London Anarchist Bookfair, Saturday 29th October 2016

I notice that the booking forms for meetings and bookstalls is now open on the site if groups want to get in their applications in good time.

Thanks for the reminder. Shame it's not still at St Martin's, as it was a really good central location. Anyone know why it moved?

The initial meetings list for the bookfair is now up on the website - some potentially interesting ones including two from the London based 'Angry Workers of the World' and others from the CWO and Mouvement Communiste as well as a presentation on a book by Robert Kurz ( selected texts by all of these on Libcom) and inevitably meetings on developments in Turkey and Syria etc. More to follow nearer the time.

Spiky, do you by any chance have the title for that Kurz book? I tried to find it on the book fair's website but it was impossible to navigate on my phone.

The listing refers to the Robert Kurz book as 'The Substance of Capital' a translated collection of German magazine articles. I don't know if any of those articles are the same as texts already on this site.
PS: There are lots of Kurz's texts on libcom but few with any follow-up discussion as you will know from my extended comments on Kurz's text 'Anti-economic and anti-politics....' and briefly on his 'The apotheosis of money.....'.

Cheers. I'll look it up. I prefer the dead tree format. Lots of the Kurz articles here are horribly formatted, making it hard to read on the screen. And his articles tend to be looong

Actually might like to go to the talk about Kurz.

Khawaga

Cheers. I'll look it up. I prefer the dead tree format. Lots of the Kurz articles here are horribly formatted, making it hard to read on the screen. And his articles tend to be looong

How would you prefer them formatted?

It's not the case with all the Kurz articles, but some don't have proper paragraph breaks, bolded subheadings, hyperlinked footnotes and so on.

A text for one of the 'Angry Workers' meetings at the bookfair is on this site here:
http://libcom.org/blog/insurrection-production-29082016
Looks interesting if a bit ambitious for what will probably be a short one hour slot for discussion?

The timetable and room allocations for the huge number of bookfair meetings are now up on the site. Apart from those I mentioned earlier there are several others worth a mention including from the AF on Land and Ecology issues and two from the 'Critisticuffs' team (including a critique of the increasingly popular UBI). Inevitably there will be some timetable clashes between your favourites. It's a pity more of the many offers at the London bookfair don't reappear at some of the smaller regional bookfairs.
Unfortunately the anti-communist Parecon (IOPS) people get another 2 goes this year. Plenty of criticism of their approach on this site here for starters: http://libcom.org/library/participatory-society-or-libertarian-communism and other longer discussion threads.

The SPGB will hopefully be having their stall outside the entrance of the venue so if anybody is interested they can stop and have a friendly blether.

ajjohnstone

The SPGB will hopefully be having their stall outside the entrance of the venue so if anybody is interested they can stop and have a friendly blether.

Will you be there yourself comrade?

A bit far for me to travel. Perhaps next year.

If i was, it would be good to have a few beers and set the world to rights.

The more we socialise, the more socialist we all become and put aside exclusive claims to the ownership of the road to socialism.

As shame. But hey, I got a down vote, presumably for being friendly toward an SPGBer so at least I have that diver lining to be grateful for.
I can just see it after the rev, all of us gathering in our little groups dissing other groups for wiping their ass the wrong way. Ahhh, what glorious days await!

Surprised ajj hasn't recommended this website as an enticement to those anarchists and libertarian communists not so dismissive of everything the spgb has to contribute as part of his ''thin red line'' in the 'unofficial' sites illustration of a more open and flexible attitude amongst some members and ex-members of the spgb: www.theoryandpractice.org.uk . It still lacks any materialist critique of the spgb itself but does recognise the contribution of others in it's interesting personal selection of material.

There are other signs of some SPGBers reaching out to that Thin Red Line
The late Andy Cox, brother of Robin Cox of World In Common website (which did involve a couple of SPGBers who were not hauled up on charges of collaborating with the opposition), remained a member and put up two useful blogs.

http://socialistmatters.webs.com/
http://andycox1953.webs.com/

….Wholly assured – to the point of smugness – of the correctness of its ‘Impossibilist’ stance, the Party declares itself uniformly hostile towards all who part company with it in terms of ends or means, regardless of whether there is a degree of common ground or not…we should consider making common cause with any political group AGREEING FULLY WITH THE 3 CORE PROPOSITIONS

see the link

Change in the SPGB as one member said is glacially slow. But as the advance forward to socialism is also painfully slow, it doesn't seem like as if the SPGB is being left behind that much. My gut reaction is that things are happening but i can never put a finger on it but i am minded of Rosa Luxemburg's quote "those who don't move, don't notice their chains" I have an inkling it applies to far more groups and parties than just only the SPGB. We should all check the mirror.

I went to an SPGP meeting and met some excellent, experienced, knowledgeable and friendly but serious people. I was very impressed.

Yeah it's beyond my comprehension why the parecon crowd is let in while the SPGB are quarantined as if they were the fucking Posadists.

I don't understand why parecon advocates should not be booked for an anarchist bookfair just because they may be anarchist socialists rather than anarcho-communists.

Noah and Jura, to be fair, the SPGB having been refused in the past now don't bother to apply and are content to have an outside stall. Perhaps if we applied again, maybe we would be permitted. I have no idea.

But we now acknowledge and accept the organisers' discretion to exclude ourselves on the grounds that we are viewed as "parliamentarians", even though we too have witnessed some stranger folk being allowed to host meetings and present their ideological wares.

As i said before, there has to be a sea-change in how we relate to one another's politics in the "Thin Red Line". Squabbling over admittance to a bookfair wouldn't be constructive. We'll be happy to be on the street (as long as it doesn't rain or blow a gale) and talk to those going in and out. As individuals, i am sure a few SPGBers will browse the stuff on sale and attend some of the meetings.

Altemark, perhaps you should use the search function and understand how this website and many of the contributors and their organisations define socialism before you call Parecon anarcho-socialists. Why do you think it is anarchist and socialist? ... No, on second thoughts, better use the already pre-existing threads that you can easily find to answer that.

Haha, right there is exactly the sort of level headed, well reasoned and fair minded response one expects from SPGP folk. Brilliant!

But we now acknowledge and accept the organisers' discretion to exclude ourselves on the grounds that we are viewed as "parliamentarians"

That's a dodgy "grounds" if ever there was one, given that the arch-electoralists of Class War will most likely have a stall and possibly a meeting. I'm wondering if the "anarchist wing" of Momentum will be there as well this year?

jura,
My personal preference would be to have the spgb in and the Parecon's out, but the London bookfair is still essentially anarchist and not narrowly anarchist or libertarian communist. As altemark indicates he, amongst other anarcho-syndicalists, are at least sympathetic to the Parecon model if not necessarily to other 'dodgy' views expressed by leading light Michael Albert or other members of the IOPS network. On the whole I think the Bookfair organisers do a reasonable job of providing a varied cross-section of radical and pro-revolutionary politics outside of the mainstream with inevitably some inconsistencies in their choices from time to time. You will find anyway that various radical booksellers present manage to enlarge the choice of material to encompass a pretty good range of genuinely communist material.

Next week now. New Venue so might be more difficult to find our way to the best (libcom recommended) pubs nearby for a respite during the day or early evening. Maybe the organisers can put up a location map that includes the pubs?

sorry duplicate.

Yeah shame about the location, which is not very convenient. St Martin's was really good so shame they couldn't use that again.

I guess pub wise the Salisbury could be a good option as it's massive, although I haven't been there in over 10 years so don't know if it's changed much

Latest Resistance is out! Anarchist Federation's free newsheet.
https://www.afed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/resistance161.pdf
Get your copies at London Anarchist Bookfair where you'll be able to buy new Organise! our magazine too. Up to No 87 and still going! It’ll be the only “glossy” mag out as Black Flag is not coming out for Bookfair .
2016 London Anarchist Bookfair .
This year’s London Anarchist Bookfair will be on Saturday 29th October from 10am to 7pm.
Venue: Park View School
West Green Road, London, N15 3QR
See here:
http://anarchistbookfair.org.uk/

The AF will be holding 4 meetings at the Bookfair on The Land, Ecology and the Environment, Anarchism in Bulgaria and Mental Health. Check the Bookfair website for details. Feel free to introduce yourself to us there or at our fabulous stalls, chock full of newsheets, magazines, pamphlets, stickers and T-shirts!

Did a general roundup of things coming out of Angel Alley here:

https://freedomsbigrebuild.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/ready-for-the-bookfair/

Probably wrong here, but I thought the clenched fist (on the Save the Freedom building poster) was a socialist symbol?

I don't think anyone owns it particularly, though the specific rendition is similar to the Swappie fist:

To people that attended, how'd it go? Anyone attend the Mouvement Communiste event?

Also, looks like there was some trouble at the Syria event (disrupted by some PKK/YPG supporters)
https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/london-anarchist-bookfair/

Craftwork

Also, looks like there was some trouble at the Syria event (disrupted by some PKK/YPG supporters)
https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/london-anarchist-bookfair/

Man! Had I gone to the bookfair, as I intended, I would probably have been at the Rojava meeting and would have been really pissed at it being disrupted in such a manner- sounds like it was deliberately ruined. Couldn't make it this year unfortunately, which was a shame as, judging by the meetings, it looked like a really interesting one - so much I was interested in. Did anyone, by any chance, attend the meeting about the Bulgarian Anarchist movement? Wondering what that was like, but as I say, so much of interest this year.

.

jondwhite

Probably wrong here, but I thought the clenched fist (on the Save the Freedom building poster) was a socialist symbol?

the clenched fist was originally an anti-fascist symbol in Germany. Since then it was adopted by large numbers of socialists, communists, working class radicals, the black power movement and anarchists, so basically it's more a general symbol of the workers' movement.

Please let's not derail a discussion about a single down vote. It's very easy for someone to give down vote by accident. If someone gets five then maybe ask about it.

Yeah I got lots of good stuff at the bookfair, and was nice to see some old faces. Didn't make any meetings and yeah just saw what happened at the Syria meeting, terrible stuff.

There were lots of people there, although it didn't seem as busy as previous years, quite possibly because of the location which was very inconvenient, over 20 minutes walk from the tube station which was also not easy to use because of the Tottenham game.

One thing which seemed really good was the gender balance. Previous bookfairs to me seemed predominantly male, however this one looked at least 50-50, or possibly even with more women than men, which is great.

What did people pick up?

I got the new Aufheben, some pamphlets from KSL, and a bunch of old books from Bob Jones (he always has the best stuff IMO) including wobbly history, the 1842 general strike and an Elizabeth Gurley Flynn autobiography.

I was with a couple of ICC members at the Syria talk that the PKK/YPG supporters shut down . It was as ridiculous as it was irritating to see the talk disrupted and any chance of having any kind of real dialogue shut down and replaced by a nationalistic shouting match between various groups/individuals there. I and one of the ICC members made a point about this as being a reflection of the nationalistic starting point of the different groups/ideologies both in Syria and those present in the lecture hall.

I didn't mention this at the time but I think I should have said something about the tactics used by this group and a lot of the 'no platforming'/activist tactics being in themselves reminiscent of the Brown Shirts while they call everyone 'fascists' (that isn't to say that there can never be validity to shutting down meetings of class enemies but that is a different matter).

Overall I found it quite a depressing experience in terms of what it says about 'the movement' at this time in history. The book-fair itself was interesting and I picked up a good ICT book on Bordiga and would have picked up a few more if I had more money.

My big splashes were on the IWW anthology from PM and one of the big prints of this year's bookfair poster. Plus the Meltzer book and a case-study history of a Victorian workhouse from the Bristol radical history folks.

Not as full as last year I reckon - looked to me like it was drawing a good selection of anarchists but relatively few walk-ins (probably because footfall nearby was lower and it's a bit out of the way compared to the city centre).

Here's his comment with inflammatory image
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/59ts0d/the_main_speaker_tomorrow_sat_at_the_uks_largest/
and another comment
https://pulsemedia.org/2016/10/30/anarchists-in-agrabah-how-faux-revolutionaries-tried-to-silence-actual-revolutionaries-at-the-london-book-fair/
I'm not in favour of shutting down anyone particularly the people billed to speak who the audience have come to see. Couldn't any criticism have waited until the discussion period afterwards whether you were called to speak or not?
It's not clear that is what happened here but it's worth stating I'm also sceptical about anyone using national or ethnic identity to trump anyone else's opinion.

Also since when did bitcoin carry any currency at the bookfair?

jondwhite

Also since when did bitcoin carry any currency at the bookfair?

I see what you did there.

Seriously, Tottenham is not the back of beyond. Now you've made your way out there you could try returning for Haringey Independent Cinema nights.

Sounds like the Rojava meeting had dodgy speakers who were disrupted by dodgy speakers, what a waste of time.

Glad the bookfair went well, if the trains had been cheaper I would have stopped by.

When will stalls cost 0.1 BTC and pamphlets 0.01 BTC?

potrokin

Did anyone, by any chance, attend the meeting about the Bulgarian Anarchist movement? Wondering what that was like, but as I say, so much of interest this year.

Yep. Here's a report.

The meeting started with a few technical hitches, so while a couple of more techie-minded AFers dealt with computers and Skype connections, Rob Blow gave a brief introduction to veteran 97 year old Bulgarian anarchist, Alexander Nakov, and also gave a little background information to the publication of this English translation of Alexander’s memoirs, Dossier of Subject No 1218.

Once connected, the bookfair meeting was linked via Skype to Alexander’s home in Bulgaria, with book translator Mariya Radeva acting as interpreter. Alexander responded to a number of questions that had been collected in advance from an earlier request both on Libcom and with members of the Anarchist Federation in Britain. Unfortunately, we didn’t manage to record the meeting so what follows is a precis of Alexander’s responses.

Alexander told the audience that he became an anarchist in 1936, having been initially influenced by the Spanish revolution. He talked about the relative strength of the historic Bulgarian anarchist movement, particularly during the 1930s and 40s, which part of the country it was strongest, the involvement of women in the movement and how it had deep roots among the working population, from the village level to the cities.

Alexander also talked about his imprisonment in both fascist and later Stalinist prisons and concentration camps, making it clear that his and his comrades’ survival there depended on the ongoing solidarity and mutual aid between the anarchists. For example, he told us that any food parcels that got through to any one of them would always be shared out between comrades.

He also mentioned about his health being seriously weakened after spending time in the prison’s punishment block. His weakness meant he could not complete his work quotas. However, failure to meet work quotas would have sent him straight back to the punishment block, which in turn, would have further worsened his already poor state of health and would have soon resulted in his death. In this instance, Alexander mentioned the time, when he had just returned from the punishment block, in very poor health, how other anarchists stood either side of him and propped him up, thus allowing him to pretend to be carrying out his digging work while his comrades covered for him and made up his work quotas.

Aside from time in prison, Alexander mentioned the time he was exiled to a Turkish-speaking part of the country, where anarchism was relatively weak and where he was placed a long away from his anarchist comrades. Although not anarchists, the Turkish-speaking villagers there showed immense solidarity in their own way. So, when the police asked the locals about Alexander, wanting to know the kind of things he had said and done, the local people would only say nice things about him but then straight away, would go and repeat to Alexander exactly what the police had been asking about him.

It was forms of solidarity and mutual aid such as these, as well as a deep commitment to the anarchist cause and its revolutionary ideas that, despite frequent repression and imprisonment, enabled Alexander to keep his morale and convictions high enough to keep up the struggle.

Eventually, all those at the Bookfair meeting bade an emotional farewell to Alexander and Mariya. The meeting then continued with a interesting and detailed talk by Nick Heath on the history of the Bulgarian anarchist movement and the Federation of Anarchist Communists in Bulgaria (now the Federation of Anarchists in Bulgaria - FAB).

On a personal note, I have to say, this was one of the most poignant and emotional meetings I have ever attended in my life. Alexander Nakov is the last of his heroic generation; a legacy of a time when anarcho-communism in Bulgaria was a mass movement, deeply rooted in society, a movement in which countless militants faced massive repression, yet who sacrificed everything for the revolutionary cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disruption didn't take place at the Rojava meeting, it took place at the other, 2-hour long, Syrian revolution meeting, right?

Craftwork

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disruption didn't take place at the Rojava meeting, it took place at the other, 2-hour long, Syrian revolution meeting, right?

Here are the relevant links if you want to try and make sense of it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/59ts0d/the_main_speaker_tomorrow_sat_at_the_uks_largest/

https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/london-anarchist-bookfair/

https://qunfuz.com/2016/10/31/anarchism/

https://pulsemedia.org/2016/10/30/anarchists-in-agrabah-how-faux-revolutionaries-tried-to-silence-actual-revolutionaries-at-the-london-book-fair/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/5abwye/who_the_fuck_is_amir_taaki_and_why_is_his_cult/

http://kurdishquestion.com/article/3562-the-anarchist-bookfair-and-robin-yassin-kassab-039-s-problematic-approach-to-rojava

Craftwork

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disruption didn't take place at the Rojava meeting, it took place at the other, 2-hour long, Syrian revolution meeting, right?

don't know about the duration, but it took place at the Syria meeting, not the Rojava meeting, that's right

What was this all about?:
https://pulsemedia.org/2016/10/30/anarchists-in-agrabah-how-faux-revolutionaries-tried-to-silence-actual-revolutionaries-at-the-london-book-fair/

Flint

Craftwork

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disruption didn't take place at the Rojava meeting, it took place at the other, 2-hour long, Syrian revolution meeting, right?

Here are the relevant links if you want to try and make sense of it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/59ts0d/the_main_speaker_tomorrow_sat_at_the_uks_largest/

https://leilashami.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/london-anarchist-bookfair/

https://qunfuz.com/2016/10/31/anarchism/

https://pulsemedia.org/2016/10/30/anarchists-in-agrabah-how-faux-revolutionaries-tried-to-silence-actual-revolutionaries-at-the-london-book-fair/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/5abwye/who_the_fuck_is_amir_taaki_and_why_is_his_cult/

http://kurdishquestion.com/article/3562-the-anarchist-bookfair-and-robin-yassin-kassab-039-s-problematic-approach-to-rojava

Robin Yassin-Kassab's response to the last link:
(posted for information, not to endorse anything or give an opinion)

https://qunfuz.com/2016/10/31/anarchism/#comment-49473

Thankyou Serge. That must have been some meeting.

For what it's worth: Having been inactive for many years (for health reasons) and attending my first Bookfair for about 15 years, I was pleasantly surprised at the numbers of people and the breadth of opinion and activities. Also met some old (longstanding, rather than aged) comrades and friends, so all in all a most enlightening, interesting and happy day for me.

A good venue if not so central - hopefully it was left in good order and can be used again if no other more central venue can be found - many thanks to the organisers.
Only managed to attend the CWO, AF (land and ecology) and 'Angry Workers' meetings all worthwhile. Still hoping some of the quality mix of meetings in London might be reproduced at some of the regional bookfairs or other similar cross-cutting political events.

I don't know how these things work, but isn't there some student anarchist group or sympathetic student union-types who could secure a venue for AB at one of the London universities, free of charge, or at low cost, some time in the future?

Craftwork

I don't know how these things work, but isn't there some student anarchist group or sympathetic student union-types who could secure a venue for AB at one of the London universities, free of charge, or at low cost, some time in the future?

basically the event is too big for that

It used to be in a university in East London but now they can't have it there, I don't know why.

I had a chat about it on the day, basically the problem is that there's a massive price jump between the sort of small to mid-range venues the Bookfair's outgrown, and what's actually needed (ie. a proper expo venue). It goes from £7,000 to £20,000 without the in-between bit. The most likely other options have been schools and/or universities, but most are either not suitable, don't want anarchists about or aren't on a high footfall road so don't get the passing trade.

Glad you enjoyed it Vince!
Whilst bemused and confused at the Religious 'Anarchist' presence it was good to see many Community based libertarian groups who are active in a wide range of community,political and sport issues rather than in the past being ephemeral and marginalised.Also great meeting old DAM comrades too.

It's now a week since the bookfair and the disgraceful nationalist antics at the Syria meeting, At this meeting we had a small demonstration of how any attempt at discussion or any opposition to a nationalist vision can be violently repressed. Just a small peek you understand, for a larger picture look at Syria. You would have had to be at the meeting to really experience it's violent and sinister opposition to any other vision other than that of the nationalist clique of supporters of the PKK/YPG or the organisers of the meeting. In reality, it took me back to meetings on Ireland and other 'National Liberation Struggles' where opposition to nationalist perspectives were meet with the same intimidation. - “you cannot speak, and if you do and say anything to oppose us, we will maim you or kill you” Don't you remember those times comrades?. As I looked around at the audience (and these were mostly anarchist comrades I saw intimidation and fear. Indeed, I felt that myself and for my comrade). this is what was implicitly contained in this incident.
As far as I know two comrades from the ICC opposed what went on. Believe me comrades I hope it was more. Some anarchist comrades have posted and opposed what went on on this site, but very few. Don't you care who you allow to have meetings at your Bookfair? What is laughable is that you had the SPGB (I don't share their politics) on a stall outside the meeting who really do oppose nationalism they and the ICC have been refused stalls and meetings at your event, because -”They do not fit the anarchist criteria” In the twee discussion on the venue that's been posted here we can ask a more important question - are we to have the same thing next year?
Melmoth

Here's a recording of a talk Leila Al Shami and Robin Yassin Kassab gave at SOAS on Wednesday. I expect it's pretty much what they were intending to say at the bookfair.

https://soundcloud.com/hummusforthought/whatisatstakeinaleppo

Still no answer?
Again I ask the question are you anarchists happy with the way that this meeting on (Syria) has unfolded? and the (non) response afterwards. What has happened to your sense of Internationalism? Listened to the talk from Lelia Al Shami and Robin Yassin Kassab. Total nationalist perspectives. Where do you stand Internationalist Anarchists? Are you happy to be involved with such company? Comrades such as Spikymike, the AF and the MDF where do you stand on inviting the nationalists back to the next ABF?
Melmoth

If Anarchists choose to let quasi-religious elements into their Bookfair then is it any wonder Nationalists enter the fray?I heard a Black Nationalist berating Anarchists when I was looking at the Rojava stall and I was not convinced of the Libertarian credentials of Rojava.They are a liberal deviation of the PKK in my opinion and the answers I received did nothing to dispel my view.

S Melmoth

Still no answer?
Again I ask the question are you anarchists happy with the way that this meeting on (Syria) has unfolded? and the (non) response afterwards. What has happened to your sense of Internationalism? Listened to the talk from Lelia Al Shami and Robin Yassin Kassab. Total nationalist perspectives. Where do you stand Internationalist Anarchists? Are you happy to be involved with such company? Comrades such as Spikymike, the AF and the MDF where do you stand on inviting the nationalists back to the next ABF?
Melmoth

Shock horror. Dodgepots with shit politics spotted at the anarchist bookfair. It's been like that as long as I can remember. Nothing to see here.

That said... I agree the presence of nationalist rubbish and religious identity idiots was particularly odious this year. For the record, I'm with the AF and organising the bookfair is nowt to do with us (aside from booking our stall space and meeting rooms). Still, you're not new to all this. Is it really such a surprise when these sort of twats turn up? I'd be more astonished if, post bookfair, I didn't feel the need to wonder what the fuck certain elements were doing there.

S Melmoth

Listened to the talk from Lelia Al Shami and Robin Yassin Kassab. Total nationalist perspectives.

If you are a close follower of these forums, you'll know that Robin Yassin-Kassab has been discussed, including his support for Turkey attacking Afrin. A few commenters here are so determined to paint the PYD as ethnic nationalists that they ignore folks like Yassin-Kassab who advocate that towns be controlled exclusively by a particularly groups on the basis of ethnicity, while TEV-DEM and the SDF are multi-ethnic bodies. Or that the Free Syrian Army and other rebels he supports don't have much in the way of a progressive program, so he instead highlights the more organic councils who do some humanitarian and infrastructure work while ignoring the actual governing of FSA and Islamist areas.

Its seems to me that folks seeking a certain kind of revolutionary ideal are uninterested in doing any sort of comparative politics in this forum. "IT'S ALL THE SAME!" No, its not.

I do find it typical that some folks are more interested in a poorly attended talk at a bookfair getting disrupted by someone who wouldn't shut up.. than say the implications and consequences of Erdogan and the AKP arresting the HDP as part of its increasingly draconian crackdown and move towards autocracy.

Its a bit odd that this is the only subject S Melmoth has ever commented on. Perhaps you'd be better taking your points directly to the bookfair organizers in person, perhaps helping out with the fair, volunteering for security?

Melmoth what have you got to say about Amir taaki?

Many of us are adults and feel we'd like to be able to go along to meetings and listen, learn, discuss, disagree and argue.

The bookfair organisers do a good job at their tough and thankless task.

Melmoth, you should direct your ire at the book fair organizers; it's a bit rich to treat all anarchists with the same brush as if "anarchists" are one homogeneous bloc. And especially on a message board that is typically staunchly anti-nationalist, you should try to learn about the politics of the site before accusing all anarchists of being some fifth columnists for the PKK.

Khawaga

fifth columnist

I don't think that is how the word is used, unless you are talking about people who are in Turkey working to undermine the AKP government.

khawaga

you should try to learn about the politics of the site before accusing all anarchists of being some fifth columnists for the PKK.

Melmoth certainly has had enough time to learn about the politics of the site. I believe they should be nominated for the Longest Libcom Lurker© hall of fame.

S Melmoth
Member for
2 years 6 weeks

Flint, I understood what khawaga meant. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell it appears to be a proper usage of the term.

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Wikipedia

Flint, I understood what khawaga meant. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell it appears to be a proper usage of the term.

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Wikipedia

Is Libcom.org forums a nation? a besieged city? Is it besieged by the PKK?

If anything, its the ICC which has tried to ideologically browbeat libcom into being in lockstep with their positions.

Fifth Columnist is a needlessly pejorative term. Cheerleader could be derogatory and still be more accurate than "Fifth Columnist". I'd be like calling Melmoth a sleeper cell or Manchurian candidate. Maybe it is a long time lurker who decided that this is the issue for them to engage the forums on. Maybe its another socket puppet. Regardless, folks at the Anarchist Bookfair probably know who it is if they want to have a talk.

No, but per the above definition it wouldn't need to be. Nation state & besieged city were given as examples of a larger group. Using the phrase "a larger group--such as" leads one to safely assume there are other examples that are perfectly acceptable. If those two were the only acceptable groups, it would have been written to say--"a smaller group who undermines a nation state or besieged city..."

Not to mention, khawaga never referred to libcom, instead referring to all anarchist being a 5th column, presumably being against the state or even the world in their efforts to back PKK.

The only way to stop reactionary imposters at an Anarchist event is to have genuine class struggle Anarchist groups and Libertarian working class organisations.Liberals and life stylists and Nationalist/Theocrats should be barred-no criticism of organisers intended.

Not going to happen. It's an open public event, not a closed class-struggle anarchist gathering. So there will be people present who many on Libcom would disagree with and, in some cases, find pretty loathsome. It is what it is and the organisers do a fairly decent job considering there's not that many of them involved in putting on this massive (in contemporary UK anarchist terms) event.

I was thinking of the Stalls primarily in that if they are not Anarchist is;Class conscious Atheist and Anti Capitalist why permit them-in a macro context Anarchists are going to have to rid themselves of the life stylists,liberals,fakirs and individualists before it can be taken seriously.Otherwise Anarchism is dying a slow death if it tolerates the perverse notions of AnarchoCapitalists,AnarchoBolshevism etc etc

So for the record I listened to the SOAS recording by Al Shami and Kassab and found it useful (when viewed critically) as a means of comparing/contrasting with other views on the Syrian situation from more pro PKK elements and other material from a variety of sources, though it only reinforced views I already hold on the essentially democratic rather than revolutionary nature of much of the different Syrian opposition movements that are not Islamist and fundamentalist in nature and the inter-imperialist alliances that are at work. Wasn't my choice for the Anarchist bookfair and didn't go to it so can't comment on the way it went.

Flint

I don't think that is how the word is used, unless you are talking about people who are in Turkey working to undermine the AKP government.

As Jesuithitman correctly identified, my use of fifth columnist is just fine. And, in any case, I was having a go at the silly post by Melmoth.

Don't recall seeing any "anarcho-capitalists" or indeed for that matter anarchobolsheviks at the Bookfair. Perhaps yoou could point me twards something I've overlooked, Freemind?

I was talking generally although Christian and Jewish Anarchism?No Gods No Masters sic Anarchism implies Atheism surely-a once great ideology is in a malaise and being destroyed by its tolerance of reactionary beliefs trying to attach itself to its cause.

Hmm... those "One God No Masters" t-shirts were particularly nauseating.

I was talking generally although Christian and Jewish Anarchism?No Gods No Masters sic Anarchism implies Atheism surely-a once great ideology is in a malaise and being destroyed by its tolerance of reactionary beliefs trying to attach itself to its cause.

Fairly sure the 'One God, No Masters' stickers were a joke and Jewdas (the radical Jewish group who produced them) are pretty solid. Preferred the ones they did of Emma Goldman with a Trump-style hat saying 'Make Anarchism Jewish Again' myself.

Egg on face eh. Dontcha just love in-jokes.

Mind you, much as I'm permanently irritated by anything remotely related to identity politics and have criticisms of anti-fascism, I did kinda like the Jewish Anti Fascist Action t-shirts.

Spikymike

So for the record I listened to the SOAS recording by Al Shami and Kassab and found it useful (when viewed critically) as a means of comparing/contrasting with other views on the Syrian situation from more pro PKK elements and other material from a variety of sources, though it only reinforced views I already hold on the essentially democratic rather than revolutionary nature of much of the different Syrian opposition movements that are not Islamist and fundamentalist in nature and the inter-imperialist alliances that are at work. Wasn't my choice for the Anarchist bookfair and didn't go to it so can't comment on the way it went.

This sounds fair to me. There's a new interview with Leila Al Shami here on the current situation in Syria. Being critical of some of her positions is one thing but I can't see why anyone would want to bar her from speaking.

http://socialistreview.org.uk/418/syria-not-victims-citizens

Mark.

Being critical of some of her positions is one thing but I can't see why anyone would want to bar her from speaking.

WARNING, the following link has a graphic image with it if you pull it up on mobile reddit, rather than desktop reddit. It is graphic violence.

Most of Amir Taaki's invective was directed at Robin Yassin-Kassab.

Here is just the text of Amir Taaki's post so you don't have to click through:

Amir Taaki

The main speaker tomorrow (Sat) at the UK's largest anarchist event is a supporter of fascist groups

Hello people,
Tomorrow is London's biggest annual anarchist event, and the main speaker is a supporter of fascist Islamist groups like Ahrar al-Sham that stone women to death. You can search his name on YouTube (Robin Kassab) and find videos where he says things like he supports the foreign policy of David Cameron, which is supporting Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the 2 most fascist and racist countries in the middle east.
"Apparently Turkey is using heavy artillery against the PYD in Azaz and Afrin. I do not oppose it. The PYD has been invading Arab-majority areas under heavy Russian bombing. It would be disastrous for civilians in Aleppo and Idlib as well as for the Turkish state if the PYD occupied the entire border." Robin Yassin-Kassab, February 13, 2016 at 9:57am
https://www.facebook.com/robin.yassinkassab/posts/10208675426381956
In case you don't know, the Turkish backed groups attacking Rojava (which he calls the PYD) are Islamists like al-Zinki that cut the heads off children and stone women to death.
Turkish backed rebels attacking Rojava:

(REMOVED LINKS TO GRAPHIC IMAGES)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/u-s-backed-moderate-rebels-behead-a-child-near-aleppo.html
He has this narrative that the opposition areas are real local democracy (in reality just al-Nusra) while Rojava is a one-party dictatorship. This guy regularly speaks at events like LSE which just this week also hosted the Turkish prime minister's deputy. The guy is probably a paid shill. He's a swarmy pseudo-intellectual BBC commentator who has never been to Rojava.
I was in Rojava for one year and a half, and in the YPG for a 3 and a half months. Rojava is definitely not a one-party dictatorship, that's absolute horseshit.
This event is not having anything about Rojava, eventhough their main talk is about Syria. They're trying to sideline Rojava while allowing this fascist supporter to spread his poisonous propaganda.
Just read some comments here:
http://anarchistnews.org/comment/214747#comment-214747
His talk is 2pm at the London anarchist bookfair in the main hall.

For fuck sake, Flint. That link goes to a page with an image I really did not want to see.

Serge Forward

For fuck sake, Flint. That link goes to a page with an image I really did not want to see.

What image? The banner?

The photo of what appears to be some bloke stamping on a child's head.

Serge Forward

The photo of what appears to be some bloke stamping on a child's head.

Oh... I see the problem. Mobile Reddit immediately shows the first hyperlinked image. On non-mobile, it doesn't immediately pop up.

Rather than attacking SM as a lurker, it would have been more seemly for those who want to oppose nationalism to have offered some support for SM and jaycee for doing something worthwhile at this meeting – i.e. pointing out as loudly as they could amid the hubbub that the clash on the stage was a micrcocosm of the inter-bourgeois confrontation going on in Syria and Iraq. But so far only freemind seems to have really focussed on the key problem posed by this event and which is embodied by the criteria for participation in the bookfair: the idea of an anarchist movement which is not defined by class politics, by the necessity to defend proletarian interests against those of the class enemy, but which is seen as a ‘broad church’ in which nationalists and other open defenders of the dominant ideology are given free rein as long as they pin an ‘anarcho’ label on their enterprise.

Give over, Alf. Pots and kettles innit. While I would agree that what passes for an "anarchist movement" is a "‘broad church’ in which nationalists and other open defenders of the dominant ideology are given free rein as long as they pin an ‘anarcho’ label on their enterprise"... much the same can be said of the wider left - as long as they pin a "communist/socialist/Marxist" label on their enterprise.

Basically, most "left and anarcho" politics is shit but some of us try to do better.

Yeah weirdos with bizarre politics show up all over the shop, the anarchist movement is not particularly worse for them than the Tories or liberals. Hilary Benn ended up ranting about how Britain could be like the International Brigades in Syria and back Assad. Jacob Rees-Mogg is an actual MP elected by real people.

"Give over, Alf. Pots and kettles innit. While I would agree that what passes for an "anarchist movement" is a "‘broad church’ in which nationalists and other open defenders of the dominant ideology are given free rein as long as they pin an ‘anarcho’ label on their enterprise"...

We agree on a lot then!

"much the same can be said of the wider left - as long as they pin a "communist/socialist/Marxist" label on their enterprise".

That depends what you mean by the "wider left".

Plenty to discuss there, Serge. But my opening point was a simpler question: the need for internationalists, whether they call themselves anarchists or marxists, to stand together against nationalism and its justification for national capitalist wars. Just a bit of solidarity for our comrades.

Take your point but I suspect most people on here (bar one or two exceptions) would be no less opposed to nationalism in all its forms. I also think class struggle anarchists need to be nailing their anti nationalist colors up more vocally, especially in these times of (often well-meaning) PKK cheerleaders and other "useful idiots".

As far as the meeting goes, I wasn't at it but it sounds like the usual bollocks you get at bookfair.

You never did it, did you anarchists? yes I'm a 'lurker because I havn't posted for some years.' Why? perhaps its because you have never offered anything? I remember very well when I was involved in the Postal Strike some years ago I received much solidarity political and personal. What has happened in the meanwhile? I was at the Syria meeting at the Bookfair when we were invaded by nationalist lunatics. Both my very young comrade and myself were the ONLY people to oppose this.(when one of your number can have the termerity to suggest that I could act as a 'service-de-ordre' i.e. as a bouncer. -years ago perhaps but as a 67 year old Left Communist with failing health not a prospect!) Comrades anarchists, It was your meeting (but why did not one single person from the anarchist fraternity protest against this vile opposition to discussion?) I was very disconcerted when one of the young invasion protesters intervened to say that she had lost her family in the imperialist war in Syria. Really comrades it made me think, of how high the stakes are. There is a nationalist blood-bath taking place but in reality YOUR meeting was sabotaged (this is not to give any creedance to the politics of the organisers)
Afterwards, what has happened in any assessment of what has gone on - some support and at least, some analysis (Serge Forward) and (Freemind) and sophistry from SpikeyMike (who was involved from an early stage with the organisation of the ABF(at least in his post for the ABF in Libcom) and who exempts himself from what happened by declairing "I wasn't at the event"
There has been no analysis of what really went on at the event - of why there was an amazing silence punctured only by Jaycee and myself. Yes, you have taken it up but you had to be dragged kicking and screaming! You have not been able to explain why this has happened, of why your famous bookfare has such disperate elements. IN REALITY YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR MEETINGS, OVER YOUR STALLS. It's a free for all! you lack even the basic working class positions that would allow you to discriminate on who is allowed into the framework of your book fair.
Believe me comrades, I take no pleasure here on writing these lines. In the past many, many important meetings has taken place, I have participated in them and been the better for it. This is from a miitant whose organisation many of you hate. I was particularly moved, touched on the biography of the Bugarian militant. I am not a million miles away from you all comrades.

Melmoth

Melmoth

There has been no analysis of what really went on at the event - of why there was an amazing silence punctured only by Jaycee and myself. Yes, you have taken it up but you had to be dragged kicking and screaming! You have not been able to explain why this has happened, of why your famous bookfare has such disperate elements. IN REALITY YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR MEETINGS, OVER YOUR STALLS.

Who are you directing this towards? It is not like "anarchists" as one homogenous bloc organized the book fair, but some very specific people. Your comments and critique (which I agree with btw), should be directed at them not "anarchists" in general or the posters on libcom (many of us who don't even live in the UK). So "many" of "us" have not been able to explain it because very few were there; and why the book fair has so many disparate elements have been time and over ridiculed on libcom; but again, this is something that you should direct at the organizers of the book fair, not a collection of random posters from all of the world.

So please, don't equate "anarchist book fair in London UK" with anarchists in general as if we have a centralized, global organization that sit down to decide every event at every book fair all across the world. What happened was absolutely abhorrent, but it just goes to show what occurs with big-tent type anarchism.

Melmoth - I don't live in London and I've never been to the bookfair but it does sound disappointing that the organisers were unable to deal with the disruption. The impression I got from your previous post was that you were also opposed to giving a platform to the Syrian speakers. I'm not sure this was what you meant but it's the way it came across to me. In any case I think it would be a mistake not to engage with Syrians who identify with or are sympathetic to anarchism. From what I've read their politics tends to be a bit confused but I'd see that more as a reason to debate with them rather than avoid them. I've certainly no objection to left communists challenging them on aspects of their politics.

Ugh, save me from people whinging about volunteers not volunteering well enough.

Melmoth, it wasn't "our" meeting. That's a bit like saying the ICC or CWO is responsible for a CPB or RCG meeting with nationalists present.

But that would be like saying that the Anarchist Bookfair is an event organised by the left wing of capital - by the class enemy. And that wouldn't be accurate. The problem with the Bookfair is one of ambiguity, not of clear class lines - a kind of ....marsh, which is neither water nor dry land. And the problem is also that most of the anarchists who are clearer about the class lines don't do enough to define and defend them.

Comrades
I take the point from Khwanga and Serge Forward that perhaps my criticisms has too wide a brush stroke and has to be more specific. (I take particular note of Khwanga's analogy with the ICC/CWO and leftist groups) and I've tried to say that I've used the columns of Libcom and participated at meetings within the bookfair. But, what was clear from the start of this thread that there was no real discussion on the consequences of the sabotage of the meeting, no identification of the threat posed by Syrian nationalism. (look back to the beginning of this thread and what I called a 'twee' criticism) There was no understanding of what Alf calls 'clear class lines' and I agree with him that the problem is one of ambiguity. You cannot be ambiguous in the front of a nationalist attack. To Mark, it is not a 'mistake' to refuse to discuss with 'anarchists' who are supporting a nationalist war no matter how genuine and sincere their motives.
Melmoth

Call a spade a spade, Alf, not marsh but.... swamp, n'est ce pas?

Again for the record I think the London Anarchist book fair, for all it's many faults, regularly provides a forum and opportunities for discussion and debate across a broad range of anarchist and communist politics that would not exist at the present without it. I have continued to promote and support as best I can the genuine communist elements that get a hearing at the book fair - but I am not part of the book fair organising group. I did briefly help organise a past Manchester Anarchist book fair but withdrew from subsequent ones precisely because of the narrow lifestyle anarchist approach of the other main organisers. My internationalist credentials have been clearly demonstrated in all my contributions to discussion on this site and at various other meetings as Melmoth knows full well.

Swamp, marsh, it's part of the landscape and not to be feared. But that doesn't mean we should get bogged down in it

S Melmoth

To Mark, it is not a 'mistake' to refuse to discuss with 'anarchists' who are supporting a nationalist war no matter how genuine and sincere their motives.
Melmoth

Coming back to social media discussion on Syria after a long time avoiding it I get the impression that there's more openness to reassessing opposition narratives. For example this from Budour Hassan (who I'd disagree with on many other things) on twitter a few days ago: https://mobile.twitter.com/Budour48

Young Syrian men are the fuel of a war started by the regime and now being fought between powers that do not give a damn about them

As pro-uprising we cannot use the same discourse of 2011 and 2012. Do not let our insistence on a certain narrative detach us from reality

After suffering greatly at hands of regime, many Syrians have been betrayed and forsaken by the opposition and treated as hostages by rebels

Of the powers leading the war in Aleppo, none cares about civilians or basic human rights.

@KreaseChan @RedRazan sadly its not just some. War crimes are committed by the overwhelming bulk of the armed opposition

The disparity in power & scale of crimes is undisputed but the Syrian armed oppo cannot claim to have the high moral ground over the regime

@KreaseChan @RedRazan the initial justification and glossing over rebels crimes has gotten us to the point of no redemption

@KreaseChan @RedRazan I am not referring to individual fighters but the structure and leadership

@mrzine_notes @AliAbunimah I was always against military intervention. My mistake was not being sufficiently critical of arming in 2012-13

@omarsyria @KreaseChan @RedRazan From the start militarization was inextricably tied to rising sectarianism and Islamization

You cannot selectively cite Amnesty or HRW only when their reports match your narrative.

To me this looks like part of a wider debate going on in the face of the prolonged defeat of the Syrian opposition. This is the discussion I'm interested in and inevitably it's going to involve people who are giving some kind of critical support to sections of the armed opposition. I don't see the sense in no platforming Syrians who take this kind of position. Going along to a meeting and challenging them on it seems fair enough, at least in principle, though I'm not sure how an ICC intervention would actually come across.

For the record, I have many criticisms of the London Bookfair but as others have pointed out , it's a big tent event not a class struggle anarchist happening. Crikey, they let in the CWO and the Mouvement Communiste.I think that in future the organisers need to respond to such situations and prevent this happening again and I for one will be suggesting to them that they do so for future events. After all they are able to do this at the Bristol Bookfair and thwarted some fascists by being able to provide people from each stall to sort things out.
In terms of the disrupted meetings, whilst the the speakers might have had some good criticisms of PKK/YPG, as others have said, they still very much key in to this nationalist discourse so in the end as far as I am concerned it's a case of a plague on both their houses

Actually I think it would be good to see some kind of informed critique of the Syrian opposition and its trajectory. I haven't found much on it that's worthwhile, at least from non-Syrian sources.

First of all on the question of "lurkers"; It's clearly used as a term of abuse in describing someone who reads posts but doesn't intervene themselves and it's used in a similar way to "voyeur", that is the "lurker" is mentally unhealthy. I imagine that the majority of people on this site are readers but not writerss, that is they are "lurkers". Should someone who hasn't posted suddenly post, especially on a contentious issue, then they are abused as "lurkers" and this is something that I have seen several times on here and such "lurkers" have been chased off, never to come back probably.

When the accusation of being a "lurker" isn't a blatent attempt to support ambiguity towards nationalism (as it is here in my opinion), then it also implies an already existing clique of established posters, a clan-like atmosphere.

Melmouth and his comrade did what they could to defend internationalism and his post-meeting plea for more support has raised a response that's typical of the blurred vision of the swamp. Some comrades, after a while, have denounced all the factions involved in the wars in the Middle East, Others have also admitted the "broad church" (i.e., capitalist positions) of the nature of anarchism in responding to this - in much the same way as we saw in Ukraine with anarchist support for Ukrainian nationalism and Nato.

As Melmouth says, the whole framework is similar to the gangsterism of the IRA and its "socialist" supporters in Britain in the 70's and the support for the PLO and Russian imperialism at the same time. Anarchism has a lot of form in being open to and "non-critical" of these movements or seeing them as an irrevelance. In my opinion, it is vital that elements of the working class are clear on the issue of nationalism because it will be a life and death question for the working class. And on these thread, it appears to me, there is also a political ambiguity towards the imperialist slaughter in the Middle East and the clear role of the various nationalist factions. And it's particularly those nationalist factions that want us to believe in "revolutions", whether Kurdish or Syrian, that themselves are the most insidious pawns of imperialism. Nationalism is a danger for the working class everywhere, probably the main danger. We should be clear about this particularly when it's touted to be "revolutionary" when in reality through its Kurdish and Syrian expressions it is making a significant contribution to the slaughter and ethnic cleansing in the Middle East as pawns of the larger powers. Outside of the direct area of conflict, the cheerleaders of Kurdish and Syrian "revolutions" attempt to spread their nationalist poison throughout the wider layers of the working class and whatever superficial differences they may have with each other it's an argument within the camp of imperialism.

In relation to this a special mention must go to Spikeymike's post number 75 which is a masterpiece in the art of ambiguity and the non-defence of proletarian internationalism.

I think that it's important to reply here to the comrade. In no way I'm I attempting to besmirch the comrade's internationalist credentials. I have never said that or implied it. Mike has been a consistent supporter of a communist internationalist positions for many years. I've known Mike for many years and I respect him and his politics immensely (as the comrade knows full well)
I was criticising the lack of critique following this unfortunate meeting, which was present at the beginning of this thread and I believe that Mike also shares some of the responsibility for not immediately condemning the nationalist charade that took place. "I was not present" he said.- "Oh! that OK then!" how balanced of you! and Mike is famed for being 'fair'. I also know that he is not part of the organising committee for the bookfair but he did make many posts and comments to prepare the bookfair. Does that preparation limit itself only to the end of the meeting? For example, I deplore the use of infantile and 'in' humour which sees a great working class militant such as Emma Goldman, her face depicted in a cartoon which the joke goes is supposedly bringing back the 'Jewishness' into anarchism does that count as critique Mike or, do you want to be 'fair'.? Or, when I'm depicted as a 'lurker' (what a joke, barrel of laughs heh?) Could you not say that this is not the issue the real issue is what the meeting really meant and you don't have to be in the room for that. Come off the fence.
Melmoth

do you normally go around denouncing people for there failure to condemn stuff they weren't involved in?

and lurker is just a description

In relation to this a special mention must go to Spikeymike's post number 75 which is a masterpiece in the art of ambiguity and the non-defence of proletarian internationalism.

The “Internationalism” developed by the different leftist sects (which are therefore Social Democratic – whether they proclaim to be Marxist-Leninist or libertarian “communist”) can be genuinely and intrinsically grasped in its essential foundation only as a substitute of internationalism.

In the light of its various applications on the ground of class struggle and its containment by all the bourgeois sectors – right-wing as well as left-wing – as for example what happens since several years in Syria, in Kurdistan and particularly in Rojava, this “Internationalism” is in fact nothing but an addition of nationalisms (and therefore ultimately not only an efficient support to certain nationalistic factions but also a backing of nationalism as a totality), and it is not the transcendence, destruction, eradication of the nationalistic poison, the poison of the state, the poison of democracy…

Internationalism is not grasped as a negation in force and in action of all form (of all ideology, of all social practice) of state and nation, of oppressed and oppressor people, in its historic, globalizing and totalizing dimension, of destruction of the existing social order, of the present state of thing.

Leftists reduce and transform the genuine internationalism into a distorted, limited, circumstantial and therefore ephemeral epiphenomenon (e.g. “internationalism of national liberation struggle of the Kurdish people”, “democracy without a state”, etc.), or better said into an ephemeral materialization of an essential, dialectic, historical process…

WTF? Epiphenomenon? ephemeral materialization of an essential, dialectic, historical process?
Can you actually speak in language that people understand?

Nice to know that have graduated from the left wing of capitalism to the swamp. Do we get a certicicate for that?

This thread is so far off the rails, I wouldn't even know where to begin commenting, but as I was the 1st person to bring up Melmoth's lurking status, I feel like I should address that aspect.

I was simply fascinated that this poster registered over 2 years ago without commenting. As for it being an 'abusive term,' please note that many first-time posters will actually introduce themselves as long-time lurkers; I would have to dig back, but I'm pretty sure when I began posting on libcom many years back I myself used this very introduction.

I would also like to assuage any fears that "the accusation of being a "lurker" isn't a blatent attempt to support ambiguity towards nationalism" at all and simply a note that this poster registered 2 years ago and is only now posting. How one could take this comment to mean that I am a closeted supporter of nationalism is just simply bizarre (and that's putting it as nicely as I can imagine).

Finally, as I was thinking back to my early days as a libcom user, this thread reminded me that I was very inclined toward a left-communist POV when I began exploring libcom. Subsequent 'Interventions' such as those on display in this thread quickly pushed me in other directions. The abject inability to understand the basic conventions of human communication and interaction, taking a minor observation to mean something so far removed from the initial intention as to be dumbfounding, and many of the other glorious aspects of ICC interventions are pretty good examples as to why I moved away from this POV.

Do you find this approach helps you attract new converts? I mean, is this really working for y'all?

Why this seemingly personal vendetta against SpikeyMike, a very good comrade who should be regarded with respect rather than having his positions distorted and derided?

This is the post that ICC members are objecting to. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Spikymike

So for the record I listened to the SOAS recording by Al Shami and Kassab and found it useful (when viewed critically) as a means of comparing/contrasting with other views on the Syrian situation from more pro PKK elements and other material from a variety of sources, though it only reinforced views I already hold on the essentially democratic rather than revolutionary nature of much of the different Syrian opposition movements that are not Islamist and fundamentalist in nature and the inter-imperialist alliances that are at work. Wasn't my choice for the Anarchist bookfair and didn't go to it so can't comment on the way it went.

As I said, a personalised witch hunt against Spikeymike from this dying sect

Pff folks, this threat is so confusing. I've tried to read in on what really happened but that isn't even 100% clear. What I read seems isolatory (is that a word?) though...

The general question here is I think how we inspire people for the truly internationalist struggle? How do we inspire people for a genuine anti-capitalist struggle? Personally I don't think by only pushing people away saying that they are not a anarchist, a true communist, whatever. But by listening to them, and engaging in a debate, inviting people over to us and listen to our story and the other way around.

I agree that it is important to be critical of things, but you cannot organize an anarchist bookfair only for anarchists. What is the point? Only making those way to few anarchists more anarchist? Then we would become a sect. Or do we want people who are maybe interested to our ideas but are not familiar with them because they are only met with nationalist crap all day, or folks who want to do things, and think alike but a little different, do we want them to be able to pick up that A-book, listen critically to that other talk, talk with anarchist folks (that are for sure wandering around at that bookfair).

I agree with Rachel

Many of us are adults and feel we'd like to be able to go along to meetings and listen, learn, discuss, disagree and argue.

I even engage with some person from the ICC, even while I think they are too fuckin* sectarian, I think some of their arguments are worth listening to as a gatekeeper, to question yourself.

Politics aren't clean and pure, its a frigging dirtpool, and our challenge as anarchists is to go out there again and on the one hand engage with that, and on the other maintain a clear direction. That is what struggle means, not only the physical engagement...

Well it's like this two 67 year old comrades that have known and argued with each other for decades return for another bout but then forget what it was about and fall asleep - one falls off the fence and the other can't find the fence anymore!

I'd like to apologise to Spikey for being too abrupt and not entirely in context. I affirm that he represents and organises around the positions of the communist left and what relations I have had with him in the past have been friendly on a personal level and fraternal on the political. I do think that he was somewhat backward in coming forward to denounce the nationalism at work at this meeting. I did understand that he had nothing to do with this meeting.

The swamp, morass, call it what you will, where political positions and elements of the bourgeoisie exist alongside attempts to clarify proletarian positions, particularly internationalism, has been briefly but accurately described above by Serge Forward.

"Lurker" on these threads has been used as a term of abuse - as it has in this case. It's first use above in this discussion is to discredit the individual making the post the better to divert the question away from the support and toleration of nationalism in the imperialist battlefields of the Middle East that exists on these threads

By the way Mark, I am a sympathiser and not a member of the ICC.

I am glad that baboon has criticised his own remark about Spikeymike. I have also spoken to Melmoth and he agrees that it was a mistake to bring Spikeymike's comment into this discussion.

I also agree that Serge - and I would say Battlescarred as well - have put forward ideas about the Bookfair which are not very far from our conception of the swamp: i.e. it's a place where different and opposed class positions and currents can be found, but which can't be reconciled. I would say that this is a problem with the anarchist milieu in general, which contains proletarian, petty bourgeois and left-capitalist groups. I think it is a problem because the danger is that if the proletarian currents don't clearly demarcate themselves from the leftist ones, they can be vulnerable to their influence.

I am not sure who Battlescarred is referring to when he jokes about 'us' getting a certificate of swamp membership. But if it's the AF I hope he hasn't forgotten the efforts the ICC has made to correct the sectarian position we had towards them in the past, in a two part article 'Notes on internationalist anarchism in the UK'

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/344/brit-anarchy
and in particular part two: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/345/brit-anarchy

When I spoke to him about this soon after it was published in 2011, he seemed to think it was a serious effort. On the other hand, a throwaway line about the ICC being a dying sect which engages in personalised witch-hunts could itself be construed as sectarian, n'est pas?

But Alf, you just had a few ICCers attacking him. What do expect Spikey's response to be? I love the UCC for being so comradely?

Khawaga, I don't understand what your're saying. Can you phrase it differently? What are you criticising in what I wrote?

baboon

By the way Mark, I am a sympathiser and not a member of the ICC.

Yes, I think I knew that really - I was forgetting. Just to add that I'm not particularly anti-ICC, but sometimes find their approach frustrating. As for the Syrian speakers I do find their position problematic but I'd disagree about this being a reason for not giving them a platform. There could be, and probably should be, much better analysis of the situation in Syria by anarchists from outside the region, and I think this is a real failure, considering that it has been going on for over five years now.

Left communism 200% correct
0.01% effective

baboon essentially

'sorry, not sorry'

baboon, you can continue to reassert your absurd connection between my use of 'lurker' and nationalism until you are blue in the face, but no matter how hard you stomp your feet or hysterically repeat it, it will still be a ridiculous association that remains fundamentally untrue.

Lurker" on these threads has been used as a term of abuse - as it has in this case. It's first use above in this discussion is to discredit the individual making the post the better to divert the question away from the support and toleration of nationalism in the imperialist battlefields of the Middle East that exists on these threads

i wonder baboon, have you ever interacted or read on any other public forum? lurker is not a term isolated to libcom. I know the jargon from the intersites can be confusing, but maybe if you spend more time lurking on the webnet, you'll pick up a thing or two.

Battlescarred

For the record, I have many criticisms of the London Bookfair but as others have pointed out , it's a big tent event not a class struggle anarchist happening. Crikey, they let in the CWO and the Mouvement Communiste.

which raises the obvious question -- why? Neither are anarchist.

Fair point. Though, speaking as an anarchist, I'd say a good proportion of class struggle anarchists/libertarian communists have got far more in common with the CWO than with some of the bohemian, reformist or nationalist drivel that ends up at the bookfair and happens to call itself anarchist. If we want a big tent event, then why shouldn't the bookfair have something that includes groups that have ideas in common but don't use the "A" word as well as those with non-anarchist politics (as many would understand it) but have adopted the term anarchist?

Flint above thinks it "odd" that it's Melmoth's first post. After saying that it's "odd", Flint suggests that Melmoth volunteers for "security" work. He goes further later calling Melmoth "a sleeper cell", "a Manchurian candidate", that is brainwashed in case anyone missed the point. Melmoth's post defended an internationalist position against the likes of Flint who is a cheerleader for Kurdish nationalism and through that a supporter of imperialist war.

Jesuit says that Melmoth has had enough time to learn about the politics of the site and nominates him for the "Longest Lurker hall of fame". But he does know about the politics of the site which is precisely why he denounced nationalism and self-determination in no uncertain terms and particularly the tendency among some elements of anarchism, on here and elsewhere, to either support it outright or to have a tendency to see it as just another harmless question that is of no real concern..

Baboon, your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Anarcho

Battlescarred

For the record, I have many criticisms of the London Bookfair but as others have pointed out , it's a big tent event not a class struggle anarchist happening. Crikey, they let in the CWO and the Mouvement Communiste.

which raises the obvious question -- why? Neither are anarchist.

And yet both are better than 90% of the other groups/stalls there...

Hey anyone can start a book fair or similar event. So all you folks whingeing about the London Anarchist Bookfair iincluding groups you don't like, go start your own. Then it only have the organisation's you approve of. Good Luck.

baboon

. He goes further later calling Melmoth "a sleeper cell", "a Manchurian candidate", .

To be very clear, I was saying the use of terms like "5th Column" were needlessly pejorative and confusing. And I gave those other terms as examples of terms that would not be helpful.

flint

Fifth Columnist is a needlessly pejorative term. Cheerleader could be derogatory and still be more accurate than "Fifth Columnist". I'd be like calling Melmoth a sleeper cell or Manchurian candidate. Maybe it is a long time lurker who decided that this is the issue for them to engage the forums on. Maybe its another socket puppet. Regardless, folks at the Anarchist Bookfair probably know who it is if they want to have a talk.

Also, baboon, fuck off.

Flint, how charming your invective, how devastating your critique! -'fuck off' is that all you can manage? In the game of 'lurking' I'm not a sleeper or any thing like that. I'm actually a vey inept user of forums such as Libcom. If the truth be told, I think this is the 3rd. time that I've had to register into Libcom, (Over a period of 10 years) so does this make me A SUPER LURKER!!.. I do hope so! Then you can develop to your hearts content the machievellian intrigues of the ICC and comrade Melmoth who so hates the anarchist milieu that he commits so much time to this one item. In reality, the rejection of any critique of what happened at that meeting is purely and simply because it is the ICC who has made the major criticism (where is there any substantial critique that has been made of the meeting? I fully accept that there has also been anarchist comrades who have made criticisms )
Oh well! you've opened a can of worms letting the nationalists in, don't blame the Left Communists when they come back to bite you in the arse. Don't accept that do you Flint?
For the record - I DID decend into personal remarks with comrade Spikeymike. I have written to him and gave him my apologies.
For the record I really like the Libcom site. For example I have used your magnificent Library you should be proud of this library it is a weapon for our class -the international proletariat.
Comrades, my intentions was to raise a criticism within your ranks about a meeting which was sabatged and dangerous. Except, for few exceptions you have cast shit on mine and others honest intentions. Well done!!
Melmoth

melmoth

Oh well! you've opened a can of worms letting the nationalists in, don't blame the Left Communists when they come back to bite you in the arse.

Maybe you should take your head out of yours... who is this fictitious “you”?

It appears more and more people calling themselves anarchists have really shit politics that embrace nationalism – but the criticisms from left-coms here seem mainly misplaced and opportunist. Coming on here to criticise everyone for something that happened at a meeting that most people weren’t even at with the assumption that all “you anarchists” are obliged to carry guilt for and respond to is pretty clueless – but left coms here do often excel themselves in this. They are judging others by their own miserable standards, as if a dictated uniform public position is an obligation in this case.

The ABF is a bit of an irony; ie, as it keeps growing in size there is no evidence of a corresponding growth in an anarchist/libcom movement. So imo the attendance at the Bookfair can’t really be seen as predominantly ‘anarchist’ (never mind a ‘broad church anarchist movement’ that doesn’t even exist), more the curious & interested sympathisers of various degrees. (This may be part of a modern trend, encouraged by social media; rather than adopting a particular political identity of ‘anarchist’ or whatever people now tend to adopt and drop particular passing causes.) And while greater consistency could be applied by ABF organisers as to who is given stalls - which, if taking ‘anarchist’ as a criteria, logically would exclude both nationalists, religionists, left-coms & SPGB parliamentarists - the bookfair is a very demanding event to organise (maybe one reason why those loyal oppositionists complaining for decades about exclusion have pathetically never bothered to organise their own!). The volunteers are on the go all day keeping it running so can’t be present to police most meetings (if that was even seen as a desirable role). I wasn’t at the bookfair, but there’s also an irony if some are saying SOMEONE(S) - but NOT ME - should’ve dealt with the bad situation. Seems like most there were implicitly saying that – and, perhaps understandably, thought it wasn’t worth a punch up. (But what happened to the ICC goon squads of their glory years who went storming into people’s houses to reclaim disputed typewriters? All gone to seed, seemingly.)

As for the tired old line implied here that ‘anything that can be used to criticise anarchism is again proof of its ideological inferiority to our left communism’ - I’m sure in the unlikely event a left comm event was ever organised that drew in a wider public than the ageing faithful then some similar incident could easily happen. But that entirely different conclusions would be drawn from it; then it would be ‘a dastardly attack by freemasons/the security services/Machiavellians spies’ blah blah, etc - take your pick from the various absurdities used by our local left coms.

Yes, there is an (apparently increasing) tendency among people calling themselves anarchists to capitulate to nationalism and that is worth analysing & criticising. But such analysis would have to recognise that such statism is not part of any credible definition of anarchism. So the attempt to use that to imply some inherent theoretical problem with anarchism – which, whatever its other faults, has been (with occasional exceptions) historically generally far more consistently anti-nationalist and anti-statist than all the strands of marxism going back to Marx - and to crudely locate the root of the problem in that is just dull old sectarian bollox and an obstacle to understanding what is going on. Nothing in these events reflects badly on anti-nationalist anarchists anymore than the politics of the SWP reflects badly on anti-nationalist marxists – the ABF reflects no worse on such anarchists than does the SWP’s ‘Marxism’ event on the ICC. But the ICC & co’s response here to these events doesn’t reflect well on them.

Btw, taking “lurker” as an insult is completely daft; eg, after years on here you haven’t noticed that new posters often introduce themselves by saying ‘I’ve been a lurker for a while and have now decided to join...”?

Melmoth

Comrades, my intentions was to raise a criticism within your ranks about a meeting which was sabatged and dangerous. Except, for few exceptions you have cast shit on mine and others honest intentions. Well done!!
Melmoth

In a post above you said you had taken my critique to heart and admitted that you'd cast too much of a wide net. But in this post you are doubling down on homogenizing anarchists into one bloc. What, for example, could I, as someone living in North America, have done to stop the fuckery that happened in London? Fuck all. But, yet, here you are, condemning me and other libcom posters (many, if not most, of whom are firm anti-nationalists) for something that we really have no control over whatsoever. What happened at the ABF in London was not "within our ranks".

Anyway, Red Marriot has quite well summarized why your "critique" is misplaced. Again, you should direct this at the ABF organizers and those who were there rather than a random collection of anarchists (and non-anarchists) who post on libcom. Why can't you get this through your head? Or do you believe that anarchists, like the ICC, has a command and control structure?

Spot on, Red.

Battlescarred

Spot on, Red.

Yep.

Also, a couple of people had strayed into abuse here. This is no flaming site, so consider this a warning to desist.

I am not going to get drawn into replying to Red’s references to what happened in 1981 (the long-standing accusation about ICC goon squads), to his throw-away remarks about freemasons and state agents, and to the dubious practice of using comrades’ age as a stick to beat them with. None of this is relevant to what this discussion is about. There is an issue of behaviour, of how we treat each other, what names we call each other, and so on, but I don’t think that’s the main thing either. Both Melmoth and baboon have made some mistakes on this level but have shown a willingness to correct them. Such a capacity for self-critique has not been shown by others, as shown by the adamant refusal to accept that there was anything at all wrong with the jokes about Melmoth the Lurker.

A number of posters, notably freemind, Serge, and Red himself, have accepted that there is a problem with the penetration of nationalist ideas into the anarchist movement in the current period. This is the key issue here, which doesn’t go away regardless of the manner in which the issue was first raised on this thread. I maintain that this is partly a problem of the structure of the anarchist milieu as a ‘big tent’ or ‘broad church’ or ‘marsh’, whatever term you use; something which is inherently inter-classist, which defines itself more on the basis of libertarianism vs authoritarianism than of proletariat vs bourgeoisie. This means that it is made up of currents with antagonistic class natures but that the proletarian elements are generally prepared to live with the bourgeois and petty bourgeois currents that make up a substantial part of the milieu. In this sense the problem with the Anarchist Bookfair can’t be reduced to the fact that its organisers are overworked volunteers. There is a political conception held by the organisers which needs to be questioned.

I have said this before so I won’t go on with it. But I think there’s another dimension, which is more related to the period we are in – a period of growing difficulties for the working class which is generating a very poisonous atmosphere in society. A period of accelerating barbarism, expressing itself on the one hand by the horrors we are witnessing in the Middle East and by the populist upsurge in Europe and America. This is a period which in some respects is comparable to the 1930s and which is going to be a real test for all genuine internationalists. In the 30s, both the anarchist and marxist wings of the proletarian movement were plunged into crisis by the rise of fascism and the Popular Fronts and the drive towards world war; very few of them passed the test without becoming incorporated into the Popular Fronts and the war efforts of the ruling class. At that point only a handful of internationalist anarchists and left communists held out in the face of the betrayals of the main faction of the CNT, or the majority of the Left Opposition groups.

Today we are not on course for a world war, but the chaotic conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, the refugee crisis and the populist upsurge are again obliging internationalists to swim against the tide, against the mounting pressure of nationalism not only in society in general but within the ranks of those who claim to be against capitalism. The capitulation of a significant portion of the anarchist milieu to the ideology of the ‘Rojava revolution’ is an evident case in point, but we have seen comparable developments in the left communist movement. The ICT has just published a statement about the extremely negative evolution of the group in Greece which was formerly close to it: the refugee crisis, which is obviously very acute in that region, seems to have pushed the group into a dramatic regression towards nationalism (http://www.leftcom.org/en/ articles/2016-11-09/statement- of-the-internationalist- communist-tendency-on-the- nationalist). In short, we are witnessing signs of a crisis which none of us can be complacent about.

It may be that this thread is not the best place to develop this discussion but the discussion between internationalists of different tendencies will need to continue. And perhaps it should continue not only online but through physical meetings which would certainly not be as large as the Anarchist Bookfair but which could be more significant politically.

''It may be that this thread is not the best place to develop this discussion....'' You can say that again especially given the start to it initiated by a poorly thought out formulation of the issue by Melmoth and then sidetracked by arguments about language including Flint's abuse that understandably prompted Melmoth's rejoinder. Generally agree with Red's comments about anarchism and the bookfair even if I would have avoided his colourful language in again bringing up the oldest of various splits in the ICC.

Following your advise, I will say that again, and with more emphasis: this thread definitely isn't the place to develop this discussion. So the next question is, where?

Alf

A number of posters, notably freemind, Serge, and Red himself, have accepted that there is a problem with the penetration of nationalist ideas into the anarchist movement in the current period.

A misleading way to put it – nobody “accepted” that proposition made by others – it’s been discussed and criticised on here for years re. Rojava and other situations regardless of propositions offered by ICC or whoever. And was readily acknowledged here. But there you go again with loose vague terms – what is this “anarchist movement”? The small number of small groups – where do you mean, in UK or globally? And by what definition can it really be called a “movement”?

In this sense the problem with the Anarchist Bookfair can’t be reduced to the fact that its organisers are overworked volunteers. There is a political conception held by the organisers which needs to be questioned.

Again, that distorts what was said – I never reduced “the problem” to that. But for all the problems, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too – you said earlier;
Alf

I also agree that Serge - and I would say Battlescarred as well - have put forward ideas about the Bookfair which are not very far from our conception of the swamp: i.e. it's a place where different and opposed class positions and currents can be found, but which can't be reconciled. I would say that this is a problem with the anarchist milieu in general, which contains proletarian, petty bourgeois and left-capitalist groups. I think it is a problem because the danger is that if the proletarian currents don't clearly demarcate themselves from the leftist ones, they can be vulnerable to their influence.

Yet– while denouncing harshly those it defines as part of any “swamp” the ICC has been requesting admission to this “swamp” for decades and still loyally does a stall outside and attends meetings. So everyone else who attends is swampy and responsible for what happens there – except for the ICC who are magically protected from corruption by their ideological character armour. I think ICC members and/or sympathisers are the only people on this thread who said they actually attended the disrupted bookfair meeting; yet everyone else here is supposed to be held to account for it! Presumably then you’re to be equally held to account for the contents of the SWP’s ‘Marxism’ event or for the nationalist deviations of the Greek left communists you linked to. You really do invite ridicule sometimes with your crazy abstract and ideological take on things.

You persist in talking about some “anarchist milieu” – defined by what? Those who attend the ABF? Where else does it exist, is libcom part of it? Then does that include you? Maybe back in the 80s that term would have some meaning when there was an overlap between an anarcho social “milieu” and the political groups but that seems to be long gone. Your definition makes no more sense than defining ICC as part of a marxist milieu – such a false definition only helps a lazy critique. Some groups calling themselves anarchist are soft on nationalism – but they’ve always got short thrift on libcom, so why complain on here about it, as if wrongly trying to portray yourselves as the sole true guardians & watchdogs of internationalism?

Of course certain principles such as internationalism have crucial value. Yes, there is a growing poison in society; but, in the way you make them at least, the comparisons to the 30s are overblown and not really very useful;

In the 30s, both the anarchist and marxist wings of the proletarian movement were plunged into crisis

But then there was a large international workers movement, some of which still expressed revolutionary goals. In that sense a massively different situation from today - with its scattered tiny groups of radicals and no similar workers movement nor comparable anarchist & marxist presence in it. The relationship between theory & practice is necessarily very different in a movement where tactical decisions, and reflections on them, potentially involved millions of proletarians and occasional prospects of civil war and insurrection. But such an influence is a far cry from today. And if you want to be internationalist, less Eurocentric and make limited historical comparisons the massive young factory proletariat of the East is in a period perhaps more similar to 19c capitalism, for what it’s worth; (eg, see https://libcom.org/library/tailoring-needs-garment-worker-struggles-bangladesh & https://libcom.org/news/legacy-dead-savar-collapse-part-2-24052013 ) Nor does China look like the 1930s.

Spikymike

Flint's abuse.

I'm not apologizing to baboon for often baiting me.

Amir Taaki and two of his cronies (including the one who wears dreadlocks and camouflage trousers) turned up at last night's AF social . We had no idea who they were at first, but their swagger as they came in might have given things away. They started talking crap about the need for professional revolutionaries as well as stuff reflecting their militarised outlook. Although they described themselves as anarchists, they seemed taken aback that we did not support Cuba. Said that everyone who attended our social should have been handed a manifesto as they entered! Seemed totally uninterested in the struggles we are involved in, housing, workplace, antifascism, etc, Started coming out with half-digested stuff about lifestylism from Bookchin which they thought they were using as a critique of us, when it was pointed out that we had been cricicising lifestylism since the mid-1980s. One of our sympathisers (not a member) , slightly miffed, asked if any of them had actually read any article in our publications, to which they replied evasively that they had "looked at our website". Well they didn't shout us down like they did at that Bookfair meeting, but generally everyone there thought they were a pain in the arse. They were there, not for dialogue, but to show us where we were going wrong, when they seemed to know little or nothing about our politics.. Bizarrely they have been going to Momentum meetings where they appear to have done the same thing. The guy in battle outfit told one of our members privately that he should leave the AF because we had achieved nothing in 30 years. They were pushing this line about a miltarised movement that would bring about instant revolution thanks to their wonderful grasp of tactics and theory. Pathetic. Real toy Bolshevik stuff.A strange little cult.
They seem to be doing the rounds, so a warning to watch out for them at meetings.

Are these dudes like 16 years old?

Nah, seem to be in the late 20s, early 30s.
Taaki himself is 28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taaki

It was more of a comment on their juvenile and adventurist approach to politics. I figured they would actually be adults.

So definitely wankers then?

Hold on, you mean join this guys and you get to dress up as an armed revolutionary? I'm in!!!
Plus, as a professional revolutionary you must get paid, right? Presumably in Bitcoin courtesy of Amir himself. Sounds perfect!
Seriously though, it's horrible when a meeting is hijacked by people who's motive is contrary to the intended purpose. It causes an feeling of agitation that is hard to shake off and creates a feeling of powerlessness as it's very hard to deal with especially the first time it happens.
A group I was a member of suddenly got invaded by agitatators, 4 or 5 in number. It happened 3 meetings on the bounce which totally threw us off our purpose for meeting. The third time it happened it ended up getting sorted in the car park which was horrible but fortunately was also effective.
Anyway, whatever the motives of people that pull this shit are, at least we can have the satisfaction of knowing they will definitely fail.

DP

God, this sounds so so much like what gets passed off as anarchism in the US.

Pathetic (and boring):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU2ehHpg9Cw

Battlescarred

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU2ehHpg9Cw

Wow, amazing. This guy is to anarchism what Ali G is to gangsters. He's just waffling absolute drivel. Does he have a following or something? Was he equally inept at the meeting?
Also, was the agenda of the meeting totally derailed?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/5abwye/who_the_fuck_is_amir_taaki_and_why_is_his_cult/

Are there comrades who know him and can stop him? It's getting seriously dangerous. Syrian Anarchists often use pseudonyms because they still have family back home in regime or ISIS areas and Taaki and his cult have been filming people regardless of how many times we complained. There are often kids in the room and such nastiness isn't needed.

He has a mini cult masquerading as anarchists and he is actively harassing anarchists. Syrian Anarchists already barely have any exposure in most discussions on Syria and it's fucking disgusting that some British fuck is actively making life harder for Syrian Anarchists.

Noah Fence

This guy is to anarchism what Ali G is to gangsters.

:D

Managed to listen to about a minute of this but that was my absolute limit and I'll never get that time back. Does it get any better or is it just half an hour's worth of self-obsessed word-wanking?

Serge Forward

Noah Fence

This guy is to anarchism what Ali G is to gangsters.

:D

Managed to listen to about a minute of this but that was my absolute limit and I'll never get that time back. Does it get any better or is it just half an hour's worth of self-obsessed word-wanking?

to call this word-wanking is an insult to all wankers

Serge Forward

Noah Fence

This guy is to anarchism what Ali G is to gangsters.

:D

Managed to listen to about a minute of this but that was my absolute limit and I'll never get that time back. Does it get any better or is it just half an hour's worth of self-obsessed word-wanking?

To my shame I stuck with it for 12 minutes. I wouldn't call it word wanking as that particular mode of speech requires a degree of artistry. This was just ill thought out mumblings. If this guy can be a cult leader then there's hope for all of us that dream of such glory. PM if you want to join my cult, a vegan cupcake and an eat the rich badge for all sign ups.

I wonder if these idiots are gonna turn up and play their games in Manchester on Saturday? If so, physical removal is surely a major consideration.

Bumping this because social-ecology.org (generally very pro-Rojava due to the Bookchin connection) recently posted this on Amir Taaki. He's into Duginist/de-Benoist Third-Positionism - ethno-states and the rest.

http://social-ecology.org/wp/2018/01/the-new-reactionaries-amir-taaki-alt-right-entryism-and-rojava-solidarity/

I've reposted some of Leila Al-Shami's pieces on libcom because it's some of the clearest writing on what's happened on Syria and the narratives around it. You can take issue with whether the 2011 movement in Syria was a secular-democratic 'squares' type movement vs. a proletarian one, but this is in the context of a sustained left/independent media narrative (supported by RT/Sputnik, ANSWER/IAC in the US which are fronts for Marcyite Trot/Tankie groups) that it's all been jihadists funded by the CIA (and Israel/Saudi) to destabilise Assad. The same narratives have been used to smear the strikes and protests in Iran at the beginning of this year (as plots by CIA/Israel/Saudi) by much the same political groups and journalists.

Mike, seems like you posted this to the wrong thread?

Khawaga - no I meant this one - the 2016 bookfair was the one that Amir Taaki disrupted and he's discussed on several pages here.