been paying attention when Ed Miliband had changed the voting rules and accidentally made Labour a democratic party. Of course the membership voted for Corbyn, everybody else was garbage.
Same reason why Trump won the Republican primary in the US - the Tea Party had forced the voting process to be democratic. Unlike the Democratic party, which doesn't even have a vaguely democratic process, culminating in them having absolutely no process in the last election. I still insist that if Sanders had run as a Republican in 2016, he would have been president.
UK Labour has been a "centrist, pro-capital party" for probably your entire life (or at least most of it.) The only reason Corbyn even ended up in front is that a bunch of centrists nominated him as a joke candidate, and they hadn't been paying attention when Ed Miliband had changed the voting rules and accidentally made Labour a democratic party. Of course the membership voted for Corbyn, everybody else was garbage.
Same reason why Trump won the Republican primary in the US - the Tea Party had forced the voting process to be democratic. Unlike the Democratic party, which doesn't even have a vaguely democratic process, culminating in them having absolutely no process in the last election. I still insist that if Sanders had run as a Republican in 2016, he would have been president.
The last time Labour wasn't like this we had waiting lists to get a telephone!
That telephone monopoly was privatised - and later dragged their heels on rolling out broadband because ISDN was so profitable, causing untold damage to the UK tech economy as the country fell behind on connectivity.
It’s a great parable of badly-managed state-run monopoly vs badly-managed privatised monopoly.
It’s a great parable of badly-managed state-run monopoly vs badly-managed privatised monopoly.
If the Tory government hadn’t reserved the market for cable TV exclusively for two US companies, NTL and Telewest, BT would have rolled out fibre to the home in 1990.
I don’t think I blame BT for not wanting to invest in a market it was barred from making a profit in. This is the result of heavy handed local regulation strangling a national incumbent for the sake of foreign interests.
At any point other competitors could have made the same investment but didn’t want to either until relatively recently.
I don’t think I blame BT for not wanting to invest in a market it was barred from making a profit in. This is the result of heavy handed local regulation strangling a national incumbent for the sake of foreign interests.
At any point other competitors could have made the same investment but didn’t want to either until relatively recently.
Well one of these things happened and the other one was a hypothetical? It seems very wishful thinking to assume it just would've happen if the politics of the 70s had some how limped into the 80s
To be fair that wasn't because it was so long ago, just all the telephone operators were on strike:)
>and they hadn't been paying attention when Ed
Miliband had changed the voting rules
and accidentally made Labour a
democratic party.
Great line.
I think it's fair to say that both conservatives and labour have simply been riding on Margaret Thatchers coattails for the last 3 decades. If any of them have come up with any great original ideas of their own i haven't noticed.
On the subject of democracy it has been very inconvenient recently for both parties. This is where kier starmer comes shining through. In every other area he's bumbling, indecisive and unambitious to name just a few of his traits. But when it comes to maintaining control of his party he's masterful (well, uncharacteristically competent anyway) . He took full advantage of his opposition years to purge the Corbynites from his party. He had the time, it's not like he was doing much opposition. He recently took advantage of a scandal to rid himself of his more leftist and popular deputy Angela Rayner and did a cabinet reshuffle, buying himself more time.
It's noteworthy that the only single occasion that he took any firm and decisive action was in suppressing the right wing riots and prosecuting all the instigators in a truly impressive display of efficiency from the law enforcement and judiciary.
I agree with your analysis of the Democrats. It's hard to manufacture consensus while ignoring your electorate. Especially when you have such an outspoken rival like trump. Starmers opposition is so pathetically bad that he looks ok by comparison.
Great line.
I think it's fair to say that both conservatives and labour have simply been riding on Margaret Thatchers coattails for the last 3 decades. If any of them have come up with any great original ideas of their own i haven't noticed.
On the subject of democracy it has been very inconvenient recently for both parties. This is where kier starmer comes shining through. In every other area he's bumbling, indecisive and unambitious to name just a few of his traits. But when it comes to maintaining control of his party he's masterful (well, uncharacteristically competent anyway) . He took full advantage of his opposition years to purge the Corbynites from his party. He had the time, it's not like he was doing much opposition. He recently took advantage of a scandal to rid himself of his more leftist and popular deputy Angela Rayner and did a cabinet reshuffle, buying himself more time.
It's noteworthy that the only single occasion that he took any firm and decisive action was in suppressing the right wing riots and prosecuting all the instigators in a truly impressive display of efficiency from the law enforcement and judiciary.
I agree with your analysis of the Democrats. It's hard to manufacture consensus while ignoring your electorate. Especially when you have such an outspoken rival like trump. Starmers opposition is so pathetically bad that he looks ok by comparison.
Fortunately, the status quo was bravely rescued by the Guardian's non-fact-based yet effective discovery of Corbyn's antisemitism. Gotta love such center-left newspapers.
That was the point I stopped buying the Guardian, I'd like to say it was ideological but the fact is it became boring, they only had about four versions of the line against him which writers would rotate - there's only so many times you can read the same thing.
Well Corbyns been hard at work proving them right. At least people should be pondering how making palestine a cornerstone of his political ideology would meaningfully help Britain. Unrelated but it's something George Galloway should think about. I accidently listened to about 30 seconds of him talking and he seems to be a captivating speaker.
Anyway what sunk corbyn wasn't his anti semitism, that was the excuse, but his socialism, which isn't at all what New Labour is about. Starmer is a centrist, which stems from his policy of having no position on anything. He is rightfully mistrustful of the left wing of his party. They would have lost in the elections.
Anyway what sunk corbyn wasn't his anti semitism, that was the excuse, but his socialism, which isn't at all what New Labour is about. Starmer is a centrist, which stems from his policy of having no position on anything. He is rightfully mistrustful of the left wing of his party. They would have lost in the elections.
Of course it was his actual old-school social democrat values that did him in - can't have that in a party called Labour. But the look wouldn't have been right, so an absurd excuse was found.
"Performative radicalism" is a problem left and right
Look at UKIP, blaming the cluster fuck of the Brittish economy on immigrants, who are weak, other and easy to blame for damage caused by making taxpayers pay for banker's misfortune and Brexit
I am in New Zealand and we have the same problems, on the left and the right.
Look at UKIP, blaming the cluster fuck of the Brittish economy on immigrants, who are weak, other and easy to blame for damage caused by making taxpayers pay for banker's misfortune and Brexit
I am in New Zealand and we have the same problems, on the left and the right.
Given that UKIP don't really exist anymore as a major party may I gently contend that it may be slightly more complicated than you imagine
Reform: UKIP lite. The Russian money and dog whistles remain.
How do you feel about WWI era Germans funding the Bolsheviks in Russia?
It's too early to tell.
Short-term or long-term?
Short term it was effective. It backfired though.
It got the Bolsheviks to take over, and one of their main goals on international stage was to estabilish Communism in Germany. They didn't get to it only because they were defeated by Poland in 1920, and you can't get to Germany without conquering Poland first. So, Germans funded a party that nearly started a war with their own country. That's a hell of a gamble.
The story doesn’t end there though. After that, what the Bolsheviks created utterly destroyed Germany then occupied it for 40+ years.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This reminds of this discussion about the closure of a 'cooperative' bookshop in New York:
https://x.com/narrenhut/status/1970884747833585690
https://x.com/narrenhut/status/1970884747833585690
Perhaps they just "didn't feel like being customer-servicey" often enough:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8KoiQKPmXf/
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8KoiQKPmXf/
These people have diverged from reality.
This is a joke right? No one refers to people as "melanated POC", do they?
I actually got in spat with a coworker once at a previous company for politely and sincerely asking what one of these neologisms meant (latinx in that case).
I actually got in spat with a coworker once at a previous company for politely and sincerely asking what one of these neologisms meant (latinx in that case).
Melanated just means dark-skinned, in case you’re indeed being sincere. And yes, there are people who talk like this.
I can guess what it means, but it sounds like a pastiche and an exaggeration from far right activists that are trying to portray leftists as being out of touch.
OP's point is it's an affectation, aimed at signalling to an in-group. It's not a common phrase. Like "folx" or "foid", the jargon/cant is there to exclude "normies". Even an appeal for help comes with a barbed "... but not from YOU, outsider" meaning.
This kind of thing would only work as a co-operative or non-profit passion project where everyone has equal standing. Either you all want to put equal effort into running the non-profitable enterprise or you want fair pay, rights etc. in which case it needs to be profitable - and that's pretty much impossible for something like this. And in fact the employees clearly recognised it needed to be a co-operative)
There are a lot of comments linking this to 'left politics' but in reality this community bookshop was setup and only functioned by taking advantage of the 'employees' wanting to contribute something good to society. They come out of this looking bad but in reality their good nature was taken advantage of because if you can only run a 'business' on zero hours contracts and no sick pay (keeping in mind workers rights in the UK are much higher than in the US where a lot of readers may be from) you're taking advantage of people who are either desperate or too idealistic (to their own detriment).
Take this paragraph for example:
>>Trying to create a space like this in advanced capitalism is extremely difficult,” it read.
If the 'advanced capitalism' they're talking about is capitalism where workers have rights...good.
>> “The management targeted by this dispute is not a faceless collective of executives in boardrooms. It is one person, who is multiply marginalised, a known member of the community and for the past year has been working for six or seven days a week for the fraction of the salary offered to the booksellers.”
Wonderful. That's what founders do. They work hard and suck it up hopefully for some sort of pay off later on. Struggling as a founder does not give you any right to take advantage of your employees.
There are a lot of comments linking this to 'left politics' but in reality this community bookshop was setup and only functioned by taking advantage of the 'employees' wanting to contribute something good to society. They come out of this looking bad but in reality their good nature was taken advantage of because if you can only run a 'business' on zero hours contracts and no sick pay (keeping in mind workers rights in the UK are much higher than in the US where a lot of readers may be from) you're taking advantage of people who are either desperate or too idealistic (to their own detriment).
Take this paragraph for example:
>>Trying to create a space like this in advanced capitalism is extremely difficult,” it read.
If the 'advanced capitalism' they're talking about is capitalism where workers have rights...good.
>> “The management targeted by this dispute is not a faceless collective of executives in boardrooms. It is one person, who is multiply marginalised, a known member of the community and for the past year has been working for six or seven days a week for the fraction of the salary offered to the booksellers.”
Wonderful. That's what founders do. They work hard and suck it up hopefully for some sort of pay off later on. Struggling as a founder does not give you any right to take advantage of your employees.
This is just very said.
It just seems on the surface that none of the parties here thought ahead more than one step ahead.
> They were simply too kind, too feminine, too British: “You are all extremely nice, assigned female at birth, in customer service, mostly British etc., and all of this sometimes doesn’t lend itself to ‘no,’” the WhatsApp message explained.
That's like throwing a molotov cocktail into a fireworks storage warehouse. What did they expect the response to that would be? It's just tremendous lack self-awareness at play here.
The shop is closing so we'll just ... occupy it? And then what, the owner will give them shares of ownership as a reward?
This randomly reminded me of Slavoj Žižek's when he said he would have liked to see "V for Vendeta -- The Sequel". This is probably what it would be -- the winners would be fighting over clogged toilets, starting campaigns on Instagram and occupying each other's offices and making deals with locksmiths to be there at 4am to break in to take back their space.
It just seems on the surface that none of the parties here thought ahead more than one step ahead.
> They were simply too kind, too feminine, too British: “You are all extremely nice, assigned female at birth, in customer service, mostly British etc., and all of this sometimes doesn’t lend itself to ‘no,’” the WhatsApp message explained.
That's like throwing a molotov cocktail into a fireworks storage warehouse. What did they expect the response to that would be? It's just tremendous lack self-awareness at play here.
The shop is closing so we'll just ... occupy it? And then what, the owner will give them shares of ownership as a reward?
This randomly reminded me of Slavoj Žižek's when he said he would have liked to see "V for Vendeta -- The Sequel". This is probably what it would be -- the winners would be fighting over clogged toilets, starting campaigns on Instagram and occupying each other's offices and making deals with locksmiths to be there at 4am to break in to take back their space.
ah, it wasn't a collective. of course it failed.
in seattle's pike market, left bank books has been a collective operation for over fifty years now. it doubles as an event space and community center. and it's not just a static group of old comrades, many young people are involved.
in seattle's pike market, left bank books has been a collective operation for over fifty years now. it doubles as an event space and community center. and it's not just a static group of old comrades, many young people are involved.
While I very much appreciate the story, I wish it was written in a more straightforward style. The cross-paragraph callbacks from a Google employee to someone living in a basement... well, that's fine for fiction (although I'd still find it tiring) but for this I found it needlessly difficult to follow.
But maybe that's just me. I appreciate this is a stylistic complaint, so I doubt everyone will agree. Still, for a factual piece that I expected to read more like reportage, I found this article fiddly to process.
But maybe that's just me. I appreciate this is a stylistic complaint, so I doubt everyone will agree. Still, for a factual piece that I expected to read more like reportage, I found this article fiddly to process.
Thought it was going to be about Freedom Bookshop in Angel Alley, Whitechapel, but thankfully that seems to be alive and well[0]!
Being "the oldest and largest specialist anarchist bookshop in Britain" without succumbing to internecine bickering and factionalisation is pretty darn radical, I would have thought.
0: https://freedompress.org.uk/about-freedom/
Being "the oldest and largest specialist anarchist bookshop in Britain" without succumbing to internecine bickering and factionalisation is pretty darn radical, I would have thought.
0: https://freedompress.org.uk/about-freedom/
I also thought this would be about Freedom, the title is really a bit misleading.
I know this is a tangent, but I just want to share this oddity. I am 38 years old, and I have been trying to buy Neuromancer since 1999. I have been in Santiago, Rome, London, Miami, Madrid, Bogota, live, in situ looking for the book on mainstream bookshops and I have never found a copy to buy. I know Neuromancer by heart but I have never been able to buy a copy of it. 38 Years.
This is a funny comment because just last week I bought a second-hand copy in Berwick-upon-Tweed. I haven't read it yet but it's been on my list forever and it's a mint copy with a nice yellow cover. It was published in the UK as part of the "SF Masterworks" series which is a trove of previously out of print stuff. If you come to London again you should find it in most large bookshops like Waterstones.
Did you try asking shop staff? You might have happened to be in when the shelf was dry but the stockroom had a copy. This isn't really an oddity.
It's everywhere in any major bookshop in London like Waterstones and Foyles
And once the TV series is out, you'll see it even more
And once the TV series is out, you'll see it even more
[deleted]
For what its worth, I just checked my local Barnes and Nobles in the suburbs of New York and they had it.
You could check it out from a library and just not bring it back. They'll charge you the MSRP.
Check large chains like Indigo Books in Vancouver - Gibson lives there.
[deleted]
This read like an episode from Portlandia.
It's basically the plot of Empire Records, the 1995 classic starring young Renée Zellweger and Liv Tyler. Except with a radical left bookstore instead of independent record store. And no happy ending.
Empire Records was anti-corporate. The record store goal needed to stay independent, under Joe's management, and they did want to actually pay money. They didn't strike and just demand to become owners.
Ironically though, there is a line by the owner of Empire Records on how he would be a rich man if his hippy father hadn't turned his grand fathers toilet emporium into a record store. But considering the state of record stores right now in the world, he is probably right, and long term a toilet store was a better option.
Ironically though, there is a line by the owner of Empire Records on how he would be a rich man if his hippy father hadn't turned his grand fathers toilet emporium into a record store. But considering the state of record stores right now in the world, he is probably right, and long term a toilet store was a better option.
These frequently happen among these people. I'm reminded of the Current Affairs episode and my favorite since it was so irrelevant: Matt Yglesias getting lambasted because he dared suggest hiring cleaners for the Vox office.
What happened with Current Affairs?
Here's an article that you can use a seed around which to find out https://yasminnair.com/march-what-really-happened-at-current...
Sounds like a textbook purity spiral.
There’s a failure-mode of liberal open mindedness, where your mind is so open your brain falls out.
There’s a failure-mode of liberal open mindedness, where your mind is so open your brain falls out.
This article makes it seem like the whole thing is over and nothing came of it, but The People's Letters have a X account that they're doing updates on[0], and the new location opens on October 1st (this Wednesday)[1].
I'm not entirely sure why the article didn't talk about this.
[0] https://x.com/PeoplesLetters
[1] https://x.com/PeoplesLetters/status/1971482419502198960
I'm not entirely sure why the article didn't talk about this.
[0] https://x.com/PeoplesLetters
[1] https://x.com/PeoplesLetters/status/1971482419502198960
The article dates from 26 July, the tweet from 26 September.
This played out much like many coffee shops that I’ve seen in my city and others [0]. Basically some leftist with a little money and little to no business acumen opens a low margin business and hires far-left employees. Those employees, dissatisfied with their low wages - they are, after all, baristas at coffee shops that are barely profitable, if at all - form a union. When the owner tells them they can’t pay more and offer benefits because they are literally losing money, the employees then take to social media, destroying what little customer base the business had. The business closes, and the employees are now unemployed, having destroyed their own livelihood and a place they actually liked working, because they had this absurd idea that their queer/trans owner that was scraping by was some maniacal oligarch that deserved to be crushed by the workers.
The real lesson is that if you’re opening a small coffee shop or bookshop or similar small business, you have to work full time and not hire people unless absolutely necessary. And if you do hire others, avoid the communists.
0. https://www.34st.com/article/2022/08/minas-world-lgbtq-coffe...
The real lesson is that if you’re opening a small coffee shop or bookshop or similar small business, you have to work full time and not hire people unless absolutely necessary. And if you do hire others, avoid the communists.
0. https://www.34st.com/article/2022/08/minas-world-lgbtq-coffe...
If I’m a barista at an indie shop shitting on my small business employer for not giving me more money, then I’m sort of by definition not much of a communist. The handful of sincere communists I know would absolutely label those people (correctly) as ignorant dipshits larping as communists (or at the very least, deploying convenient tropes as cudgels for their own narrow self-interests). No one who’s serious in their communist ideals would seek validation from their capitalist employers in the first place, and anyone who does should take the opportunity for some self-reflection.
The best people I’ve known from all over the political spectrum shared a capacity to bring me into their corner, for a few select issues anyway. They could only get to the point in the conversation where my mind is changed because they were sincere, humble, informed, curious, empathetic, and open to having the discussions.
I feel like so much of contemporary public discourse is shaped by the worst, most transparently dishonest idiots in society. This perspective of mine is also probably bent by the fact that I left Facebook around 2012, and haven’t really spent much time on social media since. I logged onto Instagram not long ago, and it all feels really weird from a naive point of view.
The best people I’ve known from all over the political spectrum shared a capacity to bring me into their corner, for a few select issues anyway. They could only get to the point in the conversation where my mind is changed because they were sincere, humble, informed, curious, empathetic, and open to having the discussions.
I feel like so much of contemporary public discourse is shaped by the worst, most transparently dishonest idiots in society. This perspective of mine is also probably bent by the fact that I left Facebook around 2012, and haven’t really spent much time on social media since. I logged onto Instagram not long ago, and it all feels really weird from a naive point of view.
It seems that this business was incorporated as a community interest company (CIC) [0]. The Wikipedia article for CIC [1] talks about more the concept of "asset lock":
> The articles of a CIC must also provide that its assets cannot be used except for the benefit of the community. This is known as the asset lock.
It sounds like this is why the employees believed they had a right to the books. But it seems hard to say without knowing what the specific articles for this company.
Of course, I know little of UK law, perhaps someone who is more familiar can chime in?
0: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company
> The articles of a CIC must also provide that its assets cannot be used except for the benefit of the community. This is known as the asset lock.
It sounds like this is why the employees believed they had a right to the books. But it seems hard to say without knowing what the specific articles for this company.
Of course, I know little of UK law, perhaps someone who is more familiar can chime in?
0: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company
> But it seems hard to say without knowing what the specific articles for this company.
The Articles of Association seems to be available under your first link. (From filling history / Incorporation / View PDF)
I assume the employees either wanted to form an other asset locked entity or that hoped 3.2 b applied in their case.
The Articles of Association seems to be available under your first link. (From filling history / Incorporation / View PDF)
I assume the employees either wanted to form an other asset locked entity or that hoped 3.2 b applied in their case.
Ah, I missed that link, thanks!
I enjoyed reading the initial part of their currently most popular story:
https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/karl-marxs-labubus/
Karl Marx’s Labubus - The memeification of the communist grandee’s final resting place
https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/karl-marxs-labubus/
Karl Marx’s Labubus - The memeification of the communist grandee’s final resting place
"A newly launched account said they were in “open dispute” with their employer over the threats to fire staff and the failure to meet all its demands. “The workers are queer, trans, racialised, disabled, sex workers and students,” it argued. “Their identities have been used to advertise and fundraise for the bookshop as a radical space whilst their voices are not listened to.” As might be expected, there was an outraged response online. Responses on Instagram accused the bookshop of being a “marketing campaign” as well as “colonial”.
Eight days later, Scarlett fired back on the shop’s Instagram, claiming they had attempted to, or were in the process of meeting, almost all the union’s demands. “Trying to create a space like this in advanced capitalism is extremely difficult,” it read. “The management targeted by this dispute is not a faceless collective of executives in boardrooms. It is one person, who is multiply marginalised, a known member of the community and for the past year has been working for six or seven days a week for the fraction of the salary offered to the booksellers.”
And all the above is a good summary of why for all the deep nuttiness of MAGA-level conservatives, the deep left is just as fucking off the deep end.
Eight days later, Scarlett fired back on the shop’s Instagram, claiming they had attempted to, or were in the process of meeting, almost all the union’s demands. “Trying to create a space like this in advanced capitalism is extremely difficult,” it read. “The management targeted by this dispute is not a faceless collective of executives in boardrooms. It is one person, who is multiply marginalised, a known member of the community and for the past year has been working for six or seven days a week for the fraction of the salary offered to the booksellers.”
And all the above is a good summary of why for all the deep nuttiness of MAGA-level conservatives, the deep left is just as fucking off the deep end.
woodpanel(1)
I have to admit to finding these things hugely entertaining. But for balance I'll point out that Housmans has been open since 1945 and Freedom since 1886. It's not the inevitable fate of radical bookshops to implode like this.