Anarchist bookfairs

[Pavlov's House Party]

So this weekend I went to the local anarchist bookfair, and I was looking forward to meeting some actual anarchist militants and not lifestylist punks, but once we got there it was a major disappointment. In the actual bookfair, there was 2-3 tables (I think they were Wobblies) who were decent committed activists with respectable literature, but the vast majority of the people present were the aforementioned lifestylist punks. The building reeked of unwashed human bodies and sweat, and outside the primitivists and lifestylists were basically being hippies in black on the grass; there was little to no political activity at all going on. I'm not sure if many of the people there understand what anarchism actually is.

I am aware that other major cities like London have anarchist bookfairs too, are they all like this? I guess I'm interested in knowing if all anarchist events suffer from this.

[comradesvs]

It's not a bookfair but the People's Co-Op bookstore on Commercial Dr. in Vancouver has a lot of Anarchist stuff.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've been to the NYC Anarchist book fair twice. Pretty impressive. Unlike your experience there was a lot of tables there, there was a good amount of people attending (including non-anarchist people who just seemed to wander in from the street), and it was pretty diverse. Weren't many "lifestylists", but there was a good amount of "hipster revolutionaries"...I guess that's to be expected, though.

[Pavlov's House Party]

There were a whole bunch of tables, but besides the Wobblies and the people near them who had actual political stuff, most of it was "Anarchist Cookbook" stuff.

[nuisance]

You get the odd punk and hippie, but they do look relatively out of place- based upon my experiences at the recent London Bookfairs.

[revolution inaction]

I am aware that other major cities like London have anarchist bookfairs too, are they all like this? I guess I'm interested in knowing if all anarchist events suffer from this.

i've only been to the sheffield bookfair but it wasn't like that

[Jazzratt]

The vast majority of people I ran into at the London bookfair seemed pretty normal...

[Pavlov's House Party]

Oh well, I've always suspected the Montreal anarchist scene was overwhelmingly lifestylist:(

[ContrarianLemming]

It's okay, in my experiance this isn't actually normal. Sorry to hear you're dissapointed

[ContrarianLemming]

Oh well, I've always suspected the Montreal anarchist scene was overwhelmingly lifestylist:(

maybe cause you're american

[Qayin]

maybe cause you're american
Canadian lol Montreal is in Canada.

Canada/America is utter shit when it comes to the left in the 21st century we fucked up bad.

[Agnapostate]

Lifestylism in and of itself wouldn't be a horribly objectionable element if it were fringe, or at least subordinate to serious organizational activity. I don't care if CrimeThinc members pass out flyers detailing the best ways to scrounge food from trash cans, but when lifestylism is the face of anarchism, the best elements of that tradition are undercut. The propertarian movement, though still represented in actual numbers by South Park Republicans and introverted nerds with suburban upbringings, does have some academic theory behind it, even if it's fringe and heterodox.

Marxism has even more academic clout than that, and socialism in general has actual appeal among the working class and people who have to deal with the real-life failings of capitalism, as opposed to the online forums and marginal seminars where propertarians spout their utopian theories that do not and never will have real-life application. Socialism, including anarchism, has held the ideological loyalties of millions of workers around the world in serious social movements.

So the two principal things that anarchism needs are an academic platform, which Marxism and institutionalism have (in economics), mainly centered around theoretical and empirical analyses of the negative effects of hierarchical social organization, a broad field that can extend across numerous disciplines of social science, and the ability to function as a serious philosophy for poor workers in developing countries once more.

[ContrarianLemming]

Lifestylism in and of itself wouldn't be a horribly objectionable element if it were fringe, or at least subordinate to serious organizational activity. I don't care if CrimeThinc members pass out flyers detailing the best ways to scrounge food from trash cans, but when lifestylism is the face of anarchism, the best elements of that tradition are undercut. The propertarian movement, though still represented in actual numbers by South Park Republicans and introverted nerds with suburban upbringings, does have some academic theory behind it, even if it's fringe and heterodox.

Marxism has even more academic clout than that, and socialism in general has actual appeal among the working class and people who have to deal with the real-life failings of capitalism, as opposed to the online forums and marginal seminars where propertarians spout their utopian theories that do not and never will have real-life application. Socialism, including anarchism, has held the ideological loyalties of millions of workers around the world in serious social movements.

So the two principal things that anarchism needs are an academic platform, which Marxism and institutionalism have (in economics), mainly centered around theoretical and empirical analyses of the negative effects of hierarchical social organization, a broad field that can extend across numerous disciplines of social science, and the ability to function as a serious philosophy for poor workers in developing countries once more.

in other words, you want anarchists to take on the marxist stereotype of being armchair intellectuals with no link to the working class.

[Agnapostate]

in other words, you want anarchists to take on the marxist stereotype of being armchair intellectuals with no link to the working class.

Among the lay public, Marxism has more of a reputation of commanding working class loyalties right now than anarchism does, even among people who consider Marxism to be terroristic Stalinist dictatorship that robs Peter to feed Paul and kills resisters and anarchism to be incoherent promotion of chaos and disorder by youthful punks.

Those of us within the socialist movement or who define ourselves as such (even if we define numerous other tendencies out of it), usually understand issues in the way you've mentioned; Marxism is padded with intellectual and academic theory, but is a "working class" ideology named after a man with a Ph.D., whereas anarchism is its intellectually flatfooted cousin that's commanded the raw emotions of the working class. I just want anarchism to regain its reputation of legitimate working class appeal among everyone, the lay public and the socialist contingency, but acquire some academic credibility along the way, since Kropotkin essentially invented sociobiology in Mutual Aid, Rocker offered one of the most brilliant analyses of nationalism in existence, John Holt and Joel Spring brought unschooling to a national audience in the field of education, and Chomsky and Zinn are among the greatest luminaries of our time. The only anarchist intellectual who's gained any mainstream respect in recent years is Paul Avrich.

Have a look at David Graeber's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm14.pdf) for an example of what anarchism can find in support within social science.