Anarchist Bookfair London Saturday 19th October 2013
- This topic has 78 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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'.
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.
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’).
Email received on 18 August 2014:
Quote:Thank you for your request for a stall at the Anarchist Bookfair on the 18th October. We looked at your website and considered your request during our last Bookfair Collective meeting. I am sorry to have to inform you that we considered the politics of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, in particular your belief in political parties, are not sufficiently compatible with Anarchism for us to able to offer you a stall. I realise that you will be disappointed by our decision but need to let you know that it is final. Jane, on behalf of the Anarchist Bookfair CollectiveYoung Master Smeet wrote:Good. Why the hell were we asking? We're not Anarchists. Not disappointed at all.We may not be Anarchists but there are many folk who go to these fairs who are politically very close to the SPGB. We're not pacifists either but the party's having a stall again at the West London Peace Fair on 6th September. We use every opportunity to put our case accross.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/west-london-peace-fair-west-london-1030am
We wouldn't book a stall at the Labour Party conference, and we're nearer them than we are the anarchists…And I'd hope we wouldn't book a stall at London Pacifists Fair, which would be different from a peace fair..
Young Master Smeet wrote:We wouldn't book a stall at the Labour Party conference, and we're nearer them than we are the anarchists…Debatable
DJP wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:We wouldn't book a stall at the Labour Party conference, and we're nearer them than we are the anarchists…Debatable
Very debatable, indeed. Also if the cost was right i would book a stall at Tory, Labour LibDem and the Peace Fair, Left Unity and whatever else people interested in politics attend. As Gnome suggests we aim to increase our presence and profile on every occasion we can.The Anarchist Bookfair attracts visitors who share many of our views and positions. I am disappointed at what i consider to be a sectarian and most likely ill-informed rejection from the content of the e-mail.
Their members are committed to using democratic political action to achieve common ownership (esp. those who still believe in the old clause four). Whilst we disagree with their strategy and how they see their goal, I'd say they are nearer us than the majority of anarchists (excluding maybe a few old Kropotkinites). Certainly, they membership is the one we should be winning over, not those lost to anti-democratic ideologies like anarchism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Good. Why the hell were we asking? We're not Anarchists. Not disappointed at all.Because we're not abstract propagandists content with talking to ourselves and mutually backpatting the converted. We live in society as it is currently, where most workers are not socialists or opposed to socialism. You can regard different currents as close to the SPGB or far from the SPGB. No matter which, our job is making socialists. A party speaker, party stall or a party branch represents the party in hostility to all other political parties whether in a party meeting, another party's meeting or another party's event.
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.
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.Do we know that's true?I would have thought "conscious" but not affiliated to any party or ideology would be our best bet..I don't think we are faced with an either / or choice here anyway…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.