Posted: 09-2006 Revised: 02-22-2007

My name is John Storhm and I am the owner, publisher and editor at Burned Books Publishing.  Yep... this is a one man operation.  If you have stopped by my web store you are probably interested in alternative sources of information and therefore you must be pleased to discover that Burned Books Publishing is not a front for a giant corporation.

About myself

I am a computer programmer who left a nice comfortable government job in the late 1980s to work for a multi-national environmental organization.  And then I left my nice comfortable activist job in the 1990s to work for myself.  Through my work experience I've come to the following conclusion: the corporate form - both for-profit and not-for-profit - is fundamentally conservative.

About activism

Jerry Rubin is credited with saying "don't trust anyone over thirty," to that I would add "don't trust anyone who has incorporated."  The point Rubin was making was that once a person reaches thirty they have too much to lose and therefore they play it safe.   My point is that for an organization to incorporate it must gather a board of directors, executive directors, CEOs, CFOs, and all the other nobility of the corporate form.  These individuals, personally, have too much to lose.  Collectively they are involved with the corporation as long as their personal comfort and security are shielded by the legal corporate entity.  Further they see the corporate entity as something that must survive and therefore they will make decisions that accomplish that goal.  The result is that incorporated entities play it safe.  Burned Books Publishing is not incorporated.

Activists accomplish most when the individual either has nothing to lose or s/he is willing to risk losing it.

About Violence

I am a pacifist.  It is not that violence can not work, depending on the desired outcome violence may be an acceptable methodology.  However, I believe, based on history and human nature, that the non-violent solution is always the best solution.  To suggest that violence is not effective is akin to saying that it is impossible to create art with a sledge hammer.   What is true is that it would be impossible to create the Mona Lisa with a sledge hammer.   Similarly, violence may produce a number of outcomes that some may consider beneficial.  What violence cannot create is a world free of violence.  All wars eventually end but it is not the war which creates the peace.  Peace is derived through activities that take place outside of war.   Given this it is always better to work directly for peace rather than to advocate for war and wait for others to create the conditions out of which a peace may bloom.  Besides, a peace which ends a war will never grow as strong as a peace established in the absence of war.  At the conclusion of a war, both sides may shake hands and their leaders may exchange warm remarks.  But underneath there remains distrust, hatred, sorrow and a desire on both sides to obtain "justice."  The victors may feel like they have made too many concessions while the defeated may feel like their needs have been ignored.   Violence only resolves the issue of who was stronger and who was weaker at a moment in time.   Submission of the weaker may be achieved and if that is the goal of the stronger then violence can accomplish it.  But the stronger rarely considers the plight of the weaker.   Victory demands that the weaker must address the grievances of the stronger, not the other way around.  This is why violence and wars never end - because the weaker party always strives to gain strength so that their grievances may finally be addressed.

If war is the answer, one must be very suspicious about the question.  Everything can be resolved non-violently but in order to do so all sides in a dispute must not seek victory and submission of the others.   When people speak about solving their disputes through violence it is a sure sign that they have not accepted, in any way, that the other side's claims for redress have validity.

About socialism

I am a socialist because I believe that the workers should control the means of production.  It just makes sense, in my opinion, no matter if the organization is manufacturing widgets or world peace.   However correct, socialism makes many people uncomfortable.  Those at the top of society and at the top of incorporated entities are uncomfortable with socialism because it places their personal comfort and security at risk.  These same people are also uncomfortable with democracy.   In fact, any political or social system that places We the people... in charge is a threat to those with too much to lose.  And while, in America, we will fight and die for democracy as workers and consumers we meekly approach our corporate masters.  We rely on the noblesse oblige of our corporate masters.  We will fight king, tyrant and dictator to bring democracy to the oppressed while, at the same time, we turn our weapons against the workers who are trying to unseat the corporate kings, corporate tyrants and corporate dictators.

About capitalism

The worst form of taxation is profit.  There is no upper limit to profit.  We complain about taxes yet we regularly allow profits of 40-60% of the retail price.  And we treat profit as though it is something sacred.  A command delivered right from the mouth of God.  So when record profits are being made at a time when millions suffer daily for want of food, clothes or a warm place to sleep we are incapable of rejecting this system because of the supposedly divine command to go forth and profit.

Further, and perhaps worst of all, these amassed profits are used against us to defeat democracy at the polling stations and socialism on the shop floor.

Where is the government spending our money?  Perhaps not as important a question as asking where are the corporations spending our money?  While we have a right to ask both questions one should only anticipate an answer to the first.  Our corporate masters do not answer to We the people.   Further, they have a well established legal right to their profits.  Even if those profits were acquired through less than respectable means.  Once acquired these profits may be used in any manner that benefits the corporation even for less than respectable purposes.  And rarely if ever are our corporate masters held to account.

About the marketplace of ideas

The corporate mantra of profit is so ingrained in American culture that we allow ourselves to speak in market terminology about almost any topic.  Thus we are misled into accepting the concept of "the marketplace of ideas."  In America we have the freedom to think, the freedom to speak, the freedom to write on any topic we wish.  Yet if what we think, speak and write does not make a profit for publishers, distributors and retail outlets these products of our freedoms are lost.  It has long been understood in corporate America that if certain ideas are unprofitable then those ideas may be legally suppressed.

In America there is no need to burn books.   If the books are not profitable (something that the corporations themselves determine) the books may be destroyed.  On the other hand, if the books are profitable those profits may be used to undermine democracy and defeat worker initiatives.  The corporations win either way.

Underlying our acceptance of this practice is the unspoken assumption that books of value will always be in demand and therefore will always be available for purchase.  Yet manipulation of demand by creating irrational desires and fears is at the heart of our public relations and advertising industries.

Consumer demand and corporate profit are a poor way to gauge what is of value.

About Burned Books Publishing

Burned Books Publishing grew out of my frustration at reading modern authors discussing earlier classics yet never being able to find these books on the shelves in the massive "big box" book stores nor on the shelves at my local library.  It was as though I kept reading descriptions of a beautiful work of art yet could never see the original.  These books did exist, accessible to those with access to elite institutions and world renowned libraries - those individuals who could gain admittance to the "special collection" rooms.  For the rest of us they remained chimera.  We could read the tales of those who came upon these wonders and perhaps delight in a few errant paragraphs quoted from the original but those were the only glimpses we are allowed.

My goal through Burned Books Publishing is to rescue from obscurity radical political books of value.   Books that everyone should read.  I have chosen to present much of this material as eBooks because I do not have access to traditional publishing equipment and the eBook format lends itself well to self distribution.  You may ask - will Burned Books Publishing make a profit?   It is my hope that Burned Books Publishing will eventually make enough money to cover its operational costs.  That day is not yet on the horizon.

With Respect, in Gentleness and Peace

- John Storhm, Owner/publisher