The death of east London's most radical bookshop

Overall reaction to the story

• Many found the piece sharply entertaining, likening it to “Portlandia” or indie‑movie plots where an idealistic space implodes.
• Others saw it as sad rather than funny: a case study in people thinking only one step ahead and then being surprised by predictable consequences.

Performative radicalism and left politics

• Several commenters framed the saga as “performative radicalism”: symbolic gestures, identity rhetoric, and purity spirals that alienate wider society and hollow out the left.
• Others argued this critique applies across the spectrum (e.g., UKIP, War on Terror patriotism), not just to the left.
• There was debate over whether such performativity actually destroys movements, or whether deeper structural changes and capital flows matter more.

Business model, funding, and management

• The shop is widely described as financially nonviable: not once profitable, reliant on a £10k/month “angel investor,” and run more like a vanity or “performance art” project than a business.
• People stressed that bookshops and cafés are already low‑margin and usually only survive with tight staffing, owner overwork, and often cheap or free premises.
• Management decisions (notably the escorted-toilet policy) were seen as bizarre and symptomatic of poor managerial skills rather than ideology alone.

Labor disputes, unions, and ownership claims

• The employees’ attempt to unionize and then effectively “occupy” the shop was read by many as naive: demanding more pay and collective control from a clearly loss‑making venture.
• Others argued the underlying problem was structural: workers on zero‑hours, no sick pay, and heavy reliance on their goodwill while the founder framed it as a “radical space.”
• The CIC “asset lock” led to confusion; some thought it might justify workers’ claim to the books, but the legal position was seen as unclear.

Language, identity, and in‑group signaling

• Jargon such as “melanated POC” and highly coded social‑media appeals were criticized as in‑group signaling that implicitly excludes “normies,” even when asking for help.
• Many saw identity categories being deployed tactically in the dispute: both sides emphasizing marginalization or instrumentalization of their identities.

Comparisons to other radical spaces and co‑ops

• Commenters linked similar collapses: radical cafés and bookshops in Glasgow, New York, and US cities where leftist owners hire more-radical staff, are already losing money, then face union or social‑media campaigns and close.
• By contrast, long‑lived radical bookshops (e.g., Housmans, Freedom, City Lights, Left Bank Books) were cited as proof that “radical” doesn’t have to mean dysfunctional; co‑operative structures and clearer expectations may help.

Broader reflections on movements and factions

• Several invoked the “pragmatists vs theologians” split: people who will compromise and manage power vs those who value ideological purity and the fight itself.
• One commenter generalized this to all movements (left, right, libertarian, tech, free software), arguing every scene has people who “want to wear the boot.”
• Others noted how small, insular scenes can slide into purity spirals, where internal policing and moral theater crowd out the original political or cultural purpose.

Article style and missing pieces

• Some readers found the narrative, novelistic style “fiddly” and hard to follow, especially the cross‑cutting and the Google executive subplot that never quite resolves.
• It was also noted that the article ends on collapse, while a successor collective (“The People’s Letters”) later announced a new location—omitted because it post‑dates the article.