Anarchist Bakery Makes Its Mark in Paris

[Sasha]

Anarchist Bakery Makes Its Mark in Paris

http://www.laht.com/Photos/World/Europe/European%20Union/1309/La%20Conquete%20du%20Pain%20bakery%20-%20France%20-%201.jpgPARIS – The Conquete du Pain is a neighborhood business on the outskirts of Paris where nine people make baguettes, croissants and chocolate buns, a shop on the corner not very different, at first glance, from the other 35,000 bakeries dotted about the Gallic nation.

However, it is the only anarchist “boulangerie” in or around the capital of a country where bread, cheese and wine are elements of the national identity.

“We’re a self-managed bakery. There are no bosses here, we work as colleagues and hold an assembly every two weeks to decide what we’re going to do. We all earn the same salary of 1,350 euros ($1,780) a month and have the same share of the profits,” Pierre Pawin, the promoter of this particular kind of cooperative, told Efe.

The bakery was founded three years ago in Montreuil, an old Communist Party stronghold in the Parisian suburbs, governed today by the green political movement. Several anarchist militants decided to move from theory to practice and try out a self-managed business.

They called the bakery La Conquete du Pain (The Victory of Bread), a wink at the like-named work by the 19th century anarcho-communist Piotr Kropotkin.

And for its logo they use a silhouette taken from the Delacroix painting “Liberty Leading the People,” commemorating the July Revolution of 1830.

They bake their own handcrafted products, up to 35 of them that prioritize the organic, and identify their sandwiches with historical revolutionary names: the Bakunin, with tuna and shallots; the Durruti, with chicken, cheese and curry; and the Marx, with baked ham and Emmenthal cheese. EFE

source: http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=998866&CategoryId=13003

[argeiphontes]

Awesome, I hope they're very successful. Everyone should be doing this. This type of direct action will bring about the revolution faster than anything. Not to mention the obvious rewards of working there.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's just a coop bakery with some "radical" names. It isn't direct action, it isn't anarchist, and it won't bring the revolution any closer unless you expect the bourgeoisie to die of cognitive dissonance when they see the profit a Marx sandwich can bring in.

[Devrim]

It's just a coop bakery with some "radical" names.

Or to be even more cynical using the names of dead revolutionaries to make capitalist profits.

Devrim

[Thirsty Crow]

Awesome, I hope they're very successful. Everyone should be doing this. This type of direct action will bring about the revolution faster than anything. Not to mention the obvious rewards of working there.
If by direct action you mean establishing a profit sharing capitalist enterprise and if by revolution you mean capitalist redistribution policies, then yeah, sure.

[argeiphontes]

Or to be even more cynical using the names of dead revolutionaries to make capitalist profits.

We all have to live in capitalism, so wouldn't you rather work in a self-managed coop than in a capitalist business? Besides I obviously believe in an intermediate state.

Do you even discount the learning and propaganda aspects of these coops? Are you going to leaflet to change consciousness or is it better to change it in practical, material ways?

[Devrim]

We all have to live in capitalism, so wouldn't you rather work in a self-managed coop than in a capitalist business?

A self-managed co-op is a capitalist business.


Do you even discount the learning and propaganda aspects of these coops?

learning what? how to run a business?


Are you going to leaflet to change consciousness or is it better to change it in practical, material ways?

Class consciousness changes through struggle, not through selling things.

Devrim

[argeiphontes]

A self-managed co-op is a capitalist business.


In its external relations certainly. It's subject to the same forces that batter any capitalist business. But internally, I think the workers own the means of production and run it collectively. That's also part of what I meant by the educational aspect, the techniques of making a self-managed entity work, the undermining of belief in a management cadre, etc.



Class consciousness changes through struggle...

But the idea has to appear practical and reasonable to people indoctrinated with capitalist ideology.

[Skyhilist]

Co-ops probably won't lead to socialism but that doesn't mean that they're a bad option under capitalism.

I mean, if I want to bake things for a living I'd much rather work at a place that's controlled by the workers than be micromanaged by some asshole boss.

[Art Vandelay]

Some anarchists have shamelessly entered the ranks of the bourgeoisie? Cool, but not sure if this should exactly be celebrated. Workers control of production is merely another way to reorganize capital. Co-ops have been around for years, there is nothing revolutionary about them. If you want to talk about whether or not they're nicer to work under then other forms of business models, then be my guest, but this is a radical message board. Were not here to discuss the various merits of differing type of capitalist businesses, were here to discuss how to organize our class to surpass capital (which co-ops, in this sense, don't really have any potential for). I mean the idea that this is somehow revolutionary sounds like a sad caricature of Proudhon.

[bricolage]

if they work nights they're still doing worse than in 1871. fact! ... sort of.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Yeah, yeah. Still wage labour, still profit driven production, still commodity production, blah blah etc.... would love me a Marx though. Sounds tasty.

[Skyhilist]

Some anarchists have shamelessly entered the ranks of the bourgeoisie? Cool, but not sure if this should exactly be celebrated. Workers control of production is merely another way to reorganize capital.

I think you're being too black and white with this. How can someone who wants to work at a bakery in these times without a) being exploited by their bosses or b) organizing capital around themselves?

It's not really a fair critique when at present nobody who wants to work at a bakery really has any other options and option b) is obviously preferable to option a) because you don't have to put up with shit from bosses.


Co-ops have been around for years, there is nothing revolutionary about them.

I don't see anyone suggesting that this will be what causes revolution.



If you want to talk about whether or not they're nicer to work under then other forms of business models, then be my guest, but this is a radical message board. Were not here to discuss the various merits of differing type of capitalist businesses,

Wait a second, isn't part of this board supposed to be being there for each other and sharing our experiences as radicals? These people may not bring about revolution but the point is that at least they've managed to strive beyond worker-boss relationships even while under capitalism.

Also, this does belong on here because it shows the merits of workers controlling the means of production (e.g. no one is slacking off without bosses) which creates a stronger case for socialist societies in which workers control production as well.


were here to discuss how to organize our class to surpass capital (which co-ops, in this sense, don't really have any potential for). I mean the idea that this is somehow revolutionary sounds like a sad caricature of Proudhon.

You're setting the idea of what these boards are for extremely narrowly and arbitrarily. Also I don't recall it being suggested that co-ops are revolutionary -- I think the point was that at least they're managing and doing their best to make what they can out of the society they live in until the revolution comes (while simultaneously demonstrating the merits of worker control firsthand, which could at the very least be useful in awakening class consciousness in people and eliminating silly ideas in everyday people that "bosses are needed").

[argeiphontes]

I don't see anyone suggesting that this will be what causes revolution.


Actually I am, at least partially. I think that putting the means of production under worker control is a step in that direction. Since the lack of this is why its called Capitalism. Silly me. Maybe I only think this because my vision of the future state is ParEcon-ish. In any case I think that the greatest challenge is revolution in people's minds. Revolting with guns is superfluous in this society and isn't going to happen anytime soon. The point is socioeconomic revolution.

[Devrim]

“We’re a self-managed bakery. There are no bosses here, we work as colleagues and hold an assembly every two weeks to decide what we’re going to do. We all earn the same salary of 1,350 euros ($1,780) a month and have the same share of the profits,” Pierre Pawin, the promoter of this particular kind of cooperative, told Efe.

The minimum wage in France is €1,430.22 per month.

Devrim

[Skyhilist]

The minimum wage in France is €1,430.22 per month.

Devrim

I'd imagine they make less because they work fewer hours than the typical French person in a month?

I have actually always found this to be very odd coming from a place where wages are by the hour.

[Skyhilist]

Actually I am, at least partially. I think that putting the means of production under worker control is a step in that direction. Since the lack of this is why its called Capitalism. Silly me. Maybe I only think this because my vision of the future state is ParEcon-ish. In any case I think that the greatest challenge is revolution in people's minds. Revolting with guns is superfluous in this society and isn't going to happen anytime soon. The point is socioeconomic revolution.

I don't know, I think this would be more likely to help lead to mutualism if it led to any change at all, which if that happened might increase complacency (not that I think it will lead to mutualism personally). I don't know that most people see co-ops and really get the message that we need to go beyond reorganizing capital.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The minimum wage in France is €1,430.22 per month.

Devrim

Note that they also share in the profit -- whatever that may be.

“We’re a self-managed bakery. There are no bosses here, we work as colleagues and hold an assembly every two weeks to decide what we’re going to do. We all earn the same salary of 1,350 euros ($1,780) a month and have the same share of the profits,” Pierre Pawin, the promoter of this particular kind of cooperative, told Efe.

In a capitalist economy even anarchists have to earn a living. Berkman, Goldman and Berkman's cousin opened an ice cream shop. It came perilously close to turning a profit. :grin:

[argeiphontes]

I think this would be more likely to help lead to mutualism if it led to any change at all, which if that happened might increase complacency (not that I think it will lead to mutualism personally).

I think mutualism would be much easier to transition to libertarian socialism (which is my ideal goal). Furthermore, even if mutualism lingered for a while, it is still a preferable society to our own. The benefits would be tremendous.

I think that if enough of these types of enterprises could be set up, they could take over the economic system. They should be more efficient than capitalist businesses and be very attractive to potential members if they constituted a real alternative. I support coops as a way to try building a new society in the shell of the old. Other than workers taking over capitalist workplaces that already exist, I don't see any other way of doing it.

What about the workers who took over closed factories in Argentina? What were they doing when they ran production themselves? Something revolutionary or not?

[argeiphontes]

Just to add: if you're advocating for a society that has no markets or commerce, shouldn't you have developed the material basis for that society to succeed? Is our current society sufficient? The final state will have self-managed collectives, so it'll be good that they already exist when it comes time to coordinate their activities without resorting to the market.

edit: Not only to succeed, but to be possible. You have to convince the regular, apolitical person in our society to support doing away with the market. It's going to be difficult without some experience with socialism. Again, I just think there has to be an intermediate stage...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Communists (including anarchist communists, I'd imagine) advocate workers' control of the means of production. But prior to this craze over autogestion etc. (due to Tito, Pablo and similar revisionists) this was always understood - and in fact can only be understood in the context of Marxist theory - as class control, by the entire proletariat, over the entire economy. Having scattered groups of "workers" control the means of production in "their own" workplace is not socialism but a particularly inefficient (since it can't be adapted to anything but the horrifyingly outdated petty commodity production) sort of capitalism.

[argeiphontes]

Having scattered groups of "workers" control the means of production in "their own" workplace is not socialism but a particularly inefficient (since it can't be adapted to anything but the horrifyingly outdated petty commodity production) sort of capitalism.

I find it hard to believe that it's inefficient or only suitable for production of small commodities. Mondragon cooperatives includes a lot of different industries. My own industry of IT would be perfect for coops because of the collaborative, team-oriented nature of our jobs.

Also, I happen to think that you can control the entire economy one piece at a time. Coordinating this with electoral and other means of course.

[#FF0000]

In a capitalist economy even anarchists have to earn a living. Berkman, Goldman and Berkman's cousin opened an ice cream shop. It came perilously close to turning a profit. :grin:

Malatesta ran an ice cream cart too -- what's with anarchists and ice cream?


Also, I happen to think that you can control the entire economy one piece at a time. Coordinating this with electoral and other means of course.

I'm sympathetic to decentralized organization of things in general but I think history has shown there's some serious issues with it as a way of organizing an economy. I mean, there was a gap in wealth between the (supposedly "moneyless") anarchist communes in Spain that was consistent with the regional gaps in wealth that existed before the communes were established.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I find it hard to believe that it's inefficient or only suitable for production of small commodities. Mondragon cooperatives includes a lot of different industries.

Mondragon is not managed by its workers, and it exploits South American and neocolonial labour as much as "traditional" capitalist corporations.


My own industry of IT would be perfect for coops because of the collaborative, team-oriented nature of our jobs.

And yet, cooperatives, as far as I know, do not dominate that section of the economy. Why is that?


Also, I happen to think that you can control the entire economy one piece at a time. Coordinating this with electoral and other means of course.

Who would control the economy "one piece at a time"? Obviously, in these "autogestion" schemes, not the proletariat as a class - rather there would be small groups of workers who would own a part of the means of production. How is that socialist? You might as well say that a company where the workers have some nominal stock is socialist.

[argeiphontes]

And yet, cooperatives, as far as I know, do not dominate that section of the economy. Why is that?


Lack of ideology and consciousness. (Not efficiency.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Lack of ideology and consciousness. (Not efficiency.)

Cooperatives have existed since before capitalism, though, so I don't see how you can say that there is a lack of consciousness about cooperatives.

[bcbm]

there is a very nice cooperative in my town that i am seeking employment at. they offer very nice wages, full health insurance and dental and other benefits. i don't think they challenge capitalism in any way. but i'd rather work there than for a traditional boss who offers me nothing.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I've always wondered what it would be like to work in a co-operative (other than "probably much nicer than working under a grumpy petty tyrant") I imagine working in a co-op bakery is quite nice tbh, i don't think it's possible to get tired of the smell of warm bread. I don't think things like this present a challenge to capitalism but maybe it's a challenge to a certain idea that a lot of people I know hold - i.e that you aren't supposed to enjoy/can't enjoy going to work.

or something. The sandwiches sound good anyway.

[Skyhilist]

I'm sympathetic to decentralized organization of things in general but I think history has shown there's some serious issues with it as a way of organizing an economy. I mean, there was a gap in wealth between the (supposedly "moneyless") anarchist communes in Spain that was consistent with the regional gaps in wealth that existed before the communes were established.

To be fair mistakes made by the Spanish don't really need to mean failures of the entire idea of decentralization. Suppose community and worker assemblies are organized beforehand and the ideas to be implemented afterwards to get rid of wealth gaps are voted on beforehand -- then their implementation wouldn't be so messy because everyone would be on the same page when the time came to implement them. Also, the Spanish anarchists only had a few years before fascism ruined the movement due to its sheer strength in numbers, so I don't know that it's really fair to judge given such a small amount of time.

Any idea how the Zapatistas are doing in terms of this "wealth gap" issue? They seem to be mostly decentralized.

[argeiphontes]

Cooperatives have existed since before capitalism, though, so I don't see how you can say that there is a lack of consciousness about cooperatives.

Most people may know coops exist, but they don't think about forming them. Yet people do think about forming capitalist companies. So I would say that one has consciousness as a viable alternative, but the other doesn't. Also, in IT people tend to be higher paid and right-leaning, libertarian even. They're happier with their crumbs from the capitalist table more than others. They try to start companies to enrich themselves individually rather than coops to try to enrich themselves collectively. Individual vs. collective action is also a bias of capitalist ideology. Look at how Jobs is glorified, or should I say deified. Well, outside of mythos there's no such thing as a Steve Jobs; there's a difference between designing things and owning the patents of people working under you.

Now that IT is seen as a commodity (rather than a skilled craft I suppose) by management, maybe some consciousness change will follow. Discontent would need to be channeled via ideology, which the French bakery people had thanks to their anarchist identity. They considered a coop a viable option. Too bad more people don't.

edit: Maybe IT people see themselves in a pre-capitalist way, as journeyman artisans? They'd need some ideology to become post-capitalist ;-)

[Art Vandelay]

I think you're being too black and white with this. How can someone who wants to work at a bakery in these times without a) being exploited by their bosses or b) organizing capital around themselves?

It's not really a fair critique when at present nobody who wants to work at a bakery really has any other options and option b) is obviously preferable to option a) because you don't have to put up with shit from bosses.



I don't see anyone suggesting that this will be what causes revolution.




Wait a second, isn't part of this board supposed to be being there for each other and sharing our experiences as radicals? These people may not bring about revolution but the point is that at least they've managed to strive beyond worker-boss relationships even while under capitalism.

Also, this does belong on here because it shows the merits of workers controlling the means of production (e.g. no one is slacking off without bosses) which creates a stronger case for socialist societies in which workers control production as well.



You're setting the idea of what these boards are for extremely narrowly and arbitrarily. Also I don't recall it being suggested that co-ops are revolutionary -- I think the point was that at least they're managing and doing their best to make what they can out of the society they live in until the revolution comes (while simultaneously demonstrating the merits of worker control firsthand, which could at the very least be useful in awakening class consciousness in people and eliminating silly ideas in everyday people that "bosses are needed").

I dont really think you understand the nature of my criticism. I work 60hrs a week for pennies, I am more then aware of the relative benefits of working for a co-op as compared to a traditionally organized business, that is not the issue here. If you think the purpose of this board is to discuss the merits of differing forms of the reorganization of capital, then that is your perogative and is a reflection of your politics. I, on the other hand, view this board as a useful tool in helping to facilitate my own political work, aimed at organizing my class into a mass movement capable of destroying itself as a class, resulting in surpassing capital. If the left wants to go down the road of fetishizing workers control, yet again, then it can be my guest, but we saw how that played out in Yugoslavia, so dont pretend there is anything revolutionary about it, its reformist at best, treason to the proletarian cause at worst.

[argeiphontes]

...there was a gap in wealth between the (supposedly "moneyless") anarchist communes in Spain that was consistent with the regional gaps in wealth that existed before the communes were established.

I hope I don't sound like I'm saying it would solve all problems, or even spontaneously collapse into another type of economy without more work on revolutionist's part, but I think it's a lot easier to fight income inequality among anarchist collectives than within and throughout capitalist firms, of which inequality is the very basis.

edit: basis of the ethos, at least.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I want a Maowich. :( I wonder if they have free Pol Potlucks for the needy.

[helot]

I can understand wanting to work in a self-managed workplace but i'm an anarchist not because i want a more comfortable life for myself but because present conditions pain me. If it's a more comfortable life we want then we might aswell become exploiters and aim for luxious idleness but we don't want that we want radically different social conditions. I wouldn't abandon the ability to organise at work in favour of a bit more comfort. The cost is too high.

[argeiphontes]

aim for luxious idleness but we don't want that we want radically different social conditions.

But we are aiming for a society of plenty.


I wouldn't abandon the ability to organise at work in favour of a bit more comfort. The cost is too high.

I can understand that logic.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So do all the people who despise this idea of an Anarchist bakery instead want the workers to go exploited by a privately owned bakery? "Sucks for you proles, suffer until the revolution ..."

Something not being "revolutionary" enough doesn't make it a bad thing for workers.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think that considering that the working class is not a homogenous blob waiting for the revolution, and represents a very loose economic relationship that is composed with diverse groups people with diverging interests and real lives, that we really shouldn't expect them to try to overcome capital in their daily lives. I think we can learn to respect these actions as long as we realize that cooperatives are not a viable tactic in abolishing capitalism but the proletariat must still live a day to day life and that they have better things to do than to live for the "revolution" like some prudish fordist gentlemen in your average leftist vanguard.

[Art Vandelay]

So do all the people who despise this idea of an Anarchist bakery instead want the workers to go exploited by a privately owned bakery? "Sucks for you proles, suffer until the revolution ..."

Something not being "revolutionary" enough doesn't make it a bad thing for workers.

I don't really think anyone objects to them deciding to open a co-op, people are objecting to the idea (as expressed by some members here) that there is anything revolutionary about this.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't really think anyone objects to them deciding to open a co-op, people are objecting to the idea (as expressed by some members here) that there is anything revolutionary about this.

I don't think that opening a coop bakery is the same as a revolution, but there are certainly some limited benefits which come along with it. It serves as a place for Leftists to organize and congregate, it gives the proletariat jobs which are somewhat secure (and won't fire them for missing a day of work for being at a rally), it can serve as a way to support striking workers and protesters, it shows workers who aren't revolutionary that there are other ways of organizing labor, etc.

Unless you're a "Proudhonist", a revolutionary society would look nothing like an anarchist bakery. But that doesn't mean that anarchist cooperatives can't play a part in creating the conditions for a revolutionary society.

[Bardo]

there is a very nice cooperative in my town that i am seeking employment at. they offer very nice wages, full health insurance and dental and other benefits. i don't think they challenge capitalism in any way. but i'd rather work there than for a traditional boss who offers me nothing.

This.

I'm currently trying to get a job at a cooperative grocery store and cafe. They offer similar benefits, and it sounds like a great place to work.

But is this a revolutionary grocery store? Of course it isn't. Neither are the university housing cooperatives down the street.

[argeiphontes]

Unless you're a "Proudhonist", a revolutionary society would look nothing like an anarchist bakery.

What's missing from the bakery to make it a true anarchist workplace? IMO its external relations and their capitalist demands. But the internal organization would be similar.

I'm not a Proudhonist, I'm a person living in my own times and trying to find fruitful ways of bringing about the revolution we want. This means having to navigate between theory and reality to get to some sort of praxis. The only other choices are impotence or masturbation.


But that doesn't mean that anarchist cooperatives can't play a part in creating the conditions for a revolutionary society.

Right. One collective isn't communism. But there is potential to change social and political relations and consciousness. From the article it sounded like my comrades in France weren't apolitical or free of ideology.

If someone wants to wave a dead philosopher in my face so I can read about why the working class needs to take power in one giant upheaval, and restart history in a most ahistorical fashion, then please go for it. ;) Otherwise I'll just have to assume its sectarian, even if it means I'm the only one in my sect. ;)