Anarchist Book Fair in San Francisco, 3/18/06

cut it off!

Funny how there's this need to control the dialogue around the Anarchist Book Mall(tm) by suppressing critical debate of it and its social context.

Isn't it?

So, where's the freedom?

This is a public, not a private place. Dialogue, by definition, cannot take place in public. As soon as there's an audience, you're talking to more than one person. If you're talking to more than one person, by definition, it's not dialog. It's public speaking. If you want dialogue, email me. If you want to give speeches, please consider supplying your own bandwidth.

After the revolution, we'll know who to go to when we want apologetics for anarchofascism.

If you wanna chitchat, how about continuing this thought:

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.

How much money did BTB make at its ABF while at least 10000 other people were marching in the streets to protest the fucking war?

There. Let's get back on topic.

We're all volunteers. The cash flow goes into stock, rent, utilities, and an emergency fund. The rest we give away.


>at least 10000 other people were marching in the streets to protest the fucking war

Again, and still with no effect whatsoever, not even a little one, zip, zilch, zero, nada.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

Wake up, people. You're sleepwalking in circles.

well, i'm an anarchist and i went to both. i know a lot of people who went to the march and than to the bookfair.

And what was the great provable "effect" of the bookfair, something besides your own anecdotal perspective.

Aren't you holding the two events to different standards?

The march is held to the extremely high standard that a single march in SF did not stop the war.

Well, neither did the book fair. Sure, some people bought books, posters, and t-shirts, all things they could buy any other day of the week (maybe not all in one location, but no one could buy everything on display at the fair at one time anyway).

The fair was highly sectarian, as it was advertised by its online spokesnut. The march included all sorts of people. Which approach do you think will more quickly effect change in our society and actually end the war and injustices? Anarchists waiting until the entire country agrees with them 100% and does it their way, or people of diverse persuasions uniting, even temporarily, against the unjust powers that be to stop the current madness?

At any rate, shooting down the march without showing tangible evidence of your supposed superior success reads like only so much BS. Take off your rose colored glasses and smell what you shovelin'.

>what was the great provable "effect" of the bookfair,

Information was exchanged, skills were shared, people educated themselves, old networks were reinforced, new networks were built, plans were made, people had fun.



>Aren't you holding the two events to different standards?

No. I'm comparing them on exactly the same basis. One accomplished real, concrete things. The other was purely symbolic.


>The fair was highly sectarian,

It's for us. If you are not one of us, it's not for you. Deal with it. Want a fair for yourselves and not us? That's OK with us. Go for it.

Better still, put on a better fair than we do. Then when you criticize our fair, we wont laugh.


>as it was advertised by its online spokesnut.

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal. It's a way to change the subject.



>The march is held to the extremely high standard that a single march in SF did not stop the war.

That's a straw man. I never said any such thing. Stop putting words into my mouth. It's rude. It's dishonest. It's very bad form.

What I said, what have been saying for a long time, and what I will continue to say, is that marching alone will not stop the war. If it was possible, it would have happened by now. Demonstrating our displeasure with the war has failed repeatedly to do anything more than make ourselves *feel* like we were doing something. It's not enough. We need to do, not just more, but something else entirely.

If demos could stop the war, it would have happened in March of '03. In March of '03 there were *hundreds* of marches, Somewhere between thirteen and twenty million people demonstrated on the same day, on four continents, five you count those scientists in Antarctica. The invasion proceeded anyhow, because our rulers don't give a rat's behind what we say. To them, we are livestock, nothing more. Our opinions do not factor into their plans.

Demonstrations have some limited use as outreach mechanisms, especially during the organizing phase, as opposed to the demo itself. At the demo itself, outreach is pretty much limited to waving and honking. Waving and honking is not enough. We have to sit down with these people and talk face to face, preferably across kitchen tables. Our struggle is not for the space between sidewalks, but for the space between ears. As such, we need to evolve beyond mere symbolism. Symbolism is not enough. Only concrete, direct action has any hope of success. If the war were a symbolic war, a symbolic resistance would suffice. It's not a symbolic war. It's as real as death itself. So, too, must be our resistance.

The best way to start getting real is to learn. Educate yourselves. network. Make plans. Carry them out. Build lasting social infrastructure. Organize, organize, organize.

Hey hotshot, show me where is says anything about dialog(ue) having to be conducted in private. Also, I see "two or more" more than once.


"Main Entry: 1di·a·logue
Variant(s): also di·a·log /'dI-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialoge, from Old French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak -- more at LEGEND
1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2 a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b : an exchange of ideas and opinions c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
3 : the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition
4 : a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation"

"The cash flow goes into stock, rent, utilities, and an emergency fund. The rest we give away."

Not the question.

Question:
How much was it this year?

How much money did BTB make at the ABF this year?

Make, bring in, raise. Gross. You know. How much money was in the box at the end of the day?

I'll leave the "while" part out of it, since it causes you (and others) so much obvious discomfort.

What business of yours is it?

What, are you ashamed of the money that Bound Together Books made at the Anarchist Book Mall while others were in the streets demonstrating against the war on Iraq?

Such a simple question. Such a battery of techniques to avoid answering.

the bookfair or the march?

from the looks of the pics, i'd have to say the bookfair won that one.
way to go!

some things never change.

This is begging the question. Once again, Bound Together does not make money. We are all volunteers. The cash flow goes into stock, rent, utilities, and an emergency fund. The rest we give away. Unless you're a member, how much it was, and to whom we give it, is none of your business.


>which was whiter?

To define people by the color of their skin is racist by definition.

So I'll repeat myself too:

"The cash flow goes into stock, rent, utilities, and an emergency fund. The rest we give away."

Not the question.

Question:
How much was it this year?

If you're not a member, it's none of your business.

You call it a "community" event, and then double book so that your sale is in direct competition with an antiwar march.

That makes everyone look bad.

Since when is investigating a profit motive "unfair" to anarchists?

If some of us can't earn your respect, maybe we can buy it.

How much did you make in the name of "anarchy"?

We call it a community event because it is a community event. It's an event for *our* community. If you're not part of our community, it's not for you and nothing that happens there is any of your d*mn business. ANSWER is not part of our community, and neither are their apologists. We owe them no explanations. We owe them nothing.


>and then double book so that your sale is in direct competition with an antiwar march.

(1.) We book the date the County Fair Building gives us. We're lucky we're able to pick the month.

(2.) ANSWER double booked their event in an underhanded, but blatantly transparent, attempt to undermine our efforts. How typical of the Bolshevik style.


>That makes everyone look bad.

The only people who look bad are those behind the treacherous, Bolshevik dominated, pseudo-opposition. They aren't doing a d*mn thing to stop war. Au contrair, they are prolonging war by siphoning off time, money and resources that could otherwise go into doing things that actually have an effect.


>Since when is investigating a profit motive "unfair" to anarchists?

This is begging the question. There is no profit motive to investigate because have no profit motive. We have no profit motive because we don't make a profit. We don't even get paid. It's a labor of love.

those bastards got Bush to start a war on the 20th in 2003 so that 3 years later they could falsely claim their event coincided with the start of the war and upstage the anarchist book fair

damn bolshies! tricky bastards! you just can't trust them when they pull things like that

On the 20th, not the on 18th, on the 20th.

so you can safely assume that the saturday closest to the anniversary there is going to be a big march. there will be smaller events on the actual day if it falls on a weekday

how dishonest of you to try to say ANSWER scheduled their march to conflict with your fair. what a crock

you guys looked at the calendar months in advance, knew there would be a march that weekend, and scheduled your fair then anyway, thinking it would show those damned bolshies, plus it would give you personally the opportunity to attack anyone who does things differently than you for weeks on end. it's really tiresome.

the general consensus is that many people would like to do both and your clever scheduling made that a lot harder. don't be a dick again in the future and try to force people to choose.

Why, isn't stopping war important enough to take a day off from work?

why not schedule it on a Monday or a Thursday? because you want the biggest turnout you can get, and you damn well know that

once again, you prove that so many of the criticisms you make about the march could just as easily apply to your beloved book fair

look, people have lives, they have to earn livings, and not everyone can live off of the gov't dole like you do

people have to put food on the table for themselves and/or their kids, they can't just abandon making a living and be full-time activists. somebody has to do the work.

you're such a condescending bastard, and you certainly do not live in a glass house. the anarchist book fair didn't stop the war either, and attendence was probably down because you chose to set it the same date as a major march. so your fair was less effective than it could have been ,at whatever small goals you set for it (while the march is held up against the high standard that it did not stop the war).

in short, the fair cut off its own nose to spite its face in choice of dates

No, it isn't.

> the anarchist book fair didn't stop the war either

It didn't try to. It did, however, help lay the groundwork for stopping war period, not just this one, but all war. This can never be achieved by demonstrating. It can only be achieved through educating and organizing. That's exactly what we set out to do. We succeeded. We always succeed, a little more each year, a little better and a little easier, too. We're making progress, unlike ANSWER, which only repeats its own failures.

At what has ANSWER ever succeeded, except to make people feel as if they had done something effective when all they had done had no effect whatsoever? Did all their demos stop this war? Did demos alone every stop *any* war? That's not a rhetorical question. Please answer. Be specific.

>No, it isn't.

well, now, that's kind of sad. especially as you seem to think it's so important and productive.

>It did, however, help lay the groundwork for stopping war period

and what might your timeframe for this momentous occasion be? say around the time of the 782nd book fair? in a hundred years? ten years? next year? when exactly? be specific

that's about as realistic as me saying that because I walked to work today that I was laying the groundwork for the day I will fly to work with my very own wings

by the way, are you going to apologize for lieing about answer when you wrote the following?

> (2.) ANSWER double booked their event in an underhanded, but blatantly transparent, attempt to undermine our efforts. How typical of the Bolshevik style.

what will be people's takeaway from that lie? to assume all anarchists are "underhanded" when they make claims about other political doctrines? or maybe more sensible people will just take away that you, sir, are just about THE worst representative of anarchism one could imagine. it is a crying shame that you are the first contact so many people will have with it online (this thread will live on in search engines forever, may I remind you)

your "my way or the highway" crap ain't flyin'. perhaps one day you will learn that you can attract more flies with honey and stop being counterproductive to your stated goals, or at least stop being so dishonest

>what will be people's takeaway from that lie?

(1.) It's not a lie.

(2.) Hopefully, people will take away a clear conception of deep runs the perfidy of Bolshevism.


>and what might your timeframe for this momentous occasion be?

It's not an occasion. It's a process.


>you seem to think it's so important and productive.

It is important and productive. It's just not as important as feeding your families, that's all. Stopping war is, though, a lot more. But don't expect marching in circles, bleating tired slogans is going to stop war. Want to stop war forever? Smash capitalism. Stop working for the bosses. Seize the means of production and work for yourselves, not just in one place, but across the entire globe. When the bosses come to take it back, kill them. Kill anyone who tries to take their place. Don't stop until nobody tries anymore.

you wrote clearly that answer planned the date of their march to fuck with the book fair

"typical commie shit," or something to that effect

that IS a lie, and you know it. putting down the march for the 800th time doesn't distract from your lie. you were nailed lieing. I thought you might go the "I was only joking route," but no, you're sticking to your guns regardless of how much you embarrass yourself. nevertheless, it still was a blatant lie that you refuse to account for

everything you say after that -- without acknowledging your "error" -- is only so much more BS

"This is begging the question. There is no profit motive to investigate because have no profit motive. We have no profit motive because we don't make a profit. We don't even get paid. It's a labor of love."

Well, there's the standard front.

So, everyone gets together and sells things to their (somewhat exclusive) set of friends, and at the end of the day, no one has any money!

You do it because you love to work all day for nothing, nowhere, nohow!

You, personally, are starting to sound like one of those corporations who never make any money either, and yet never seem to go away. But at least you're on-message!

And about as full of bullshit.

By the way, speaking of bullshit, "begging the question" in formal logic, is when the premise and the conclusion are essentially the same statement. It is also known as circular reasoning. Care to explain what is circular in the statement:

>Since when is investigating a profit motive "unfair" to anarchists?

...which you labeled "begging the question" before you offered a textbook example of ignoring it, by instead answering the question you wish you'd received.

>you wrote clearly that answer planned the date of their march to fuck with the book fair

>"typical commie shit," or something to that effect

It's extremely typical. I would be greatly surprised if it were not true. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they denied it. Bolshies lie through their teeth on a regular basis, and have been doing so for nearly a century now. There is no reason whatsoever to believe they've changed. Evidence is wholly lacking.

It probably wasn't the only reason they chose the date, but if it didn't factor in, they would be acting far out of character.


>So, everyone gets together and sells things to their (somewhat exclusive) set of friends, and at the end of the day, no one has any money!

This is a straw man, another typical Bolshie trick. I never said, "no one has any money." I said the Bound Together and the Book Fair Committee don't make any money. Money passes through our hands, but we don't keep any for ourselves.

Those tablers who tried to, made money. We hope the made a lot. But profit it isn't. It's wages.


>Care to explain what is circular in the statement:

>Since when is investigating a profit motive "unfair" to anarchists?


The statement assumes there is a profit motive to investigate. There is no profit motive to investigate. It's a figment of the Bolshie propaganda mill. Had they proposed investigating the possibility that there was a profit motive, it would not have been begging the question. But that's not what they said.

Where does one go, to get their Anarchist(tm) Certification from you?

you can get em at Hot Topic i think. at the mall. gotta luv the authoritarian left!

-Mr. Anarchy

This is quick and dirty. There are a few glitches. As soon as I have the time to sort out the technical problems, I'll post a cleaner version. Eventually, with luck, I'll get all the speakers online.

In the meantime:

http://rewire.org/ward.mov

But when Ward Churchill speaks.....

None of us take orders from him or from anybody else, either. We have no leader.

Ward Churchill is a historian. Unlike Marxists, we always seek to learn from the analysis of history. Ergo, historians are always of interest. Marxists, on the other hand, simply repeat history, as tragedy, as farce and as a way to avoid thinking for themselves. Marxists don't think for themselves. A dead man thinks for them. Letting dead men think for you is a dead end. Marxism is a dead ideology. It's followers *look* alive. But then, so do zombies.

and this statement

"Unlike Marxists, we always seek to learn from the analysis of history"

is simply idiotic. Are you sure you're an anarchist and not some divide-and-conquer mole?

takes one to know one!

Just ask whoever's calling themselves the "Emma Something" this season.

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal.

more assumptions

at least you didn't call them commie bastards

The process of one person speaking, a crowd agreeing and anyone with differing view fearing social issolation for speaking out is the way hierarchies usually play out without formal stucrure (and it is a more significant factor in how they play out with formal structures too since titlesk, laws, and even the police have less impact in restraining personal actions than do social pressures)

Ward isnt a leader mainly because he puts forth views one cant really follow and are intended to provoke more than inform (hes kinda like the Michael Savage of the radical left). His views on rights of comunities to land based off some almost religious form of historical ownership is great as a way to excite a crowd with statements like "US out of N America" but since such sentiments are so hyperbolic in nature they dont really constitute views one can followe (although if you apply some of the logic to Europe you could get some of the xenophobia of the far right....)

Anarchists leaders are either tactical or ideological. A tactical leader is the person who comes up with all the ideas in an action driven Anarchist community (there usually is 1-2 people who may ask others for input but make all the major decissions), tactical leaders can also take the form of "bottom liners", facilitators or the most trusted member of a community who others consult before actions. During globalization protest there are clear leaders like Solnit, Starhawk, Fithian.... who are not formally in charge and may not all be formally "Anarchists" but are leaders.
Ideological leaders are people like Chomsky, Machno, Bakunin, Proudhon, Zerzan, Foucault. Treating someone (even someone dead) as a leader essentially means quoting from them or about their actions instead of making arguments of ones own.

Every anarchist is a leader.

and some more than others

we all know who thinks he best speaks for anarchism in these parts, shouting down anyone who might even slightly disagree with his take on the world

anarchism's dutiful servant, attacking other sects, painting his own with rose-colored glasses

anarchism's greatest warrior, he thinks, but he misses that his bullying actually makes him its biggest detractor in the bay area

Anarchists are not a sect.

Oh yeah, and, an ad hominem is *still* not a rebuttal.

It might not be a rebuttal in a formal debate, but it may well be an accurate descriptor of your behavior, which may be subject to debate.

I do believe you're trying to compare apples and oranges. We've learned the history of your bunk logic, Mr. Coach...