Manchester & Salford Anarchist Bookfair, PHM, 23 November 2013

[The Idler]

Talks and stalls TBC

Manchester & Salford Anarchist Bookfair 2013

Manchester & Salford Anarchist Bookfair 2013 will take place on Saturday 23rd November from 10.00am until 4.00pm at the People’s History Museum (http://bookfair.org.uk/venue/), Left Bank, off Bridge Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3ER
Facebook Event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/305339022930675/
Just Announced:

Manchester & Salford Anarchist Bookfair Social
Join us for a beer at Marx’s and Engel’s local!
Gig from 7.30pm in the Vault with:
Andy T, Autonomads, Black Light Mutants, and Class Actions with Andy Carrington
£3 suggested donation
The Crescent, 20 The Crescent, Salford, M5 4PT
(Ten minute walk from People’s History Museum)
Facebook Event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1425211471025580
Here’s what people had to say about previous bookfairs:
“Successful @abookfair (http://twitter.com/abookfair) event here on Saturday. Thanks to all for attending”.
People’s History Museum @PHMMcr (http://www.twitter.com/PHMMcr)
“Spending a day at the anarchist bookfair I could see why they attract such a mixture of ages and people. It is a movement that does respond to the creativity that most people have within themselves. It does offer a more direct solution to some of the problems that young people face including homelessness, low pay and isolation. And at a time when more traditional organisations such as trade unions and the left are struggling to cope with the Con-Dem attacks it seems that the anarchists, to use an old adage, understand that the personal is political”.
Lipstick Socialist (http://lipsticksocialist.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/still-anarchy-in-the-uk-in-2012)
“I hear that the Manchester and Salford Anarchist Bookfair was a great success on Saturday 3 December 2011 and I’m very glad to hear that you got so many visitors. We hope to be able to host another Bookfair again next year”.
Katy Archer, Director People’s History Museum (http://ludditebicentenary.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/director-of-peoples-history-museum.html)
“Leeds Anarchist Black Cross would like to say a huge thank you to the organisers of the Manchester and Salford Anarchist book fair which was held today at The People’s Museum. The event was well organised and there was a great atmosphere in a venue that proved ideal for such an occasion. Leeds ABC sold a wide range of literature and t-shirts raising nearly £200 that will go directly to supporting anarchist and antifascist prisoners. Thanks to everyone involved in the organising, anyone who bought stuff from us or came to chat to us about the work we do”.
Leeds Anarchist Black Cross (http://leedsabc.org/manchester-and-salford-bookfair/)

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

theoretically I should be able to make this as I don't have a lot on around then and manchester isn't that expensive for me to get to

[Thirsty Crow]

I hear that folks from the Free Communist site have been denied access.

[freecommunist]

I hear that folks from the Free Communist site have been denied access.

I've been denied a stall, on the grounds that anarchism has more to do with vegan cupcakes than communism, in fact one of the organisers said "I have no interest in communism"

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I've been denied a stall, on the grounds that anarchism has more to do with vegan cupcakes than communism, in fact one of the organisers said "I have no interest in communism"

..I chuckled at this..but in a depressed / bemused way :unsure: :(

[The Idler]

I've been denied a stall, on the grounds that anarchism has more to do with vegan cupcakes than communism, in fact one of the organisers said "I have no interest in communism"
That sounds more authoritarian than the London Anarchist bookfair policy of excluding political parties.

[freecommunist]

I should say I have been working with Manchester Afed and other comrades (who have been great as always) and I'm now back in discussion with the Bookfair people, so the situation may change.

[Quail]

I'll probably go up to Manchester for this. :)

[ed miliband]

the stalinist international brigade society have been given a stall whilst communist have been denied one, it's ridiculous.

i may go, but there are very few stalls or talks that interest me. just seems like all the shit stuff that would be at the london bookfair with none of the good stuff - and then added stalinists and liberals.

[The Idler]

If you've never been before, then the People's History Museum is well-worth a visit in its own right.

[freecommunist]

the stalinist international brigade society have been given a stall whilst communist have been denied one, it's ridiculous.

i may go, but there are very few stalls or talks that interest me. just seems like all the shit stuff that would be at the london bookfair with none of the good stuff - and then added stalinists and liberals.

There are some really good people from Manchester who will be at the Bookfair so worth a trip regardless and as The Idler says the Museum is worth wondering around.

Love the Picket line.

[freecommunist]

Just to say I now have a stall, with help from a number of groups and individuals.

[The Idler]

http://bookfair.org.uk/stalls/
Stalls (subject to change)

0161 Festival / Anti-fascist Merchandise
http://www.itsrecords.net
http://www.facebook.com/0161Festival
0161 Festival is an anti-fascist festival that will be held in Manchester, England on the 2/3/4 May 2014 over three different stages.
Active Distribution
http://www.activedistribution.org
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Active-Distribution/286464594776880
We distribute “all things anarchist” as cheap as we can.
Anarchist Federation
http://www.manchesterafed.org.uk
https://www.facebook.com/manchesteranarchistfederation
Manchester Group of the Anarchist Federation, an organisation of class struggle anarchists in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland
Black Light Mutants Artwork
http://www.blacklightmutants.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/blacklightmutants
Artwork produced by Joey Mutant from dissident-anarcho-space-punk band Black Light Mutants. Using a mixture of traditional painted work as well as digital manipulation to put the works together Joey creates depictions and imagery based on the bands music, sounds and lyrics creating the menacing and dark world of an imaginary post apocalyptic Manchester, but within the squalour and desolation there is a story of love, hope and togetherness.
Critisticuffs/ Kittens Collective
https://critisticuffs.org
http://antinational.org/en
Critisticuffs wants to understand and explain why things such as poverty, sexism, racism, homophobia exist in society. We think that understanding private property, capital, nation and state can provide many answers to such questions. We aim to share our ideas with other
people through public talks, meetings and texts.
Critisticuffs is based in London.
Cunningham Amendment
Now in its 39th year. Circulates within the Anarchist movement. Full colour. Letterpress. Emphasis on art and entertainment. Advocates cunning and imagination. Consistently
cautions against individualism and Marxism.
Dysophia
A small imprint publishing existing and new articles around green anarchism with the aim of informing and creating debates.
http://www.dysophia.org.uk
Footprint Workers’ Co-operative
http://www.footprinters.co.uk
Brief description: Leeds based anti-capitalist printers who’ve started doing a distro of some of their favourite stuff that they print.
Free Communist
http://www.freecommunism.org
Paper drawing on the best traditions of both anarchist-communism and Dutch/German and Italian left communists.
Hand Job Zine
http://handjobzine.wordpress.com
We are a DIY literary zine that collects writing and illustration from around the UK, trying to give a voice to many people with opinions and beliefs that are shunned or undervalued by a lot of the mainstream literary journals and magazines. We present it as an anarchist zine, but as long as people have an interesting idea we will put it in there.
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) Manchester
http://www.iww.org.uk
https://www.facebook.com/pages/IWW-Manchester/189221264459252
The IWW is a revolutionary global union for all workers, including students and the unemployed. In recent years, the IWW has organised John Lewis Cleaners and Pizza Hut Workers within the UK, and Starbucks and other fast food chains in the US. We fight for better conditions today, and economic democracy tomorrow.
International Brigade Memorial Trust
http://www.international-brigades.org.uk
Selling literature and merchandise relating to those who went to defend the Spanish Republic in 1936/1939.
LIES Collective
http://liesjournal.tumblr.com/
LIES attacks the legacy of racism and transphobia that has plagued feminist organizing and strives to develop new ways of making autonomous feminist practices today that take pointed and militant attacks on white supremacy and transphobia as essential parts of feminist struggle.
Liverpool Solidarity Federation
http://www.solfed.org.uk
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liverpool-Solidarity-Federation/314543360381
Liverpool local of the Solidarity Federation, an anarcho-syndicalist union initiative and the British section of the International Workers Association.
Manchester Animal Action
http://manchesteranimalaction.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/ManchesterAnimalAction
Brief description: Manchester Animal Action campaigns locally against all forms of animal exploitation. These activities can range from promoting veganism to holding demonstrations against animal circuses to travelling to larger national events.
Manchester Hunt Saboteurs
http://www.nwhsa.org.uk
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Manchester-Hunt-Sabs/376472612370010
We are the Manchester Hunt Sabs. We do what we say on the tin.
Manchester Social Centre
http://manchestersocialcentre.org.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/ManchesterSocialCentre
There has been a growing need for a radical community hub in the years since Manchester’s last social centre, The Basement (http://thebasement.clearerchannel.org/new/), was closed due to flooding. Manchester Social Centre aims to fill this void by reclaiming space and services within the city and turning it into a ‘corporate free’ sanctuary for the community. We want to create a space for local activity and interaction, enabling groups to hold meetings and events at low cost, for members to share resources, develop and form links with other groups, and providing an accessible means for the people of Manchester to unite and share in positive radicalism.
Manchester SolFed (Solidarity Federation)
http://www.solfed.org.uk/?q=local/manchester
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Manchester-Solidarity-Federation/413385364781
Manchester SolFed is the local of the Solidarity Federation covering Greater Manchester.
News From Nowhere
http://www.newsfromnowhere.org.uk
https://www.facebook.com/newsfromnowherebookshop
39-year old Radical and Community Bookshop based in Liverpool. All subjects covered in a subversive way. A workers’ co-operative run by a women’s collective – shop with the real Amazons!
Massimo Nolletti
http://www.massimonolletti.com/photography/le-solite-teste-rasate-red-and-anarchist-skin-heads/
Nolletti’s relationship with photography came out by chance. It is the music to be at the centre of his formation and his creativity.
Coming into the darkroom shows him the infinity of possibilities which the photography gives, it is presented like a new sphere of exploration of the reality. Nolletti does not exchange the music with the photography, but uses both of them with the same sensibility and with the same finality, identifying in the camera the element which gives him the opportunity to live and explore
new situations, often far away from him. The photography is, like the music, for Massimo Nolletti the possibility to enter in contact with the vibrations which the world contains.
Northern Herald Books
Secondhand bookstall specialising in anarchism and libertarian socialism
Plan C MCR
http://www.weareplanc.org
http://www.facebook.com/plancMCR
Description: Plan C MCR is one of the four groups in Plan C (the others are Leeds, London and Thames Valley). We are currently organising around anti-work and anti-national politics as well planning a series of discussions in the new year around the concept of the future. As well as working on UK politics we are busy building European contacts in Germany and Greece. If you are interested in getting involved, telling us about your project or just finding out a little more then please let us know.
PM Press
http://www.pmpress.orgPM Press was founded at the end of 2007 by a small collection of folks with decades of publishing, media, and organizing experience. PM Press co-conspirators have published and distributed hundreds of books, pamphlets, CDs, and DVDs. Members of PM have founded enduring book fairs, spearheaded victorious tenant organizing campaigns, and worked closely with bookstores, academic conferences, and even rock bands to deliver political and challenging ideas to all walks of life. We’re old enough to know what we’re doing and young enough to know what’s at stake.
We seek to create radical and stimulating fiction and nonfiction books, pamphlets, T-shirts, visual and audio materials to entertain, educate, and inspire you. We aim to distribute these through every available channel with every available technology, whether that means you are seeing anarchist classics at our bookfair stalls; reading our latest vegan cookbook at the café; downloading geeky fiction e-books; or digging new music and timely videos from our website.
Prejudice Me
http://prejudiceme.bigcartel.com/
https://www.facebook.com/PrejudiceMe
Small DIY label & distro which helps fund community projects and radical causes.
Pumpkin Records
http://www.pumpkinrecords.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/pumpkinrecordsuk
DIY record label based in Manchester. We like to collaborate with bands and other labels on a mutual-aid basis where we aim to promote each other collectively to strengthen and unite our scene both musically and politically. Promoting Actions/Benefits where we can and also co-organising Dirty Weekend, a 100% DIY, not-for-profit festival raising funds for various causes.
Radical Routes
A network of independent cooperatives working for Radical Social Change.
http://wwww.RadicalRoutes.org.uk
STIR
http://www.stirtoaction.com
A magazine that promotes co-operative and community-led political alternatives taking place outside of the market and state.
In October we publish our third issue on the future of money.
STRIKE! Magazine
http://www.strikemag.org
STRIKE! is a radical, quarterly newspaper – we deal in politics, philosophy, art, subversion and sedition. Each issue we gather together a group of high-grade artists and authors, give them a theme, and let them get creative with it. It’s a magazine, it’s a journal, it’s a carnival.
Teatime Collective
http://www.teatimecollective.co.uk
http://www.facebook.com/teatimecollective
Vegan Catering, Cafe and Cakes! We will have our usual stall at the book fair with excessive amounts of cake and other vegan treats!
Tea Jamboree
http://www.teajamboree.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/TeaJamboree
Tea Jamboree provices a playful tea experience where you can concoct a cuppa to suit your mood! Come along and explore the selection of teas, flowers, spices, herbs and fruit, and enjoy your unique cup of tea. Try something new and unleash your creativitea!
WAST: Women Asylum Seekers Together
http://www.wast.org.uk
We will be at the bookfair, giving you an opportunity to view our new publication, speak to women campaigners, sign petitions develop your understanding of what it means to be a woman asylum seeker in the UK.
Please note: This is an anarchist bookfair.

[The Idler]

Talks for 2013
Talks/ workshops will last approximately 45 minutes.
This year we will be running talks in three rooms:
The Coal Store Conference Room (First Floor)
The Meeting Room (First Floor)
The Education Space (Ground Floor, Direct Access from Engine Hall)
The Coal Store Conference Room (First Floor)
11.00am: Anarchism? FAQ Off! You Must Be Joking
An interesting introduction to everything you ever wanted to know about anarchism!
12.00noon: Anarchy in Action: Beautiful Planet, Preston
How we set up our 100% volunteer-run community centre/café
Followed by discussion.
1.00pm: Can anarchists constructively subvert NGOs and trade unions to become forces for change?
Lots of anarchists – self-describing and not – spend our weekdays working for reformist social change organisations. We often relegate ourselves to the idea that no real change will emerge through these reformist hierarchies, but can we pre-figure spaces for a different kind of organisation, subverting the bureaucracies to create pockets of radical change, without using the organisation’s formal processes to do so? Liam Barrington-Bush, has just crowd-funded and self-published the book ‘Anarchists in the Boardroom’ and thinks there are possibilities to avoid feeling like our 9-5 work is done at the expense of our wider belief in how change happens
2.00pm: England’s Forgotten Revolution
A talk in period dress about the revolution in the 1640 and 50, Levellers, Diggers, Ranters but much much more, including the mutinies in the army, the first trade unions and the revolutionary uprising in London
3.00pm: Epiphany (Film) First Showing after London Anarchist Bookfair
Epiphany is a hybrid documentary evoking the Mystics and Anarchists of the English Revolution. Highlighting two little-known religious and political movements of the 1600s’ Republic, The Fifth Monarchists and the Muggletonians come to life in London as told by contemporary anarchists: Ian Bone and Martin Wright star as John Thurloe (Cromwell’s spymaster) and Thomas Vennner. Venner led the only uprising through the city against the restoration of the monarchy. Epiphany is a modern take on the parallels of the revolutionaries of the 1660s and today’s ongoing fight against the monarchy and the City of London corporation.
The Meeting Room (First Floor)
11.00am Learning from the Zapatistas in Chiapas: The Zapatista ‘little school’
The UK Zapatista Solidarity Network offers a workshop based on the practices of the Zapatista ‘little school’ this summer in Zapatista territory in Chiapas. Activists were invited into Zapatista territory, to learn about the Zapatista practice of autonomy (health, education, justice; resistance; participation of women; good government), and were asked to respond from their own calendars and geographies. The workshop will also give an update on the situation in the Zapatista territories in resistance. In the face of threats and oppression from the state and paramilitary groups, Zapatista territory continues to provide an inspiring anti-capitalist and decolonial example.
12.00noon Reproductive Justice?
There has recently been an upsurge in pro-choice activism, in response to threats to legalised abortion from both Parliament and from anti-choice groups like 40 Days for Life. While this activism is important, it is reactive, focused on maintaining the status quo. Furthermore, it assumes that, as long as abortion is available for up to 24 weeks on the NHS, women are able to ‘choose’ whether or not to have children. This doesn’t address all of the circumstances that might restrict a woman’s freedom when deciding whether or not to have children, for example, being unable to access the NHS for maternity care or to have an abortion; concerns about whether she can ‘afford’ a child; and the demonization of disabled people in the mainstream media.
The Reproductive Justice model was developed by Radical Women of Colour and their allies in the United States, and champions every woman’s right ‘the right to have children, not have children, and to parent the children we have in safe and healthy environments’ (Sistersong.net). It rejects the liberal model of ‘choice’, and instead argues that we must understand how capitalism, sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia and other systems of oppression work together to seriously restrict women’s reproductive freedom. Using the Reproductive Justice model, we can see that the government’s austerity measures, and xenophobic attempts to limit migrants’ access to the NHS, are as much of a threat to reproductive freedom as anti-choice legislation and harassment. This workshop will discuss the Reproductive Justice model in more detail, and how we can apply this model to our activism, so that every woman enjoys reproductive freedom.
1.00pm The Syrian Revolution- anti-authoritarian perspectives
The discourse on the situation in Syria has been dominated by geopolitical considerations, questions of foreign intervention and the rise of radical Islamism and sectarianism. Whilst these issues are of vital importance, the focus on these has over-clouded any real understanding of the popular
struggle on the ground.
This presentation will give an overview of the key players involved in the struggle in Syria, both progressive and reactionary, on the local, regional and global level.It will focus on grass roots resistance
movements and provide examples for international solidarity.
2.00pm Austerity
Over recent years austerity has become a hot topic amongst the left and in society in general. Some argue there is too much, others that is applied to the wrong areas of the states budget and some advise the state to increase its spending in order to fix the economy. Many on the left explain austerity as an ‘attack on concessions won by the working class’. We think this explanation is insufficient to explain what austerity actually is and what an understanding of austerity can teach us about capitalism and the state in boom and bust.
3.00pm Squatting in Belarus
A short film about squatting in Belarus
The Education Space (Ground Floor, Direct Access from Engine Hall)
1.00pm Losing Ourselves
Radical approaches to psychiatry and mental health in an age of austerity.
2.00pm IWW: Revolutionary unionism: the IWW and new workplace struggles
A discussion of the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), its role in the union movement and its success and challenges to building a revolutionary union.
3.00pm WAST
An introduction to the work of WAST (Women Asylum Seekers Together) and the launch of a new publication. Hear readings by the women members.
Any questions? Please email: [email protected]

[Blake's Baby]

That sounds more authoritarian than the London Anarchist bookfair policy of excluding political parties.

The London Anarchist Bookfair doesn't have a policy of excluding political parties, in my understanding.

[The Idler]

The London Anarchist Bookfair doesn't have a policy of excluding political parties, in my understanding.
So why were the leftcoms allowed but not SPGB?

[Blake's Baby]

Because the SPGB didn't ask.

What I've been told is this:

The CWO asked for a stall and a meeting; the organisers asked them to send a statement of principles (or something similar); the CWO did so; the organisers said OK.

The ICC asked for a stall; the organisers told them they'd applied too late and returned their cheque.

The SPGB didn't ask (and haven't, I've been informed, for several years). Guess what? The SPGB didn't get a stall. But then lots of SPGB have said that they were 'denied' a stall. If that's what you're being told by your non-leaders, you need to quiz them about that.

There's a thread about it on LibCom here (witchfinder of the SPGB makes the claim that the SPGB aren't allowed a stall on P.1 but the discussion heats up on page 3):

http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/london-anarchist-bookfair-19th-oct-07102013?page=2

[The Idler]

It's true that the SPGB haven't asked for several years.

[Blake's Baby]

Right. The SPGB didn't get a stall because it didn't ask for a stall. No 'denied' aboiut it. So I do wish the SPGBers here, on LibCom, and on FB, would stop claiming they were 'denied' a stall.

AES on LibCom makes the (reasonable) point that Anarchists are not obliged to give Marxists stalls at an Anarchist event, and implies that they'll look at Marxist groups and decide case-by-case (which I think is also reasonable); but to claim you weren't given one 'because you're a party' when the truth is 'because we didn't even bother to ask' is just untrue.

[HoboHomesteader]

I've been denied a stall, on the grounds that anarchism has more to do with vegan cupcakes than communism, in fact one of the organisers said "I have no interest in communism"

the last bookfair i tabled (unpermitted, FTW) at, even the IWW was exluded for political reasons.

[WilliamGreen]

Hmm interesting to hear the replies on this event.

[The Idler]

Because the SPGB didn't ask.

What I've been told is this:

The CWO asked for a stall and a meeting; the organisers asked them to send a statement of principles (or something similar); the CWO did so; the organisers said OK.

The ICC asked for a stall; the organisers told them they'd applied too late and returned their cheque.

The SPGB didn't ask (and haven't, I've been informed, for several years). Guess what? The SPGB didn't get a stall. But then lots of SPGB have said that they were 'denied' a stall. If that's what you're being told by your non-leaders, you need to quiz them about that.

There's a thread about it on LibCom here (witchfinder of the SPGB makes the claim that the SPGB aren't allowed a stall on P.1 but the discussion heats up on page 3):

http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/london-anarchist-bookfair-19th-oct-07102013?page=2To clarify, as I understand it, a stall was requested some years ago, the SPGB were denied on the grounds the SPGB is a party. Since then, at least the last two bookfairs, the SPGB have not asked (or been asked). Apologies if this has not been made clear so far. Happy to dig out the rejection correspondence on request.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sure that the SPGB have previously been denied a stall. What is at issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the implication of statements by SPGBers, on a variety of forums, that this year the SPGB was denied a stall. It wasn't. It didn't ask for a stall. I consider that the way various SPGB members have phrased this to be ambiguous at best and duplicitous at worst.

It may be that it would have been denied even if they had asked. It is after all a party (unlike the CWO) and it stands in elections (unlike the CWO) and it believes that the socialist party should take state power (unlike the CWO) and it is noticeably sceptical about workers' councils (unlike the CWO) and for these reasons the CWO might have been considered closer to Anarchism than the SPGB is, which may have been the motivation in allowing the CWO to attend this year. Or it may be that the CWO took part in a discussion about Marxism and Anarchism a few months ago in Sheffield that was very well received by the Anarchists there and the organisers decided to give them a chance. Who knows? The discussions of the organising committee are not public. But it's moot anyway; because the SPGB didn't apply.

Either way the SPGB implying that they were denied a stall while the 'authoritarian' CWO were granted one, with the further implication that this involves some sort of hypocrisy on behalf of the organisers of the bookfair, is grossly unfair and were I in the SPGB I'd be doing my damndest to correct that false impression being nosed about (whether through ignorance or malice) by members of my party.

[The Idler]

the original comment on libcom was "The SPGB is not allowed to have a stall inside".

then someone else commented

"From a Facebook post by someone who claims to be a member of the SPGB (and i see no reason to doubt it): "Seven SPGB members were there at various times to maintain a stall from 11am to 5pm -- outside, because as a "party" we are banned from having one inside, even though much more "authoritarian" groups from an anarchist point of view are admitted, e.g. CWO and the Marxist-Humanists..." Later this became "We didn't apply because on previous occasions we've been told "no". It's not clear whether this is because we are a "political party" or because we contest elections..." So, no, this year they didn't aply. But in previous years they apparently have, so no banning from their end."

then

"We didn't apply this year (or in recent years) because on previous occasions we had been turned down and we're not prepared to grovel. It was decided to set up our own stall outside instead."

One such rejection (from 2001) is detailed here http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/topics/522

The SPGB are still a political party, the SPGB are still opponents of anarchist groups.

If a denial from an application pertaining to this year is implied from comments on libcom or facebook about being banned, then, to clarify, that is not the case.

[Blake's Baby]

Right. And the comment that the SPGB had been denied a stall (with the implication being that this year it had been denied) was posted here, on LibCom, and on Facebook in the World Libertarian Socialist Network. And those are the ones I've noticed. I wonder in how many other places SPGBers are busy implying that the organisers didn't let them in, or that there's some hypocrisy going on in allowing the CWO in where the SPGB were 'denied'.

[freecommunist]

A short report I did of the Bookfair
http://www.freecommunism.org/manchester-anarchist-bookfair-report/

[The Idler]

Right. And the comment that the SPGB had been denied a stall (with the implication being that this year it had been denied) was posted here, on LibCom, and on Facebook in the World Libertarian Socialist Network. And those are the ones I've noticed. I wonder in how many other places SPGBers are busy implying that the organisers didn't let them in, or that there's some hypocrisy going on in allowing the CWO in where the SPGB were 'denied'.
The CWO reported the IP (an ICC split) being "banned" (and used this term) from events without specifying which ones or dates
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/midlands-discussion-forum-meeting

"... The ICC and IP apparently have (in France) banned each other from their public meetings. ..."

[freecommunist]

What does that have to do with the Bookfair?

[The Idler]

It relates to the use of the term 'banned' by the CWO for events without specifying dates, but also by the SPGB for events without specifying dates such as the Anarchist bookfair.

[Blake's Baby]

The IP and the ICC did ban each other, in my understanding. Not just from one meeting, but on a permanent basis. However, they then mutually agreed to rescind the bans and I believe that they have subsequently held joint meetings.

The SPGB is claiming it has been 'permabanned' and yet my understanding is that the Anarchist Bookfair decides every year which organisations it's going to allow. The SPGB may have been denied a stall in 2005 (or whenever) but it hasn't been denied a stall since, as the SPGB hasn't applied for a stall. If you don't ask for something, you can't be refused.

[The Idler]

The IP and the ICC did ban each other, in my understanding. Not just from one meeting, but on a permanent basis. However, they then mutually agreed to rescind the bans and I believe that they have subsequently held joint meetings.

The SPGB is claiming it has been 'permabanned' and yet my understanding is that the Anarchist Bookfair decides every year which organisations it's going to allow. The SPGB may have been denied a stall in 2005 (or whenever) but it hasn't been denied a stall since, as the SPGB hasn't applied for a stall. If you don't ask for something, you can't be refused.
So if 'banned' can mean 'from one meeting' or 'on a permanent basis' and does not imply particular meetings in a series, then why object when a SPGB member says 'banned from the Anarchist bookfair' or assume this means 'permabanned'?

[Blake's Baby]

Because you don't say 'we were banned in 2004 and haven't bothered asking since'. Instead, you say 'how come were are banned but the CWO are allowed in?'

Present tense. Means you are banned now, not 'were banned at some point in that past and now we can't even be arsed to ask'.

And I'd also dispute the use of 'banned'. You were (not 'are') denied a stall. You asked (a long time ago) and were told no. Now you're implying that this is a continuous ban (which, in my understanding it isn't) and that your (official) non-attendendence at the Bookfair (where you certainly weren't 'banned' as in 'denied entry' because I was in the same meeting as at least one SPGBer) is due to the organisers (it isn't, the primary reason for your lack of a stall is because you don't even ask for one).

Yes, the organisers have the right to deny you a stall; it's their event. But if you don't even ask, you don't get to claim you've been 'banned'.

[The Idler]

Did the ICC and IP ask at each of the others meetings to attend whenever they claim to have been 'banned'?

FWIW, although I don't think the use of the term 'ban' is as serious a mistake as is being made out, I will ask that another request to the next bookfair is made.

[Blake's Baby]

Did the ICC and IP ask at each of the others meetings to attend whenever they claim to have been 'banned'?...

I don't know what you're trying to ask here I'm afraid. My understanding is that the ICC and the ICP both announced that members of the other organisation wouldd not be permitted entry to each others' meetings. It's not, as far as I can tell, that the ICC said 'we have been banned from IP' and IP said 'we have been banned from ICC' - it's that the ICC said 'IP is not welcome' and IP said 'ICC is not welcome'.

Now, there's no way you can claim that the situation with the SPGB and the Anarchist Bookfair is anything like this - I saw SPGBers at meetings inside, no-one tried to throw them out. No statement was issued by the organisers of the Anarchist Bookfair that the SPGB were not welcome. So, where's the connection?




FWIW, although I don't think the use of the term 'ban' is as serious a mistake as is being made out, I will ask that another request to the next bookfair is made.

FWIW, I'm not objecting to the term 'ban' - I think there's an argument to be made that the SPGB were, previously, 'banned' (though I think that's an over-dramatic term, 'refused a stall on political grounds' would be better). I'm objecting to the implication that you were banned this year - which you weren't.

In order to be 'refused a stall on political grounds' this year you would have to have applied for a stall this year - which you didn't. If you don't apply for a stall you can't be refused one, and you didn't apply, so you weren't refused (or 'banned' in the SPGB's tragic narrative in which it casts itself as a victim of sectarianism).

Simple as.

[The Idler]

If no request was made by the guest to the host to attend, surely you take issue with the CWO's description of the ICC-IP spat as a 'ban' then? How can we say whether the ban was in effect?

This seems to be the most appropriate comparison with the SPGB 'ban' not whether individuals were allowed in. Unless you're claiming political bans against groups should operate against individuals at otherwise public events, which either speaks badly of censorship in respect of the host or in respect of the guest, of the behaviour of individual members tolerated or encouraged by a group culture (sectarianism).

There seem to be implications you're reading into the SPGB 'ban' but not the ICC-IP 'ban'.

[Blake's Baby]

If no request was made by the guest to the host to attend, surely you take issue with the CWO's description of the ICC-IP spat as a 'ban' then? How can we say whether the ban was in effect?...

Are you serious?

The ICC said 'the IP is not welcome at our events'. The IP said 'the ICC is not welcome at our events'. How is that not a ban? Did the Anarchist Bookfair ever say 'the SPGB is not welcome at our event'?


...This seems to be the most appropriate comparison with the SPGB 'ban' not whether individuals were allowed in...

Individuals from the ICC and IP were not allowed into nmeetings of the other organisation, because they were members of a banned organisation. This is a ban. Individuals of the SPGB were allowed into meetings of the Anarchist Bookfair, even though they were members of an organisation supposedly 'banned'. This is not a ban.


...Unless you're claiming political bans against groups should operate against individuals at otherwise public events...

Of course I am. If individuals aren't prevented from taking part in the meeting they haven't been banned, have they?




... which either speaks badly of censorship or of the behaviour of individual members tolerated or encouraged by a group culture (sectarianism).

There seem to be implications you're reading into the SPGB 'ban' but not the ICC-IP 'ban'.

Not sure what you're getting at (again).

I don't know why it's so difficult.

Did the SPGB have a request for a stall refused in 2013? No.

Were individuals of the SPGB prevented from attending meetings in 2013? No.

Ergo, you weren't banned from the 2013 Bookfair, were you?

[The Idler]

So when the Anarchist Bookfair say the SPGB aren't welcome, the SPGB are supposed to ask again?
But when ICC say the IP aren't welcome, then the IP don't have to ask again?

Hosts of public events cannot feasibly enforce blanket bans extending to individual members of political organisations simply because unless the membership is fixed or extremely static, they would not recognise a member. The only example attempted I can think of is the ridiculous attempt by the SWP some years ago banning a member for non-disruptive disagreement from attending public meetings here http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/628/martin-smith-s-appeal-fiasco

So this is not a distinction between the Anarchist Bookfair 'ban' and the ICC-IP 'ban'.

More importantly, however, hosts should not be attempting to issue blanket bans unless they are censorious hosts or disruptive guests. If you insist that the ICC-IP 'ban' is different on grounds of individual members being 'banned', then who are the censorious hosts and who are the disruptive guests in this case? In the case of new members, which parties cultures are allowing them to go around disrupting meetings?

As hosts, the SPGB have never banned individuals from attending any meeting simply for being members of a political organisation. Nor does the SPGB go around seriously disrupting public meetings. As a general remark, this is important in principle and a mark of serious politics not playground spats or sectarian cliques.

[Blake's Baby]

So when the Anarchist Bookfair say the SPGB aren't welcome, the SPGB are supposed to ask again?
But when ICC say the IP aren't welcome, then the IP don't have to ask again?...

The Bookfair in 2004 cannot ban you from the Bookfair in 2013. They are different events, and each has its own selection procedure (not that you were banned anyway, SPGBers attended the Bookfair, didn't they?). The IP and ICC put a blanket ban on members of the other organisation turning up to any event, not just one event. Different things.


...Hosts of public events cannot feasibly enforce blanket bans extending to individual members of political organisations simply because unless the membership is fixed or extremely static, they would not recognise a member. The only example attempted I can think of is the ridiculous attempt by the SWP some years ago banning a member for non-disruptive disagreement from attending public meetings here http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/628/martin-smith-s-appeal-fiasco...

So? That means 'banning' from the Bookfair (not that you were banned) is not the same as the ICC/IP mutual ban doesn't it?



...
So this is not a distinction between the Anarchist Bookfair 'ban' and the ICC-IP 'ban'...

You've just said they're different, now you're saying they're not? Which is it?



...
More importantly, however, hosts should not be attempting to issue blanket bans unless they are censorious hosts or disruptive guests. If you insist that the ICC-IP 'ban' is different on grounds of individual members being 'banned', then who are the censorious hosts and who are the disruptive guests in this case? In the case of new members, which parties cultures are allowing them to go around disrupting meetings?...

What new members? The IP was a split from the ICC. They all knew each other.

Were you in the SPGB when Socialist Studies split? I bet anyone who was knew who was in that group, even months or possibly years later.


...As hosts, the SPGB have never banned individuals from attending any meeting simply for being members of a political organisation. Nor does the SPGB go around seriously disrupting public meetings. As a general remark, this is important in principle and a mark of serious politics not playground spats or sectarian cliques.


And what does this have to do with the refusal of the SPGB to apply for a stall at the Bookfair, and then the claim you were 'banned' from it? Yet again, you're pointing out differences between the supposed 'banning' of the SPGB, and the actual, mutual banning of the IP and ICC, which makes me wonder why you brought it up, as it seems to me to be utterly irrelevant to a discussion about the supposed 'banning' of the SPGB from the Bookfair.

[The Idler]

So did the ICC-IP ask at every event whether the 'ban' had been lifted? Otherwise, you might say the ICC-IP 'ban' stated at one event cannot be taken to apply to every event. You're treating these with different standards. Even if they said 'the ICC/IP is not welcome at our events' wouldn't you ask which events or for how long as you are with the SPGB 'ban' from the Anarchist Bookfair? Especially given the political grounds given by the ICC-IP are so flimsy compared to the traditional Anarchist opposition to political parties.

If you're not taking the SPGB described 'ban' at face value, why take the ICC-IP described 'ban' as a 'ban' simply because the host described it as such?

That individual members attend a public event is irrelevant. It is so infeasible to enforce as to make the term 'ban' utterly meaningless other than a dramatic declaration.

The ICC-IP could recruit a new member or contact and send them to a meeting.

I wasn't in the SPGB when Socialist Studies split, but the only 'ban' was Socialist Studies reportedly holding some meetings in private, excluding everyone, not just excluding SPGBers which would have been infeasible anyway with new members of either group.

The 'bans' are absolutely comparable with the only distinctions possibly reflecting worse on the ICC-IP.

For multiple recent instances of an event, a host has denied a guest group participation on political grounds, which though the politics are unchanged were not tested most recently.

Compare this to, a one-off (mutual) declaration (that was later rescinded) by a host unenforcably denying a guest individuals mere attendance (at public events) on general grounds (or censorious host or disruptive guest grounds) that isn't yet clear was tested at all until the declaration was rescinded.

For clarity, probably neither should be called a 'ban' but the former seems to be less inaccurate than the latter.

[Blake's Baby]

So did the ICC-IP ask at every event whether the 'ban' had been lifted? Otherwise, you might say the ICC-IP 'ban' stated at one event cannot be taken to apply to every event. You're treating these with different standards. Even if they said 'the ICC/IP is not welcome at our events' wouldn't you ask which events or for how long as you are with the SPGB 'ban' from the Anarchist Bookfair? Especially given the political grounds given by the ICC-IP are so flimsy compared to the traditional Anarchist opposition to political parties.

If you're not taking the SPGB described 'ban' at face value, why take the ICC-IP described 'ban' as a 'ban' simply because the host described it as such?...

Did the IP and ICC say that each other's organisations couldn't attend meetings? Yes.

Did the Anarchist Bookfair say that the SPGB couldn't attend meetings? No, they didn't.

They're not the same thing are they?

Were the ICC and IP banned from each other's meetings on an ongoing basis? Yes.

Were the SPGB 'banned' from the Anarchist Bookfair on an ongoing basis? No, they weren't.

They're not the same thing are they?




...
That individual members attend a public event is irrelevant. It is so infeasible to enforce as to make the term 'ban' utterly meaningless other than a dramatic declaration...

So, what you are saying is that the situation that the ICC and IP were in, is not the same as the position the SPGB were in. So, why do you persist in trying to claim they're the same thing? The ICC and IP banned each other. They said that members of the other organisation were not permitted into their meetings. They both it seems later changed their minds, an lifted the ban.

Nothing similar is going to happen with the SPGB, because you haven't been banned either as an organisation (SPGBers were free to attend meetings) or on a permenent basis (because refusal to allow a stall only applies to a single bookfair). There is no 'ban' to overturn.


...

The ICC-IP could recruit a new member or contact and send them to a meeting...

'Contacts' weren't banned. That would be stupid. We're all 'contacts' of multiple organisations. If IP excluded ICC 'contacts' or vice versa it would be excluding its own contacts too.

As for recruiting members to disrupt someone else's meeting... be serious please. 1 - why on earth would they want to? and 2 - how? I've been a contact of the ICC for 13 years and they haven't 'recruited' me yet. 'Recruitment' isn't really the name of the game. And 3 - honestly, why would they want to?



...I wasn't in the SPGB when Socialist Studies split, but the only 'ban' was Socialist Studies reportedly holding some meetings in private, excluding everyone, not just excluding SPGBers which would have been infeasible anyway with new members of either group...

I don't remember asking if the SPGB and Socialist Studies banned each other. I don't care. The point was that if such a ban had been in place then the SPGB and Socialist Studies people would have recognised each other, having previously been members of the same organisation.


...The 'bans' are absolutely comparable with the only distinctions possibly reflecting worse on the ICC-IP...

Except we've both agreed that there are significant differences.

1 - the ICC and IP bans were permanent and had to be overturned, whereas the supposed 'ban' of the SPGB (actually a refusal to grant you space for a stall) was was successively re-affirmed but has not been in place for maybe 5 years anyway;

2 - the IP and ICC bans applied to all members taking part in otherwise public meetings, but SPGBers were allowed to attend meetings at the bookfair.

You can claim that these differences are in fact the same thing, but you'd be wrong.




...
For multiple recent instances of an event, a host has denied a guest group participation on political grounds, which though the politics are unchanged were not tested most recently...

Your politics are unchanged. How do you know that the Anarchist Bookfair's position hasn't changed? You haven't asked them.

If it were the Anarchist Federation that had 'banned' you, I'd agree that it would be a real ban. But the Bookfair this year is not the Bookfair last year or the Bookfair in 2006. Even if you were denied participation in 2006, that doesn't necessarily mean you would have been in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013. You have to ask, every year, to know if you're going to be rejected every year. If you don't ask every year, you can't claim your application was rejected because you didn't make an application.


...Compare this to, a one-off (mutual) declaration (that was later rescinded) by a host unenforcably denying a guest individuals mere attendance (at public events) on general grounds (or censorious host or disruptive guest grounds) that isn't yet clear was tested at all until the declaration was rescinded...

The bans were in place until the bans were lifted. Declarations were mae by each organisation that militants of the other were not permitted access to meetings. They were bans.

The refusal to allow you to participate in one event, followed a year later by a refusal to participate in a different event, followed by your repeated refusal to ask to take part in successive events, is not the same. No a ban.


...For clarity, probably neither should be called a 'ban' but the former seems to be less inaccurate than the latter.

For clarity, the SPGB should either say 'we don't have a stall because we got sick of asking and being refused, we don't even bother now' or actually ask. What it shouldn't do is claim it has been banned from events it didn't ask to take part in.

[The Idler]

FWIW, I don't think the terms actually used by the parties are in dispute, only the definitions.
The Anarchist Bookfair didn't use the term 'ban', a SPGB member did.
It may even be the case the ICC-IP dispute was called a 'ban'.

Could the ICC-IP have enforced their 'ban' of any individuals from those groups from attending public meetings? No.
Could the Anarchist Bookfair have enforced a 'ban' of any individuals from the SPGB from attending public meetings? No.
Same thing. 'Bans' of individuals from public meetings are meaningless hyperbole, whether this is the colloquial meaning of the term 'ban' or not. Its also an effort in vain to exclude people, especially those that politically disagree.

Actually, the Independent Socialist Network tried these semantic shenanigans to exclude the SPGB from a meeting advertised as 'all independent socialists welcome'. The ISN regarded the SPGB as unwelcome on the pretext that parties were not allowed (in fact a number of parties were there including Socialist Resistance) in a meeting in March this year. A couple of SPGB members went along completely unaware (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/independent-socialist-network-lets-get-party-started-23-march-2013-va#comment-5409). Sure enough the 'ban' didn't work as they got in and were able to stay until they got bored and identified themselves as members.

Were the ICC-IP 'banned' from each others meetings on an ongoing basis? They declared so, I've not seen anything further to suggest this anyone tested whether such a 'ban' was in operation. Are statements from the ICC-IP sufficient? You seem to be arguing relying on statements by parties to the dispute is sufficient in itself.

In September, SPGBers went along to the launch of Socialist Platform, with some of the same faces from the Independent Socialist Network. This time they weren't even allowed in to observe. Call it what you will.

No-one's said this was a 'ban' only that we're not welcome, but on the basis of being knocked back a couple of times after declaring membership of the SPGB, would you say we're banned from attending? Or by simply not using the word 'ban' have they effectively dodged the issue. A 'successive reaffirment of unwelcomeness' if you prefer.

Use of the term 'contact' of an organisation was stupid of me in this instance, sorry.

I suggested 'bans for disruption' as an excuse that might be used, because it is one of the most common spurious grounds for exclusion, not because I thought 'bans for disruption' necessarily justifies a 'ban'. The only things I've heard about the ICC Day of Discussion, which I hope to attend the next one, are good comradely behaviour.

I know the most common problem in recruitment is the SWP approach of 'recruit, recruit, recruit' at all costs, but if you're not joining leftcom groups and some leftcom groups don't want people joining, then there's a problem with some leftcom groups. I suspect this is something to do with the theory of the revolution making revolutionaries. Maybe also a temptation to preserve ideological purity.

It only makes me worry more about the exisiting members of those leftcom groups and how they deal with disputes with other organisations including those close to them. How important can differences be made out to be between groups in the same tradition? How dogmatic and monomaniacally are these lines enforced and repeated if a mere individual's presence threatens a meeting? I'd like to think the SPGB wouldn't go along to any public meetings of any DeLeonist groups and disrupt them, and the SPGB certainly wouldn't exclude individuals from SPGB meetings unless they were a danger to others.

Why is the ICC-IP petty dispute called a 'ban' apart from them saying so?
The SPGB don't want to be martyrs, excluded from this, that and other left groups otherwise public meetings. The SPGB have even made applications in good faith to the Bookfair, only to be turned down applications to run a stall, but if its a problem, then its a political one not really a semantic one.

[Blake's Baby]

FWIW, I don't think the terms actually used by the parties are in dispute, only the definitions.
The Anarchist Bookfair didn't use the term 'ban', a SPGB member did.
It may even be the case the ICC-IP dispute was called a 'ban'...

Four SPGB members did in different forums. At least. Here, on LibCom, on the SPGB's own site andd on Facebook. Which is not an individual mistake but begins to look like party policy, to say things that aren't true about other groups.


...Could the ICC-IP have enforced their 'ban' of any individuals from those groups from attending public meetings? No.
Could the Anarchist Bookfair have enforced a 'ban' of any individuals from the SPGB from attending public meetings? No...

False. The ICC and IP could (and as far as I'm aware, did) enforce their mutual bans.

So, not the same thing.


...
Same thing. 'Bans' of individuals from public meetings are meaningless hyperbole, whether this is the colloquial meaning of the term 'ban' or not. Its also an effort in vain to exclude people, especially those that politically disagree.

Actually, the Independent Socialist Network tried these semantic shenanigans to exclude the SPGB from a meeting advertised as 'all independent socialists welcome'. The ISN regarded the SPGB as unwelcome on the pretext that parties were not allowed (in fact a number of parties were there including Socialist Resistance) in a meeting in March this year. A couple of SPGB members went along completely unaware (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/independent-socialist-network-lets-get-party-started-23-march-2013-va#comment-5409). Sure enough the 'ban' didn't work as they got in and were able to stay until they got bored and identified themselves as members...

So, having identified themselves as members of a banned org, they were no longer allowed to participate? Unlike the SPGB at the Boookfair, where no ban was in place. So, different.


...Were the ICC-IP 'banned' from each others meetings on an ongoing basis? They declared so, I've not seen anything further to suggest this anyone tested whether such a 'ban' was in operation. Are statements from the ICC-IP sufficient? You seem to be arguing relying on statements by parties to the dispute is sufficient in itself...

The bans were in operation until they were cancelled. No such ban is in place against the SPGB because the Bookfair refusal only applies to one Bookfair. Each new Bookfair is a new event with a new selection process, unlike the process of two political organisations mutually banning each other. organisations don't just apply once a get a stall for ever, they have to re-apply every year (so any organisation could be denied a stall in any one year). Also, being denied a stall in one year doesn't mean that the same organisation will be denied a stall in subsequent years (ask the CWO). Each new Bookfair requires a new round of applications and a new round of decisions about those applications. So, not the same thing.


...In September, SPGBers went along to the launch of Socialist Platform, with some of the same faces from the Independent Socialist Network. This time they weren't even allowed in to observe. Call it what you will.

No-one's said this was a 'ban' only that we're not welcome, but on the basis of being knocked back a couple of times after declaring membership of the SPGB, would you say we're banned from attending? Or by simply not using the word 'ban' have they effectively dodged the issue. A 'successive reaffirment of unwelcomeness' if you prefer...

No, if people have been told that they can't take part in a meeting because they're members of a particular organisation, then they've been banned from that meeting (unlike members of the SPGB who could take part in meetings at the the Bookfair). If they're not allowed to take part on a long-term basis (rather than just at one meeting) it's a 'permaban' whether the ISN calls it a ban or not.

But the SPGB has never been banned in this sense from the Bookfair. SPGB members have alwys been free to participate in meetings.

So, different things.


...Use of the term 'contact' of an organisation was stupid of me in this instance, sorry.

I suggested 'bans for disruption' as an excuse that might be used, because it is one of the most common spurious grounds for exclusion, not because I thought 'bans for disruption' necessarily justifies a 'ban'. The only things I've heard about the ICC Day of Discussion, which I hope to attend the next one, are good comradely behaviour...

The reasons don't really matter, I don't think. As someone who has no axe to grind in disputes between the ICC and IP, all I'll say is that the two groups came to believe that each was trying to disrupt the meetings of the other. So they both announced that members of the other organisation were not welcome at their own meetings. Whether either organisation was justified in that belief I don't know, I wasn't there in France in the 1990s or whenever this happened.


...I know the most common problem in recruitment is the SWP approach of 'recruit, recruit, recruit' at all costs, but if you're not joining leftcom groups and some leftcom groups don't want people joining, then there's a problem with some leftcom groups. I suspect this is something to do with the theory of the revolution making revolutionaries. Maybe also a temptation to preserve ideological purity...

The SPGB has criteria for membership. If one doesn't agree with the criteria for membership, one doesn't join the SPGB, even though one might agree with a lot of what the SPGB says (as you know, I have substantial agreements with the SPGB). Likewise with the ICC or ICT. I substantially agree with both organisations; on some questions, I'm closer to the ICT, on others I'm closer to the ICC. Neither organisation is 'the party of the future', and at the moment I believe I'm doing more useful work not in either organisation, but trying to work closely with both (and with anyone else who is on a similar political terrain, such as some members of the SPGB, yourself included).

But this is pretty much irrelevant to the question, which is 'was the SPGB banned in any way from the London Anarchist Bookfair 2013?' - to which the answer is 'no'.


...It only makes me worry more about the exisiting members of those leftcom groups and how they deal with disputes with other organisations including those close to them. How important can differences be made out to be between groups in the same tradition? How dogmatic and monomaniacally are these lines enforced and repeated if a mere individual's presence threatens a meeting? I'd like to think the SPGB wouldn't go along to any public meetings of any DeLeonist groups and disrupt them, and the SPGB certainly wouldn't exclude individuals from SPGB meetings unless they were a danger to others.

Why is the ICC-IP petty dispute called a 'ban' apart from them saying so?
The SPGB don't want to be martyrs, excluded from this, that and other left groups otherwise public meetings. The SPGB have even made applications in good faith to the Bookfair, only to be turned down applications to run a stall, but if its a problem, then its a political one not really a semantic one.

It's called a ban because excluding people from participation in meetings is a ban, and that's what happened in the ICC-IP dispute. It's not what happened to the SPGB at the Bookffair.

The SPGB's claim of a 'ban' is because for some years, up to a point some other years ago, it was refused a stall at the Bookfair. Now, I think it's stretching it to call that a 'ban', but I can just about see how you could define it as such - I wouldn't, because to me that would imply that everyone was allowed tables at the Anacrhist Bookfair, but the fact is, you have to apply, not just turn up. What happened was that you request was refused, for political reasons.

The reasons (as above) don't matter; but you asked, and were told no. As I say, I think it's a stretch to call that a ban, but if one does, it still only applies to times when your request was refused. You can't claim to have been banned from the Anarchist Bookfair in 2013 because your request wasn't turned down in 2013, as being turned down in 2006 has no bearing on the 2013 Bookfair.

Anyway; I don't think there's anywhere else to go with this. We're not producing anything new here, I at least think I've explained my position clearly, though if you (or anyone else) are unsure about any points I'll give it another go.

I will continue to challenge the SPGB's narrative of being 'banned' whereever I might find it because I think it's politically dishonest, and really, I expect better from the SPGB and certainly from its better members (in which camp I include you). But I don't think this discussion is really going anywhere.

[The Idler]

Beyond sloppy use of 'ban' by SPGB members, we disagree. Although we agree that we have both exhausted our arguments in the above posts.