User loginAnarchist LibraryAnarchist Events
|
Dancing with the Devil, Part 1: The Semi-Sober Reflections of an Anarchist Businessman
I have no idea how the various configurations of the collective have dealt with this dilemma over the last two decades and, admittedly, my beer-fogged memory hasn’t retained too many specific details of our discussions. But I don’t recall there being much debate about whether we should tap the tourist vein: the only question was how? Could we sell books they wanted—placed prominently in the front window and on the display shelves near the front door—without violating our principles? What sorts of books should they be? Where was the line? How should we approach this opportunity to financially support our central project without one day finding ourselves halfway down a slippery mercantile slope? And how should we balance all that with the political benefit of bringing a more mainstream audience into the store and exposing them to radical ideas? I’m sharing this memory because I think it adds a little concreteness and clarity to the recent discussions I’ve seen in the anarchist press about the deeply problematic idea of “anarchist business.” In most of the public debates I’ve followed, good approaches to these questions are few and far between. Most perplexing is the apparently widespread belief, judging from what people have written, that the people running anarchist businesses aren’t fully aware of, or continually grappling with, the contradictions that their projects involve. Either there’s an assumption of evil intentions on the part of anarchists who sell stuff or they’re portrayed as totally oblivious to the implications of their actions. As any anarchist with half a brain knows, “anarcho-capitalism” doesn’t exist. It’s a contradiction in terms: anarchism is, and has always been, anti-capitalist. By definition, capitalism is based on exploitation (and a host of corollary horrors), and is thus the antithesis of anarchism. Case closed. In the same sense, one might say that there’s no such thing as an anarchist business. Or, at least, whenever one is “doing business,” one can’t be doing it as an anarchist. Yet, over the last 170 years, anarchists have frequently created and maintained capitalist businesses and, of course, have always been necessarily embroiled in capitalist social and economic relations. Nineteenth-century intentional communities sold their crafts and produce in the town market. Today’s infoshops sell books that, at every step of their production process, from forest to bookshelf, depend on exploited labor and hierarchical social relations. The list could go on, but the point is that it’s hard to imagine any “pure” position outside the oppressive structures of capitalism from which to effectively spread anarchist ideas.
At the same time, I think we should also be careful about how we define and delineate that “system.” As J.K. Gibson-Graham points out in The End of Capitalism (as we knew it), there is often something deeply debilitating about the ways we describe capitalism. Presenting it as a monolithic and totalizing force that infiltrates every aspect of our lives and utterly soils us upon (inevitable) contact, doesn’t leave us much room to maneuver. In reality, “capitalist society” is much more complex: shot through with non-capitalist and anti-capitalist elements at every moment, maintained by contradictory, hybrid practices that can undermine, interface with, and shore up the system—all at the same time. Yet, that complexity doesn’t change the uncomfortable fact that, throughout history, anarchists have produced and/or exchanged commodities in a capitalist market. I’ve been grappling with these questions for a long time. AK Press is the third collective project I’ve been a part of where I’ve received a wage for promoting anarchism (Left Bank was the second). Wages, however miniscule, require enough profit to pay them. Profit, in turn, requires that someone (usually many someones) along the long transmission belt of production is getting screwed over. Sure, the same can be said for almost anything we do in this society—rent a movie, flick a light switch, publish a zine, cook a meal—but there’s something about running a business that drags into unflattering daylight all those questions of ethics and complicity that even the most holier-than-thou anarchists conveniently sweep under the rug when it comes to their own behavior. Unfortunately, asking these questions for most of my adult life doesn’t mean that I have any answers. The best I can do is outline the personal reasons I make the compromises that running an anarchist business entails (and I should emphasize that these are personal reasons: I don’t intend to speak for any other members of the various collectives I’ve been or am part of). I start with questions of strategy. What do I want to achieve? What’s the best way to do it? For me, the answer to the first question is to create a self-sustaining project that:
Not all anarchists share those goals—though I imagine we all share the larger desire they imply: to destroy capitalism and the state, and build a new world. And, even if you share the specific goals I’ve listed, there are many ways to work toward them. Publishing or distributing books and other media through the channels of the capitalist marketplace is a particular choice that carries with it certain advantages, and many dangers. I’ll stick to examples I’m most familiar with—propaganda projects—though I think much of what I have to say applies equally to running a collective farm or vegan café or, as some choose, running a “non-anarchist” business (print shop, web design, etc.) to fund anarchist projects. One of the main advantages, I think, is that businesses help make sure that resources coming back to a I don’t think it’s a coincidence that some of the longest lasting anarchist organizations in North America have sustained themselves by playing the capitalist game. Off the top of my head, a few that have passed the thirty (or forty!)-year mark include Bound Together Books, Fifth Estate, Wooden Shoe Books, Left Bank Books, and Black Rose Books. Anarchy magazine and Social Anarchism are just shy of that mark, and AK Press has been around for about twenty years. Depending on how you approach it, “doing business” can also make it easier to reach people (known to our capitalist pals as “markets”) who you’d otherwise have a hard time reaching. If you’re actually producing a “product,” by slipping into the well-worn grooves of existing commodity circulation you plant revolutionary seeds in far more places: from the harsh glare of Amazon.com to some small bookshop in Lincoln, Nebraska you’ve never heard of, but that’s on the radar of the bigger fish in the publishing world who are distributing your book or magazine. Of course, every collective I’ve been a part of has also developed its own, alternative distribution channels, but those, however important, often tend to reach only the usual suspects (which is still no small feat). Another advantage of using a business model is that it can provide some resources, however modest, to support other anarchist efforts. This can mean providing spaces others can use, both literal (a room or storefront or warehouse where groups can hold meetings, fundraisers, etc) and figurative (the pages of a book or magazine where people can speak to a wider world). All of which can be provided through other means…but, again, the sustained and dependable character of many anarchist businesses means people know the option is there, that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel or personally scrape together the resources to get their ideas out there. Every anarchist business I’ve been a part of also has provided mutual aid to other organizations. At AK this can take the form of donating money to other projects or individuals in need. It can mean sending free books to people starting infoshops and anarchist libraries, providing materials at cost to organizations for their own fund-raising and propaganda efforts, or supporting books-to-prisoners projects. And it means we can provide credit, and some degree of experienced-based advice, to individual tablers and fledgling shops, enabling them to get their efforts off the ground. That’s the rosy picture. There’s also a dark side of doing business. Aside from the ethical questions that, as I’ve pointed out, anyone who uses a cell phone or, for that matter, buys a book faces, there are several practical and political dangers that any anarchist business must confront. One is the fact that simply keeping a business afloat can take up a lot of your time and energy. The demands of running a business have nothing to do with your goals as an anarchist, except in the general sense that the business helps you to achieve those goals. Yet, a business can be a big undertaking. The fiscal and technical questions you find yourself discussing at meetings can, if you’re not careful, overshadow the reasons you’re sitting down together in the first place—or, at the very least, leave you less time to focus on your political goals.
These financial dangers can be exacerbated when your collective pays wages to its members. If your business is solvent enough to pay people, it means that you’re all able to devote a lot more time to the project, and thus to achieving the political goals you’ve set for yourself—while strengthening an institution that, as current collective members leave, new people will inherit and build upon. Of course, there are also hidden risks, though not the ones people normally think of. Aside from one or two dubious characters I’ve worked with over the last twenty-five years, I’ve never had the sense that anyone prioritized the paycheck over the political project. Everyone knows they can get another job (probably one that pays a lot better), so the angst that running a business entails has revolved, in my experience, around people’s commitment to patching things together for political, rather than personal, reasons. But the process of patching things together is made more difficult when people are getting paid: for the simple reason that wages are another form of overhead, one that leaves you less room to maneuver while trying to pull off your juggling act. Another wage-related risk is the fact that an anarchist business is rarely going to be able to pay enough to compensate adequately for the labor required to keep it going. This leads to the thorny questions of self-exploitation, burn-out, and a diminished ability to have a productive political or personal life outside the institution you’ve built. The risk here is, of course, relative. To some, the very idea of revolutionary “self-exploitation” makes little sense. What else are we supposed to spend our time doing on this earth, if we’re not putting every resource and ounce of strength into our political work? [I’m reminded here of the passage in Alexander Berkman’s memoirs where he describes coming to blows with his best friend because the latter had extravagantly spent twenty cents on a meal: “He should have known that he had no right to his earnings while the movement stood in such need of funds.”] For others, this sort of self-sacrifice seems profoundly counter-revolutionary—whether from a prefigurative and ludic sense of revolution as unbounded pleasure, or from a more labor-oriented perspective that insists on the dignity of work (“Don’t you know that people died for the eight-hour workday?”). There will always be differences of opinion about the political costs and benefits of running an oxymoronic anarchist business, and about how any given organization is handling them. A lot depends, as I’ve already mentioned, on the goals and presuppositions you bring to these questions. If you’re someone like me and no longer content preaching to the choir (though happy to do that as well at times), your perspective will be very different than someone more invested in smaller scale, countercultural projects designed to work on a more rhizomatic level. For instance, some will argue that producing and distributing anything but straight-up anarchist texts (or, depending on who’s arguing, some mélange of anarchist, situationist, nihilist, primitivist, syndicalist, activist, etc texts) is unethical. Others might argue that a well-rounded understanding (and critique) of society requires a range of anarchist and non-anarchist material (not to mention that expanding your repertoire allows you to reach a wider audience to whom you can also spread anarchist ideas). Of course, within the latter approach (the one I’ve chosen), there are thousands of micro-decisions and micro-debates about what exactly to provide readers. To list a few genres that I’ve endured long meetings about: Should socialist economics include Marx? Council communists? Quasi-reformist democratic socialism? Should your critical theory list draw the line at Adorno? Benjamin? Habermas? Butler? Should the poetry you offer include Brecht? Di Prima? Bukowski? Breton? Baraka? I’m not arguing for total relativity here. There are important stakes involved in these questions…and most of them are worthy of serious and broad debate. But what seems to be missing from most appraisals is an understanding that every anarchist organization that has chosen to participate in the capitalist marketplace is already having these debates and making these decisions. Whether you are the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Red Emma’s, Justseeds, Anarchy magazine, Slingshot, or AK Press, you have no choice but to negotiate these treacherous waters. From the printer you use, to the paper you print on, to the material you publish, to the ways you raise the cash to keep doing what you do—these are all political decisions fraught with danger. But the only way to deal with the danger is, in fact, to deal with it. It takes constant vigilance to decide where your line is, and how to stay on the least fucked-up side of it (since, in this world, “fucked-up” is the state of gracelessness we all start from). It also takes a willingness to make mistakes, sometimes huge ones, and then fumble your way back to something you can live with. It means dancing on the edge of a precipice—but, thankfully, dancing with comrades and friends who, even though you may not agree with them all, or most, of the time, you trust to keep you from taking the big, irrevocable plunge. There’s nothing easy about it. It’s equal parts exhausting and exhilarating. There’s a world to win, and a giant juggernaut of a nasty world standing in the way, with only your paltry and transcendent efforts to make practical and strategic sense of it all. Good luck. Drink beer. Respect one another. And find the perfect alchemical mix of rage, compassion, humility, and revolution. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
Thats what it comes down
Thats what it comes down to,retaining the individual autonomy amongst the prisoners of the system,and not judging them or yourself or the compromise that is required for the discourse,but to maintain the "rage,compassion,humility,and revolution."Enlightenment is the goal for any who are curious,and diplomacy has its powers. gilligan
Diplomacy certainly does
Diplomacy certainly does have its powers. I'd personally like to see anarchy/anarchism come about as peacefully as possible with as little violence as possible. I believe the principles of anarchy are rational and logical. I don't think any one of us has 'got it right' nor do i think any of us will ever 'get it right,' but I believe we are all united as anarchists in our shared rational conclusion that authority is not the answer for a fulfilled life.
We are all part of
We are all part of capitalist society, most easily proven by the fact that we are all using computers. And probably many of us 'own' our computers. While I think it interesting and slightly amusing, this analysis here, I find the at times apologetic tone a little silly. Many of us still do good things while being part of the system. AK press offers books, in a capitalist form. I teach children to read, in a capitalist form. My cousin does carpentry, in a capitalist form. You enjoy having books, right? You enjoy being able to read and write, right? You enjoy having a some furniture, maybe? Perhaps some of you, dear readers, truly do not enjoy any of these things, but my point is that they are not 'evil' nor completely 'tainted' by capitalism and the state. It is the existence of the state that taints us. All of us, you, me. Think about it, if it were finally gone, we would be able to just live our lives and not spend our time here babbling away. Being ourselves, fulfilling ourselves, not at anyone's mandate, not at anyone's expense. You, reader, what do you do? Somewhere you too are part of the capitalist state system. So long as it is there, exists, occupies our thoughts, continues, we are part of it and cannot escape it. So long as we do not escape it and do not part with it, it exists, it occupies our thoughts, continues... to waste our time.
sorry for the rant.
Ofelas 4:19 am- why the fuck am i still up? oh that's right, my day was eaten away by obligations that will insure that i am able to live in a house and eat food and not be locked away by the state. i guess i should quit griping. it's time for some sleep.
peace and love,
ofelas
This is one of the best
This is one of the best articles I've seen since I started hanging around here. Thank the Fates for people as sober and thoughtful as the author.
--ανομος
But the author stipulates
But the author stipulates the drinking of beer.Your reference to mystical Fates and the soberness of his comment,and a crass nomination of its extraordinary status can only mean this is a sarcastic comment. gilligan
No, I was actually quite
No, I was actually quite serious. I meant 'sober' in a different sense than 'unintoxicated', though I don't think that his mention of beer necessarily indicates that he wasn't (at least mostly) 'sober' in the former sense while writing this piece.
--ανομος
I apologize anomos,and
I apologize anomos,and understand the other use as the rational one.I'm glad you were serious,because honesty precedes all doctrines in its sheer oneness with humanity,which the author expressed,and why I posted.cheers :) gilligan
So many shoutouts, I thought
So many shoutouts, I thought this was an advertisement...
yea, rah rah rah? i would've
yea, rah rah rah?
i would've been more impressed if all these points (including the title), and more, hadn't recently been made elsewhere first.
but i'm not complaining (too much); conversations about how anarchists operate IRL (tm) are overdue, and money-making projects by anarchists are (one of) the most concrete examples to use.
it would be great though if we could get to newer territory.
"i would've been more
"i would've been more impressed if all these points (including the title), and more, hadn't recently been made elsewhere first."
Could you tell me where else they've been made? I'd like to read more on this topic. Thanks.
issue 64
issue 64
Thanks, but I've already
Thanks, but I've already ready that issue of Anarchy. I actually liked Andy Robinson's essay fairly well. Could make little sense of Aragorn's article (a problem I often have with his writing), and thought that Lawrence's essay was just his usual, very familiar, sectarian diatribe, poorly disguised as a serious investigation. Overall, I didn't think the issue offered much new or insightful. Do you have any other references? Thanks.
Beautifully Written. The
Beautifully Written.
The first question someone alqays asks me when learning I am an anarchist is "Do you buy things?" or "Do you have a job?" Followed by a statement that then implies that these things are contradictory to my belief system.
I believe this article is a good representation of how anarchists function in a capitalistic society.
I read this, and tried
I read this, and tried really hard to believe it was written in good faith. If nothing else, it seemed sober and reasonable, but I don't think I can call it honest.
If the goals of this anarchist business (AK press) are summed up in the four point list above, why are most of the books they publish either pro-social democracy (Chomsky and Albert) or pro-mindless violence and macho guerrilla posturing (everything on the RAF and the BLA, etc.)? How are they accountable to the needs of wider anarchist discussion? Instead of being responsive to those discussions, AK continues to peddle books dating back to the stupid, always-irrelevant arguments between old drunks (e.g. Bob Black and Bookchin). It holds back intelligent conversation and continues to immerse new folks in old and silly formulas.
How can he claim that commercial logics don't enter the equation when most everyone who writes in anarchist circles, or has friends who do, knows how AK press works? They explicitly tell prospective authors that they don't think a book will sell well enough to be bothered with, or they saddle new and interesting authors with "big-name" co-authors to help boost sales and moderate ideas that are too radical.
I don't think AK press is serious at all about the revolution that they claim to sell (most of their "opponents" aren't either). Revolution isn't the accumulation of red-and-black hoodies or books, it's not the distribution of old ideas in an old context. Revolution is a dynamic process, and revolutionary publishers need to be accountable and transparent in real discussions amongst revolutionaries- Ideas have to be immediately useful. Armed struggle reprints are only useful to provacateurs.
For what it's worth, here
For what it's worth, here are what I think are the most recent titles released by AK: http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/ak-media-info/. THey are
I guess I don't see how these are pro-social democracy or "pro-mindless guerilla posturing"
also, they just
also, they just published:
Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, which is the best historical account of anarchism I've read in a long time.
'...We reject the view that
'...We reject the view that figures like William Godwin (1756–1836), Max Stirner (1806–1856), Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker (1854–1939), and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) are part of the broad anarchist tradition...'
how on earth can you call a book that explicitly revisions anarchist thought to exclude foundational anarchist thinkers and trends to be a "historical account" at all, much less a "best" one?
Did you read the book? They
Did you read the book? They explain why. It isn't an exclusion without an explicit description as to why. Isn't that better than just writing a text about anarchism that only includes tendencies you like without explaining?
The gist is that none of those called themselves an anarchist except possibly Proudhon who would now be called a federalist. The Federalists did have an effect on Anarchism, but then so did the Marxists. Anarchism was defined through struggle and other thinkers starting basically with discussions happening in the First International.
Maybe you don't like their definition but it's clear, honest , there is a logic to it and it isn't hidden.
Rowan Duffy
Yeah, anarchism is complex
Yeah, anarchism is complex and there are a lot of good arguments to be made for including some people and excluding others. It's complicated (and think of all the people that would like to include the Situationists as anarchists! The Situationists hated anarchism).
The Sits were not clear
The Sits were not clear about anarchists in general (they had nice things to say about particular anarchists in particular times and places), but they certainly had no love specifically for the French Anarchist Federation.
It is clear above all that the Sits were not anarchists. So what? Their influence on post-68 anarchists has been equally obvious.
Yep, that's a decent summary
Yep, that's a decent summary of the Black Flame argument.
I'd add that what the authors are trying to do is to trace out the branches and tributaries of a very large historical social movement they see as originating in the work of Bakunin during the 1st international, and especially the parts of this movement that escape the eurocentric gaze (some of the most valuable parts of the book in my opinion!). This movement is a complicated one, and although they trace a lot of links of direct filiation, they are above all working to trace out the prevalence of a certain strategic and theoretical frame of opposition to Power, understood as a combination of state and capital (so necessarily a "left" anarchism, and one which is necessarily thinking of itself as a social movement, or in relation to a social movement - so they include insurrectionists as well as syndicalists, but not individualists). They'd like to call this tradition "anarchist," and they argue (pretty convincingly) that trying to talk about the "anarchist" movement when you need to include everyone and everybody who's ever called themselves an anarchist in it makes for some pretty incoherent and unproductive debates.
ok, on your terms then - i
ok, on your terms then - i don't like their definition, and i don't like attempts to simplify anarchist thought into something that is easily consumed. defenders of black flame-esque revisionism are excluding facts that don't suit their thesis apparently so that either their understanding of history is validated, or that a field of thought (in this case anarchism) is more linear, more containable (or both).
this black flame tendency seems like an ill-considered kneejerk response to the crimethinc stir-shit-up tactic of claiming everything, including the kitchen sink, is anarchist.
"Isn't that better than just writing a text about anarchism that only includes tendencies you like without explaining?"
maybe? just writing a text about things i like doesn't usually mean that i'm saying everything i don't include is not anarchist. the implication to me is that what's not included isn't interesting to me, not that it must be shot from the canon.
i agree that at least BF is explicit. i hear transparency is a new anarchist principle.
ok, i'm sure the authors are
ok, i'm sure the authors are aware that there definition is going to piss some people off.
BUT - "anarchism" is ultimately just a word here, and it has a function in the historical argument, and it's the latter that's most important, not the word choice. It's like if an author wrote "By 'banana', i intend to refer to a system of revolutionary self-government operating through maximally democratic horizontal structures" and you said, i don't agree with this argument because bananas are really pieces of fruit. Maybe the author's choice of terms rubs you the wrong way, but complaining about that impression without addressing the substance of the definition is a cheap way out of really engaging with the book. You could replace "anarchism" with, say, "anarchosyndicalism", in Black Flame, and the point of the book (aside from the definitional polemics, which is a side show), would remain intact - a serious, extremely well-researched historical investigation into a century-and-a-half of antistatist and anticapitalist organizing in a broad global context. And it's that history, and the lessons the authors want the reader to draw from it, that's ultimately at stake in the book. Refusing to evaluate the substantial claims they make in the course of the book because you disagree with how they want to define their own terms is kind of silly.
Holy fuck! AK reprinted
Holy fuck!
AK reprinted "Dynamite: A Century Of Class Violence In America by Louis Adamic"?
That's actually a good book! Why are THEY reprinting it?
I mean, I won't buy from them, but I am kinda glad that book is being reprinted...
Why wouldn't you buy it from
Why wouldn't you buy it from them? Why wouldn't you want to support an anarchist publisher?
Let's vote with our money!
Let's vote with our money! Own one, buy ten! Gotta stimulate that there economy!
"I read this and blah blah
"I read this and blah blah blah,," What are you the representative of,,,anarcho-pedantic?Lighten up,books and knowledge of anarchy have to be spread by whatever means,the quandary has been overcome by those who have this task.Dont run them down on a theoretical basis,some things must be achieved practically and financially.Dont be hypocritical. gilligan
"books and knowledge of
"books and knowledge of anarchy have to be spread by whatever means,the quandary has been overcome by those who have this task."
stupid comment gilligan. this whole post is about how the quandary has NOT been overcome by those who have this task.
and "by whatever means"? so we should ignore the contradictions in means and end? wow, good thinking.
Stupid not if you're not a
Stupid not if you're not a foundationist as you seem to be dot.The quandary has been solved by Charles. gilligan
Transpose censor for
Transpose censor for foundationist and passion for means and ends.Presto:) gilligan
hunh? the article is about
hunh? the article is about the continuing contradictions that he (and others) engage with. how is that about "overcoming"? how does me pointing that out have anything to do with censorship?
we should ignore the contradictions in passion?
throw words around randomly much?
Yep it was random like
Yep it was random like non-profit poetic licence, gilligan
"They explicitly tell
"They explicitly tell prospective authors that they don't think a book will sell well enough to be bothered with, or they saddle new and interesting authors with "big-name" co-authors to help boost sales and moderate ideas that are too radical."
Could you be specific here? What authors have they told their books can't be bothered with because they don't have sales potential? What big name co-authors have they saddled new and interesting authors with? The former would be interesting to know, and the latter doesn't make sense to me based on what I know of the books AK has published.
I did three years as a
I did three years as a volunteer at Bound Together Books, where I was first introduced to the contradictions inherent in being involved in an anarchist business. Similar to how Left Bank operates, Bound Together relies plenty on walk-in customers as well as the stalwarts who can be counted on to purchase just about any and every anarchist title that comes out. The last time I visited, the ratio of generic Leftist/moderate social democratic/mainstream titles to explicitly anarchist (and even vaguely anti-authoritarian) books was still about 20:1 if not even higher. This is, I assume, the usual ratio for sales as well. Anarchism doesn't sell all that well, regardless of how academic or populist the authors try to be. Any anarchist involved in publishing and/or distribution knows all too well that anarchist theory and history represents a niche market, one that fluctuates according to the visibility of anarchists in the public realm (in the US in the past 20 years that breaks down to pre-Seattle/post-Seattle with occasional localized burps here and there).
Similar to being an artist or musician, whose lives are usually not supported by their art, anarchists are usually employed in mainstream jobs that support their anarchist hobbies (activism and/or publishing for the most part). The few employment opportunities available to anarchists doing anarchist jobs are aberrations at best. How many people are paid fulltime staff at AK? At Left Bank? Soon to be at Wooden Shoe? Compared to the total number of anarchists around the US? Since the number is incredibly small, why is anyone using such positions to draw conclusions about what it means to live with yet one more contradiction?
Everyone who works deserves some kind of compensation under capitalism. Aside from some particularly onerous occupations that most anarchists would agree are outside the realm of acceptability, just about any job will give us enough to live on and spend money, time, and energy on our chosen hobbies. Who wants to read blogs about those jobs? There's probably plenty to say, from dealing with corrupt union organizers and officials, to petty supervisors, to apathetic co-workers, to secret (and often surprising) allies. What makes any of the AK Press blogs so special, other than the exotic quality of making a living at anarchist publishing/distribution? How about a discussion of how much labor is sucked out of interns and volunteers to allow for the salaries of the waged workers? Having a ready supply of unpaid laborers is pretty handy but extremely troubling (at least for me); how come nobody's raised that subject?
I agree with dot that just about every point Charles raises has been raised before and elsewhere in a much more critical context. I'd prefer to see some deeper self-reflection and some acknowledgement that working at AK is bizarre--even before the discussion of how decisions get made, or how anarchist it is to make a living from peddling anarchism.
--Lawrence
Lawrence, it's not clear to
Lawrence, it's not clear to me why you think working at AK is bizarre? Unless I've misunderstood something, that doesn't seem to follow from the rest of your comments. Your only concrete objection seems to be that AK uses interns and volunteers. Is that why you think its bizarre?
Here's what I wrote that you
Here's what I wrote that you clearly missed:
The few employment opportunities available to anarchists doing anarchist jobs are aberrations at best.
It's not bizarre that an anarchist works at AK, it's bizarre that anyone thinks that any serious conclusions about the possibility of a viable anarchist business within capitalism could be made when the number of anarchists working in waged positions in self-described anarchist businesses is miniscule compared with the number of anarchists working non-anarchist jobs.
It's not bizarre that a business would exploit unpaid labor, it's bizarre that an anarchist business would do this and not have an explanation for it up front.
Oops forgot to sign my
Oops forgot to sign my post.
--Lawrence
Lawrence, Anarchy Magazine
Lawrence, Anarchy Magazine is an all volunteer project, right? This allows you to keep the cover price lower than you could if you had to, for example, pay someone to do the lay out. Right? So, according to your logic, the readers are "exploiting" the volunteers! That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
How perceptive of you! Yes,
How perceptive of you! Yes, Anarchy magazine is all volunteer. It's not all volunteer except one or two. The magazine has no paid staff, and writers and artists get copies of the magazine in exchange for their contributions. AK has salaried staff plus volunteers and interns.
The strange logic you're using is all yours, not mine in any way. In fact, I can't follow it at all. Or is it that a volunteer is always exploited? If that's your argument, fine, but that's not at all what I said.
--Lawrence
I would say that paying
I would say that paying salaries is a really good thing for an anarchist project. Otherwise, a project has to rely people with loads of free time--who are typically either really young or really wealthy--whereas paying a salary actually makes it possible to bring in more working class people, which I think is a good thing.
Most businesses like to
Most businesses like to think like that. It is good for business.
I think its weird that
I think its weird that Anarchy Magazine spends so much time attacking AK for being a business, when Anarchy Magazine is just as dependent on the market. After all, Anarchy Mag is a business too and collapses without subscribers. . . .
AK is a publisher and
AK is a publisher and distributor who have increased their monopoly on anarchist and radical publishing over the last decade, so much so that many writers are forced to follow the content/idea model that AK has created if they want their work to be considered for publication in the centralized/cornered market that AK has carved out. That's not market forces, that's creating the supply over which they also have influence in terms of demand. Creating the demand and then offering a curtailed, non-diverse, supply is qualitatively and quantitatively different from publishing a periodical. Unless you hadn't noticed.
It’s silly to argue that
It’s silly to argue that AK somehow forces anarchists to follow a line. AK makes editorial decisions about what it publishes, just as Anarchy Magazine makes decisions about the articles its prints, just as someone decides what appears on this site.
And AK makes decisions about what type of books it distributes, just as the Little Black Cart distributors make the same decision.
Yes, its true that AK is far more popular among anarchists than Anarchy Magazine, but that’s not because AK forced anyone to do anything or has a “monopoly.” It's just because its more popular.
A fine example of circular
A fine example of circular reasoning: AK is far more popular among anarchists because it's more popular. I'm convinced. I will now be a tireless promoter of AK, because it's more popular. Got any Kool-Aid?
I think it's fair to say
I think it's fair to say that AK has more support among anarchists than Anarchy Magazine. That seems like a fact to me.
Lawrence, says "writers are
Lawrence, says "writers are forced to follow the content/idea model that AK has created" . . . and what model is that and how are they being "forced"? I am pretty sure that he won't be able to provide any evidence for his claim. And it's strange, too: on the one hand, Lawrence accuses AK of not being selective enough about what it publishes and, on the other, of being too selective about what it publishes. So, um, which is it?
Sorry anon, but that post
Sorry anon, but that post wasn't by me.
I have no idea what criteria are used by AKers to make publishing decisions, and I have no idea what the "content/idea model" might be. I also have no idea if prospective anarchist writers feel "forced" to conform to AKers' understanding of what is acceptable for AK to publish; I am fairly certain that nobody at AK has ever "forced" a prospective writer to conform to certain parameters in exchange for a promise of publication.* I have never been part of AK, nor am I on intimate terms with anyone at AK. Any proposition I might make concerning their internal operations, decision-making, or business arrangements would be pure speculation on my part.
All I can base my conclusions upon are the actual products available for distribution through AK. I then juxtapose those items to the stated objectives and goals as written in the AK Catalog. My conclusion is that there are some contradictions involved in their project. I have also raised a question regarding their exploitation of volunteer and intern labor while there are also fulltime paid staff.
I am also the co-author of the official Anarchy magazine response to the letter to us from the AK Collective announcing our banning from their distribution service.
I try to refrain from making wild and irresponsible accusations against people and their projects. Imputing nefarious intentions and policies to AKers or others is not my style.
--Lawrence
*However, on at least one occasion (the Flores Magon book "Dreams of Freedom"), the main translator had his introduction altered to his extreme displeasure due to AK's decision to allow a co-editor (not from AK) carte blanche to edit it quite heavily because of his own prejudices.
Lawrence, it does not make
Lawrence, it does not make sense to claim that AK "exploits" volunteer labor. Volunteer labor is, uh, volunteered; that is, given freely, without hope of remuneration. AK does not exploit volunteers. Its accepts the gift of their support. That's something different.
What problems do you have with the "actual products" being produced by AK? Here are recently published books :
* Arm the Spirit: A Woman’s Journey Underground and Back by Dianna Block
* A History of the French Anarchist Movement, 1917 to 1945 by David Berry
* Dynamite: A Century Of Class Violence In America by Louis Adamic
* Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, CounterPower Vol. I
* Spell Albuquerque: Memoir of a “Difficult Student” by Tennessee Reed
They look pretty great to me. What part do you object to?
The list is from here: http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/ak-media-info/
Here's the problem as I see
Here's the problem as I see it, which I already mentioned in my initial post on this topic.
First, AK is without question a capitalist enterprise, operating with an eye to maximize profits from their publishing and distribution business. AKers boasted about their gross income in "Publishers' Weekly," which, if I remember correctly, amounted to something like 1.5 million bucks. Not too shabby, and that certainly raised a number of eyebrows. How much they put back into the business after they've paid their expenses (and how they decide what those expenses are) are none of my business.
It would be interesting to know if the volunteers would prefer to be remunerated with some cash instead of discounted paraphernalia, but that's not really the point of my criticism. My problem with the use of volunteer labor at AK has to do with the fact that there is a double- (perhaps triple-, if the interns are considered separately) tier system, with each layer being treated differently in terms of remuneration. My assumption is that the amount of compensation saved by using volunteers is directly related to the compensation paid to fulltime staff.
Further, it has been my experience with collective workplaces in the US that people who are ideologically committed to a particular project (or the particular form it takes) will engage in all manner of self-exploitation and/or agree to onerous working conditions for the sake of the Greater Good. This makes me suspicious about the way volunteers are used anywhere, but at an anarchist business especially.
"AK does not exploit volunteers. Its accepts the gift of their support. That's something different."
A statement of true fact. Unfortunately it is offered in total bad faith. The first sentence has to do with AK, while the second has to do with the volunteers. You've changed the subject (and the agent). My experience with self-exploitation among workers in collectives makes me very suspicious, especially with such smooth phrasing. Your sentences, taken together, are cynical justification, not an explanation.
I'm sure that those new titles have some things in them of possible interest to contemporary anarchists, regardless of whether or not the authors or subjects are anarchist. Some of my best friends aren't anarchists. My objections have to do the statement of purpose of AK Press and its items: the fact is that the majority of the items available through AK Press distribution are not anarchist, and have only remote (if any) connections to the furtherance of anarchy or anarchist theory, but everything to do with filling the coffers of AK Press. Promoting the writings of Alexander Cockburn or Angela Davis or Derrick Jensen, or books and pamphlets by or about the Black Liberation Army or the Red Army Faction, for example, are directly opposed to the goals and strategies of anarchists. I find that to be a serious contradiction, hence my objections.