Anarchist Bookfair London Saturday 19th October 2013

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Indeed, because we're not abstract propagandists, we should be talking where more effective, and the route to socialism lies through the millions of voters who support labour, not through those who would undermine our class position by campaigning against voting and who support noxious authoritarian views like anarchism.  And, yes, I do mean authoritarian.  Anarchism is not the opposite of power politics, it's its jealous kid brother, that just wants to spread the lawless anarchism kings and despots have enjoyed throughout the ages to ever smaller kingdoms.  Just look at what happened when the anarchist Lenin got somewhere. 

Wrong again.  The route to socialism lies through the millions of voters who support capitalism and that is why my branch will be contesting five Parliamentary constituencies in the 2015 General Election, four of which are currently Tory seats with a fifth held by the Green Party.I think I'm right in assuming that the Election Committee, of which you are currently a member, will also be recommending the contesting of the two Oxford Parliamentary constituencies, one of which is presently held by the Tories.

[jondwhite]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Indeed, because we're not abstract propagandists, we should be talking where more effective, and the route to socialism lies through the millions of voters who support labour, not through those who would undermine our class position by campaigning against voting and who support noxious authoritarian views like anarchism.  And, yes, I do mean authoritarian.  Anarchism is not the opposite of power politics, it's its jealous kid brother, that just wants to spread the lawless anarchism kings and despots have enjoyed throughout the ages to ever smaller kingdoms.  Just look at what happened when the anarchist Lenin got somewhere. 

There are about 50,000 members of the Labour party and around 8-9 million votes cast for Labour at general elections (open to correction on this). I'm happy to target Labour voters but the SPGB is big enough to target both Labour and Anarchist and yes, also there are many differences between the SPGB and various Anarchist groups.

[Young Master Smeet]

The psephelogical record is we do better in Labour heartlands (and under Labour governments).   That said, the hidden fact of the plurality electoral system is that Labour chalks up big votes in tory constituencies (I've not looked in detail at the ones in question, but it's a fair bet that you'll find more labour voters there than you would in an equivilant labour seat with a similar majority).  We're unlikely to bring round Tories first, and Liberals are Tories in disguise, so of active engaged politically minded people we talk a more language recognisable to labourites, at least.  We're a part of the same wider labour movement.

[ALB]

We are not alone. The ICC have been banned too:http://libcom.org/forums/general/spgb-london-anarchist-bookfair-20082014#comment-543006It remains to be seen if the CWO are allowed in this year as they were last year. Probably not as they're more party-ist than the ICC.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully there'll be a party presence outside the fair again this year…

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Hopefully there'll be a party presence outside the fair again this year…

We plan to have a stall outside as we did last year now that we have been refused a stall inside. Party literature stall outside the Anarchist Book Fair Saturday 18 October between 10.00am and 7.00pm Queen Mary College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS.For those coming by public transport the following buses stop near the college on Mile End Road: 25, 205, 339.The two nearest tube stations are Mile End (Central line / Hammersmith & City line or District line) or Stepney Green (Hammersmith & City line or District line). We also intend to leaflet the assembly point of the TUC march 'Britain needs a pay rise' on the same day: Party leafleting of TUC 'Britain needs a pay rise' march ' Saturday 18 October – assemble 11.00am at Blackfriars Embankment for march to Hyde Park Comrades can then join up with others in Mile End.

[alanjjohnstone]

Well done…A very appropriate response to the refusal by the Bookfair.Have we got the text for a special leaflet for the TUC march yet to put on the blog ?

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Have we got the text for a special leaflet for the TUC march yet to put on the blog ?

We'll probably use the leaflet we printed for the same sort of TUC march two years ago supplies of have not been exhausted. The wording can be found here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1298-october-2012/future-works

[slothjabber]

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's a shame that the organisers of the Bookfair didn't take the opportunity to allow the SPGB a stall. I know there are going to be many Anarchists there that disagree with that decision. But good on you for applying. If you want to say that you were banned from having a stall this year, then I shall be offering no objection.

[jondwhite]

presumably you mean no objection to use of the term 'ban'.

[slothjabber]

I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you don't understand what I mean. If and when the SPGB says it has been 'banned from having a stall this year', I shall agree that you have. Asking for something, and being told you can't have it, constitutes 'banning'. My understanding, however, is that the process is reconsidered anew every year. The CWO has managed to 'get a change of policy' on having a stall, it seems, as it has now, for the second year running, been granted a stall. Last year the KpK/Mouvement Communiste group was allowed a stall, despite (as far as I'm aware) considering itself a Marxist rather than Anarchist group (I'm not sure of the situation this year). So the organisers, I think, are not in principle opposed to all Marxist groups; nor given that some of the groups there in recent years have advocated electoral intervention, are they hard and fast opposed to electoralist strategies. But the basis on which the organising committee has made its decisions is not very clear. Why the CWO should be allowed a stall, but the ICC not, despite their politics being very similar, is not clear; why the SPGB should be denied a stall, when its politics are, in my opinion at least, and despite what some correspondents think, closer to Anarchism than the Labour Party, is not clear either, especially when organisations with less clear comnnections to Anarchism have been allowed to have stalls. But in the end we're not the organising committee. It is up to them how they organise the bookfair and who they allow to have meetings or stalls. I just think it's unfortunate that they can't seem to see what to me would be the advantages to allowing the SPGB and ICC to have official stalls.

[ALB]

slothjabber wrote:

But good on you for applying. If you want to say that you were banned from having a stall this year, then I shall be offering no objection.

Fair enough, but do we have to apply every year and be refused to be able to say that we have been banned? Personally, I was opposed to applying this year as we knew from past experience what the answer would be. It's clear they don't want us and we should not demean ourselves by begging to be allowed in.i agree that they are being inconsistent in letting the CWO in but not the ICC especially since the CWO is more into the ideology and practice of the vanguard party than the ICC.

[jondwhite]

slothjabber wrote:

I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you don't understand what I mean. If and when the SPGB says it has been 'banned from having a stall this year', I shall agree that you have. Asking for something, and being told you can't have it, constitutes 'banning'. My understanding, however, is that the process is reconsidered anew every year

You might not object to the term 'ban' but I do.

[slothjabber]

jondwhite wrote:

You might not object to the term 'ban' but I do.

 Really? What do you think is inappropriate about the term? I certainly think it's more justified in this set of circumstances (you made a request, it was refused) than last year (you didn't ask because you'd bee refused some years previously), when it was repeated on a bunch of different forums by members of your organisation. 

ALB wrote:

slothjabber wrote:

But good on you for applying. If you want to say that you were banned from having a stall this year, then I shall be offering no objection.

Fair enough, but do we have to apply every year and be refused to be able to say that we have been banned? Personally, I was opposed to applying this year as we knew from past experience what the answer would be. It's clear they don't want us and we should not demean ourselves by begging to be allowed in…

 Yes, I think you do have to ask every year and be refused to say you were banned. If the CWO hadn't asked they wouldn't have been accepted, so would they still be 'banned' on the basis that because it didn't happen up to 2013, it couldn't happen? As to 'demeaning' yourselves… really? Asking and being turned down isn't demeaning yourselves, it's doing what every other group does. There's no automatic right of access in my understanding. Everyone has to apply, afresh every year. Those applications are then judged. The refusal in my opinion reflects badly on them not on you. It may be true that the committee would not let the SPGB take part under any circumnstances, and if you try at any time in the next 5 years you'll be refused. But I don't see how you can 'know' that. Committee members may change their minds. New committee members may join who have different ideas. It seems to me that the best way of insuring that you have a chance of having a stall inside is to keep trying, and keep engaging with the Anarchist movement as a whole. You know this is also being discussed over at LibCom and many of the Anarchists over there, as well as those associated with the 'Marxist ultra-Left', are epressing the viewpoint that the SPPGB has a much better case for inclusion than a large number of other organisations that have been given stalls in recent years. You've already won the argument with many Anarchists. So I don't see that there's anything inevitable about a continued refusal. 

ALB wrote:

…i agree that they are being inconsistent in letting the CWO in but not the ICC especially since the CWO is more into the ideology and practice of the vanguard party than the ICC.

 Not sure that's the case really. Their views on the necessity of an organisation of communists which doesn't in itself take power seem pretty similar to me.

[jondwhite]

Not saying you can't use the term 'ban', but why not just say the SPGB have been rejected, declined or stopped from having a stall at the Anarchist bookfair? Surely this would be more accurate and possibly wouldn't oblige us to ask every year for avoidance of ambiguity?

[Author]

Posts