London Anarchist bookfair 2020

Lynn made an important point there tbf

 

I think that's false, there are plenty of GC "visions beyond capitalist/patriarchal society" - indeed, GC views almost by necessity lead to a post-patriarchal vision of gender abolition and the lack of further necessity of sex-segregation exactly because of that.

Yes, obviously the organizers can not literally read minds and thereby police thoughts, but if one isn't allowed to express disagreement with such assertions then that's hardly any better, now is it? And equally obviously my point should have been interpreted as such, it seems you're just trying to score a quick internet point without addressing the substance. Is one allowed to remain silent when asked directly whether one believes in the articles of faith (which I'll note remain at best vaguely defined)?

 

Well it obviously depends on how you define the state, I've found the definition of it as that which holds the monopoly on violence quite useful, but you may have another one. And usually it's the threat of violence rather than the actual use, so while it's true that the british state does not usually send police troops out to enforce health and safety or minimum wage legislation, it is ultimately the threat of such that's holding the boss back from violating them. If the boss were to violate them and persist in violating them even against court orders not to then at some point he'll get arrested or his assets impounded or something.

 

IIRC last time there was a disruption between Helen Steele and a group of about 30 people, where Helen stated that she supported the right of a couple of women to hand out flyers and the group stating she wasn't allowed to state that. How would you have solved this? Depends on who you consider to be causing said disruption, doesn't it?

And yes I know you got me on ignore (which I'll just count as yet another point for considering you to belong in the "authoritarian crank" category) but ignoring questions about the limits of your self-appointed authority hardly makes you look any less authoritarian.

 

It depends on the nature of the disagreement, one would think.

Most people are not anarchists. One of the functions of the anarchist bookfair should be to introduce people to anarchist ideas. You would therefore hope that vast quantities of people would attend who have all sorts of ideas. Including perhaps some reservations about the concept that the state should be abolished, if "asked directly" about it.

There are clearly several shades of grey between calling for the abolition of the state and cheerleading state violence at Orgreave, Kronstadt, Yarl's Wood, etc.

As I'm not involved with organising the bookfair, I don't have to get into the mulitplicity of exciting scenarios that threads like these conjure up. But that would be my starting point.

As for remaining silent, that is always an option. But even then, it doesn't take a huge effort to imagine people who, silent or not, would be disruptive to the bookfair by their presence alone. Perhaps I could give some clankingly obvious examples at this point, and you could counter with an entirely abstract example of your own. It won't do any good but I suppose it is one way of passing the time between now and when the bookfair is held.

 

I'll simply point out that I have, in fact, given one such concrete (and quite relevant) example just one post ago, which you have chosen to ignore in favour of conjuring up scenarios about people who have reservations about the concept that the state should be abolished.

 

I have, I have absolutely chosen to ignore that.

 

Out of interest, what would you have done, and why?

 

You've also ignored the concrete examples in this thread itself, such as the lions changing sex or biologists merely "assigning" sex to organisms or the purported existence of solid evidence of extra-terrestrial life. For a bookfair the function of which is to attract a broad public so as to introduce them to anarchist ideas it seems quite counterproductive for an organizer to lecture people on science while being an obvious crackpot. That is, of course, unless one would be deliberately trying to keep scientists away.

 

I'd have stopped the mobbing. Even if we grant that the flyers should not be allowed to be distributed for being too un-anarchistic (calling for participation in a government consultation) then merely disagreeing with that (not actually distributing any such flyers but merely disagreeing with the decision that they should not allowed to be distributed) is no grounds for exclusion, but mobbing someone for expressing such disagreement is. Basically I'd hold the mob responsible for the disruption.

 

so to take a hypothetical analogy, there's some people distributing jehovah's witnesses stuff at the bookfair and some others vehemently object to their god-bothery nonsense. for you to be consistent you'd have to say the god-botherers were not responsible for any disruption. or if it was tories distributing some guff, you'd not hold the tories to blame for disruption.

anyway, what i don't understand, and perhaps you can help me out here, is why you think it's a or b responsible, why it can't be a and b. why you think there's got to be good guys and bad guys.

 

I have indeed also ignored all these things. Wilfully and with aforethought. And I will continue to do so.

 

Let's call the group distributing jehovah's witnesses stuff group A.
Let's call the group vehemently objecting group B.
It is decided that group A is expelled.
Individual C disagrees with expelling group A.
Group B vehemently objects to individual C being allowed to disagree.
Disruption ensues.

If I were to be consistent, I'd have to hold group B responsible for the disruption with individual C, and that's exactly the case.

Let's call the group of tories distributing some guff group A.
Let's call the group vehemently objecting group B.
It is decided that group A is expelled.
Individual C disagrees with expelling group A.
Group B vehemently objects to individual C being allowed to disagree.
Disruption ensues.

If I were to be consistent, I'd have to hold group B responsible for the disruption with individual C, and that's exactly the case.

Is there an actual point to these hypotheticals or are you just wasting my time?

No idea why you have to be moralistic about it (the "good" guys and "bad" guys) but it's definitely possible to expel both, it would obviously also solve the disruption. I just think that in the cases given individual C should be free to express said dissent.

 

yes, tell me more about the decision-making process you employed to expel groups, where's that from

 

Why should I? I'm not the one actually wielding such authority, and the actual organizers who have appointed themselves to said authority - or at least the one in this thread - seem to be mostly concerned with ignoring or otherwise evading any questions about the decision-making process they'd employ. I answered the question because someone asked out of interest, let's see if the organizer answers it as well.

 

I hope the Bookfair is as much fun as this discussion....

 

why shouldn't you? you've invented this coercive mechanism of ejection, let's see you come up with a way of doing it which doesn't involve power.

 

you set the bar very low

 

You realize that this thread is public record and anyone can verify that it is not me but Rhyddical who "invented" this coercive mechanism of ejection? Indeed, my very first post in this thread was questioning Rhyddical on exactly the use of said mechanism and the limits and decision-making process of such self-appointed power.

 

I, for one, find it quite funny.

 

you said you were unclear how this ejecting people would be enforced. go on then, show us how you'd do it.

 

Pickman's model what would you have done in the organisers' position, confronted with the HS situation at the last bookfair?

 

Interesting re-write of what happened.

Disagreeing with someone, even quite loudly and aggressively, isn't the same as stating they're "not allowed" to state something or to disagree with what others have said

 

I have:

Assuming that I am some random interested person who comes to the bookfair to learn about anarchism, would I be correct to conclude that one of anarchism's principles is not to challenge authority? You know, given your insistence of grilling me about how to wield such authority - even though I don't actually wield it nor have even expressed interest in doing so - whereas you do not do so with the people actually wielding such authority - and seemingly enjoying to do so without bounds.

 

Pulling fire alarms and disrupting stands unless someone stops expressing disagreement with expelling some other group is more than just "disagreeing loudly and aggressively." And using aggression unless someone submits to not stating something is certainly one way of enforcing that someone is not "allowed to" state something, even if one doesn't literally say the exact words "you're not allowed to state this." If, by your version of what happened, there was nothing other than a group and an individual merely disagreeing with each other then there was no disruption in the first place?

 

Maybe we could re-enact this thread at the Bookfair? Like a shit version of Malatesta's At The Cafe?

 

We could publish the transcript as a book and sell it. Like a shit* version of Bob Black's "Anarchy After Leftism".

*Well pretty much "as shit as" tbh.

 

What a load of dishonest, disingenuous bollocks (though of course you are allowed to post dishonest, disingenuous bollocks if you wish)

 

You're always free to post your version of events and answer yourself the question of what you would've done with the HS thing. Otherwise I'm giving content-free handwaves as much consideration as they deserve, which is none.

 

Never actually read Malatesta. Any good?