San Francisco
San Francisco
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
10th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Book Fair
by hot tip
Tuesday Feb 1st, 2005 8:44 PM
March 26th is almost upon us. Better book your flights soon.
Speakers confirmed so far include:

Barry Pateman - archivist at the Kate Sharpley Library, and senior editor at the Emma Goldman Papers. The most recent volume of Emma Goldman - A Documentary History Of The American Years Volume 2: Making Speech Free, 1902-1909 has just been published by University of California Press,and he has authored introductions to both the new edition of Alexander Berkman's 'What Is Anarchism' and The Voltairine De Cleyre Reader

Ward Churchill - reknowned scholar activist and troublemaker is the author and editor of numerous books and audio CDs. His latest work is On The Justice Of Roosting Chickens

Eric Drooker - legendary graphic artist whose work has graced a thousand walls, posters, t shirts and book covers. His seminal novel without words, Flood! is now available again in a new elegant edition

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz - pioneering feminist, and perennial activist is the author of two (to date) autobiographies - Red Dirt: Growing Up Okie, and her memoir of the 60s, Outlaw Woman

Peter Werbe is an editor of Fifth Estate, the longest-running anarchist journal in America today.

Chris Carlsson spent 13 years stealing office supplies to produce Processed World, a zine that chronicled the drudgery of 9-to-5 desk jobs. He helped bring Critical Mass into being, and created SHAPING SAN FRANCISCO: The Interactive Multimedia Excavation of the Lost History of San Francisco

Entartete Künst (German for 'degenerate art') is an anarcho-electro/hip-hoppers put out political electronic music that fuses low- and high-brow culture (think dark, slow hip-hop with Noam Chomsky samples) into a potent mix that challenges the status quo.

§It's easy to find.
by directions Monday Feb 21st, 2005 9:02 PM
From BART, get off at Powell, and take the 71 Noriega to 9th and Lincoln. You can see it from there. You can't miss it. It's right inside the park, in the San Francisco County Fair Building.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by some body
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 9:55 AM
wow! this year there are at least two actual anarchists speaking at the bookfair! i sure hope this is a trend for the future.
by "Nestor Makhno"
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 10:55 AM
Yeah, I'm skipping it from now on. It's just a shopping event for scensters, and a practical demonstration of how anarchism today in the US is just a form of harmless subcultural identity, like being a punk rocker, a Goth, or being way into the Greatful Dead.
by book fair committee
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:24 AM
If only anarchists speak, only anarchists will come to hear them. The book fair is an exercise in outreach. That is not our intent. Our intent is to reach out. People who think anarchists shouldn't reach out, aren't real anarchists. They're poseurs.
by tkat
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:37 AM
It is great thtat the moral arbitratirs of Anarchism speak up about the betrayal of values by so called poseaur anarchists. If you are too cool for school, don't go. Do your own event, where the purity of anarchism will never be tarnished by people that have worked in movements or express different core values than your own. Otherwise, keep your rigid Anarchist identity politics ot yourself.
Player hating is so 1996.
by anarchist
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:39 AM
I'll come. When is it?
by thoughts
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:14 PM
I think its good the Anarchist Book Fair is reaching out to non-anarchists, but there is a question about lack of diversity of those that attend that I think is partly answered by the "Nestor Makhno" post above. The crowd is pretty white with more men than women and thats an issue that always discussed in Anarchist groups with the answer being attempts to engage in more outreach and cover more issues. This rarely works because Anarchism has a tendency to look more like a scene or subculture than a political viewpoint and scenes tend to be restricted to loosely associated groups of friends in a way that can lead to very litte diversity.

Part of the problem with the Book fair diversity-wise is that its a book fair and is so in a way that almost reminds me of a comic book convention or Sci Fi convention. A Sci Fi convention is going to draw in a prtety specific corwd that will only be marginally effected if a fw shows happen to feature more prominent people of color or more prominent women.

While I think the structure of a book fair is going to limit attendence by its very nature, there are a few things which the SF book fair do that limit it a little more. One is that outreach beyond the Anarchist community is done in a restreicted fashion. Major movements and issues are left out (Peru, the Phillipines, Palestine, ettc...) since Communists are not included in outreach even as certain liberal issues are included. Radical groups that openly and only focus on race, sexism, homophobia, the environment, punk culture and animal rights are included even if they are not Anarchist but many of the major radical movements in the Bay Area on these issues are left out since outreach excludes nonAnarchist ideologies (even as it allows nonAnarchists without ideologies). One ends up with a lot of nonpolitical tables with books about UFOs and body piercing and no tables devoted to certain major political issues (like Palestine, Iraq, certain union struggles, etc...). I think one would see more dieversity and more open politics if reaching out meant having a table for Revolution Books, a table for the ISM, a table for the Bay View etc.. rather than diversity being lmited by a fear of nonAnarchist ideologies. Perhaps in the case of the Bay View, El Tecolote or other such nonAnarachist radical groups that might have newpapers to sell or give out at the fair the issue is one of having to apply rather than one of not being allowed (if the bookfair is perceived to be limited to a mainly white male subculture and outside groups are not invited to attend and have to apply, one really cant expect things to change)
by anarchist
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:20 PM
There is a reason for that. Whenever they have had the chance, Communists have stacked our bodies in pits. We have learned the lesson of history. Never again.
by *
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:44 PM
"Yeah, I'm skipping it from now on."

um, if society is going to change, everyone has to be on board, unless you are going to go a maoist or fascist route with reeducation camps for the resistant. A broad and positive definition of anarchism is what the bookfair should embrace. My own vision of anarchism takes this into account, where I would support democracy as the #1 foundational principle, with organization dispersed at the extremely local level, with fairly small geographic states. There would be no single system which would apply to each geographic area, except democracy- to ensure that the most appropriate decisionmaking takes place. Then anyone who is unhappy with how their region is going, could apply to move somewhere else, but you also wouldn't have the problem with the world right now where communism/U.S. and G8 nation defined capitalism, and monarchism all expand beyond their borders and try to make the rest of the planet adopt their system. Then you could have indigenous groups living like they choose, religious conservatives living as they like, agricultural and industrial societies operating and staying in their space.
by thoughts
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:50 PM
"There is a reason for that. Whenever they have had the chance, Communists have stacked our bodies in pits. "

Libya's Green Book was based off Anarchism so I guess you could say the same thing about anarchists if you want to take a corrupted example and use it to demonize a whole ideology.

Anarchist hatred towards Communists would come across merely as a desire for ideological purity if it were not for the inclusion of nonAnarchists. There is a tendency to see liberal reformism (almost in a social democratic sense) as ok wheras Communism is bad. How many anarchist groups that supported John Kerry in the last election will have tables at the Fair? The anarchist scene seems to find the prelection calls to endorse Kerry (by Chomsky and even some Bay Area anarchists) as better than Communist groups that could be represented at least in the form of their front groups that do good work on police brutality, antiwar organizing, labor organizing and organizing around cuts to social wellfare programs. If Anarchists exluded Communists from a book fair and all the tables contained radical critiques of capitalismadn authority that would be one thing. As things stand one ends up with a lot of almost capitalist-like punk culture and the like being represented with a lot of real local issues being excluded out of Commuphobia.
by member
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 1:29 PM
Same goes for the Book Fair. If you want a say in what happens there, join the Book Fair Committee, show up, do the work. Otherwise, STFU.
by ?
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 5:52 PM
How political will the book area be compared to previous years? I've noticed a slight downhill trend in the amount of politics vs the amount of stuff that mainly related to punk culture. Since the book fair requires for people to apply for tables is there anything organizers could even do if they wanted to pull it back to being more of an Anarchist or even radical book fair rather than a fair that focuses on a specific lifestyle that happens to be popular among mainly young white American Anarchists?

If people from out of town or even locally want to help organize the book fair how much interaction would be required with Nessie? I'm actually serious about this question since I know many people who stay away from organizations that include him since he makes people feel pretty uncomfortable (and his language in posts to various Indymedias and even the us-process list for Indymedia is on many ocassions abusive and threatening) I'm guessing he is not as bad in person as on this site but having to be in the same room for an extended period of time with Nessie would be enough to prevent me (and many people I know) from being willing to help with the organizing. I know that there are always people who are hard to get along with in any group but its just harder to want to get involved knowing he will be there after seeing him acting really patronizing, making references to personal violence and arguing in an often very abusive style.
by but rather not wanting to be in same room
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 6:41 PM
and speaking of what it takes

perchance it requires an ability to get along with others in order to unify against the baddies in the fight for Global Justice

if people don't even want to sit in the same room with you for more than 15 minutes, maybe it is you who lacks what it takes
by editor
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 4:45 PM
Its now over here:
so this thread can be more focused on the Book Fair
by aaron
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 5:34 PM
<<There is a reason for that. Whenever they have had the chance, Communists have stacked our bodies in pits. We have learned the lesson of history. Never again.>>

Ahh, Nessie's patented one-liner.

The fact is that many of the great anarchists considered themselves communists and even used the monikers 'communist' and 'anarchist' virtually interchangably.

There's a spectre haunting anarchism in America today: anti-communist dumbo-ism. The chief symptom? An inability to distinguish between Stalinism/Leninism and communism.

(How many times have I heard newly minted anarchyists--especially on infoshop [aka: censorshipshop]--denouncing Marx in a political language that's indistingushable from that heard in your typical one-day high school civics lesson? The fact that it's served with a garnish of "anti-authoritarian" rhetoric only makes it all the more ridiculous.)

The fact is that there will be a lot of communists at the anarchist book-faire. Those among them who want to get a book-stand won't be upfront about their "proclivities" until the event has begun, however.

Meanwhile, anarcho-liberals, anarcho-conspiracists, anarcho-newagers, and anarcho-voters will get a stand without any flack from Nessie...

by anarchist
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 6:53 PM
Inviting predators into your den is not survival oriented behavior.
by Re:
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 6:57 PM
"Inviting predators"
I think the NAMBLA discussion was moved to a different thread.
by anarchist
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 7:06 PM
Anarchists murdered by chicken hawks: 0

Anarchists murdered by Bolsheviks: so many we lost count

by I guess I was wrong
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 7:17 PM
Your not going to attract to many people to your cause by bashing everyone else's causes. I've heard some pretty nasty attacks between Trotskyist and Maoist groups but none as hateful sounding as the Anarchist attacks against Communists.
Oh that's nothing. You should hear what we say about fascists.

Not that there's a lot of difference between brown and red. One is "national socialism," the other is "socialism in one country."

We’re not trying to attract either. Neither are at all appealing.

No matter how far we look to the right or the left, we see the same thing, a bunch of guys with guns who want to tell us how to fuck, which drugs to take and when to show up for work.

Screw ‘em both.

Left wing, right wing, same bird. Forget the wings. Look out for the claws and the droppings.

by whatchatalkinabout
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 7:44 PM
" a bunch of guys with guns who want to tell us how to fuck, which drugs to take and when to show up for work"

On gay rights and abortion rights most Communist groups take a stronger line than many anarchist groups. Anarchist groups are not on the whole that bad on these issues but one does see a lot of machismo sexism and the like (more so tahn in many Communist groups).

In terms of work its hard to know what the difference is since I know just as many hardcore anarchist who are managers at work as communists. In terms of long term goals there are differences but looking at bad anarchist bosses (or pseudbosses in so called collectives) the chance that control freak anarchists will act any better than control freak communists is doubtful.

I dont know the differences in views on drugs between the various Communist and Anarchist groups in the Bay Area.

In terms of guns both Anarchists and Communists tend to be antigun control in the same was and for the same reasons.

Communists on the whole seem open to outsdiers and while they might try to convicne you of things only the Sparts will go off denouncing everyone else for being counterrevolutionary. Anarchists all differ but the sectarianism on this threa above is probably a little worse than Spart level.
by aaron
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 10:57 PM
I'm not arguing that "Bolsheviks" should be given a warm invite to the anarchist book-fair. Nessie is playing dumb and pretending to be unaware that there are many who embrace the 'communist' moniker and despise leninism and stalinism and its various off-shoots. There are tendencies that fall under the rubric of left-communist, council communist, ultra-left, situationist, etc, that are far more consistently and coherently anti-statist--*and* anti-capitalist--than much of what is passed off as anarchist in America these days.

There are also, as I indicated previously, many anarchists that simultaneously identify as communist and use the terms as synonyms.

When Nessie refers to the actions of Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists as "communist" he is giving them credit they don't deserve. Indeed, Nessie isn't even being consistent in this, as I have seen him refer to the former-Soviet Union as an example of state monopoloy capitalism on more than one occasion.

Fundamentally, I think arguing over the names we give ourselves to be boring. I can understand why people would be reticent to call themselves communist given the fact that so much oppression has been enacted under that banner (it's hardly only self-ID'd anarchists who've suffered under it). That said, I think we should be straight-up about the various tendencies that exist within the revolutionary anti-capitalist movement and avoid playing word games.

The fact is that a lot of self-styled anarchism in America these days is an incoherent mess. A good portion of it isn't in the least radical, let alone anti-capitalist. Nessie's "communists pile us in pits" comment in effect leads to a situation where anti-state communists are
excluded from the anarchist book fair (unless they play cute name games) while flaky liberals who think government is mean are included. Then people wonder why anarchism--as such--isn't going anywhere!

For those interested in anti-leninist communist ideas might be interested in taking a look at this web-site (it's a clearing house of libertarian communist, ultra-leftist, left-communist, pro-situ and anarchist-communist groups):

by george
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 3:35 AM
yes since they were invaded by nambla their direction has been lost
by yall crazy
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 7:12 AM
Anarchists are like Evangelical Christians who go around claiming that they are not an organized religion unlike all the other Christian sects. It would be nice if one could just dismiss Nessie and crazy and mean spiritied but one only has to look at Chuck0's crusade against ANSWER or widespread almost proStalin Anarchist joking about Trotsky and and the icepick to see its unfortunately a broader trend. Many Anarchists put more energy into fighting antiwar groups and other Communist fronts than they do fighting for change. Perhaps the RCP would enslave all of us if it took power, but since there is no chance of that ever happening energy put into fighting them is wasted; perpetuating a myth about the danger of Communists is basically just playing into the governments hands since it takes dissenting groups individually pose no real threat to anyone(but as a movement capable of swaying public opinion usually in directions Anarchists would agree with) and turns them into something that can be portrayed as dangerous people who if left unsupressed would take over, ban the bible and lock everyone in gulags.

While I disagree with aaron's view that Trotskyists and Maoists are somehow not true Communists since they have strayed from the one true path (its just a label), I do think his point that the model label Anarchist has come to mean very little is valid. By excluding Communists an event like the Book Fair will esentially be a mixture of punks and center-left causes with a sprinkiling of radicals with completely divergent ideas that just happen to fall under the same name since the are not Communist.
by anti-property
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 10:32 AM
Voluntary communism? no thanks.
by .
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 11:21 AM
Thanks for cleaning up the discussion. If you think about it, there will be at least several outside journalists attending this fair due to W.C. and that could be an opportunity. I'd like to believe that most people there selling books would like to actually create a positive impression of the philosophy of anarchism to the outside world and actually draw new people into at least reading about the idea. While everyone is introduced to the basic ideas of communism in school, other political philosophies such as anarchism receive almost no coverage, despite their increasing momentum.
by curious
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 6:12 PM
" If you think about it, there will be at least several outside journalists attending this fair due to W.C."
Is Ward an Anarchist?

"I'd like to believe that most people there selling books would like to actually create a positive impression of the philosophy of anarchism to the outside world and actually draw new people into at least reading about the idea. While everyone is introduced to the basic ideas of communism in school, other political philosophies such as anarchism receive almost no coverage, despite their increasing momentum."
I hope it is dealt with in a positive fashion rather than in contrast to Communism since as political ideologies there is a lot of overlap. Communism is taught to people in school as what Nessie describes above with it being contrasted to Democracy rather than Capitalism. Anarchism is an ideology about power wheras Communism and Capitalism are about economics. Most of the famous Anarchists of the late 1800s and early 1900s were both Anarchists and Communists (under a broader definition of Communism, AnarchoSyndicalists would even fall in this category). I think Anarchism reached a new level of popularity after Seattle but it was a mixture of kids liking the fashion appeal of black bloc attire with college students who wanted an antiCapitalist ideology that didnt support the former USSR and wasnt as divisive as many Communist groups had become. Unfortunately Chuck0s antiANSWER crusade and some of the posts above represent the reason it didnt catch on more than it did (with coalition groups often seeing Anarchists as trouble makers who want to cause divisions more than working in common struggle to end the war or carry out other changes in society). Divisive creepy behavior really drives people away and attacking other leftwing groups makes ones ideology more unpopular. Just as the Spartacus Leage has done a lot to drive people away from Trotskyism, Chuck0 and Nessie have done a lot to disillusion people with Anarchism.
by (A) #2393-354803-03087340
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 6:59 PM
just remember.. it's actually a good thing..... ideally.. the first step toward real revolution.....
it's illusions.. that keep north american radicals.. self-satisfied.. but ineffective..
by truth
Friday Feb 25th, 2005 3:28 PM
yes you freaking rule!
by labels are meaningless
Friday Feb 25th, 2005 7:06 PM
Anarchist and Communist mean nothing in themselves; all groups should be judged by their views. NION may be partly controlled by RCP Maoists but its overall ideas are liberal and it's base is similar in radicalism to that a PIRG or college environmental group. ANSWER takes a more open line on support for third world nationalism, and this is connected to the WWP ideology, but the ANSWER base is pretty diverse and seems similar to that of the KPFA listening audience. Anarchists are likewise all over the place in terms of organizations and causes. One has DIY/punk youth culture, college academics, more radical than though street fighters and liberals who dont like the liberal label. One can try to differentiate Communist groups from Anarchist groups based off authoritarianism but if you look at Refuse and Resist, NION, ANSWER and the openly "libertarian socialist" (but really right-wing) site its pretty clear that the labels dont matter nearly as much as groups actions, internal workings and their focus on various causes. When Anarchist pride is celebrated with the main point of unity being self-identification with a name, you open yourself up to any group willing to piggy-back on your success. Hopefully at some point there can be Radical Book Fairs and other events where the ideas and actions of groups are the unifying principle and sectarian fighting based off flags and meaningless names subside.
by repost
Saturday Feb 26th, 2005 1:32 AM
The Anarchist Cookbook was originally written by the Jolly Roger (William Powell) in 1968 and 1969. It is a collection of files compiled by a computer pirate detailing many underground activities such as hacking, phreaking (telephone hacking), pranks, drugs, explosives and home made bombs.

just one of the many find examples of the reading material found in the Anarchist Book Fair
by don't buy it
Saturday Feb 26th, 2005 5:32 AM
It has nothing whatsoever to do with anarchism. The drug recipes will poison you. The bomb recipes blow up in your face.

Consider, for example, the Anarchist Cookbook’s plan for an improvised molotov mortar, made from a shotgun, a makeshift bipod, a sawed off broomstick, a bottle, some tape, a rag and some gasoline. The otherwise credible plan in is cribbed from the Army, but the AC conveniently neglects to tell you is that you need to remove a specific amount of powder from the shotshell. So if you build one of these things and try to use it, what will happen is the barrel will explode, splattering you with slivers of shrapnel. Then the broom stick will then fly through the bottle, shattering it and splattering you with broken glass and burning gasoline.

If that’s what you want to do with your life, buy the Anarchist Cookbook. But you can’t buy it from Bound Together because it’s not for sale there.

What you can find for sale at Bound Together is “You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship -The Anarchist case against Terrorism,” which is highly recommended. If you are boycotting Bound Together because, oh, say, the carry that terrorist fanzine/training manual “No Compromise” (or why ever), you can read it online at:

Here’s a sample quote, from a page similar quotes from other sources:


"You can't blow up a social relationship. The total collapse of this society would provide no guarantee about what would replace it. Unless a majority of people had the ideas and organization sufficient for creation of an alternative society, we would see the old world reassert itself because it is what people would be used to, what they believed in, what existed unchallenged in their own personalities.

Proponents of terrorism and guerrillaism are to be opposed because their actions are vangardist and authoritarian, because their ideas are wrong or unrelated to the results of their actions, because killing cannot be justified, and finally because their actions produce either repression with nothing in return or an authoritarian regime."


by repost
Saturday Feb 26th, 2005 3:13 PM


In pursuing such a policy the U.S. power elite has replicated the tactics and conditions more typically imposed on its colonies abroad. First, there is the matter of "grey and black propaganda" through which U.S. covert agencies, working hand in glove with the mainstream media, distort or fabricate information concerning the groups they have targeted. The function of such a campaign is always to deny with plausibility public sympathy or support to the groups in question, to isolate them and render them vulnerable to physical repression or liquidation.

by repost
Saturday Feb 26th, 2005 5:09 PM

"For 20 years, the Animal Liberation Front made headlines and controversy across the country. Now, for the first time the full range of thinking underlying ALF's often daring actions is set forth, both philosophically and practically, and in the clearest possible terms. For those with an even passing interest in the animal rights movement, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? is an exceedingly important book. Its editors are to be commended for assembling it."

-- Ward Churchill
author of
A Little Matter Of Genocide

The first anthology of writings on the history, ethics, politics and tactics of the Animal Liberation Front, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? features both academic and activist perspectives and offers powerful insights into this international organization and its position within the animal rights movement. Calling on sources as venerable as Thomas Aquinas and as current as the Patriot Act—and, in some cases, personal experience—the contributors explore the history of civil disobedience and sabotage, and examine the philosophical and cultural meanings of words like “terrorism,” “democracy” and “freedom.” This is a provocative book that challenges the values and assumptions that pervade our culture. Contributors include Rod Coronado, Karen Davis, Karen Dawn, Bruce Friedrich, Kevin Jonas, pattrice jones, Ingrid Newkirk, Tom Regan, Kim Stallwood, Paul Watson, Robin Webb, Freeman Wicklund, Gary Yourofsky, and many others with a forward by Ward Churchill.

by heard it before
Saturday Feb 26th, 2005 7:45 PM
that his renowned knack for historical scholarship doesn’t guarantee he has the suss to make correct political value judgments or to hold reasonable opinions.
by snip of the day
Saturday Feb 26th, 2005 8:22 PM
Anarchism and consensus go together like hot vegan soup and a good day-old bagel.
-- Chris Crass

he continues on Anarchism and Vegetarianism:

Food Not Bombs groups serve all vegetarian and vegan food as a political act against the meat and diary industries and to promote ecological sustainability, equal distribution of food and resources throughout the world, human health, and animal liberation. The commitment of FNB groups to these issues has lead to long lasting coalitions with groups like Earth First, the Save Ward Valley Coalition, the Save Headwaters Forest Coalition, and many other environmental groups as well as animal liberation groups. Anarchism challenges the exploitation and domination of the earth that is characteristic of capitalist expansion. Anarchism attempts to not only change the relationships of humans to each other, but also of humans to the earth and environment.

by omnivore
Sunday Feb 27th, 2005 12:43 AM
So neither meat eating or vegetarianism are anarchist positions. What we’re talking about here are individual life style choices and personal tastes, not about anarchism or anarchist theory.

Anarchists come from a number of communities, some of whom overlap at no other point except the anarchism of some individuals within them. Some anarchists are doctrinaire pacifists. Others carry guns. Some are devoutly religious. Others are militant atheists. Some are hunt saboteurs. Others hunt. Some are willing to collaborate with statists under certain conditions. Others are not even willing to collaborate with each other. A few can’t even seem collaborate with themselves. Some of them hate each other. Others are in love. Nothing on earth is going to please all of us at once.

by it certainly is
Sunday Feb 27th, 2005 3:26 AM
It's about how anarchist theory plays out in one's daily life, not random or irrelevent-to-anarchism "lifestyle" choices. What you eat is a choice on who you give your money to and what you are chosing to support with that money, which is far more political than, say, how you comb your hair or your favorite band.

Anarchism isn't just about how you organize with your own collectives but how you relate towards the larger culture as an individual as well, especially in regard to power structures you likely have minimal control over. How does one chose to *apply* anarchist theory across the board? What systems do you chose to support or not support as you live your life?

While you might disagree, many anarchists clearly extend anarchist theory to include what foods they chose to take into their bodies. The the food industry currently is dominated by mega corporate factory farms. These anarchists chose to buy out and not play a role in subsidizing the corporations that pollute both human and environmental health, not to mention the wanton corporate exploitation of animals.

Of course, not every anarchist will interpret anarchism in lock-step with eachother, but that in and of itself does not mean issues not directly relating to how one organizes with cohorts are irrelevent to anarchism and anarchist theory.

by for real
Sunday Feb 27th, 2005 9:34 PM
I'm sorry, but if this bookfair is allowing materials promoting the "freedom" to rape children while banning revolutionary literature that recognizes politics as a reality is a fucking joke that's not even funny.

Anarchism will never be generalized outside of your little self-righteous ghettos because "authority" isn't the problem you adolescent goofs. Class society is the problem. Male domination of women is the problem. Capitalism, white supremacy and empire. Or, apparently, age of consent laws in some quarters.

That Bound Together books continues to stock material promoting NAMBLA because there are a few members who the store depends on -- and while Peter Lamborn Wilson aka Hakim Bey holds up on the East Coast at Autonomedia -- anarchism's claim to be some more ethical and better system gets shown for the bullshit it is. You want freedom? Let Hakim Bey babysit YOUR KIDS.

Further, the use of non-anarchists to bring people in strikes me as opportunist. Why don't you just put John Zerzan, Peter Lamborn Wilsom and Chuck Munson on stage and we'll all get a good picture of the information nodes of contemporary anarchism.

Nah, invite Marxists like Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and ban communists from distributing literature. Let anarchists like [no names, but you know] who supported campaigning for John Kerry hold court, but forbid anyone who actually has the same politics as those heroic revolutionaries in the Third World you like to put up on your wall.

People who would not be allowed to run booktables because they are "authoritarian:"

Che Guevara
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King
WEB DuBois
Big Bill Haywood
Ceasar Chavez
Hugo Chavez
Rosa Luxemborg
Mao Zedong
Ho Chi Minh
Amilcar Cabral
Huey Newton

and so on and so on.

But you'll pimp their movements to gain adherents and then talk about how you got "betrayed." You know what the Russian revolution gave anarchists? They gave Emma Goldman political exile and a job. They gave Prince Peter Kropotkin a pension. And they gave those anarchists who waged a terror war to deny food to the cities (under workers' control) in the midst of a famine defeat. Nessie can call that "stacking them in pits," but more anarchists joined the Bolsheviks than were killed by them. And ask a Spanish nun about the generosity of anarchists when they have the run of a country.

I'm fucking sick of it. This country is semi-fascist and all you anarchist yahoos are more concerned with enabling pedophiles than engaging a serious discussion about what we're going to do. There are lots of good folks hanging out wasting time in the anarchist scene and those of you who plan do to something for real had better wise up.

Anarchism is a subculture for embarassed liberals, vegetarian fanatics and people who are religious but don't believe in god. You aren't going anywhere. Your movement hasn't had shit to say since 911 and you continue to spread bullshit repititions of the capitalist party line on communism, the true American Religion -- but you're so radical!

Please. By the way, I won't be going to circle jerk because you ban literature about the world we actually live in while allowing child-rapers the run of your bookstores and conferences.

Best of luck. You'll need it.
by again
Sunday Feb 27th, 2005 9:40 PM
"Anarchists come from a number of communities, some of whom overlap at no other point except the anarchism of some individuals within them. Some anarchists are doctrinaire pacifists. Others carry guns. Some are devoutly religious. Others are militant atheists. Some are hunt saboteurs. Others hunt. Some are willing to collaborate with statists under certain conditions. Others are not even willing to collaborate with each other. A few can’t even seem collaborate with themselves. Some of them hate each other. Others are in love. Nothing on earth is going to please all of us at once."

Then how come EVERY time I see anarchists they are all white (with a splash of non-black color), OVERWHELMINGLY from the upper middle-class, young, profoundly ignorant about the rest of the world and generally self-aborbed and moralist egoists? Like Max Stirner and so on.

You know what, I give up. Go stink up the conference center and get food poisoning from the garbage you eat. As a movement, you have decided you don't give a fuck that the rest of us have to work and can't bear this system. Go be free and eat garbage and smell like it. Keep on telling everyone else in the world how full of shit they are while you have NOTHING to show for yourselves. Keep talking about how great the Zapatistas are with their cult of peronality around Marcos and inability to change Mexico. Keep it up.

At this point, you're only wasting your potential.

(In case anyone missed it, I am really pissed that this shit is still happening after years. But this NAMBLA stuff is just too much. Child-raping is cool, politics is "authoritarian.")
by well
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 12:05 AM
"how come EVERY time I see anarchists they are all white (with a splash of non-black color)"

There are anarchists in Africa and many other countries and cultures. US Anarchists is faced with a problem that with a lack of real definition and some new ideologies (like primitivism and some pagan groups) using the anarhcist name, Anarchist has come to mainly mean a subculture. Popculture driven subcultures are segregated along educational, economic and racial lines mainly due to the way different music styles and the like are marketed by large corporations.
by aaron
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 9:06 AM
<<Most American anarchists are white because most Americans are white.>>

Do you *really* believe that explains it, Nessie?

by since you asked
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 9:28 AM
But the main factor is time. Anarchism is still growing. Someday, everyone will be an anarchist. Be patient. A revolution is not an insurrection. Revolutions take time. The agricultural revolution. for example, took thousands of years, and still hasn’t caught on everywhere. We are in a protracted struggle, and must conduct ourselves accordingly.

But the anarchist movement would grow and spread a lot faster if certain self centered loud mouths stop alienating the rest of the world by proclaiming their own personal lifestyle choices to *be* anarchism. It’s counter productive, counter revolutionary and obnoxious. As long as people continue to first encounter anarchism in the form of bohemian cultural chauvinists who insist on a life style litmus test, the movement will continue to grow at less than full potential

We need to learn to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. Eschew the onerous ignominy of gratuitous self restriction. Realize our full potential. This is a multicultural planet with multicultural problems. Only multicultural solutions can address them. No single culture, let alone subculture, has all the answers. Neither does any single subculture speak for the anarchist movement, let alone for humanity. The patently absurd notion that such a thing is even possible is an obstacle which must be overcome.
by again
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 9:40 AM
From what I can see, anarchist define themselves by their lack of interest in actually accomplishing anything except having a scene. To achieve real goals is to engage in poltiics and to engage in politics is inherently authoritarian.

Of course, there are also the scads of so-called anarchists who are really just young social-democrats. They say they are against "power," but then tell us to go vote for Kerry. That's cool, I guess. But what's not cool to them is the idea that working people can govern. That's taboo, beyond the pale -- impossible. And then they can't understand why their movement is defined by middle-class dropouts.

There are not anarchists in Africa. Except in South Africa where they are the same kind of white middle-class dropouts they are in the Bay. Saying that people who live off the grid are "anarchist" is patronizing and not true. Anarchism is an ideology that rejects state power (while abdicating responsibility).

Further, the idea that communists have slaughtered anarchists is just ahistorical bullsh*t. I know the fanatical anticommunist crowd likes to crow on and on about it, but I'll ask every anarchist out there if they have ever been a victim of communist inspired violence and they will say no. Because they haven't. Communists don't define themselves by the hatred of anarchists. They don't ban anarchist literature from their bookstores (see Revolution Books) and they don't ban anarchists from their events. Far from it. In fact, every time I see a listing for a communist-linked event on Indymedia, it is followed by shitloads of flames about "authoritarianism." How come it's never really the other way around?

It's not just the "loudmouths." It's the quiet aquiesence of most anarchists to the redbaiting, historical revisionism (courtesy of capitalist education and media) and general nastiness.

Here we are, years after 911 and the anarchists have done jack shit in years except hate on all the people (overwhelmingly socialist/communist) who have built every major formation against the war. Only in the Bay have anarchists played a significant role -- and even then it is under the political direction of socialists whether you can accept that or not.

Anarchists would be defeated even if most people thought like you, which they don't. I want a state to tax the rich and redistribute wealth, carry out reparations for African-Americans and the victims of the world empire. That's not going to happen through volunteerism and "mutual aid." It will require "administration" and other things like that.

But anarchists don't care about all that because they openly admit they plan to accomplish NOTHING. That's what makes them anarchists. Listen to David Solnit. Read what he's actually saying. The rich will rule forever and we get puppets and bike rides, which are fine and all -- but who gives a shit really?

And again, that this bookfair would ban communists while allowing child-rapists to run tables in disgusting. You call that "freedom?" You get to "govern" one little auditorium and you're already burning books.
by how typical
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 9:49 AM
That's an easily disproven lie. How typical of Bolsheviks to lie to you. When you are sick of being lied to, find out the truth for yourselves. Don't take our word for it. Find out for yourselves. And never, never, never take a Bolshevik's word for anything. A Bolshivek's word plus a dollar buys one cup of coffee, no more. Fools trust the Bolsheviks, nobody else.
by Bolshevik
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 10:12 AM
It's a lie? Why don't any concerned people call Bound Together Books, the oldest and most important anarchist bookstore on the entire Pacific coast and ask if they stock NAMBLA materials?

Their number is: 415.431.8355

Then ask why communists are banned from offering literature.

Anticommunist assholes can rant on and on about "liars" -- but note who is being censored, who is doing the censoring -- and who is being promoted.

Bound Together has pro-pedophile people as long time "volunteers." If they were to leave the store would shut down, so no one stands up to them.

Lie? Call and ask.

Anarchists say "child-raping is a temporary autonomous zone" and some don't. But who cares when accountability itself is an authoritarian concept.

And you thought commies were 'sectarian'
by truth says
Monday Feb 28th, 2005 10:29 AM
"It's a lie? Why don't any concerned people call Bound Together Books, the oldest and most important anarchist bookstore on the entire Pacific coast "
you are trippin. Left Bank beats bound together as the oldest @ collective bookstore on the pacific coast. They are extra cool cause they ran a distro company until recently.
I hate to tell people this but lenin just like jesus, killed children and drank their blood, that is how is was preserved for so long. A steady flow of counter revolutionary children's blood does a body good, even a dead one.
by update
Tuesday Mar 1st, 2005 10:20 AM
Lynn Breedlove, chief singer and songwriter for infamous dyke-punk band Tribe 8, has been performing throughout the U.S., Canada, and Europe for over a decade. She currently teaches at the Harvey Milk Institute in San Francisco,where she lives. Her first novel, Godspeed, is not your average drug redemption story, but it’s obviously based on her own experiences as an addict in past years, and that’s what makes it so compelling and real.
by Christine
Monday Mar 7th, 2005 8:05 AM
its awful cynical for you to think the bookfair is just about buying shit and looking cool.
im coming to the bookfair from a small town where there arent a lot of resources.
its really important for us all to come together and see what we are all up to, espicalily for people isolated in small towns. And shit! whats wrong with buying books that can teach you something.
The bookfair is a place to go and realize there are a ton more people doing really cool work too, and to maybe even learn something cool or open yer eyes a little more than they were the day before. DUH!
by infoplease
Tuesday Mar 8th, 2005 6:13 PM
Where can I get info about the bookfair to distribute?
by pointer
Tuesday Mar 8th, 2005 8:10 PM

Feel free to send that URL to all your friends.
by .
Wednesday Mar 9th, 2005 8:00 AM
by like date, time, exact location, etc
(savefreedom-owner [at] Friday Mar 11th, 2005 8:23 AM
The organizers/publicizers of SF's Anarchist Book Fair do a poor job of actually providing the public with basic facts, like:
Date (not shown on poster, which doesn't even say 2005).
Time (not shown on poster).
Exact location (within GG Park, one source says SF County Fair Building (the usual location), while another says Hall of Flowers Pavilion
(is this a new name for the same building, or the Conservatory of Flowers, or what?); while the poster doesn't even mention the park,
let alone which building. [One source even referred to "Golden Gate State Park", apparently not knowing that GG Park is a city park...]
In recent years, designers of the annual SF bookfair poster have been concerned to make it attractive (at least for nostalgia fans), but have neglected the most basic info; and have neglected to provide URL for full info.
Does this indicate an in-group mentality; like, "everyone" who really counts is already getting this info from certain lists; so why bother to inform outsiders?
Meanwhile, I have wasted about an hour on trying to get the basic info;
which should have taken seconds; so I could include info in the SUN calendar, to post on the IndyBay queer page & at my 2 yahoogroups.

could somebody
PLEASE SEND FULL (+ accurate) INFO soonest
to me--

savefreedom-owner [at]


by io
Friday Mar 11th, 2005 9:30 AM
What will happen when the protest warriors show up to harrass people.
by deanosor
(deanosor [at] Friday Mar 11th, 2005 9:36 AM
If the Protest warriors showup, with all the different types of anarhcsits around, some of them will kick their ass.
by should boycott the fair and bookstore!
Friday Mar 11th, 2005 9:42 AM
You don't have to join Bound Together or their fair committee as the previous comment suggests to make a difference.

Just don't shop at their bookstore and don't go to the bookfair. With your help, one day Bound Together will appreciate the repugnance of collaborating with NAMBLA and stop enabling them to destroy children's lives.

NAMBLA does not represent just another oppressed social movement and it's not about advocating for teenagers' right to have sex as they will mislead you to believe. NAMBLA openly advocates for sex between adult men and prepubescent boys and they have a history of convicted pedophiles in their ranks.

There's plenty of other places to get great anarchist literature that aren't joined at the hip with pedophiles.

Boycott the fair and the bookstore until Bound Together stops peddling NAMBLA's pro-pedophile materials. Spread the word.
by io
Friday Mar 11th, 2005 10:00 AM
Yes, that is what I was thinking. In past years it has been the nicest event, with hardly anyone with a problem, and I have met dozens of people and picked up great titles. I am thinking of just bringing a video camera, plus my voice recorder. For various Berkeley events (such as this one where J saved the day with his camera when the police seized the indymeida guy's camera ) video evidence has been able to sort everything out, plus people can have fun filming each other and acting for the camera.
by Robert Capa
Friday Mar 11th, 2005 4:30 PM
>a short walk over to the San Francisco County Fair Bldg at the north edge of the park to FREEP the Anarchists

What a great opportunity to take some more pics of these guys to flesh out our data base. Hopefully some of them will be stupid enough to drive so we can get license plate numbers, too.
by peter
(peter.pAn.archy [at] Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 2:47 AM
After reading the posts above, between the divisiveness and the mudslinging, I'd like to bring up the concept of people differring on lifestyle and social organizational choices. The basic ideal of communism is not far off from anarchy, but the communists insits on the socialist state. The alternative anarchists can provide, is a way to the free classless society- with progression towards ending all forms of domination; while allowing all perspectives to flourish. Not ruling out communes, or socialist havens, or other free places where people can organize as they choose.
I may dislike what the anarchists in san francisco are like, and I may disagree with them, but that would be irrellevant. I dont live in SF, and I don have to relate to them. But we all, no matter where we are, have to breath the fumes of Exxon, we have to see out neighbors off to war, we have militarized cops in our cities, we have a common enemy- and it is not the wide variety of people who live on this planet. It is those with power, and those who dominate others. titles aside, we need to have a revolution. Can I get a little solidarity?

by anarchist
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 8:17 AM
History has shown us conclusively that solidarity with Bolsheviks is suicidal. They talk a good line, they use us for pawns, then they stab us in the back. Never, not once, has it turned out later that they were telling us the truth. Not once. Not ever. Not one single time.

No, we are not fighting for the same things. Anarchists are fighting for a world without bosses. Bolsheviks are fighting for the boss's job. To get it they will lie, steal and murder wholesale. Then, when they get it, they lie, steal and murder even more.

Abandon murdering liars, Come over to our side. Be an equal, not a pawn.
by um
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 10:07 AM
"History has shown us conclusively that solidarity with Bolsheviks is suicidal. "
I was going to disagree with you but you use "Bolsheviks" rather than Communist so technically I would agree with you even thouggh I think the overall trend of Anarchists acting sectarian does a lot to destroy Anarchism's chances of ever spreading.

"Not once. Not ever. Not one single time."
Not sure what you mean by this. You could extend that to argument about history and just say that all movements tend to become corrupted and all groups tend to come to an end at some point. Communists who rose to power in the USSR were brutal, but its hard to find an example of any group rising to power and not being brutal. This is an argument against power and for Anarchism but looking at the power dynamic in Anarchist groups I really doubt that an Anarchist lead revolution would end any differently than a Communist, Social Democrat or Nationalist lead one. Its not a problem with Anarchism or Communism but with human group dynamics where control freaks who are overly concerned about security culture tend to rise to the top during wars since such skills are needed.

"No, we are not fighting for the same things."
I would disagree. You and hardcore brainwashed Communists are in a way fighting for the same thing in that its a utopian future that you will never see. But most members of Communist groups (and even many leaders of such groups) and most Anarchists are fighting for the exact same things. The "reformist" goals at the heart of most protests (Such as ending the war, ending police brutality, healthcare for the poor, better working conditions on the job, freeing political prisoners, ending Occupation, protecting a women's right to choose, stopping the destruction of the environment) are the actual things most activists are fighting for not stepping stones on the way to a Communist or Anarchist future. People join groups with more stary-eyed goals since such groups are good at being consistent across issues and it prevents the need to find a new group every time a new issue arises. Most people choose to be an Anarchist of Communist solely based on the strugges the groups are fighting for now and just ignore the mystical talk about end times. When you really talk to most actvists you see the inconsistency between the groups core beliefs and the members beliefs (more in terms of such a future being possible rather than it beingh desirable). Such inconsistency results in a desire for less sectarian groups but since most groups quickly become sectarian themselves one ends up with what one has. If groups are too open about being reformist they becoime electoral and then get corrupted by compromises needed to get a majority) and if they are too anti-sectarian (like some Anarchist groups) that quickly becomes its own form of sectarianism.

"Anarchists are fighting for a world without bosses. Bolsheviks are fighting for the boss's job."
When it comes down to the reality of today there isnt much of a difference. One has Anarchist leaders who strong arm their collectives either through personality or manipulation and Communist leaders who do the same. Ive never been able to see a huge difference in power dynamics between Anarchist businesses or Anarchist organized events (with strong personalities like Starhawk, Solnit, and the more secretive people behind black-bloc type actions) and Communist organized events. Communist groups like ANSWER tend to invite you to help organize and then dont really give you much power wheras Anarchist groups are more likely to restrict the invitation to get the same result.

"To get it they will lie, steal and murder wholesale."
Now thats just a personal attack. Comparing ISO leaders to Lenin or NION leaders to Mao is about the same as comparing a local Anarchist leader to Qadaffi. It was power that corrupted the USSR and China and to equate the actions of government with small groups with little power makes no sense.

"Then, when they get it, they lie, steal and murder even more."
Are you really that worried about this? SF is one of the more left wing cities in the country and Gonzalez couldnt win becasue he was a Green. Are you really concerned that the WWP, the RCP or the ISO is going to take over SF (let alone the country) and oppress you?

"Abandon murdering liars, Come over to our side. Be an equal, not a pawn."
What is your side? Fighting against other activists whose immediate goals are the same as yours? Playing on paranoid dellusions about the dangers of Dick Becker and Medea Benjamin forcing their will on you after the revolution? Governments do fall but the end result tends to be determined by what the people or military want and in this country there doesnt seem to be aa strong Anarchist or Communist trend in the overall population or the armed forces. The military is becoming more opposed to the war but as one can see with the outcome in Argentina the loudest voices for radical change quickly get silenced by the overall views of society once the issue at hand is out of the way. Front groups are not as big a worry to most non-paranoids as they are to those out of touch with reality; people are smart enough to make alliances over specific issues and not go along with things they disgaree with once the issue they want to be dealt with is dealt with.
by bravo
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 10:21 AM
well put, um

I couldn't agree more -- all this bickering is ridiculous. you don't see this kind of shit and the right, and hence their ascendency of late

what is truely important is to focus on "the strugges the groups are fighting for now and just ignore the mystical talk about end times"
by another Bolshevik lie
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 10:32 AM
It is no more "sectarian" for anarchists to reject Bolshevism than it is to reject capitalism. In fact, it is precisely and exactly the same thing. Bolshevism isn't communism. It's state monopoly capitalism. You can call him a commisar or you can call him aa CEO, but he's still a boss. A boss is a boss is a boss. Down with them all.
by um
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 10:32 AM
"you don't see this kind of shit on the right,"

You do sometimes. The racist right-wing had an idea that an event like the OK City bombing would start a race war and the Christian right had a lot of crazed ideas about Jesus comming back that create divisions betwene sects (a lot of their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are tied to that). The idea that what really matters is some huge event (be it a revoution, the 2nd comming, the collapse of civilization...) is deeply rooted in Western cultures and goes back farther than Christianity.
by bravo
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 10:56 AM
any large group will have differences, but you've got moralistic creationists and amoral greedheads teamed up quite effectively now

just imagine if end-time communists and anarchists could put aside their differences for the betterment of the here and now and show a unity that is bound to attract others into new actions for change

perchance to dream
by Just wondering
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 11:08 AM
I'm curious
by deanosor
(deanosor [at] Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 11:25 AM
Where do people get the idea that Qadaffi, the Leader of the Nation-state of Libya is an anarchist? Because his book is green, insted of being red, or red white and blue? Because at some time in the past he quoted Bakunin? I mean even George Bush talks about freedom and liberty and Adolph Hitler was avegetarian (maybe). I don't even believe that their is bourgeois civil liberites in Libya. (Please tell me i'm wrong, i've been thinking of places to emigrate to.)
by bravo
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 11:57 AM
speaking to um's point, an end-time communist would be those focused solely on the great worker's revolution and the abolition of private property and so forth to the detriment of action on more pressing and current issues

likwise, an end-time anarchist would be one who focuses strictly on building collectives, destroying heirarchies, and so forth, placing the great future anarchist society ahead of more pressing and current issues

today's-time anarchists and communists, to take it a bit further, can focus on their long term and short term goals at the same time, without a rigid either/or perspective, and be able to build alliances in the short term with those who maybe envision the mythical and utopian end-time differently

I think most communists and anarchist's are probably today's-time anarchists but there are definitely rigid hold-outs, locked in their ideological dogma, that do a disservice to oppressed peoples everywhere

by um
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 3:21 PM
"Where do people get the idea that Qadaffi, the Leader of the Nation-state of Libya is an anarchist? "

Where do people get the idea that Stalin the Leader of the nationalist state with hierarchy was a Communist? There have not been that many self-proclaimed Anarchist "states" that have lasted so one cant use past corruptions for the same form on demonization thats done against Communists, but Libya is sortof an example since it claims to be run by popular assemblies with no leader even though thats not remotely true.
by Super Bowlshevism
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 5:06 PM
"It is no more "sectarian" for anarchists to reject Bolshevism than it is to reject capitalism."

Capitalism is the system we are forced to live under today. Bolshevism was a movement in Russia almost 100 years ago that became corrupt and eventually created a USSR that didnt resemble anything close to any Communist's ideal.
Stalin was a horrible person but I cant really see Gloria LaRiva, or Bob Avakian ever having enough power to even get their own talk radio show, let along line you up against the wall and shoot you. I really doubt they would be corrupted by power in that way if they did gain power but worrying about something that will never happen is a waste of time and energy (especially when it creates divisions in movements that exist today)
by kick the capitalists in the balls
Thursday Mar 24th, 2005 9:10 PM
2nd Annual BADASS (Bay Area Direct Action Soccer Series) Tournament 2005 presents:

West Bay vs. East Bay All-Star Anarchist Soccer Showdown!
March 26th, 2pm @ Golden Gate Park during the Anarchist Bookfair (by the SF County Fair Building, near 9th ave & Lincoln Way)


The second annual BADASS Tournament will feature local bay area anarchists who will be busy during the Anarchy Week in the San Francisco Bay Area in March 2005. The BADASS Tournament aims to provide a fun outlet every year for many anarchists who will gather in the Bay Area in mid-March to attend the various annual events such as the Anarchist Cafe, the Bound Together Anarchist Bookfair, and the BASTARD Anarchist Conference.

An all-star roster of players from last years inaugural tournament are expected to be split into teams representing San Francisco and the East Bay.

To get on the East Bay team, contact anarchosoccer [at]
To get on the San Francisco team, contact moxie [at]

The tournament is scheduled to take place on Saturday, March 26th at 2pm in San Francisco during the Anarchist Bookfair in Golden Gate Park. Exact details of the matches will be announced on
by embarrassed by my own beliefs
Friday Mar 25th, 2005 12:09 AM
Bolshevism was a movement in Russia almost 100 years ago that became corrupt and eventually created a USSR that didnt resemble anything close to any Communist's ideal.
Stalin was a horrible person but ....bla,bla,bla.......

sounds wonderful so far...
so why are so many people from Communist countrys comming here, even illegally sneaking in. if Communison is so wonderful we would be going there.
by ?
Friday Mar 25th, 2005 12:13 AM
why are so many people from Anarchistt countrys comming here?
by well
Friday Mar 25th, 2005 12:39 AM
"why are so many people from Communist countrys comming here, even illegally sneaking in"

Do you mean China? Its about as Capitalist a country as one can find.
by Solidarity
Friday Mar 25th, 2005 2:32 PM
Peter, you get solidarity from me. I like your post. I hate it when people put up such mean posts for no reason. That's one of the bad things about the Internet, people can put up whatever they like because they know nobody will see their posts.

Can you explain to me what anarchy stands for ? And why some anarchists are different from others? thanks!

by Mike Renzulli
Sunday Apr 3rd, 2005 4:51 PM
Hello All,

My name is Mike Renzulli and I am a fellow anarchist from Arizona. In a post at IndyBay for the Anarchist Book Fair in Frisco, one participant said:

"I don't even believe that their is bourgeois civil liberites in Libya. (Please tell me i'm wrong, i've been thinking of places to emigrate to.)"

It just so happens that presently Somalia is in a state of anarchy. It has no central government, two of its northern regions have declared themselves independent states while the southern party of Somalia (which is government-free) exists in a state of pure anarchy. As a result, the World Bank has grudgingly admitted in a study they did that Somalia boasts the best infrastructure of any African country.

There is a website dedicated to this whos address is: The African Union is on the verge of invading the country to re-establish a government there. When word of this got out, people BY THE THOUSANDS were protesting it. With guns freely available there, don't expect the local populace to take an invasion lightly.

Anyway, you all find this of interest. Please let your friends know about the website and conditions in Somalia too.

Mike Renzulli
by cp
Monday Apr 4th, 2005 8:53 AM
Wow. I hadn't heard about Somalia from that perspective before; all one hears about is Darfur and arab groups that had a traditional nomadic lifestyle murderously clashing with agricultural peoples in the south.
by cp
Tuesday Apr 5th, 2005 7:08 AM
oop, of course darfur is in Sudan.
by joey
Friday Dec 9th, 2005 5:22 PM
Would paying others to rape others be an anarchist position. certainly there are limits to how we speak about anarchism. How can an anarchist allow for blatant specieisism and exploitation of other individuals because they are non-human. Do we want to say that individuals who continually do things which go against even the very broad principles of anarchism (extreme domination) are anarchists, and if so then could george bush not be an anarchist? there will have to be lines and paying for individuals to be tortured, indeed often eating thier bodies or things taken form thier bodies, and then killed seems to be something that anarchist would not allow. If i paid for your friends to be tortured becaue i got a tasty snack could i still be called an anarchist?

by anarchist
Friday Dec 9th, 2005 7:56 PM
will be held at the usual place, on March 18.

Speakers confirmed so far:

Katya Komisaruk

Bo Brown

Liz Highleyman

Ward Churchill

by .
Saturday Dec 10th, 2005 10:41 AM
Weren't those the same speakers as last year?
by standtaker
Saturday Dec 10th, 2005 11:27 AM
it's about prevention: calling to task those who advocate for child sexual abuse (NAMBLA), those who peddle it and deny responsibility for the harm caused by child rape (Bound Together), and those who might be willing to overlook the very real harm caused by pedophiles and the NAMBLA-BT connection (patrons of the store and the fair)

and what exactly is the "good reason" BT members have for defending the pedophilia advocates? they've know it pisses people off for years, some of it's own members past or present are even "uncomfortable" with it, and yet NAMBLA gets to continue promoting their sickeness at Bound Together bookstore. you think if those who actively take a stand against child sexual abuse just asked nicer that BT would kick NAMBLA to the curb? pretty please with sugar on top? I seriously doubt it.

someone there believes there is a value to allowing NAMBLA to promote itself in the bookstore. it's probably more than just one person or the collective would stand up and say "no" to pedophilia once and for all. of course, no reason has been offered as to what that value is, just ad hominems against those who dare say peep about the store's contribution to pedophilia, so the only logical conclusion is that there are pedophiles working at BT and they believe in the promotion of pedophilia to the public at large in order to grow their ranks and/or to win sympathy for their exploitation of children

BT will not respond to rational debate or niceties, but talk of boycotting these allies of NAMBLA seems to get a rise out of them

Boycott Bound Together and the book fair until they kick NAMBLA to the curb!! Otherwise, you're a part of the problem of child sexual abuse, plain and simple.
by Book Fair Committee
Saturday Dec 10th, 2005 1:39 PM
Actually, this is not true, We gave our reasons. The editors here hid them, that's all. Apparently they don't want you to read a defense of their own participation in the Book Fair. This is a totally incoherent analysis on their part, but not unexpected. Incoherence is their schtick.

But not to worry. You can read our reasons anyway. Just click the link given above:

They're all in there, and have been for a year.
by anarchist
Tuesday Dec 13th, 2005 10:35 AM
The only principles that can truly be called "anarchist principles" are those which are agreed upon by *all* anarchists. They include equality, democracy, free association, mutual aid and diversity. They do not include veganism. Not all anarchists are vegans. Most anarchists are not vegans. Ergo, veganism is not an anarchist principle.
by bound together
Tuesday Dec 13th, 2005 7:16 PM
If someone can post the list of Bound Together "volunteers"- I'll run it by the Meagan's List database- and the FBI wanted files- we can check and see if any of the NAMBLA members are wanted for any crimes.

In solidarity AGAINST child rapists
by volunteer
Tuesday Dec 13th, 2005 9:50 PM
The Feds know who we are and all about us, including where we live, what we drive and who we talk to on the phone and the internet. If any of us had warrants for anything, they would have been served long ago. None of us are NAMBLA members, either.

This pathetic attempt at a smear job is straight out of COINTELPRO. We've heard it before. Sexually related slander against activists is old as the hills. Consider, for example, the case of Jean Seberg who was driven to suicide by the FBI's lie that she was pregnant, not by here husband, but by one of the Black Panthers whose cause she had so publicly supported:

See also:

Security Practices and Security Culture

From "COINTELPRO: The Danger We Face"


During the 60s, activists received a steady flow of anonymous letters and phone calls which turn out to have been from government agents. Some . . . charged various leaders . . . sexual affairs with other activists' mates, etc. As in the Seberg incident, inter-racial sex was a persistent theme. The husband of one white woman involved in a bi-racial civil rights group received the following anonymous letter authored by the FBI:

"Look, man, I guess your old lady doesn't get enough at home or she wouldn't be shucking and jiving with our Black Men in ACTION, you dig? Like all she wants to integrate is the bedroom and us Black Sisters ain't gonna take no second best from our men. So lay it on her man -- or get her the hell off [NAME]."

--A Soul Sister


by pointer
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 1:19 AM
The 11th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Book Fair speakers confirmed to date are:

Liz Highleyman (writer, editor, and health educator)

Katya Komisaruk (author of Beat The Heat)

Bo Brown (ex George Jackson Brigade)

Ramor Ryan (author of forthcoming Clandestines: The Pirate Journals Of An Irish Exile)

Ward Churchill (author of lots of stuff)

Chaz Bufe (translator, and editor, of Dreams Of Freedom: Ricardo Flores Magon Reader)

Joe Biel (Microcosm Press)
by update
Saturday Dec 31st, 2005 1:42 PM
Michelle Tea confirmed,
by book fair committee
Sunday Feb 26th, 2006 12:46 PM
Katya Komisaruk (author of Beat The Heat)

Bo Brown (ex George Jackson Brigade)

Ward Churchill (author of lots of stuff)

Chaz Bufe (translator, and editor, of Dreams Of Freedom: Ricardo Flores Magon Reader)

Joe Biel (Microcosm Press)

Michelle Tea (author, editor, activist)

Diane DiPrima (poet)

Ron Sakolsky (author of Creating Anarchy, editor of numerous books, including Seizing The Airwaves and Gone To Croatan)

Josh Macphee (stencil artist, curator, and author, most recently of Stencil Pirates)

Mat Callahan (author of Trouble With Music, founder of Komotion - the performance space, recording studio, and audio magazine)
by update
Monday Apr 3rd, 2006 10:27 AM

I just noticed that this link doesn't work any more. Use this one instead:

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 102.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network