London Anarchist Bookfair 2012

[Mather]

London Anarchist Bookfair 2012 (http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk/)

Location: Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS.

Date: Saturday, 27th October 2012

From 10am to 7pm

Admission: Free, but solidarity donations are always welcome.

[The Idler]

Some interesting meetings;
Why do we call ourselves Class Struggle Anarchists?
In some anarchist circles the term “class struggle” is seen as outdated and boring. “Oh, you are so old fashioned” or “we don’t like to divide ourselves with terms like class struggle” are just a couple of quotes from people who don’t understand or accept the definition. Are they scared of the words, or do they just not understand what is meant by it? Is the reaction a class or cultural thing? Members of Anarchist Federation, Solidarity Federation and IWW will explain what we mean by “class struggle”, why it is still important in today’s society and then open up the debate with those present.
Organised by: London Anarchist Bookfair Collective
Speakers from: Solidarity Federation, Anarchist Federation, IWW
The politics of technology today: building resistance
For the last 250 years technology has been a key driving force in the capitalist economy, yet radical movements rarely pay it sufficient attention. Technology has its own ideology and system of domination, technocracy, which influences capitalist, social and economic relations just as much as it is influenced by them. Technocracy’s promise of progress through technology is also critical in maintaining hope that the system can solve its own problems. Luddism is not an anti-technology movement, but rather an anti-technocracy movement that is almost unique in opposing both technocracy and capitalism. The aim of the workshop will be to encourage critical thinking about the role of technology in our lives and campaigns, in preparation for the Luddites200 gathering on the politics of technology in Spring 2013. It will discuss geoengineering and synthetic biology as current threats and possibilities for action.
Organised by: Corporate Watch and Luddites200 (www.luddites200.org.uk)

Making Nonviolent Revolution?
Is a nonviolent revolution possible? Is it desirable? And what can we learn from past attempts at creating both nonviolent and violent revolutions? Come and debate the ideas involved with Milan Rai ("Chomsky's Politics"), co-editor of Peace News, which has recently republished George Lakey's classic 1987 book "Toward a living revolution: A five-stage framework for creating radical social change".
Organised by: Peace News (http://peacenews.info/)

Can Dialectics still break bricks in 2012?
The critique of value can certainly help, that is why the left ignore it…. Debate.
Orgainsed by: Principia Dialectica (www.principiadialectica.co.uk)
1839: The Chartist Insurrection
The Chartists were the original political movement of the working class, and 1839 was the year a National Convention assembled in London, and revolution seemed a real possibility. The year ended with an armed uprising in London, followed by the trial of its leaders for treason. Our speaker, David Black, is co-author (with Chris Ford) of a new book on the events of 1839.
Organised by: Hobgoblin (www.thehobgoblin.co.uk)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The politics of technology today: building resistance
For the last 250 years technology has been a key driving force in the capitalist economy, yet radical movements rarely pay it sufficient attention. Technology has its own ideology and system of domination, technocracy, which influences capitalist, social and economic relations just as much as it is influenced by them. Technocracy’s promise of progress through technology is also critical in maintaining hope that the system can solve its own problems. Luddism is not an anti-technology movement, but rather an anti-technocracy movement that is almost unique in opposing both technocracy and capitalism. The aim of the workshop will be to encourage critical thinking about the role of technology in our lives and campaigns, in preparation for the Luddites200 gathering on the politics of technology in Spring 2013. It will discuss geoengineering and synthetic biology as current threats and possibilities for action.
Organised by: Corporate Watch and Luddites200 (www.luddites200.org.uk)

They say they are against "technocracy" rather than technology, but if you check out their website and PDF you will see the following passage:


The politics of technology today

This anniversary comes at a timely moment, because, at the
beginning of the 21st century, the consequences of the whole
industrial capitalist system that began with the Industrial
Revolution, are becoming so severe that they can no longer be
ignored. From global warming, resource depletion and
biodiversity extinction to epidemics of mental and stress-related
illness, drug addiction and crime, the downsides of industrial
capitalism are leading to disillusion with the myth of progress.
Now, as then, along with their benefits, science and technology
often empower the powerful and marginalise the weak, create
unemployment, deskilling and dependency, destroy whole ways
of life and communities based upon them and create massive
environmental and health damage, generally to the most
vulnerable. In the current public sector cuts, we are again
seeing technology being deployed to displace workers’ jobs.

This kind of rhetoric appears to me to place the emphasis on the technology, rather than the capitalist price system which directs its development and deployment. The mentions later on of the usual suspects - genetic engineering, nanotechnology and a new one, geo-engineering - confirm this. They're relatively new and somewhat poorly understood technologies, making it easier to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about them.

Anarchists (assuming these guys are anarchists) exasperate me sometimes. "Myth of progress"? How many people do the writers of that passage know to have passed away from tuberculosis? None, I bet. Unlike the original Luddites. This may be horribly cynical, but somehow I suspect that if the writers got what they claim to want - popular control over the direction of technology - and consequently people opted for more technology in their lives, then they would be sorely disappointed.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The technological advancement that lead to a life without tuberculosis did not manifest itself in our world without it's own negative consequences. I'm suspicious of the rejection of technology but I am equally suspicious of those who wish to ignore the adverse effects it has brought along with it.

[Althusser]

Modern day Narodniki

[Mather]

Some of the meetings I would be interested in attending are:

- Squatting
- Anarchist Economics
- Introduction to Anarchism
- Anarchism & Sexuality
- Boycott Workfare
- Syndicalism & Anarchism
- Non-violent revolution
- Chartist Insurrection
- What is class struggle?
- Banking on crisis
- History of Welfare
- Housing estate is revolting
- We are the 99%
- Intro to Anarcho Syndicalism

Of course some of these meeting clash but I hope to make it to as many of them as I possibly can.

[Igor]

shit i'd love to be there. why london has to be so far away :(

[Mather]

Making Nonviolent Revolution?

Is a nonviolent revolution possible? Is it desirable? And what can we learn from past attempts at creating both nonviolent and violent revolutions? Come and debate the ideas involved with Milan Rai ("Chomsky's Politics"), co-editor of Peace News, which has recently republished George Lakey's classic 1987 book "Toward a living revolution: A five-stage framework for creating radical social change".

Organised by: Peace News (http://peacenews.info/)

Peace News appear to be typical liberal pacifists. Their rejection of any violence automatically means they reject social revolution, as the question of violence during a revolution is not one of choice but of necessity. The ruling class will violently oppose us no matter how 'peaceful' we try to be, so the 'choice' is one of fighting back or accepting defeat. This 'choice' is no choice for any working class militant.

I would be interested in attending their meeting so I can counter their arguments.

[Manic Impressive]

The ruling class will violently oppose us no matter how 'peaceful' we try to be, so the 'choice' is one of fighting back or accepting defeat. This 'choice' is no choice for any working class militant.
Prove it

I'd like to attend that one, but I'd probably just end up getting in a fight :(

[Mather]

This kind of rhetoric appears to me to place the emphasis on the technology, rather than the capitalist price system which directs its development and deployment.

Indeed.

Sadly the debate about technology is dominated by two sides, both of which get it wrong! On the one side we have those who automatically reject technology per se, seeing it as an agency in itself rather than a set of tools that are applied to further the class interests of the class that is in command of such technology. On the other hand we have those who uncritically praise all technologies and their potential (which may or may not be apparent) to the point that they ignore all other factors and solutions in their approach to problems (be it world hunger, agriculture, healtchcare and medicine, employment etc).

Getting the debate to move beyond this binary of two confused and incorrect viewpoints is something all revolutionaries should work towards.


The mentions later on of the usual suspects - genetic engineering, nanotechnology and a new one, geo-engineering - confirm this. They're relatively new and somewhat poorly understood technologies, making it easier to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about them.

There are ethical questions surrounding genetic egineering, especially with regards to human beings. Whilst the website uses these concerns to put the case fo their own anti-technological stance, that does not invalidate the concerns themselves as there are many issues with world changing technologies of this scale that need to be addressed.

Again it is not the technology per se but the class forces and interests behind such technology that needs to be highlighted.


Anarchists (assuming these guys are anarchists) exasperate me sometimes.

Not all anarchists have the same view of technology and questions of technology do not in themselves define whether one is an anarchist or not. I have my own views on the matter but I know that not all anarchists will agree with me on this matter.


"Myth of progress"? How many people do the writers of that passage know to have passed away from tuberculosis? None, I bet.

There is and isn't a 'myth of progress'.

Of course, at the meta-level history has seen progress. From the development of productive forces (from primitive agriculture to global industrial capitalism), the change in social and political forms (from ancient despotisms to feudalism to bourgeois democracy), the development of living and social standards (healthcare, education, infrastructure and technology).

However, such progress took place not out of any conscious desire to better the lot of humanity or progress for progress's sake. Under capitalism, all technologies and inventions are developed by and for the capitalist class, for the purposes of further enriching and empowering their class. When the British built the railways in India, they did not do it for the benefit of making it easier for Indians to travel around their own country, but to maximise their exploitation of India's labour and resources. When block priting came about in renaissance 15th century Europe, what drove such development and use of this technology was the material needs of the rising mercantile class and the demand for faster ways of publishing books and keeping and managing paperwork.

All progress under class and hierarchical societies (classical antiquity, feudalism and capitalism) is therefore incidental from the point of view of the oppressed class (slaves, peasants and workers). Whilst a historically progressive development, the industrialisation of India (which began under British colonial rule) would have in no way appeared progressive from the point of view of the Indian people themselves. Capitalism is progressive when compared to feudalism but that does not make it progressive in the eyes of a worker.

This point is essential in undercutting the common contemporary bourgeois narrative that progess is universal and that technology or scientific solutions alone can and should solve a number of problems. Of course such a narrative is convenient for masking solutions to problems (such as world hunger, poverty and access to healthcare) that are caused by capitalism and can only be solved through political means.


Unlike the original Luddites.

The original Luddites were very different from a lot of those who claim to be Luddites today. They simply resisted against their awful working conditions by sabotaging the means of production which oppressed them. They were progressives in their own right.


This may be horribly cynical, but somehow I suspect that if the writers got what they claim to want - popular control over the direction of technology - and consequently people opted for more technology in their lives, then they would be sorely disappointed.

Of course there are those who oppose technology on principle. But at the wider level, I can understand the appeal of anti-technological sentiment, even though I do not necessarily agree with it. As capitalism makes us ever more alienated from everything and everyone that is around us, it is only natural that some people will turn away from technology, seeing it as alienated as everything else (which it is). At some level they can see that things are wrong but sadly they seem to have wrong answer in dealing with this.

[ed miliband]

looking forward to picking up the new solfed pamphlet.

[The Idler]

shit i'd love to be there. why london has to be so far away :(
I blame technocracy. Yeah, its a fix by the big transport companies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

4.30pm – 6.30pm
Anarchist Economics
Even amidst economic crisis, experts and politicians tell us that, 'there is no alternative'. When the Left proposes an alternative it is invariably the Marxist one of nationalisation and often just seems a mirror-image of capitalism as usual. Anarchists by contrast have explored and experimented with economic alternatives for 172 years. At this meeting a panel of speakers will discuss some of these experiments. We hope this will evolve into an open discussion taking up at least half of the available time.
Organised by AK Press & Distribution (www.akuk.com)
Speakers include: David Graeber, Iain McKay and others

Naughtly little emboldened bit there. :rolleyes:

If a few people from here are going, do we fancy organising a meet of some description? I'm sure that as some of us are Marxists and only sympathetic to anarchism we will want to go to some similar meetings..

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Prove it

I'd like to attend that one, but I'd probably just end up getting in a fight :(

Because you'd be angry or to emphasise that revolution is unlikely to be non-violent?

:lol:

[The Idler]

Yes, I'm only beating you up to make a political point about the use of force. Anyway, if lots of revlefters meet up there, I'd be tempted to come along too.

[ed miliband]

if any revlefters going want to go pub after i'm down with that.

[hatzel]

If y'all are lucky I might just put in an appearance, even though there are only a few talks that jump out at me...

[Mather]

if any revlefters going want to go pub after i'm down with that.


Sounds good. Depending on what I am doing, I should be able to make it for a few drinks after the Bookfair.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

if any revlefters going want to go pub after i'm down with that.

not one of your hampstead pubs where people like Alistair Campbell go and all they serve is 'organic' cider for 7 quid a pint, I hope?;)

[Mather]

not one of your hampstead pubs where people like Alistair Campbell go and all they serve is 'organic' cider for 7 quid a pint, I hope?


Lol, no.

The pub most people go to after the Bookfair is a Weatherspoons, I think. I can't remember the name of the place though.

[ed miliband]

went for a drink with a friend from that part of the world the other week, paid £5 for a 330ml can of imported american pale ale. proper nice stuff.

[leftistman]

If only I could go. I'd love to join some anarchist organizations but I don't know of any where I live.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Pub seems on then.