Left Bank Books once again publishes books and pamphlets.

  • Posted on: 25 March 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>After several years of publishing silence, Left Bank Books Collective is pleased to announce the restart of its publishing project. We will be publishing books, as well as pamphlets, both repressings, and original works.

To kickoff the project, we are releasing to the world two pamphlets. The first is a repress of the first pamphlet Left Bank ever published, The Kronstadt Uprising of 1921, written in 1975 by one of Left Bank’s founders, Lynne Thorndycraft, with a cover printed on a letterpress (feels nice in your hands!) right here in Pike Place Market. The second is a new essay by John Zerzan titled The Origins of the 1%: The Bronze Age, with covers silkscreened on shiny “bronze” paper. Both of these pamphlets will be available at the 2012 Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair, and of course, in our shop. Upcoming is a new edition of Peter Gelderloos’ How Nonviolence Protects the State, which we swear will be finished before the 2012 Seattle Anarchist Bookfair. Before long we should have our published wares available for mailorder on our website as well.
</td><td><img title="At least there will be one new thing at the bookfair this year" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/kronstadt.jpg"></td></tr></...
<!--break-->
Left Bank Books
92 Pike
Seattle, WA 98108
206//622//0195
www.leftbankbooks.com

Comments

oh neat, i stole my copy of Enemies of Society from there

yeah, lets rip off anarchist projects instead of just downloading a free text and printing it. fucking bourgeois kleptomaniac. at least i steal corporate shit, like when I was fifteen stealing Naomi Klein's No Logo from a Wal-Mart book section. sure, not anarchist at all, but definitely anti capitalist literature. i figured if they were gonna sell anti capitalist literature at a capitalist giant, I might as well repay the favor with an anti capitalist action that they obviously endorsed by selling above said literature by ripping it off of them.

I agree with the above, but Naomi Klein is a Keynesian at best.

Excepttttttttttttt I wouldn't necessarily say it's bourgeois to steal, from an anarchist collective or otherwise. Just really shitty.

the proletariat is shitty, deal with it.

Should have brought that sign to your local occupy. Represent the cancer.

HA

How do you really feel?

"lets rip off anarchist projects instead of just downloading a free text and printing it."

BOTH!

or... what if enough printing and distributing in the area put them out of business? If more "collective members" of various anarchist projects (read: "SHOPS") were printing and distributing at Pike Place, it could even prove more effective for idea spreading than having another Store, normalizing the anarchist form of commodity culture. Early capitalism was all independent businesses, but it was still capitalism, and anti-capitalism in the form of appropriation/disregard for custom/robbery still made sense back then... what's changed?

"I might as well repay the favor with an anti capitalist action that they obviously endorsed by selling above said literature by ripping it off of them."

That's funny, then don't Anarchist Stores "endorse" stealing, crime, anti-capitalism, etc. enough to where taking the advice of the materials therein could imply less partiality to their well being as a Store? If this is applicable, it would seem the health of an anarchist scene could, in part, be measured by its inability to maintain a SHOP for the ruthlessness of its target audience to both oppose currency exchange and to read/distribute free information.

I wasn't born an anarchist. Nor was I fortunate to be raised in a community of resistance. We all get exposed to these ideas somehow and one purists SHOP is anothers entry into anarchist/queer/anticolonial ideas. I think if you reach back into your own personal process with a little less smugeness maybe you will identify such a moment yourself.

Yeah, first it was punk mixtapes, then it was zine trading with anarchists who had free copy codes, and then it was a library... then I read and applied, and was unable to fully understand entire SHOPS devoted to anarchist literature. I also found inspiration in Crimethinc's (omg i kno rite) huge bundles of free shit you could get without even having to place a paid order, and other such examples.

Enter the "infoSHOP" and anarchist book STORE, where everything that showed me less/no dependence on the dynamics of capital was concentrated and priced beyond what I can afford, just like the products in the windows at shopping centers of other things I was taught to desire. Suddenly, my love of anarchist literature and my desire to peruse and distribute it becomes a decent reason to work and shop. I can see how it might seem like a good oasis within capital to have an anarchist bookstore, but that's really the god damn opposite of what the bulk of anarchist literature insinuates what might prove more fruitful.

Anarchist Stores pale in comparison to state/tax funded city libraries, and I think that's sad.

You'll have to forgive me for not seeing more books with glossy covers (or whatever) as a terribly respectable, important, or indespensible answer for exemplifying (and therefor ACTUALLY spreading) anarchist ideas and praxis.

Is that bourgeois?

geez, never mind that it might also be a way for anarchists to eek out a living working for themselves instead of some shitass boss.

And the ones stealing from them get labeled "fucking bourgeois". Irony...

"Bourgeious"?

Have fun with you fetishized criminality and your derision. Far as I can tell anarchists in other parts of the world work, because they must to support themselves and their struggle. This level of nuance/shoe gazing is as much a privilege as the anarchist book seller. Survival is survival, do not let it become the beginning and end of your political identity. En fin.

yaaaaawn. We steal because we must support ourselves and our struggle. Just because we steal or don't own our own small business doesn't mean we don't work.

We're just saying pick your targets better when you steal.

And just because stealing is your work doesn't make targeting anarchist distros any less stupid.

if you can imagine being down with this, AND the above sentiments, you have the totality of my thoughts on the subject. they're not incompatible.

I don't care to get involved in an argument about stealing from Left Bank, but I do feel the need to say that this:

"Anarchist Stores pale in comparison to state/tax funded city libraries, and I think that's sad."

seems to indicate that you are either not familiar with Left Bank or with the Seattle Public Library, or not familiar with either. SPL's selection has almost none of the titles I want that Left Bank does carry. I know this because I can't afford to buy them from Left Bank so I look for them elsewhere. Academic libraries fare a bit better but not everyone can rent material from them.

I did mean the structure, not the content.

In my initial diatribe, I mention crimethinc's example, but I left out how they are really encouraging of getting their books in to libraries, too. Maybe Left Bank should try that.

... but as you pointed out, you'd go get them elsewhere because you can't afford them. Left Bank holding its ideals and practicing them would lead to its undoing.

Ha ha! yes if only anarchists could rise to the organizational level of our public libraries people would be joining the dark side in no time.

no not really, but shit would at least be more accessible and a lot less embarrassing.

"Early capitalism was all independent businesses." Did you just fucking say that you ignorant douche?

Care to inform us?

Not the previous poster but do you think early capitalism was all independent business? I don't know of any evidence to suggest that, most of what we acknowledge suggests that the development of hierarchy, military empires, and the nation state are kind of essential for capitalism to have become a dominant structure in the first place. Currency as we know it has always been related with empires. To maintain them it's necessary to pay everyone their dividend. It's the only way you can have a military. Even if a business is 'independent,' what does that mean in realistic terms? All businesses are independent because that's how capitalism makes them exist: as competing parties over what capital provides. The friendly local grocer is an individual forced to fend for themselves by capital and accumulate what they can within the system by working at a certain level of the distribution chain. Or maybe I was just way off thinking you were suggesting that early capitalism was independent in any way?

I meant "independent" in the sense of "family owned" as opposed to "corporate", the latter being the one that is subject to theft on allegedly ethical grounds.

"The friendly local grocer is an individual forced to fend for themselves by capital and accumulate what they can within the system by working at a certain level of the distribution chain."

This was the given aspect of my claim, I wasn't proposing independence from capital and networks of competing parties.

That is to say the initial businesses/shops of early american capitalism more closely resembled Left Bank than Wal-Mart, and that anti-capitalism was still sensible under the conditions that formed the more people-oriented business models of early american capitalism.

I'm sure early capitalism did look more like Left Bank than Wal Mart, and I guess I'd say anti-capitalism is sensible in any condition. I don't think that the only sensible goal of anti-capitalism, however, is to form more people-oriented models of capitalism. I would say that's the unintended consequence of us not breaking capitalism and moving on. "People-oriented" capitalism is a compromise that changes surface appearances of relations but not the real distribution of power and capital. That goal to me is hardly distinguishable from the goals of most capitalists at this point, they are all competing to be more "people-oriented" in their methods of selling themselves.

That's my point... had zero intention of sounding like an advocate for "people oriented capitalism."

This is relative to the "shoplifting ethic" (Left Bank Vs. Corporate being "right/wrong") being debated. That capitalism, in all forms, is undesirable for anarchists is uncontested.

That's why it's good to read the whole thread, which I often don't do. As for stealing from Left Books, whatever, it's not like it's anything you need but if you have a thing against them have at it. I usually don't get stealing from folks who produce something I would want when they are non-corporate entities, but I guess if you think the Left Book people are such shit then don't read free copies of the stuff they sell and limit their supply instead. I get that all capitalism is capitalism but is this basically a way of saying 'fuck you' to Left Books or do they actually put out something you want and paying for it is just oppression? If they are leftists or commies then I would say yeah, steal it and chuck it under a bridge, but if they put out something interesting obviously not.

I get that all capitalism is capitalism but is this basically a way of saying 'fuck you' to Left Books"

Imagine it being intended and undertaken as politely as possible. More of a "thank you" than a "fuck you."

"or do they actually put out something you want and paying for it is just oppression?"

That too... but it happens, no biggy. They can come over and borrow my books any time without having to "volunteer" for me in some way to get a "discount."

cool. where do you live? i'll come over and "borrow" some stuff this weekend.

HA

act like i haven't had my fair share of "borrowers" in the way you imply. Never quite understood getting repeatedly robbed by the same people who had to have figured out by the 3rd time you didn't have much stuff to keep or sell... but then again, I never understood having a terribly debilitating attachment to belongings.

but back on track... if you think Left Bank theft is bad, wouldn't that prevent you from stealing from someone who is not a store who offers things for free with less strings than Left Bank, and who has LESS money and belongings than it/them?

Interesting that you'd think this statement makes some sort of point.

well you did say "they" could come over and borrow some stuff. then "they" asked for your address.

umad?

"and who has LESS money and belongings than it/them?"

you can't have less money than none. except when you are deeply in debt, and barely able to pay your rent, or anyone else you owe money.

You can have less money than a store that pays multiple employees and purchases inventory and a rents a space in a main market strip, actually.

do you return the books you borrow from left bank?

Who do they belong to?

But yeah, I guess to append that I would say that I basically agree entirely with the OP: anybody who says that ALL (not some, but "all" capitalism and thus the hierarchies which created it) was "independent" (somehow autonomously created) in it's early development is truly an ignorant douche. Well said OP.

Did you both forget the context entirely of what "independent" and "corporate" business distinctions mean in modern terms? Particularly in the very obvious context of "Left Bank shoplifting" vs. "Wal-Mart shoplifting?"

"Ignorant douche" apparently doesn't apply to those with no reading comprehension.

I mean, just read the fucking paragraph/context. It's really not that hard to see what was meant by "independent business," which is an actual term with intended meanings within the capitalist lexicon... this wacky, context-oblivious interpretation that it means "autonomously created" is way out there.

Are you from a different country where the term "independent business" doesn't mean "capitalist family business/mom and pop store" or something? I can't even fathom where the ridiculous notion of "autonomously created" comes from.

family owned equals accumulation by dispossesion???

Oooooohhhh dropping down the primmo accumulation!

If you've been to left bank, you know that in the upstairs anarchist section there are easily three signs that encourage (Please!) people not to steal the books.

We've taught ourselves and each other to steal when we can because any commodified interaction, either in a shop or in the workplace is fucked. We don't want to be alienated from what we need by a person in name tag and uniform 'helping' us decide on the best purchase, or shunning us away when we cannot afford it. Stealing can be a grandiose or small expropriation that benefits a collective, a space, a project, a home, or ourselves.

We do not want to justify theft, or be weighted by the guilt of our sinful conscious when we do steal. We steal because we need to, and because in a world presenting two choices we always choose the illegal- to destroy money and its morals.
-Friends of Left Bank who have stolen from Left Bank.

While important worth supporting and sometimes interesting very little sold at left bank can be described as something one 'needs'. Most of these titles can either be shared between friends or stolen from an actually corporate store.

there are ample opportunities to read in the shop, get store credit, or get hella discounts through volunteering.
people seem to think that left bank as a project will never be "allowed" to fail, but people do not understand that this project has been losing money for awhile, in part because "friends" of the shop seem to think that they can set the boundaries of the friendship without any dialogue. hey, guess what? that's not a friendship.
left bank subsidizes the books to prisoners project that uses our 501 status in order to function and send books to prisoners. tell those folks how you treat your "friends," and what kind of effect you have on their only resource for outside literature.

No.

Do you make the books to prisoners project pay for the books?

no, they don't pay for the books.

jeezie creezie, I'll give the book I took back already. Sheesh.

"only source"

You're not the only source. Much of anarchist prisoner support and literature to prisoners is done without "501 status." If LB closed tomorrow, would aid to prisoners stop? Do the ends cease with the current means? You're bragging just because it's done, and conflate that with it being special or unique *to the store.* It's not, doesn't have to be, and could be better without.

"in part because "friends" of the shop seem to think that they can set the boundaries of the friendship without any dialogue"

You can't be friends of a SHOP, that's the problem, not the people you're berating. It's just as easy to say "making anarchist literature a storefront on a main market strip essentially *against* the dialogue of anarchism is not a friendship." It's the dynamics. Switching so fluidly from "shop" to "project" lends clarity to the delusions of exemption "radical STORES" seem to tout.

"tell those folks how you treat your "friends," and what kind of effect you have on their only resource for outside literature."

What a shitty little goblin thing to say. Sounds like typical American parenting about appreciating the *shit* you're fed simply because it's being fed.

stop making shit up. go to bed.

"What a shitty little goblin thing to say."

HAHAHAHAHA. !!!

"only source"

You're not the only source. Much of anarchist prisoner support and literature to prisoners is done without "501 status." If LB closed tomorrow, would aid to prisoners stop? Do the ends cease with the current means? You're bragging just because it's done, and conflate that with it being special or unique *to the store.* It's not, doesn't have to be, and could be better without.

"in part because "friends" of the shop seem to think that they can set the boundaries of the friendship without any dialogue"

You can't be friends of a SHOP, that's the problem, not the people you're berating. It's just as easy to say "making anarchist literature a storefront on a main market strip essentially *against* the dialogue of anarchism is not a friendship." It's the dynamics. Switching so fluidly from "shop" to "project" lends clarity to the delusions of exemption "radical STORES" seem to tout.

"tell those folks how you treat your "friends," and what kind of effect you have on their only resource for outside literature."

What a shitty little goblin thing to say. Sounds like typical American parenting about appreciating the *shit* you're fed simply because it's being fed.

*affect

I kicked off this conversation, and I approve of this response wholly.

but stealing does not destroy money.

and it does not destroy morals.

please explain.

but selling anarchist books in a shop does not destroy money.

and it does not destroy morals (clearly).

please explain.

i never claimed anything like that, so what should i be defending exactly?

someone else claimed that stealing destroys money and morals. that claim needs to be defended...

I've been through this thread.

Those claims are not made anywhere.

Nevermind, found it.

... but, it wasn't saying what you think. It was talking about "justification," not that acts of those sort specifically and tangibly "destroy" money/morals.

> We steal because we need to, and because in a world presenting two choices we always choose the illegal- to destroy money and its morals.
> we always choose the illegal- to destroy money and its morals.
> the illegal- to destroy money and its morals.
> ...

also, in a world that presents us with only 2 choices (democrat or republican, work or death, status quo or a statist revolution, etc etc), we must refuse both.

Word.
-Friends of LB who have stolen from LB

CONTEXT. Read the PARAGRAPH.

i read the paragraph.

and?

*we always choose the illegal...and NOTHINGNESS

If I worked at Left Bank, I'd just start a pistolero group to deal with the thieves.

seriously. stealing from people who pay themselves minimum wage, or nothing at all, is confusing as shit to me. nobody NEEDS anarchist literature to survive. it pays way better to steal computer books from barnes and noble and sell those on the internet.

Anarchist/radical/all literature is one of the *only* things I even *desire* in my life, so I don't even bother or find myself stealing very often from collective/family/non-corporate stores anyway unless they have literature.

So, when there's anarchist literature available, free or not, book or zine, corporate or non, I take it. I also share literature readily, with less red tape and requirements than Left Bank and their shoplift-deterrent policies... where do my behaviors meet or fail to meet your ethical standards?

I don't give a fuck, but I'm curious to whether or not you have some interesting and arbitrary determinations of what is acceptable along these lines... (also, by "you" i mean "those who disagree on this thread," not solely to your post)

"so i take it" FUXYES

Don't you think you could find better things to do with a pistolero group than defend anarchist books from people who want them???

Like... robbing bookstores (corporate or non) and giving out the loot for free?

"MUST DEFEND THE ANARCHIST COMMODITY FORM WITH GUNS"

Yeah fucking right, shut up. Of course someone would blather tough about guns for the fucking cause of preventing stolen anarchist books instead of in any way resembling what the gun-slinging anarchists IN THOSE BOOKS SUGGEST.

IT'S OK GUYS, THE ANARCHIST BOOKS ARE SAFE FROM ANARCHISTS WHO WANT TO READ THEM, THANK BAKUNIN THE GUN-FOLKS ARE HERE

Seriously. Pistolero group.

Start one anyway, Houdini. Yeah fuckin' right.

So full of shit.

*100 years later, new gen. of anarchists*

"Oh man, you wanna borrow this book I just stole from the anarchist book store? It's about this ridiculous pistolero group called The Great Book Protectors who defended an anarchist book store from the occasional thieving anarchist who just wanted to read. Yeah, they were a joke, almost as big of a joke as the idea of an "Anarchist Store."

you know what's an even bigger joke? the anarchist on anews who took the comment about a pistolero group defending an anarchist bookstore from anarchists thieves as if it was serious...

you win that round

forgive me for wishing people were more serious about pistols, but less so about dumb shit like this

got carried away

pistoleros aside, it seems the idea is self-defense. i don't see how stealing from worker-owned stores is that different from mugging an individual (who makes minimum wage) or robbing a house (occupied by someone who makes minimum wage). if i had the ability, i would try to prevent someone from stealing from my house, or my person, with violence if necessary. what a lot of people seem to forget, is that a store like Left Bank is run by real people who are forced to live in a capitalist society, just like the rest of us. a store like left bank makes NO PROFIT. stealing a book from them doesn't strike a blow against capitalism in any way. the companies that print and distribute those books still make money. the logging companies that provide pulp for the paper still make money. the only people who lose money (and in effect, their ability to survive in the context of a capitalist culture) are the people that run the store for MINIMUM WAGE, or less. i'm pretty sure that most people who run anarchist stores understand the contradiction of running a business. but they can look at the world in a context that forces them to survive by its rules, even if it is supporting capitalism by way of theft. not everyone can survive by shoplifting and squatting. if someone wants to get around to smashing capitalism so people can stop having to work for their living, hurry the fuck up. otherwise, find someone else to steal from, or i will laugh when they beat the shit out of you for taking food out of their mouths.

"i don't see how stealing from worker-owned stores is that different from mugging an individual (who makes minimum wage) or robbing a house (occupied by someone who makes minimum wage)."

Well, let's list some differences: Items in store are priced and intended to be FOR others, personal/house belongings are not, mugging/burglary is by threat of force/violence or done with forced entry and disregard for the solace/privacy/personal safety people look for in their own homes/public areas, mugging/robbing are usually done for personal monetary/proprietary gain or out of desperation due to lack of well being in those areas whereas stealing from a BOOK STORE is to READ and SHARE literature... I can think of more, but those are *huge* and obvious differences.

"what a lot of people seem to forget, is that a store like Left Bank is run by real people who are forced to live in a capitalist society, just like the rest of us."

I don't think anyone forgets that. It's just as easy to hear that from an employee at ANY store about the thieves that enter it.

"a store like left bank makes NO PROFIT."

Then they technically suffer NO LOSSES.

"stealing a book from them doesn't strike a blow against capitalism in any way."

That never even entered my line of argument. I agree. Not the goal, at all.

"the logging companies that provide pulp for the paper still make money."

Speaking of that, as a book store, does their participation in the forest-obliterating practices of modern printing count as enough transgression and lack of consensus to warrant disrespect for their role? You seem to think you have answers and insight on this matter, so please share. Who's exempt, who's not?

"are the people that run the store for MINIMUM WAGE, or less."

That means they make profit, by the way. Which is it?

"i'm pretty sure that most people who run anarchist stores understand the contradiction of running a business. "

That's actually what I'm thinking when I steal from them. Fairly 101 common ground being stated, here. Good. Seems it needs refreshing here and there for the reactionaries.

"not everyone can survive by shoplifting and squatting."

and no one here is arguing that, or arguing anything having to do with "survival" either. Also, that statement might be technically true in some respects, but I'm positive that more of it could be a lot more fruitful than you'd like to imply. You say "not everyone," but that's implying everyone would need to, or that it wouldn't work if everyone tried. If it were more simply a mere *larger amount* of people engaging in those practices, there would be a significantly different american anarchist climate to speak of.

"otherwise, find someone else to steal from, or i will laugh when they beat the shit out of you for taking food out of their mouths."

That's not what's happening. Sounds nice and simple, but it's not. So far, on this thread, I've heard they make no profit, they make minimum wage (which means they can and probably do get food stamps, not to mention the dumpster heaven that Seattle is), they give away books to prisoners plentifully, and a myriad of other things. What's their turnover rate for employees? How many have other jobs? Should I care or think of it differently than any other business, really? If they were gone tomorrow, would everyone starve and hate their lives and not be interested in distributing anarchist literature and doing projects? Fuck, maybe they'd collectivize to steal and squat more, and wind up with a free space where their income was hardly needed anyway. Who knows. YOU DON'T.

"I don't think anyone forgets that. It's just as easy to hear that from an employee at ANY store about the thieves that enter it."

an employee at a regular store makes the same amount of money whether or not you steal from it. the owner loses. by exploiting the employees, this owner deserves to lose.

"Then they technically suffer NO LOSSES."

wrong. money is sent out of the store constantly. it is possible to lose money without the potential for profit. any money that could be made by the store stays in the store. all of it goes in to paying bills, and paying a few people minimum wages. when sales are down, or shoplifting is up, hours get cut, orders get cut, suppliers apply credit holds, etc.

"That never even entered my line of argument. I agree. Not the goal, at all."

plenty of others seem to have this misconception.

"Speaking of that, as a book store, does their participation in the forest-obliterating practices of modern printing count as enough transgression and lack of consensus to warrant disrespect for their role? You seem to think you have answers and insight on this matter, so please share. Who's exempt, who's not?"

just about any action a resident of this country can make destroys the environment in some way. not to mention shoplifting books made of paper, or reading PDFs on computer screens.

"That means they make profit, by the way. Which is it?"

personally, i see a huge difference between a company profiting, meaning they make money over and above what goes back into the business, and worker-owners paying themselves minimum wage.

"That's actually what I'm thinking when I steal from them. Fairly 101 common ground being stated, here. Good. Seems it needs refreshing here and there for the reactionaries."

the difference, is that i would translate that knowledge into sympathy for folks that have found a less offensive way of surviving capitalism, and find someone else to steal from.

"and no one here is arguing that, or arguing anything having to do with "survival" either."

people have used the word "need" to refer to what they steal. we only "need" what helps us survive. "survival" was at least implied.

"If they were gone tomorrow, would everyone starve and hate their lives and not be interested in distributing anarchist literature and doing projects? Fuck, maybe they'd collectivize to steal and squat more, and wind up with a free space where their income was hardly needed anyway. Who knows. YOU DON'T."

you don't know me. i do know. i have lived solely off of stealing and squatting for years at a time. and discovered that going to jail sucks just as much as capitalism does. i'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of people would hate their lives if they had to move from the more ideal situation of being your own boss to the much shittier situation of working for minimum wage at some shitty for-profit business.

"an employee at a regular store makes the same amount of money whether or not you steal from it. the owner loses. by exploiting the employees, this owner deserves to lose."

I don't think you hold the keys to what is deserved or not. I make no judgment call either way, but with your line of thinking, if you think there is no "exploitation" going on in some form or another, you're wrong. Capitalism is inherently exploitative, for one. I learned this from the books in the store. Makes me think that the books "deserve" to be appreciated in a way that doesn't involve currency transactions between anarchists.

"when sales are down, or shoplifting is up, hours get cut, orders get cut, suppliers apply credit holds, etc."

*ANY* other job situation, this would be met with approval. I don't think it's any different. I can't help but see more potential than tragedy at the idea of Left Bank going out of business. I don't bother myself with wishing for it, either, mind you.

"it is possible to lose money without the potential for profit. any money that could be made by the store stays in the store. all of it goes in to paying bills, and paying a few people minimum wages."

I'm not sure what it is about paying employees that doesn't register as "profit" to you. That was the main point.

"just about any action a resident of this country can make destroys the environment in some way. not to mention shoplifting books made of paper, or reading PDFs on computer screens."

This is a re-stating of exactly what I was proposing, and a *complete* avoidance of answering the questions making that insinuation implied. Don't restate, answer.

"personally, i see a huge difference between a company profiting, meaning they make money over and above what goes back into the business, and worker-owners paying themselves minimum wage."

If the company keeps and regularly stocks inventory and pays employees... then no, there is no difference. That makes no sense. It might be *less* "over and above," but you must pull in profit to maintain a business AND pay employees. They're making money. It's a business. They've almost gone out of business a few times, I've heard, which to me says more about the viability of anarchist book store being on a main market strip in general anyway.

"the difference, is that i would translate that knowledge into sympathy for folks that have found a less offensive way of surviving capitalism, and find someone else to steal from."

Offensive to whom? I'm not interested in holding things sacred, but forgive it appearing that way if it does by saying that the "anarchist commodity form" is fucking offensive to anarchism and the anarchists that wrote that shit. I can't think of anyone *better* to steal from, since we've both concluded what the "goal" of stealing is and isn't. I don't think I'm smashing capital, and I don't think it's beyond understanding and appreciation to get BOOKS to READ and SHARE from a BOOK STORE. You seem to want some mystical form of "Anarchist Book Store" to have more bearing on this floating space-rock than other things, their books, it's a store, take, read, give, buy, whatever. It hasn't even been questioned whether or not I'd also purchase from there or "support" other various endeavors the store undertakes. Can you infer anything from that? I can't think of a better favor for anarchy than to take its words out of money's hands and use/share/indulge in them, regardless of context.

"you don't know me. i do know. "

What I meant is you don't know what would happen if Left Bank ended, and that you don't know what the collective members would or wouldn't do, and that you should stop relying on speculations to reassure your point. I did not mean "you don't know" in a way that implied personal insight of mine about you.

"I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of people would hate their lives if they had to move from the more ideal situation of being your own boss to the much shittier situation of working for minimum wage at some shitty for-profit business."

They ARE a for profit business. They make money, pay employees, order and keep inventory (including movies, buttons, shirts, patches, scores of liberal/non radical books, and tons of other shit. Their free table is smaller than ones I've provided at shows out of my own pocket for the sole damn sake of doing it.)

I'll counter your bet: I bet they'll be just fine either way, and could engage in the multitude of avaialable tactics for making life under capitalism less hate-able, just like everyone else.

"order and keep inventory (including movies, buttons, shirts, patches, scores of liberal/non radical books, and tons of other shit."

funny, i totally wear shirts, watch movies, and read non radical books. i would also way rather buy them from a collectively owned business than anyone else. you know, until you get around to destroying capitalism and stuff.

Then you are deluded if you think there is much difference where you purchase them from.

I think it makes a difference to the people who work at Left Bank, and I happen to feel affinity with them. Where is the delusion?

"I'll counter your bet: I bet they'll be just fine either way, and could engage in the multitude of avaialable tactics for making life under capitalism less hate-able, just like everyone else."

You think people living under capitalism are "just fine"? Maybe you should read more of those books you keep talking about.

-Friends of Left Bank who have fed the mouths of Left Bankterians

Oh great, a bookstore is reopening. Can the revolution be far off?

Oh great, snarky comments. Can the revolution be far off?

Yea belittling commonly repeated but idiotic conceptions (such as that running a book store is ever "radical") through sarcasm is nothing, but is still more radical than running some stupid book store.

no no, comrade, you've got it all wrong. the bookstore has been open since 1973. their publishing arm is restarting.

More profit when you make the books yourselves!! :)

less middlemen is a bad thing? yeah, we should totally leave it up to other publishers to keep our history and ideas in print. anarchy!

if you read more books, you might know that's not their point

or at least more comments.

good point

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
i
R
7
Y
P
S
w
Enter the code without spaces.