Do you believe it is fair for a publisher who maintains a collection of anarchist literature with sizeable costs to insist that

It is fair, they need to cover their costs
18% (3 votes)
It is an outmoded way of doing things but I respect their right to do this
24% (4 votes)
It is organisationally damaging, ineffecient, factually inaccurate in terms of the perceived way it would harm sales revenue, an
53% (9 votes)
I'm boycotting this poll
6% (1 vote)
Total votes: 17

Posted By

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 00:24

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 00:24

Let's have a poll then shall we?

Serge Forward
Apr 21 2006 06:13

I don't think this poll is fair. It's divisive.

You should have waited till the discussion on this matter has run its course and there's been fuller participation from KSL people. Then, if the answer from KSL was still no, then it might be worth doing a poll. But for now, the only purpose it's likely to serve is to put people's backs up.

Steven.
Apr 21 2006 10:13

Yeah I don't like the poll, it's adversarial and shouldn't be. The other discussion was becoming potentially fruitful, with more concrete proposals at the end which we could discuss

JoeMaguire
Apr 21 2006 10:15

Surely if KSL ask others not to publish something, due to their having invested in publishing the said material, people should appreciate that, but at some future point the material should be made available.

Nick Durie
Apr 21 2006 10:28

[deleted comment]

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 10:40

This is a moral and organisational issue. it's simply not on to behave like this. It is entirely appropriate to be divisive, and calling for some knid of consensus process on an issue as vexed and as important as this not on. They cannot be allowed to behave like this. It is organisationally very damaging, morally repugnant for people who profess to want to preserve and promote working class history, and utterly anachronistic.

As Anarchoal said on the other thread the internet is a profound tool of social revolution. Libcom is showing this to be so, as are half a dozen other sites we could mention. To prevent working class history going online. for any reason. is fucking criminal. The only thing holding some people back here seems to be a perceived need for unity as very few seem to regard KSL's 'decision' as being grounded in reality. if KSl was a professedly capitalist organisation preventing the movement from growing then we'd all be singing in unison. Why should it be any different now that we have a professedly progressive organisation that is holding back the movement? I simply don't understand.

JoeMaguire
Apr 21 2006 11:15
Dundee_United wrote:
The only thing holding some people back here seems to be a perceived need for unity as very few seem to regard KSL's 'decision' as being grounded in reality. if KSl was a professedly capitalist organisation preventing the movement from growing then we'd all be singing in unison. Why should it be any different now that we have a professedly progressive organisation that is holding back the movement? I simply don't understand.

You could just as well argue that we are practicing mutual aid by supporting a section of the radical community which sees the publishing of this material as damaging its megree income

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 11:26

So if somebody said to you that what we need in our community down the road is more police on the streets to combat drug dealing and anti-social behaviour you'd support them and offer them mutual aid.

I have no problem extending mutual aid to those who need it but I'm hardly going to do it unquestioningly!? The point here is that it wouldn't be damaging to their meagre income, it would be beneficial!

martinh
Apr 21 2006 11:30
Dundee_United wrote:
This is a moral and organisational issue. it's simply not on to behave like this. It is entirely appropriate to be divisive, and calling for some knid of consensus process on an issue as vexed and as important as this not on. They cannot be allowed to behave like this. It is organisationally very damaging, morally repugnant for people who profess to want to preserve and promote working class history, and utterly anachronistic.

How is it morally repugnant? You really are worked up about this aren't you?

AnarchoAl's points are constructive -yours are simply destructive. Personally I think it's more important that we have an archive and people seeking to preserve history than that some texts are put onto the internet. This seems to be your most crucial issue and your tone has gone beyond uncomradely to hostile. While you claim not to want to see the end of the KSL your words and actions imply different.

Dundee_united wrote:
As Anarchoal said on the other thread the internet is a profound tool of social revolution. Libcom is showing this to be so, as are half a dozen other sites we could mention. To prevent working class history going online. for any reason. is fucking criminal. The only thing holding some people back here seems to be a perceived need for unity as very few seem to regard KSL's 'decision' as being grounded in reality. if KSl was a professedly capitalist organisation preventing the movement from growing then we'd all be singing in unison. Why should it be any different now that we have a professedly progressive organisation that is holding back the movement?

Holding back the movement, priceless. roll eyes If only the text that your pal typed in was available online, there'd be a thriving movement.

I wonder how much you'll donate to the KSL if their stuff does go online? Or indeed a lot of the others who have been so loud about this?

I won't hold my breath,

regards,

martin

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 12:01
Quote:
I wonder how much you'll donate to the KSL if their stuff does go online? Or indeed a lot of the others who have been so loud about this?

If KSL were to allow their texts to go online then I'd personally pay the full pamphlet price for every one I read. As it stands I am very hostile towards them because of this, yes.

Dundee_United
Apr 21 2006 12:03

How's about we give the poll until this time tomorrow and then close the vote.

All those who are yet to vote and plan on doing so do so soon.

Rob Ray
Apr 21 2006 12:34

As they are using it to further their ability to publish more material, afaic the work of KSL should not be exploited by others until they have achieved the their aim with it. If they were doing it to keep themselves in porsches I'd agree that it should be published, but they aren't, and they shouldn't be comapared to corporations with a profit motive.

Having said that, I do think that in order to avoid the possibility of misuse/future problems such as reliance on earlier work as an indefinite revenue (even for good causes), limits could perhaps be placed on new works (eg. saying 'we aim to earn enough to complete the following plans and no more').

So similar to copyright, but vastly more limited in terms of scope - effectively allowing only the recuperation of labour for a specific purpose?

Serge Forward
Apr 21 2006 12:38
Dundee_United wrote:
This is a moral and organisational issue.

Too right it is. You haven't even waited for KSL's side of the argument but started shooting from the hip straight off. You've made a moral judgement based on very limited information and without really giving a shit about the other side's opinions anyway. I personally may or may not agree with KSL's position but I at least give them a fucking chance to speak up.

Organisationally, it's all just another example of the kind of thing that's crap about the anarchist scene/movement in this country. People with a bee in their bonnet running round like headless chickens looking for anything to get the hump about and then rebel against. This poll is about nothing more than mouthing off for a perceived or imagined slight by an anarchist publisher and having no intention or desire to deal with the matter fraternally. It's just rubbish.

I only hope that any positive and constructive discussions with KSL have not been hindered too much by this nonsense.

Serge Forward
Apr 21 2006 12:55
revol68 wrote:
whilst the poll might be a bit hysterical and the KSL haven't said much, I think the issue is not about KSL but about why anyone would actually care what the KSL think about their stuff being distributed freely.

I think the reason the KSL exist is in order to reclaim and popularise working class history and therefore it shouldn't have any problems with online distribution.

if they are opposed to it cause they fear going under because of it, well then KSL is behind the times and no longer performs it's stated role.

I care about that sort of thing because if people have taken the time and trouble to do a publication and splashed out money on it, then it's only tactful and curteous to get their side of things if you want to reproduce the publication. As for KSL possibly being behind the times, I think that's a very harsh way of looking at things and makes me a bit uncomfortable - I'm not being funny but it's the kind of argument Thatcher used before knobbling the miners.

Serge Forward
Apr 21 2006 13:09

Don't disagree with any of that. I just don't like the way it's been handled.

AnarchoAl
Apr 21 2006 14:01

Calm down Nick, we're working on a solution ffs!

Being nice to KSL is going to take you closer to seeing what you want than being nasty to them.

Dundee_United
Apr 24 2006 01:03

How many people have boycotted the poll?

[Due to personal conversations with ginger and anarchoal I now Know they both boycotted it.]

Jacques Roux
Apr 24 2006 01:05

I can add that option in for you if u want

Dundee_United
Apr 24 2006 11:13

Yes that would be handy rkn! Thanks.

I should also say that I have worked myself up a bit over this, altho it's blatantly not just about my mate transcribing a text or somesuch, it's about the principle.

I fully appreciate that a lot of these texts simply would not be available at all were it not for the sustained work of the KSL and when I have two pennies to rub together I will be sending them one so that they can continue their work. I am not 'against' this work, and my tone has been off in this respect.

Nonetheless they could drastically reduce their costs by photographing the texts and puting the photos online. I also maintain they'd make more money on pamphlets by doing as comrades have suggested, but this is my final word on the matter as I have said enough on it and more from me will hinder it being resolved.