Anarchist Bookfair London Saturday 19th October 2013

[slothjabber]

ALB wrote:

I don't know what's provoked this vituperative attack..

 Funny, one person's attempt to get the truth heard is another person's 'vituperative attack'. 

ALB wrote:

…The statement criticised is not a lie. We have been turned down on a number of occasions in the past and, as you rightly assume, have given up applying on the natural assumption that we are not welcome, "banned" if you like. It was not a reference just to this year's bookfair…

 It was not a reference to this year's bookfair at all. You were not 'banned' this year. You were not banned in any of the last few yers. You have, in the past, been denied a stall. But you said 

ALB wrote:

How come that the CWO, which favours political action by a vanguard party and envisages a transition period with a state, are admitted to the Anarchists Bookfairs while we are banned? …

 Not 'were banned, when we could be bothered to apply', but 'are' banned, implying that it is happening now. Not sure how 'natural' your assumption is, after all the CWO got a stall and they're Marxists, so that uimplies you might have been in with a shot if you'd actually bothered to apply rather than 'naturally' assuming you couldn't. 

ALB wrote:

…More interesting is this:

slothjabber wrote:

the CWO was allowed to have a stall after they put in a request, and were then contacted by the organisers to provide further information, which they did, after which the organisers accepted that they had a sufficient relationship with Anarchism to be given a stall – this year.

What "further information" did they ask and what further information did you supply that convinced them that you were sufficiently anarchist?We readily concede that your anti-election stance puts you closer to Bakunin and the anarchists than to Marx…

 I'm not in the CWO. But I was told (the info is also available on the LibCom thread that you took part in) that the organisers asked for some sort of statement of principles which the CWO sent. After that organisers considered the CWO's application and allowed it. From Cleishbotham of the CWO:"If I recall right they just asked us for a statement as to why we should be in the fair and we sent them our basic positions off the website."http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/london-anarchist-bookfair-19th-oct-07102013#comment-526098 

ALB wrote:

…We have of course never claimed to be "the parliamentary wing of the anarchist movement". That's something others have said about us. In any event this niche is filled by Ian Bone and Class War (see the separate thread on this in the General Discussion section).

 Oh really? I thought ajjohnstone was one of yours:"Perhaps the Thin Red Line will also now have to address the need for some form of unity and finally accept the SPGB as the parliamentary political wing of anarchism."http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/left-unity-impossible-dream-05092013#comment-524741If he's not then my mistake. So; after all that, the question remains – are you going to clear up the matter of your non-banning from the Anarchist bookfair in this or any of several preceeding years? It's been stated here, and on Facebook, and on RevLeft, and on LibCom, that you don't have a stall due to being banned. But you weren't banned this year, were you? I really don't see what's wrong with stating 'we gave up asking because we thought it was a waste of time'. It would at least be, you know, true.

[ALB]

I still do not why know you are attacking us in this way or what your agenda is.Even the grammar of what I wrote doesn't bear your interpretation:

slothjabber wrote:

ALB wrote:

How come that the CWO, which favours political action by a vanguard party and envisages a transition period with a state, are admitted to the Anarchists Bookfairs while we are banned? …

Not 'were banned, when we could be bothered to apply', but 'are' banned, implying that it is happening now.

Yes, "are banned" does imply that the ban applies now but it says nothing about when it started, only that it is still in force. In fact, it's saying "were" banned that would suggest that it was a decision taken this year (that we had applied and been banned and that the CWO applied afterwards and had been accepted).Why would I want to say something that I knew not to be true? I knew perfectly well that we had not applied this year nor for a number of years (because there was a ban on us in force).  Your argument that we should have tested if it was still in force by applying this year is irrelevant. If we've been told "no" a number of times we get the message. If they don't want us, fair enough. We're not going to grovel to get in. I was just pointing out the organisers' inconsistency in admitting the CWO while having a ban on us.This is a silly argument anyway. More interesting would be your reasons for making this an issue.

[slothjabber]

ALB wrote:

I still do not why know you are attacking us in this way or what your agenda is…

 Because I want members of the SPGB to stop saying things that aren't true. 1 – it damages the anarchist Bookfair when SPGB members imply there is some hypocrisy or conspiracy in the selection process;2 – it fosters a spirit of distrust towards the CWO who can be perceived as somehow tricking their way in to something that 'should' be the SPGB's;3 – it makes the SPGB appear less than honest to those who know it's not true. None of these are useful in my view. And even if they were, it still wouldn't be true, and I think truth is important. 

ALB wrote:

…Even the grammar of what I wrote doesn't bear your interpretation:

slothjabber wrote:

ALB wrote:

How come that the CWO, which favours political action by a vanguard party and envisages a transition period with a state, are admitted to the Anarchists Bookfairs while we are banned? …

Not 'were banned, when we could be bothered to apply', but 'are' banned, implying that it is happening now.

Yes, "are banned" does imply that the ban applies now but it says nothing about when it started, only that it is still in force. In fact, it's saying "were" banned that would suggest that it was a decision taken this year (that we had applied and been banned and that the CWO applied afterwards and had been accepted).Why would I want to say something that I knew not to be true? I knew perfectly well that we had not applied this year nor for a number of years (because there was a ban on us in force).  Your argument that we should have tested if it was still in force by applying this year is irrelevant. If we've been told "no" a number of times we get the message. If they don't want us, fair enough. We're not going to grovel to get in. I was just pointing out the organisers' inconsistency in admitting the CWO while having a ban on us…

 There is no 'ban in force'. Decisions on whether to allow organisations to take part are, as far as I can see, made on a year-by-year basis. You may have been banned from past Bookfairs; but you can only be banned from a Bookfair you apply to be part of. If you don't apply, you aren't banned. And by 'grovel' you mean 'apply'? The only way anyone gets in is by applying, as I understand it. If you don't apply, you don't get in, and you didn't apply. No 'banning' necessary. You don't even give them the opportunity to 'ban' you, you do it yourselves. Do you know that the people making the decision are the same as the last lot of people who decided not to pass your application? Do you know even if no people have changed since then, that their views haven't changed? No, because you haven't applied. 

ALB wrote:

…This is a silly argument anyway. More interesting would be your reasons for making this an issue.

 Because I don't want to constantly read whining from SPGBers how the evil anarchists won't let them come and play, or about how those nasty Left Communists can come and play while the good old SPGB can't, or whatever. In at least 4 political forums I've seen SPGBers claim that the party was 'banned' from the Bookfair, as well as being told in person by the SPGBers I talked to on the day, and I now know it isn't true. Please explain what is wrong with dropping claims that you were 'banned' (except in a historical sense, say, up to the last time you actually applied) and instead saying 'we don't apply now because we got sick of refusals in the past'. And then, maybe, explain why, instead of being concerned with what's true, you're more concerned with my motivation in trying to expose the truth. I'm quite interested in your motivation for not wanting this discussed.

[ALB]

slothjabber wrote:

it fosters a spirit of distrust towards the CWO who can be perceived as somehow tricking their way in to something that 'should' be the SPGB's;

Ah, now I understand !All I can say is that the criticism was not directed at the CWO but at the organisers of the bookfair. Please pass this on to the CWO.

[slothjabber]

Oh, you 'understand' do you? So; are you happy about your members saying things that aren't true?

[imposs1904]

I've not been following this thread but if members have been using the term 'banned', then Slothjabber's right, it's daft and inappropriate. I was one of the Party members in the early 2000s who, as a member of the Campaigns Dept,  would apply for a Party stall at the Anarchist Bookfair and, if I remember rightly, we were always politely turned down for the obvious reasons. We didn't make a particular big deal of it then, and we shouldn't make a big deal out of it now. And I'm definitely not one of those members who see ourselves as being the Parliamentary wing of the Anarchist Movement. I shudder at the very thought.Good luck to the CWO  at being the left communist wing of the Anarchist Movement.  I guess I always thought it was kind of weird that both the CWO and the ICC would place so much emphasis on the British Anarchist movement, but I just put it down to the fact it was a space where they would get a hearing. (More the CWO than the ICC.) Good luck to them.

[imposs1904]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Private Eyes cartoon on the bookfairhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/107147535@N04/10576658216/sizes/h/in/photostream/

That cartoon's awful, btw.

[alanjjohnstone]

Slothjobber is correct that I have, quite often, used the term that we are the parliamentary wing of the anarchist movement. That debate can go to a different thread.I am indeed "one of yours" just as yourself is "one of theirs", Slothjabber, but I am responsible for that opinion and not as an official spokes-person for the party. I do post as an individual member of the SPGB on Libcom, and you know well that I have on occasion criticised the party Ibelong to and have been recognised by other posters on it as simply as one tendency of the SPGB, to use a rather grandois term. I know YMS does not share my empathy for the anarchist movement and there are others in the party who are not sympathic for more closer relations between the "thin red line", the non-market, non-state socialists. But you must grant that others apart from ourselves understand that there is a long-standing ban upon ourselves, (as there also is at the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair). If you keep getting refused then surely there comes a time that you accept the refusal and stop applying.Perhaps it is up to the organisers of the Anarchist Bookfair to make clear their new guidelines on who can participate and, goodness gracious me, they pass by our bookstall outside the venue, they could at least have said …come inside …or suggest applying for next year. The fact they didn't is either they are unaware of past decisions to stop our stall and believe we prefer it outside under the usual misinterpretation of our hostility clause or they actually don't wish us to participate. Whenever it has been mentioned on Libcom, I have never seen any attempt by the organisers to try to deny the ban or offer an invitation. So okay, you say we should not say we are banned…perhaps we should re-phrase it …our presence is unwelcomed!

[ALB]

slothjabber wrote:

are you happy about your members saying things that aren't true?

You should become a lawyer. You've already mastered how to ask: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[alanjjohnstone]

If you aren't one of us , you must be one of them ! The comment was simply an expression of my displeasure of your expression. Regardless of its truth, it was hardly comradely in tone.

[slothjabber]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Slothjobber is correct that I have, quite often, used the term that we are the parliamentary wing of the anarchist movement. That debate can go to a different thread.I am indeed "one of yours" just as yourself is "one of theirs", Slothjabber, but I am responsible for that opinion and not as an official spokes-person for the party…

 I'm neither an Anarchist nor a member of the CWO, so I don't know which group 'one of theirs' is supposed to apply to I'm afraid.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…I do post as an individual member of the SPGB on Libcom, and you know well that I have on occasion criticised the party Ibelong to and have been recognised by other posters on it as simply as one tendency of the SPGB, to use a rather grandois term. I know YMS does not share my empathy for the anarchist movement and there are others in the party who are not sympathic for more closer relations between the "thin red line", the non-market, non-state socialists…

 I don't know what YMS means I'm afraid, but I absolutely agree with you on the desirability of the closer relations between the 'non-market, non-state socialists' as you put it (or 'socialists' as I usually say). Contrary to what ALB seems to believe,my intervention on this thread isn't motivated by a desire to attack the SPGB, but to get it to adopt an honest position which might make such a closer relationship easier.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…But you must grant that others apart from ourselves understand that there is a long-standing ban upon ourselves, (as there also is at the Manchester Anarchist Bookfair). If you keep getting refused then surely there comes a time that you accept the refusal and stop applying…

 Not really – as far as I can see what happens is that the ban is in force for that year's Bookfair and then your application  is considered with a clean slate if you apply again next. The Manchester bookfair is run by different people and whether one is allowed a stall at one has no bearing on the other. That's a bit like saying 'well the London Anarchist Federation talked to us so why won't Manchester SolFed?'. You might decide to stop applying. But that is assuming that there is such a thing as a 'long-standing ban', but as I say that isn't my understanding. However, if I (for example) had taken that approach to the SPGB, the discussion group I'm part of wouldn't be holding a meeting with the SPGB at the beginning of next year. We've been inviting the SPGB for most of the last 14 years to come to our meetings and I think you've been to 3. Should we have just given up long ago? Perhaps the SPGB should indeed give up: but when it does, perhaps it should also say it has given up, instead of implying that its application has been refused. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

…Perhaps it is up to the organisers of the Anarchist Bookfair to make clear their new guidelines on who can participate and, goodness gracious me, they pass by our bookstall outside the venue, they could at least have said …come inside …or suggest applying for next year. The fact they didn't is either they are unaware of past decisions to stop our stall and believe we prefer it outside under the usual misinterpretation of our hostility clause or they actually don't wish us to participate. Whenever it has been mentioned on Libcom, I have never seen any attempt by the organisers to try to deny the ban or offer an invitation. So okay, you say we should not say we are banned…perhaps we should re-phrase it …our presence is unwelcomed!

 Perhaps the SPGBshould decide if it wants to participate inside, and if it does, actually try to make it happen? I was told by one of your members that actually you'd rather have a stall outside. Now, that might not be official party policy, or it might have just been PR making the best of the situation, but if it is true that you don't want a stall inside, why make a fuss about not having one? I don't think it's up to the organisers to make special invitations to the SPGB. If you want the stall, you have to ask (just like every other group), and they have the right to refuse (as they do to any other group). It's that simple. 

ALB wrote:

slothjabber wrote:

are you happy about your members saying things that aren't true?

You should become a lawyer. You've already mastered how to ask: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 And you should be a politician, you've already mastered the art of not answering a question. Are you happy about members of your party giving a misleading impression?

[slothjabber]

If you're offended by my tone, Alan, then I apologise, as that was not at all my intention. I was merely trying to clear up whether you were a member of the SPGB (as I thought you were), as ALB seemed certain that the description 'the parlaimentary wing of the Anarchist movement' was not that members of the SPGB used.

[alanjjohnstone]

Political wing of anarchism may be more accurate

[Young Master Smeet]

Slothjabber wrote:

1 – it damages the anarchist Bookfair when SPGB members imply there is some hypocrisy or conspiracy in the selection process;

Damage the Anarchist bookfair?  What a good idea…

[ALB]

I'm looking forward to next year's anarcho-bookfair to see what happens if the CWO get accepted and the ICC rejected.

[Author]

Posts