Open letter to the Berkeley Anarchist Students of Theory And Research & Development
I'm writing with regards to your recent open letter to Bound Together Books, an excellent example of divisive passive aggression and defensive egotism used as a substitute for communication and problem resolution.
While the terms on which the bookfair was expanded might be problematic, it seems to me that those who value the bookfair as an "anarchist activity" (to borrow that phrase from your open letter) would see this expansion as an overall success-perhaps a cause for celebration-and an opportunity, rather than cause to rally uninvolved people around the world into side-taking (which, if my experience as a radical is any indication, is the most likely overall result), apparently without ever having attempted to resolve the problem privately.
Open involvement and accountability doesn't mean that every disagreement needs to be aired publicly, much less in this manner. Your prose reeks of hurt egos more than any kind of air of concern for the advancement of anarchism, or justice, or anything really besides your particular organization's particular event.
What really strikes me is that your organization has evidently done some brainstorming about how to make this change work, perhaps even to the advantage of both your event and the bookfair. But you have precluded any such cooperation or adjustment on the basis that your collective feelings were hurt. My initial reaction was to respond, "move your event a day later and get over it." But I felt this obnoxious response might make my point better.
Has Bound Together refused to communicate on this issue? It's strange that your open letter falls short of making such an accusation, but leaves it implicit between the lines. It would seem, to a reader who isn't careful and suspicious, that BASTARD has attempted to communicate with Bound Together and resolve your outstanding objections, yet nowhere in the open letter is this explicitly claimed. In fact, such a refusal to negotiate is somewhat implicit in the tactic of an open letter-a tactic intended to reveal, to a broader public than is immediately involved in a given affair, that the target of the letter is stubbornly blocking some sort of compromise in that affair, where the target would be swayed by such exposure and resulting response.
Ironically, your letter ends with a somewhat inspiring quote, at least within the context, that contradicts the spirit of your letter itself. Instead of bemoaning the apparent malicious exclusion of BASTARD from planning the bookfair, it praises Bound Together (and others) for doing the necessary year-round work to make this expansion possible. What a shame, indeed.
While the terms on which the bookfair was expanded might be problematic, it seems to me that those who value the bookfair as an "anarchist activity" (to borrow that phrase from your open letter) would see this expansion as an overall success-perhaps a cause for celebration-and an opportunity, rather than cause to rally uninvolved people around the world into side-taking (which, if my experience as a radical is any indication, is the most likely overall result), apparently without ever having attempted to resolve the problem privately.
Open involvement and accountability doesn't mean that every disagreement needs to be aired publicly, much less in this manner. Your prose reeks of hurt egos more than any kind of air of concern for the advancement of anarchism, or justice, or anything really besides your particular organization's particular event.
What really strikes me is that your organization has evidently done some brainstorming about how to make this change work, perhaps even to the advantage of both your event and the bookfair. But you have precluded any such cooperation or adjustment on the basis that your collective feelings were hurt. My initial reaction was to respond, "move your event a day later and get over it." But I felt this obnoxious response might make my point better.
Has Bound Together refused to communicate on this issue? It's strange that your open letter falls short of making such an accusation, but leaves it implicit between the lines. It would seem, to a reader who isn't careful and suspicious, that BASTARD has attempted to communicate with Bound Together and resolve your outstanding objections, yet nowhere in the open letter is this explicitly claimed. In fact, such a refusal to negotiate is somewhat implicit in the tactic of an open letter-a tactic intended to reveal, to a broader public than is immediately involved in a given affair, that the target of the letter is stubbornly blocking some sort of compromise in that affair, where the target would be swayed by such exposure and resulting response.
Ironically, your letter ends with a somewhat inspiring quote, at least within the context, that contradicts the spirit of your letter itself. Instead of bemoaning the apparent malicious exclusion of BASTARD from planning the bookfair, it praises Bound Together (and others) for doing the necessary year-round work to make this expansion possible. What a shame, indeed.