Smash Capitalism - buy Amazon

175 posts / 0 new
Last post
pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 6 2006 16:33

OK Revol, feel free to tell me something.

Now that we have set up this link with amazon,
1. do you have any objections to us in the collective using it when we buy things from Amazon?
2. do you have any objections to people outside the collective who are going to buy something from Amazon using the link we have set up?
3. if the answers to 1 and 2 are no, then how do you propose we let our users know?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 6 2006 16:35

double post

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 6 2006 16:35

Not advertising? What do you think happens every time you lift your feet up?

But anyway no there wasn’t a difference between the radical press’s viewpoint and the Libertarian viewpoint at the time on the subject of advertising, afaik, because what they were both after above all else was solvency. In neither case did they actually get much of a chance to develop a dependency on adverts because they didn’t get any.

But this is really irrelevant to my main point, which was not that libcom should become advertising led, but that it shouldn’t be shy about using one-off money spinners when it can, along with every other radical publication we have, libertarian or not. You may think that we should be funding this all from the bottom up, but the fact is the more money we can find, from other sources the more we have available for other projects which also need support. Every radical project in the country is short of money, it’s not as simple as saying ‘I think we should fund this all ourselves’ because not only do we not have much money as a movement, we don’t actually have that much money as a class. As I say, as long as it is not a in the way I outlined above, no source of funding should be snubbed.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 6 2006 16:44
Jack wrote:
the button wrote:
none of the trolls want to take on responsibility for running it after the site owner has lost the will to live.

One of them having recent reappeared on here. ;)

wink

not a troll, wasnt ever a troll.

*also desperately tries to resist urge to start an argument...*

revol wrote:
either amazons money is substantial and hence represents a major conflict of interest or it's not substantial and therefore what little it offers would be better off being forsaken on a point of principle, for the sake of Libcoms reputation and good old fashioned honour.

he's right surprised

none of my business really, just amused by the novelty of agreeing with revol smile

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 6 2006 16:52
revol68 wrote:
I'm clearly not opposed to such links in principle as i'd be quite hapy with one with AK press or Just Books as they atleast share some of the ethos with this site.

But if you wanted to by a £200 mp3 player you couldn't do that via AK and have a tenner go to an anarchist group at no cost to you, could you?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 6 2006 17:05

i always feel that way about pink breast cancer stuff.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 6 2006 17:13
revol68 wrote:
Well yeah fair enough but i can only give donations in person as bank transfers are 28 quid a touch from my shitty Northern Irish bank.

https://www.paypal.com/

no pressure like, but bank transfers are soooo last century.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 6 2006 18:00

do it through education otherwise instead grin

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Dec 6 2006 18:45
arf wrote:
he's right surprised

none of my business really, just amused by the novelty of agreeing with revol smile

Frightening isn't it? Still, I bought some stuff through libcom's Amazon link so I now feel absolved of ever donating money to them in the future.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 6 2006 18:50
Thora wrote:
Frightening isn't it?

hell yeh!

;D

if i donate a tenner can i get a link to the andrea dworkin online library put up?

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Dec 6 2006 18:59

Even more frightening, I think revol's making some good points on the Sussex students thread too surprised

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 6 2006 19:07

i was just reading that. i need to go have a lie down. sad

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Dec 6 2006 20:24
revol68 wrote:
Ignoring the nonsense about the running of the website by john and coffeemachine ...

well I don't think it is nonsense. I'm just making the case for the extension of democratic principle as far as is practicable in the running of this website.

I share your misgivings about the Disney-style "Xmas shopping?" link, and I see no reason why this can't be an issue that is decided on collectively by the regular users of this site - through a poll (I know there isn't one on-site, but it wouldn't be too difficult to set up a thread in which regular posters could simply post yes or no).

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Dec 6 2006 21:48

Hi

revol68 wrote:
I'm clearly not opposed to such links in principle as i'd be quite hapy with one with AK press or Just Books as they atleast share some of the ethos with this site.

Such gratuitous petit-bourgeois exercises in brand synergy strengthen Capital’s degrading grip more effectively than taking a wee bit of commission on referral.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 6 2006 22:11
revol68 wrote:
p.s. of course i could easily help out with a sub and do some work on the site if I was made an admin but that's as likely to happen as hell freezing over.

So you'd rather they sold status and control over the website than they put up an Amazon link?

Although I'll personally donate you a pint next time I see you for the laugh the thought of you as an admin has given me.

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Dec 6 2006 22:13
jef costello wrote:
So you'd rather they sold status ...

grin I want some of that admin status too. Are you an admin Jef, and if so, what's the secret of your success?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 6 2006 22:23

Well the idea of holding the site to ransom by making revol and gangster admins while the rest of us fucked off for a week (kind of a reverse sponsoring) did come up on another thread for if we ever got desperate for funds...

Quote:
p.s. of course i could easily help out with a sub and do some work on the site if I was made an admin

"I could easily write some articles for Freedom and take out a subscription if I was made an editor".

Quote:
So you'd rather they sold status and control over the website than they put up an Amazon link?

grin

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Dec 6 2006 22:26

Hi

Quote:
I want some of that admin status too

Am I the only one who finds john's posts along these lines totally lame? I say we ban him if he does another.

Love

LR

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Dec 6 2006 22:28
Lazy Riser wrote:
Am I the only one who finds john's posts along these lines totally lame?

no, I have to confess, I do too. But I couldn't resist that last one.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Dec 7 2006 09:40
revol68 wrote:
Libcoms Roman Abramovich.

There's a tagline going begging. grin

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 7 2006 09:43

I say we let revol68 run the site for a few days (like that Renford Rejects episode where Eddie lets a cocky Stuart Jackson; who gets A's in Home Economics, run the café while he's away), and see what happens. Hilarity may ensue.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 7 2006 09:51

yup, careful refused, we go to great lengths to humour revol's emo-urge for unrequited desire

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Dec 7 2006 10:33

The thing is, would the LibCom collective be happy to promote (which the current link inevitability is doing) other anti-union companies, if they could get a slice of thier money? Can we look forward to marketing deals with Starbucks, McDonalds, Asda, Bodyshop for xmas?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 7 2006 10:38
Jason Cortez wrote:
Can we look forward to marketing deals with Starbucks, McDonalds, Asda, Bodyshop for xmas?

No.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 7 2006 10:55

he wasn't turned away, he decided to sit on his investment in the growing necrophilia market.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 7 2006 12:21

revol, we should have something far better sorted out by then (in all ways, even you won't complain).

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 7 2006 16:15

Sorry still don’t get why revol’s even being entertained here. If as a movement we want to start being treated seriously we need to take things like money seriously and stop behaving like there is something inherently more noble about maintaining anarchism as an amateur sport paid for exclusively by its membership.

Part of that is getting money from places other than through begging from our supporters. Saying that putting up advertising is automatically selling out is about as nuanced as saying that getting a job is automatically selling out. Saying ‘it’s different if they share our values’ has as much relevance as saying working is different if it’s for an ‘ethical’ wholesaler. This stuff about ‘if it’s not enough to matter they shouldn’t bother’ is hogwash, it’s not about have to, it’s about should do. The more money this movement has the better it can fulfil its function, and as I said earlier, as long as independence is not compromised and it’s additional to the base level needed for survival, there is no practical reason to avoid doing this sort of stuff and indeed I’d say there is a moral obligation to avoid lumping any more economic responsibility than necessary on our support base – particularly if we are supposedly drawing it from working class sources.

All I’ve heard in response seems based on a semi-poetic vision of the moral rules for how anarchist propaganda should work, which I don’t see as a valid excuse. Fankly it verges on the dogmatic.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 7 2006 16:28

Wooooo

Give us an S - S
Give us an A - A
Give us an I - I
Give us an I - I

WOOOOOOO

Go Saii.

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Dec 7 2006 16:37
saii wrote:
as long as independence is not compromised

is that the only condition? what about having a detrimental effect upon libcom's credibility?

I mean, first-time visitors here may at first be interested in this idea of libertarian communism - but then they see that actually it's some kind of consumerist project where we all celebrate the commercialisation of public holidays ("Xmas Shopping?") - and quickly scuttle off to the SWP site with its lambasting of Imperialist Scum Bliar. Now that would be a shame, too, no?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 7 2006 16:37

Personally, as long as they aren’t actively in a dispute with a union/workplace group or expecting me to drop any articles, I couldn’t give a toss about who advertises in libertarian media because I’m entirely aware of how unbelievably poor the read-record is even in mainstream circles of ads, let alone in libertarian sympathising ones. It’s more like taking money back for nothing from most of these companies, otherwise they simply spend their ad budgets in non-libertarian media.