slothjabber
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:OK slothjabber I think everybody on this thread got the message many posts ago. It appears your (repeated messages) intentions are for the party Campaigns Committee to give the ABF one more try next year to test the waters on whether or not there's been a change of policy regarding an application from a political party. Who knows – its early days – but I'm sure they are willing to give it a go – if only to get written confirmation we face a permanent ban.
Aparrently, not everyone did get the message. Perhaps the SPGB aren't all as perceptive at 'getting the message' as you seem to think you are? Perhaps this insistence that you 'get the message' is in fact part of the problem? I really don't care if you have a stall at the Bookfair, it's no skin off my nose either way. What I want you to do is stop saying you were banned (when you weren't), and stop implying that the ABF is being hypocritical when it allows the CWO a stall (because they asked for one) but not you (when you didn't). If you want a stall, ask. The worst that can happen is they say no. But don't pretend they didn't let you have a stall when you didn't ask for one, and don't pretend it's unfair that an organisation that did ask for a stall got one. It's neither the fault of the CWO or the ABF that you didn't have a stall this year: it's yours. That's the 'message'.Reminder: Rule 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Feared as much. What is 'the autonomous Marxist group in Britain'? Do you mean 'the Commune'? Or are there former members of the Commune that were in a group called 'the Autonomist Marxist Group'? I don't know who has 'gone off and done their own thing'. I suspect most of them have joined other organisations. Some have died, such as Dave Spencer, who was one of the Commune's people in the West Midlands. All I know is that I've been told that there is now only one member of 'the Commune' left, by the person who claims to be that single member.
jondwhite wrote:I actually think the SPGB use of the term 'ban' is about as misleading as the ICC-IP/CWO use. The purported political grounds of each organisation being detrimental to the working class is so vague, it could equally apply to the Anarchist Bookfair's rejection (who actually specified it was to do with the SPGB being a party). The Anarchist Bookfair's never stopped members of the SPGB attending as individuals. If individual guests were stopped from attending a public event by the hosts, this would be plain old sectarian of the hosts, not really a principled political stance that could be called a 'ban', unless those individuals (even new members) were so disruptive or following orders to push a party line irrespective of the event. In which case, it would be more of an indictment of the organisation whose members were guests were banned.You'd best ask Fischerzed (who is at least a member of one of the organisations concerned) what the basis of the ban was – my understaning is that it was precisely caused by fears, from each organisation, that the members of the other would be disruptive. But it seems to me that forbidding members of another organisation to turn up to your meetings is a 'ban'. Not allowing an organisation to have a stall at your event is not so much a 'ban' as a refusal. But, the SPGB wasn't refused a stall at the 2013 Anarchist Bookfair, was it? To be refused a stall, it woul have to have requested a stall. It didn't. So it wasn't 'banned'.
The Commune has ceased to exist in my understanding. I think the only person that hasn't left is a member in Sheffield.
As IP were a split from the ICC, the ICC and IP members in a particular country would be known to each other. We're not talking massive numbers here. And it's not 'banning individual members' it's banning an organisation. Even if there were 'unknown' members (as I say not very likely) then when they made their first contribution and said 'I'm Jaques from the ICC' then people would know that they were from the ICC (if they'd bothered to turn up in the first place which they woul be unlikely to). And, it was on specifically political grounds, each organisation considered the other to be detrimental to the working class. But, what has the CWO talking about the mutual banning of the IP and ICC, to do with me talking about the SPGB's so-called 'banning' by the Anarchist Bookfair? For the SPGB to have been 'banned' it must have had a request to hold a stall turned down, and it didn't, because it didn't request a stall. Yes, it may have been 'banned' in the past (though 'denied a stall' is more accurate, as SPGB members were not prevented from attending meetings), but it has not been denied a stall under any grounds, political or otherwise, for several years, has it? Was the SPGB 'banned' either from attending, as individuals, the Anarchist Bookfair in 2013, or from having a stall in 2013? No – SPGB members were able to attend meetings, and the SPGB didn't apply for a stall in 2013. That's the simple truth of it.
jondwhite wrote:…By contrast, the Anarchist Bookfair have rejected the SPGB application and specified political grounds more than once. Again unlike Midlands Discussion Forums, which the SPGB have attended this year, nothing between the Anarchist Bookfair and the SPGB (except lack of application) subsequently has changed, hence the term 'banned'. Not one I would use, but also not a term that is as objectionable as the critics are trying to make out, especially critics who also use the term themselves.'The critics', as far as I'm aware, means me, and just me. Where do I use the term myself? In my description of the SPGB's refusal to even answer something like 50 invitations to take part in meetings? I'm not a member of the CWO, who are quoted as refering to the ICC and IP banning each other from their meetings. Ban they did; they each (in my understending anyway, perhaps fischerzed could clarify if I'm mistaken on this) forbade members of the other organisation attending their meetings, on an ongoing basis – not just one meeting. The SPGB has not been 'banned' in either of these senses; SPGBers were free to attend meetings at the Bookfair (so not banned from attending, unlike the IP/ICC banning); and my understanding of the Bookfair decision-making process is that each bookfair is a seperate event and if an organisation is denied a stall in one year it may be allowed one in another. Therefore, there is no concept of a 'permanent' ban, which is the implication of the statement that keeps appearing that the SPGB is banned. It isn't; it was banned, some time ago. Now it doesn't bother to even ask to be let in, but still manages to imply that that's the fault of the people inside instead of its own decision.
Of course, you're right. 'Boycotted' is probably a better word than 'banned' in the circumstances. Should we have 'got the message' and stopped asking?
I'm talking about the meeting that you are quoting – the Midlands Discussion Forum that happened in April 2009. I don't even think you replied to the invitation. I do have to make a correction though – SPGBers have attended 4 of our forums in the last 14 years, not 3 as I stated in an earlier post.
fischerzed wrote:To my knowledge IP has never held joint meetings with the ICC in North America. The ICC have attended meeting we (ah ha!) organized in Toronto and probably New York as well though…My mistake, I must have misunderstood, or misremembered.
jondwhite wrote:The CWO reported the IP (is this a CWO affiliate?) being "banned" (and used this term) from events without specifying which ones or dateshttp://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. …"Though since 2009 they have held joint meetings in the US I've heard. It's a pity the SPGB didn't bother to take up our invitation to speak at this meeting, or the one the following year you were specifically invited to present at (as opposed to the general invitations to come and take part over much of the last 14 years), should we have got the message and stopped asking you, and then gone round saying you'd banned SPGBers from talking to us?
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 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?
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 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.
