Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

London Anarchist bookfair 2020

Larry Noppius

New Member
Laws won by workers are concessions won against our structural class enemy There is no capitalism without anatgonism between worker and capitalist, there is hopefully an anarchism without anatagonism between trans women and cis women or women and men for that matter.

And more importantly, we may support concessions won under capital, but we have a vision beyond that, a vision where paltry minimum wages are not necessary and labour is controlled by us to the benefit of all, not subservient to capital because capital no longer exists. I have seen no vision from GC feminists of how rigorous enforcement of single sex spaces based on chromosones or genitals can be achieved from the bottom up, it's all left up to the state. And in cases where groups have chosen to be trans inclusive the GC movement has called on the machinery of the state to try and prevent them, usually with some garbled reading of the Equalities Act.

Now were someone to do the work, and propose solutions that came from and could be implemented by the class, from the users and workers in those spaces primarily, then that would start to look like an anarchist analysis of the debate. But no-one has done that, and no-one seems interested in doing that, I suspect because under analysis it becomes apparant that any solutions are so draconian that no-one particularly wants them, and they would be near impossible to enforce. So I'm not saying a GC anarchist analysis is impossible, just that it doesn't exist yet and until it does then the GC movement will remain centered on utilising state power (and by extention violence) against trans people as it's primary weapon of attack. And thats not very anarchist.
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.

I think its been made abundantly clear, over several posts containing hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of words, that it is not the intention of the bookfair organisers to exclude those who hold gender critical views based purely on what they think. So perhaps we could move on from that now.
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)?
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
whoa there. states may "by definition" have a monopoly on violence but that's often honoured more in the breach than the observance - see, for example, the past 50 years in colombia, the great sendero luminso campaign in peru, and - arguably - the way that there is a right to bear arms in the united states to defend the people against an overweening government. but be that as it may the british state does not, usually, send troops out to enforce health and safety or minumum wage legislation. child labour may not be as prevalent as once it was, but certainly into the 1980s and maybe 1990s there were still child labourers, delivering newspapers around the country and indeed often doing weekend jobs. as for the 8 hour day and mayday perhaps you could turn your attention to reading about the history of that day and why it is still celebrated. btw i'm by no means certain that you're right in your claim that the '8-hour workday is enforced by the state', i've never worked an 8 hour day on a regular basis despite your claim the state mandates it.
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.
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
Even if harded religious bigots want to try and say no catholic should attend, all Anarchists hate you, they are the fascists!, this isn't true. Anyone without a history of distruption, who isn't a known advocate of awful shit, is welcome provided they respect the space and the other atendees.
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.
 

Fozzie Bear

Well-Known Member
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)?
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.
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
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.
 

Athos

Well-Known Member
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.
Out of interest, what would you have done, and why?
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
I have, I have absolutely chosen to ignore that.
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.
 

Larry Noppius

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

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
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.
 

Fozzie Bear

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

Larry Noppius

New Member
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
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.

or if it was tories distributing some guff, you'd not hold the tories to blame for disruption.
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?

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.
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.
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
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.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
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.
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.
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
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 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.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
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.
you said you were unclear how this ejecting people would be enforced. go on then, show us how you'd do it.
 

andysays

Defiantly non-premium member
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?...
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...
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
 

Larry Noppius

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

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.
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.
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
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
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?
 

chilango

Der Teufel scheißt immer auf den größten Haufen
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.
 

andysays

Defiantly non-premium member
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?
What a load of dishonest, disingenuous bollocks (though of course you are allowed to post dishonest, disingenuous bollocks if you wish)
 

Larry Noppius

New Member
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.
 
Top