Abolish restaurants

Hi Quint, thanks for taking the time to reply. I take your point that I probably did not know the reason for saying that restaurants are neither strategic nor a hub of value creation. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a good case for reading more. I can't agree that I want to topple the system, much less that I need to know how. Business may be the enemy (have we all made our mind up about that?) but they are all we have right now. So why do we not want to build vibrant businesses, at all?

Community Interest Companies ought to be a legal entity which cannot and does not have shareholders, so how are they social-democratic? But that aside, why would they be miserable to work in?

My personal opinion is that the creativity and individual talent *of the customers* is just as compromised as that of the workers by the restaurant system. Why? Because this one-size-fits-all-but-hey-let's-make-three-sizes-for-marketing mentality, which treats the customers as passive, teat-sucking, passengers is as much a tool of the bosses success as everything else.

I realise this is not the usual point of view but let me be clear: until the workers unite with the customers, the bosses must win, surely?

If anyone wants to go ahead and overthrow the bosses, don't let me stop them. But I want to win, so I'm less interested in blacks versus whites than I am in coloureds versus grey.

Toppling the system is no guarantee that it will be replaced with something better.

Blaming everything on bosses is the same mentality that says "force is justified until *I* am in charge"

Anarchism isn't about what we *are* it is about what we *are not*.

We are autonomous - but that means we're all different! You cant lump us into a nice convenient group with a label. We are not capitalists because the problems are so obvious with capitalism that we cannot stomach them. But as Edward De Bono says: you analyse the past so as to design the future. We aren't so bitter and twisted that we are only interested in analysing the past - so as to have someone to blame. Actually we're more interested in improvement, in having a good idea, and in trying it out. We're active - we don't want to sit about scoring points and debating our revenge. And we certainly don't want to bomb the governments. That's why we're not anarchists - we *are* Anarchists - it's a new idea...

Here's another idea I haven't seen discussed: in a CIC, shareholder power is limited but there is nothing limiting a Chairman's pay. So, a CIC is not enough as it stands to prevent the stinking rot of capitalism from infecting this, like everything else... But what if when you were starting up a CIC, the sensible suggestion were made to have everyone paid the same rate.

The rate is not fixed, so if the Company makes excess profits in one year, all the workers might benefit in the next year. The workers wouldnt suck the company dry (as overpaid bosses do - with short-term policies even more than relentless financial greed) because they have a vested interest in the Company being there next year. But they would be motivated to do a good job, individually and as a team. And they'd be able to help and support each other, because the cleaners could tell the manager off (provided of course, they were right!)

You've still got bosses and workers because they are different jobs - but with one key difference: they all earn the same money. They have to, because the Company was set up solely for that purpose from day one...

I can't believe there is something about a restaurant that would make this not work and I cant believe it's not obvious to other people that this is a good idea. So there must be another reason why it just never gets tried out.

That's why I've still got this half-formed intuition that it is the customers that are the problem, not the businesses....

Thanks for your comments, Rogue. In some ways, it would be much simpler if there *was* a definition of what is an Anarchist. But there is not, which is why you actually do have to think it out for yourself and talk it through with other people and try things out and change them if they dont work - which come to think of it is a hell of a lot more interesting and rewarding than following the blueprint of what someone has already worked out for you, scared stiff of doing something wrong...

I seem to be on my own in suggesting that there might be problems in addition to, and other than, the problem that capitalism rewards the avarice of bosses.

So let's take three examples of three types of restaurant: Joe's Cafe, Burger King and L'Omelette.
L'Omelette is a four-star London restaurant with prices to match.
Joe's Cafe is a 'greasy spoon' run by Joe Smith and his wife. He cooks, she waittresses. They charge rock-bottom prices.
Burger King... well, Burger King.

The customers of L'Omelette are foodies - they know and love their food. Not all - some are there for the snob value. Some are there because they like the decor, or the music or the barman. But all of them are willling to pay a price far in excess of the value of the food. They all like to feel that they are in the hands of a great chef, even if they are not. These customers like not knowing each other.

Anyone can go to L'Omelette provided they have the price of admission. Similarly anyone can stop going. Although the customers are committed to the food, they're not committed to the place and they are more likely to be friends of the boss than of the chef. They might wish they had the Chef's talent. They're unlikely to either admire or identify with his job. (And that's why Gordon Ramsay was so good for all of them)

Joe's Cafe is the same - in principle, anyone can go if they can afford it. In practise, Joe's Cafe has a steady clientele of regulars, with the occasional passing trade. People dont have to plan ahead to go to Joe's, they dont have to save up, and most of them probably know each other better than they know Joe.

I have a disabled friend who goes to a cafe like this. He goes three or four times a week. The last thing on my friend's mind is the food. Try telling him this restaurant is not a strategic hub of value creation - it is just that, for him. Otherwise he would hardly see anyone all week...

Joe's Cafe and L'Omelette are opposite ends of the spectrum, yet they are both the same. There are hundreds of thousands of places like this all across the world. Together they are strategic hubs of value creation. Like trucking. Some are good, some are bad. The vast majority could be made a CIC quickly and easily.

Burger King could not be made a CIC (not without some serious pain). Burger King will serve you a burger *your way* which is to say that it will sell you a burger in one of the handful of ways that marketing has determined. Burger King has a special offer on, most weeks of the year. Burger King undercuts Joes Cafe.

Unlike the high-value work of both the restaurants we have described, the de-valued work provided by Burger King leeches value from the food it serves, from the people it employs, and from the communities it is in. It even leaches value from the customer! "We all like a burger dont we??? We all like a bargain???"

But suppose instead that workers said to themselves "Instead of buying the cheapest, as Capitalism encourages us, let's decide on a minumum amount we want to spend".

That is, you automatically think about spending below a maximum: try thinking of spending above a minimum as well.

What was that? Did we just feel a cold wind blow through the room? If people co-operate on this, how long before they start co-operating on other things - like coffee... Where would Tesco-Walmart be if people started buying food on something other than price?

When you're in a motorway service station it hardly matters, but think about the last time you were tempted by the special offer flame-grilled burger served "your way" in your local high street. Hopefully it *was* the last time...