If there is something poetic in these kinds of organising, it is poetry of the kind that Tom Leonard says most people do not think of as poetry: about politics, employment, what people do with their time. It goes far beyond what is considered the normal way of organising in the hospitality industry. But if we are concerned about the creation of class culture and our contribution to composing a stronger, more self-conscious and powerful working class, these are all worthwhile organising initiatives. The normal approach to organising is to identify suffering or grievance, to focus in on it, and to set out to achieve the negation of this negative, in other words, to frame and gain a positive win which is related to the worker’s conditions, income, or prosperity. This is a noble aim and it is and always will be a mainstay of union organising. But it need not be the only one. ‘Why are you so soundly, so solemnly convinced that only the normal and the positive – in brief, convinced that prosperity alone is advantageous? I’m not campaigning for suffering, or for prosperity. I’m advocating … my own caprice and that it should be guaranteed me when the need arises.’ So wrote Fyoder Dostoyevsky, but you do not need to be a Dostoyevsky wannabe to think that a positive, pay–and-conditions, prosperity-focused type of organising can develop alongside a more capricious and creative organising style and impulse. And if Dostoyevsky focused on the I, communist organising is focused on the we, and on our common capacity, caprice, and creativity.