Anarchist federation Public Meeting

44 posts / 0 new
Last post
madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 29 2007 19:19

I'm not saying I agree 100% with London AF's decision, I don't know exactly what the ICC are like in public meetings because I've never seen one of their "interventions" first hand. BUT if London AF feel that, from their past behaviour, the ICC ruin meetings, then that's their decision.

The sort of behaviour described on here (reeling off prewritten positions, not engaging with the other people at the meeting, monopolising speaking time, showing up at meetings and telling everybody that they're wasting their time and should be talking about something completely different) is not on at all and I don't see why any group should be expected to tolerate that.

It's not an issue of free speech, but one of socially acceptable behaviour.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Mar 30 2007 07:53

Again, I think Irrationally is making agood point.

A suggestion: since these events took place years in the past, and since many people have not even come across the ICC in the flesh, perhaps an assessment about the 'way we intervene' should be based on our manner on libcom, which anyone can verify. We certainly intend to intervene in such meetings in the same way - in other words, by attempting to participate in discussion and not trying to derail it or monopolise it.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Mar 31 2007 08:20

Well Alf it's hardly the same situation as in a meeting. It may be that the ICC have changed tack on how you engage in meetings, but it dosen'f seem that you are admitting that your previous behaviour was disruptive so i doubt it. I also wouldn't be surprized if you were genuninely unaware of how others precieve your behaviour(at the time), as you are so intent on bringing us all the light.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 31 2007 09:11

You can't use Libcom as an example of your current behaviour, you can't interrupt here for a start, and you do write interminably long monologues expanding your line which only fail to disrupt because of the nature of the media.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 1 2007 23:47
InternationallyAmnesty wrote:
It all strikes me as very much lacking in any commitment to free speech blah blah

A Trot defending a bourgeois "right"? How funny...

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Apr 3 2007 14:51

Interesting to see how "authoritarian" anarchists can be / really are; following their great "secret" leader Bakunin's path, of course. Will the proletariat be hailing the Anarchist Federation, secret dictatorial party of the future? Hilarious...

(And I would understand if you, for example, refused to accept people like myself to your meetings, but the ICC comrades were the nicest people I have ever met!)

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 3 2007 15:41
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Interesting to see how "authoritarian" anarchists can be / really are; following their great "secret" leader Bakunin's path, of course. Will the proletariat be hailing the Anarchist Federation, secret dictatorial party of the future? Hilarious...

(And I would understand if you, for example, refused to accept people like myself to your meetings, but the ICC comrades were the nicest people I have ever met!)

You really are an idiot aren't you.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Apr 3 2007 18:39
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Will the proletariat be hailing the Anarchist Federation, secret dictatorial party of the future?

Oh, fuck, they're on to us!

playinghob's picture
playinghob
Offline
Joined: 5-05-07
May 8 2007 23:05

red n black star Joined this 'dialogue' late. Fuck me. You're talking about the AF's 10 year ban. The London Workers Group banned them from meetings in the early eighties - and we were left-communists! Mind you, in all honesty, I don't mind reading some of their stuff. Is that bad or just plain sad. red n black star