London Anarchist Bookfair

[ed miliband]

Any gossip? Any RevLefters meet other Revlefters? Get anything cool?

I see the ICC had to have a stall outside while the Catholic Workers Movement had a stall inside. :confused: I missed the Christian nutter who apparently came in and started preaching... and then got egged.

I was wearing a Harrington jacket, a grey jumper that was sort of 'freckled' (so to speak) with a variety of different colours, some holey skinnyish jeans and some black Nikes. Maybe someone saw me..

I got some cool AFed pamphlets and a book of essays by Raya Dunayevskaya...

[Quail]

I missed the Christian nutter who apparently came in and started preaching... and then got egged.

Damn, I missed that too. Sounds amusing though.

I have purple hair and was wearing skinny jeans and a jumper, if anyone saw me. I picked up some cool pamphlets from various stalls. I got pretty drunk afterwards in the Freedom book shop.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I was hammerd with Jazzrat, Nixion (until he went home), Full Metal Anarchist, Kayl, Cult of Reason and TAT.

Good times.

[ed miliband]

Did either of you go to any of the talks?

[bricolage]

I tried to have a brief chat with the ICC outside but they were, to be honest, a bit hard to get along with. Still though considering they let in people like Earth First it seems a bit of a joke they are stuck outside. I was going to go to Freedom but ended up watching X Factor in Bow, ah well.
The only thing I bought was some insurrectionist pamphlet on the 2005 Paris riots but got quite a lot of good free stuff.

[Quail]

I went to the talk on anarchist feminism, which was a little disappointing because we spent ages on the topic of the role of people who don't identify as women in the feminist movement where it might have been nicer to talk about women's issues more. I also went to Love, Sex and Anarchy which was quite interesting too, although I had to leave halfway through.

[nuisance]

I tried to have a brief chat with the ICC outside but they were, to be honest, a bit hard to get along with. Still though considering they let in people like Earth First it seems a bit of a joke they are stuck outside.
Sorry, but wtf?

[nuisance]

I went to the talk on anarchist feminism, which was a little disappointing because we spent ages on the topic of the role of people who don't identify as women in the feminist movement where it might have been nicer to talk about women's issues more.
Who the fuck cares what they self-define as? Segments of the anarchist movements infatuation with identity politics is bewildering, at times.

[bricolage]

Sorry, but wtf?
If we are talking about groups and their relation to 'anarchism', I don't think the ICC are any further away from this than, the example I used, Earth First.
I don't see either as offering anything really ideal but I think the different approaches taken to them is a bit ridiculous.

[Quail]

Who the fuck cares what they self-define as? Segments of the anarchist movements infatuation with identity politics is bewildering, at times.
Eh?
Well it does matter that males are more priveliged in this society, and as anarchists we should care about sexism. I don't get what you're criticising :confused:

[nuisance]

Eh?
Well it does matter that males are more priveliged in this society, and as anarchists we should care about sexism. I don't get what you're criticising :confused:
No.

[Quail]

So participating in an anarchist feminist group is something to be criticised? I don't understand why. A lot of women's issues aren't really addressed or spoken about in some anarchist circles, and I think it's important not to ignore them.

[nuisance]

If we are talking about groups and their relation to 'anarchism', I don't think the ICC are any further away from this than, the example I used, Earth First.
I don't see either as offering anything really ideal but I think the different approaches taken to them is a bit ridiculous.
Earth First! is an action network which is anti-authoritrian in structure due to the obvious involvement of anarchists....It's a network comprised of anarchists, particulary of the green variety. Since the ICC hasn't got any anarchist members, I presume as if they did then they must be some extremely confused/frustrated individuals, then it makes no sense at all to equate the two.

[nuisance]

So participating in an anarchist feminist group is something to be criticised? I don't understand why. A lot of women's issues aren't really addressed or spoken about in some anarchist circles, and I think it's important not to ignore them.
Then talk about then.

[Quail]

Don't you think that's what I do?
Plus, it's not always as simple as "just talking about" women's issues. I've noticed that the most vocal people happen to be men, and there are far more men in politics than women. There are also some things that women might not feel comfortable discussing with men, such as sexual violence (not that it doesn't also affect men). It's important to challenge sexism as well as capitalism, especially for me, as a woman.

[nuisance]

Don't you think that's what I do?
No.


Plus, it's not always as simple as "just talking about" women's issues. I've noticed that the most vocal people happen to be men, and there are far more men in politics than women.
Come, again? Is this your justification for more lubricated wrestling, or what?

[Quail]

Come, again? Is this your justification for more lubricated wrestling, or what?
What the fuck are you on about?
Interestingly, your profile says you're male. Surprise, surprise.

[nuisance]

What the fuck are you on about?
Interestingly, your profile says you're male. Surprise, surprise.
Ain't you meant to be busy forming a caucaus of two people or some shit.

[bricolage]

Earth First! is an action network which is anti-authoritrian in structure due to the obvious involvement of anarchists....It's a network comprised of anarchists, particulary of the green variety. Since the ICC hasn't got any anarchist members, I presume as if they did then they must be some extremely confused/frustrated individuals, then it makes no sense at all to equate the two.
Ok lets first look at what is actually meant by 'anarchism' here. In terms of the bookfair the essential 'mainstream' position could largely be defined as; anti-capitalist, anti-statist, emphasis on the working class as an agent of change, blah blah blah I dunno, something broad and boring like that. I’m not saying this is an ideal formula nor trying to critique it in any way, just identify what the ‘bookfair position’, and that of the organising committee (I assume there is one), probably is. What I'm then saying is if you take that centre position I don’t think either the ICC or Earth First are inline with it but I don’t think either one really deviates from it more than the other. Obviously the ICC hasn’t got any anarchist members but I’d question the anarchism of those in Earth First.

I don’t think anarchism is primarily defined by organisational structures (although this is an important consideration), much less vague ‘anti-authoritarian’ ones that can more often than not replicate the same hierarchies they seek to challenge. Furthermore a group that comes from a analytical trajectory of ‘humanpox’ leaves a lot to be desired. I find it hard to see how the activism of Earth First represents any possible path to some kind of ‘anarchism’.

For obviously different reasons I’d say the same thing about the ICC but I don’t think one is any more or less ‘anarchist’ than the other. Yet anarchists have this tendency to get in a flap about any one assumed to represent ‘hierarchy’, ‘the state’, ‘the vanguard’ without thinking about what these terms actually mean and how groups that seep rhetoric opposing these same concepts actually do nothing of the sort.

[bricolage]

Did anyone go to the Greece meeting with TPTG? That was the only one I really wanted to go to but got there too late, would be interested to hear what they said.

[nuisance]

Ok lets first look at what is actually meant by 'anarchism' here. In terms of the bookfair the essential 'mainstream' position could largely be defined as; anti-capitalist, anti-statist, emphasis on the working class as an agent of change, blah blah blah I dunno, something broad and boring like that. I’m not saying this is an ideal formula nor trying to critique it in any way, just identify what the ‘bookfair position’, and that of the organising committee (I assume there is one), probably is. What I'm then saying is if you take that centre position I don’t think either the ICC or Earth First are inline with it but I don’t think either one really deviates from it more than the other.
So, basically you're arguing from a position of ignorance. I don't know whether the committee intends to represent a particular agent for changing society. Alot of Earth First!ers use class analysis, however it is not strictly needed to be part of the network. Since it is a action network the formalism of positions is less important for the task that the group works around. Obviously involvement in EF! does not negate other operating in other groups- anyway try reading Earth First! means social war! (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008071617303110)
So, basically EF! is anti state and anti capitalist group, since thinking the working class is the only agent of revolution isn't a fixed anarchist position.



Obviously the ICC hasn’t got any anarchist members but I’d question the anarchism of those in Earth First.
Why would you question it opposed to say the anarchism of the AF? The bookfair is fairly pluralist opposed to alligning itself to any particular side- afterall it's an anarchist bookfair, not the proletariat gooble gobble bullshit.


I don’t think anarchism is primarily defined by organisational structures (although this is an important consideration), much less vague ‘anti-authoritarian’ ones that can more often than not replicate the same hierarchies they seek to challenge.
This is a regular accussation thrown around by people or aren't involved in said network or cannot form an affinity group of their own.


Furthermore a group that comes from a analytical trajectory of ‘humanpox’ leaves a lot to be desired. And I’ve been involved with environmental direct action, I’ve sat in fields, I’ve tried to shut down power stations and you know what I had a fucking sweet time doing it, you get to fight cops, use wirecutters, rip down fences, I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t fun. But at the end of it you have to look at it and see that is offers nothing and is essentially politically bankrupt. This is how I see Earth First activism and I do not think they represent any possible path to some kind of ‘anarchism’.
EF!ers are not bound to EF!


For obviously different reasons I’d say the same thing about the ICC but I don’t think one is any more or less ‘anarchist’ than the other. Yet anarchists have this tendency to get in a flap about any one assumed to represent ‘hierarchy’, ‘the state’, ‘the vanguard’ without thinking about what these terms actually mean and how groups that seep rhetoric opposing these same concepts actually do nothing of the sort.
You don't seem to understand the difference between networks and organisations. One group is comprised of anarchists, meeting to partake in certain activities. The other is some weird brand of left communism, not anarchist. It's really not hard to understand.

[bricolage]

Since it is a action network the formalism of positions is less important for the task that the group works around.
I am aware of how direct action networks function, yet people do not enter them lacking positions of their own. More dominant ones get heard more clearly resulting in actions that are then used to define more 'collective' positions. And it is ridiculous to say Earth First does not have and has not issued positions, even if it is just a set of ideals of which to act around (I mean they had a 'What does Earth First want? banner) otherwise they wouldn't have been able to even have a stall unless they just stood there silently.

So, basically EF! is anti state and anti capitalist group, since thinking the working class is the only agent of revolution isn't a fixed anarchist position.I'm sure if you take anarchism to be a vague philosophical ideal then sure it isn't, if you take it to be a historical movement and trajectory then yes it is. That being said I wasn't trying to argue either way or not just point out that for the majority of those who attend the bookfair, have stalls at the bookfair or participate in putting on the bookfair probably see the working class as the agent of change.

The bookfair is fairly pluralist opposed to alligning itself to any particular sidePluralism is good yes but I don't think this broad tent anyone that calls themself anarchist thing is any use, I mean what about National Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalist? Why don't we just give them stalls? I feel similarly about a 'network' that has in the championed AIDS as a viable solution to the cancer that is humankind.

This is a regular accussation thrown around by people or aren't involved in said network or cannot form an affinity group of their own.No it is an accusation thrown by someone who has been involved in said 'anti-authoritarian' and 'non-hierarchical' networks and affinity groups in the past, especially those of an environmental and ecological variety.

EF!ers are not bound to EF!Yes but the flip side of that is that Earth First then has no way to distance itself from certain activities committed under its name leading to a plethora of rather dubious acts. I see this as a fundamental problems with networks that become essentially nothing more than a label.
So if we look at the Earth First website;
'EF! is not a cohesive group or campaign, but a convenient banner for people who share similar philosophies to work under'
What then happens is attempting to shun some sort of things that happen under this banner becomes increasingly harder and harder without violating the non-hierarchical principles that the network is founded upon.
And I'm down with the whole network idea, I like the idea of fluid forms of organisation but I don't think what has ever passed for said networks in the past has ever really addressed the organisational problems it entails, nor have they ever managed to prevent a fall into collapse, fragmentation or incoherency.

You don't seem to understand the difference between networks and organisations.I do, but I don't think the difference in practice is as clear cut as it should be in theory.

One group is comprised of anarchists, meeting to partake in certain activities. The other is some weird brand of left communism, not anarchist. It's really not hard to understand.Obviously left communism is not anarchism but then if half of what has gone on under the Earth First label counts as some kind of viable anarchism then I'm pretty confused about what anarchism actually is.