TOTW: Book Clubs, Reading Groups, and Talking Shops.

Anarchist book clubs are still a thing, right? Who's been to one lately? While you were there sat in a circle with a book in your hand, did you learn anything about the text? About the other people there? About anarchism?

Was a good time had by all? Did anyone fight? What about? Who won?

Is there a difference between your local library bookclub and an anarchist bookclub, other than the books they read?

For people who've never had the good fortune of attending - what's stopped you? Location? Boredom? Nerves? Too busy with ATTACK?

All this and more is open to be discussed below, once you've done this week's reading.

There are 37 Comments

the last time i was in a reading group, we tried to read some entry anarchist texts (graeber, proudhon, goldman). it didn't really work out. felt like we never had the same group of people twice, and a marxist leninist kept trying to use it to recruit for his "fight for 15" side gig. i probably wouldn't join one again. i like reading and discussing books with others so i find this unfortunate.

'recruit for his "fight for 15" side gig'

This was a problem in my local group too, and not only with MLs. If people are there to recruit, be it for ff15 or the iww or whoever, it skews the entire focus. Kinda hard to prevent this from happening once word gets out that there's a relatively well attended regular event in town

Have not been to one. Did not see a flyer for one related to anarchism or any topic that interested during my time in college. University libraries are pretty much the only local libraries. You’d be surprised how even in an university much people aren’t interested in reading much. I did go to conferences about topics not related to anarchism. I did watch a video on youtube about a talk someone did on a bookstore about (lack of) local anarchist history. Same bookstore hosted a cryptofash guy speaking of hindu astrology (nothing fash about the talk, just the guy happens to be).
Maybe if I hanged around bookstores all day, lol. Loitering around in between the self-help and pulp fiction bestsellers, or maybe in front of the ghostwritten celebrity autobios. But why would I? I get books for free online, and coffee’s cheaper if I buy it on the supermarket and make it at home.

I’ve had interesting conversations (few and far apart; they’re often entertaining tho) at house parties or chill impromptu get togethers to hang around, which is far easier to get the people I know to get pumped for and attend than a book club, which could never happen.

and the plethora of podcasts and videos, some of them even content-rich, i wonder if folks would respond better to a group around those media. everyone knows i got a ton out of the reading group i was in for years, and reading definitely works for me, but it's hardly the only way to do this thing of choosing-a-kind-of-stimulus,-partaking-of-it,-then-f2f-discussing-with-other-more-or-less-like-minded-people.
and videos and audios can be done together, as much as (or even better than) reading can be.
just a thought.

Certainly!

It works great when it’s organic, when it’s something they already watch or want to watch as well like with “The Great Hack” recently, or “Black Mirror” when it came out etc. Basically stuff that isn’t anarchist, but touches on topics you could make anarchist comments towards. That way you don’t have to “give em homework”.
But I guess the purpose of a study group is more mutual learning and not indoctrination of “normies”.XD Certainly a gardening club or a car club serve that purpose better, and those exist.

Nowadays with so many series and youtube channels and podcasts people watch so many things they maybe hesitant to take up recommendations outside of their preferred platforms or genres of the moment. Everyone is on a diff episode binging series, that take up their whole time allotted for watching videos lol. People are more likely to end up watching the same series if there’s buzz around them.

Usually “the news” serve that role (of common media prompt for convo) by default tho. You end up small talking about the latest thing on the news cycle with everyone.

not something that even occurred to me tbh.
we learn from all kinds of things. including interacting with people who disagree with us. obviously we want to learn the kinds of things we want to learn (if we want to know more about what other anarchists think, we need to read/listen to/think about other anarchists) and it's less helpful to talk to normies about that. but at a certain point normies can have more valuable insights to a rounder understanding of a) how other people think, b) what're the weaknesses in our/your/one's analysis, c) etc i'm bored now. these are almost platitudes.
anyway. you'd still need some amount of intentionality, of course, and some kind of shared goal, but it doesn't have to be as serious/explicit as "this is an anarchist study group for developing our understanding of anarchy, anarchism, and anarchists, historically, contemporaneously, and in the future" (dum dum duuummmm).
just sayin'

oh, of course!

i was not accusing you, not saying that did occur to you, bit it did occur to me instead!
i was just blabbering about the topic, your comments are spot on.

here's what dot had to say about study groups...
i've been a part of various study groups over the decades, most notably one that has been on-going for over ten years. and i've thought a lot about what enables it to continue.
a.  a critical mass of people have to do the reading, but it can't be obligatory that everyone do it. this means having a core of (three? four?) people who come regularly, do the reading, and will talk about the reading. this tends to mean that shorter length pieces work better. books can be great, but unless someone who's really dedicated (ie will always do the reading, and speaks about the book knowledgeably even when no one else has read it) is spearheading a title, people's attention will wane.
b. a mix of readings. i don't think it matters that much what the readings are exactly, but some people like history, some people like theory, some people like fiction. every reading will not appeal to everyone, but a mix over time is important.
c. a critical mass of people have to be interesting to each other in a variety of ways (some people are politically interesting, some people are from different parts of the world, some people want to get laid, etc). people don't have to like each other, but they need to be curious about each other.
d. structure and culture -- the reading group i'm in now started out as a free school class, taught by someone of long standing in anarchist circles who's very opinionated and serious. when the class ended officially, people didn't want to stop meeting, so they continued. the original teacher is long gone now (although still stops in to talk about specific topics), and we continue. but this raises the point of creating a culture, which the class did. the class succeeded in bringing people together who were interested, the structure was clear (same day, same time, same place every week), and there was a teacher who was responsible for presenting ideas. all of that is a very strong, stable way to get people to engage and commit.
e. no requirement for attendance. again, since stability is also important, this means that there is a core group that wants to come every time (wants to = does, not talks about wanting to and doesn't). people have to be able to not come when they don't want to. although it's possible that required attendance for some months would be a way to help cement the date and time in people's heads/schedules.
other reading groups i've been in that i could call successful were mostly around groups recruiting people. so there was a clear agenda, they had things to say about the readings, and there were regular meetings. obviously the politics of that are fucked up, and i wouldn't have gone to them for long, but people had interesting conversations about the readings, and had things to think about when they left, which is ultimately what reading groups should be about, i think?
there's a tension about doing the reading. there are people who have enough life experience/reading/information/confidence that they can find interesting things to say without having done a specific reading. but most people have a much richer experience when they have actually read the reading (and are much more likely to be interesting to both themselves and others when talking about it, instead of things just off the top of their head). on the other hand, pushing hard for people to do the reading mostly just means that people won't show up if they haven't.
edit to add:
people should disagree with each other! i'm not just saying this as a chronically conflict-driven person (ha!), but without disagreement there is no engaging conversation. obviously the level and type of disagreement and the emotional punch behind it will vary.
practical tip for readings: either pick things that have some emotional resonance (thoughtful pieces on topical issues) or that a few people have emotional affinity with (some people feel passionately about the kronstadt rebellion, for example) from which lessons can be derived for today (like, why we don't work with commies, ;) ). philosophical or historical pieces have to be made relevant to people's lives and actions.
edit again (omg this answer may never stop):
the location is also a thing. meeting in a place that is neutral (not someone's house, and not overly affiliated with any one person or even maybe one political tendency) is probably really helpful for getting a mix of people. and if it can be free, that takes a significant if low key stressor out of the mix.
if the group lasts for a while, don't be afraid of having an inner circle. we get people who come in and complain about things like, "only some people get a certain kind of seating". (my thought has been that the different kinds of seating is not a bug but a feature. it's better to have different options for seating for those who want to participate less.) or they complain about in jokes, or whatever. whatever reading group lasts will have its own flavor. for its own purposes it might want to remain open to new people (i get a lot out of new people coming), but not seek to recreate itself for every person who's come for a month or two.
edit #1483
logistics about readings - afaict it's important to have access to the reading during the group (if people have different interpretations, or any interpretation, going back to the text helps avoid a circular empty conversation). that means either a print out or some gadget that holds the text. free seems to be more important than hard copy, but one way to be free(ish) is for someone to have access to a copy machine of some sort. preferably more than one person, actually.

tbh i fucking hate podcasts/videos. I feel readings leave more for interpretation and the type of people to write are better at communicating than the type of people to make other forms of digital media - by its nature more is absorbed into the setup and the editing and the tech. podcasts in particular are very hard to skim to gauge interest so I ahve to trust a blurb by the person(s) producing it

I listen to several podcasts daily while I do stuff. I think incorporating various methods of transmitting information is a great idea. I think I'll see if these types of meetings draw anybody.

I get this criticism. If we approach a book club rather as a study group, that does not only cover readings but also potential discussions on their contexts, in comparison with the current context, as well isolating and discussing the meaning of the concepts and issues involved; I find this can be way more stimulating and thought-provoking. That'd be closer to a new form of sociology that breaks free from the post-grad academic circle-jerks and all their carreerism.

Also free coffee, tea and snacks can be a plus, and a must. Free everything of course.

Some local anarcho social centers have been doing similar events for a few years (in Mtl), tho I ain't sure what were their flaws that made them disapear instead of becoming a tradition. Some people are more in the know than I am. But my guess is these spots weren't very comforting or easygoing to allow for fun and stimulating intercourse, while being open enough to allow all kinds of trendies and milieu surfers to shop ideas there without any deeper commitment.

Other than that... Reading, even moreso meetups around readings, are becoming a marginal, socially estranged activity. I'm myself struggling at reading on a regular basis. But that makes it appealing. You do that in a cafe, a food court or something, and this possibly could get you some unexpected (and positive) results. Withdrawing to private enclosed (and snitchy) spots may not have been the best idea... at least for reading groups. Anarchist discourse can easily take back the stage without even needing riots or activism.

(btw I'd be really up for this type of stuff, so if anyone wants to make this happen just contact me)

idk if anarchist reading groups are a thing any more tbh

huh? Oh what you're trying to say is that anarchist reading groups are not popular. Dot runs a reading group.

The thing i really hate about anarchist book culture is that it really just is going to continue to be a vector for a rigidly academic mindset, and all of the arrogance and mystique that's an almost necessary component. If people really lived in a more honestly authoritarian fashion, people would have to run further away from other people to read books, because the peace of a humanistic and capitalistic world would implode along with "sacred space", unless it was a zen-anarchy or something, or it was a town of ex-students who wanted to overthrow the state.

Contemplating anarchist reading groups is a very boring idea, it sounds like more implicit control through binaries, more keeping your voice down and waiting your turn to speak, more worrying about being perceived as a fascist, blah blah blah.

this comment was on another site, and i yanked it. it's old.
also, no one "runs" an anarchist study group...
also, the other stuff you said is weird too...

She also used to run a forum, so it's not terrible to assume that she played a leading role in a group she was a part of. I sometimes make assumptions about things to fill gaps in my minds, i don't feel like i need to apologize for that, especially when speaking helps me think.. Hypothetical anarchists groups are "run" by everyone in the group, some have more "dominance" and influence than others. Get it? Me saying dot has (had)

OH, and you calling me weird doesn't strike me as being useful for anyone's purposes, especially not yours. Maybe you could ask me to clarify something specific I said. OH wait, you probably thought the thing about eye contact was weird, but i don't really understand why anyone would think giving eye contact is weird. Staring is for sure, but sometimes eye contact just happens. Maybe if it's so FUCKING weird, you could read it again and maybe do some detective work on my typos. That's generally what i do when something makes an impression on me!

so chisel, you are pretty dedicated to helping out one of the few anarchist websites. Who are you? Why should I care about what you think?

I've spent a lot of time on this forum, the flaming definitely is one of the contributing factors to it being stupid.

said something you said was weird. it was also a toss off comment, just to note it but not worth going into more detail. didn't mean for you to take it as a marker of your self worth, or the worth of everything you've ever said here. (how would i know, after all, since you're anon?)...
i made the comment about dot-not-running because other people in the group would get *their* panties in a twist if no one corrected that misapprehension. so, twisted panties no matter what i do.
and if you call THAT flaming, then... congratulations?

what's the big deal bout weird anyway? only associate with weirdos, those are my people!

been known to be weird my own self. but don't tell anyone...

also defensive anon, what i thought was weird(est) was your final paragraph. for example, what about groups (much less anarchist ones) requires binaries or fascism? what an odd accusation to throw out there without explanation. and if this site is so stupid then why do you spend so much time here? people who talk shit about something they participate in don't seem to be acting very agency-ish to me. and surely our own agency is the bare minimum for naming ourselves anarchists?
but you don't sound like someone i want to engage in conversation with, so, i probably just put my foot in it.

wheee

counter criticisms to the weird things chisel has said, and they've all gotten erased. Celebrity bias much? I've been critical of that for a long time: Apparently when you criticize more popular anarchists who are "greater contributors", it's a punishable offense, when those people criticize you, then you're over-reacting if you don't like it. It sounds like how people criticize women for over-reacting to things all the time.

It's just proof that an anarchist society would be no less oppressive and bureaucratic than a non-anarchist society, and it's VERY strange that anarchists seem to think they are better than normies, or anti-authoritarians who don't call themselves anarchists.

But my other theory is just that today's internet society encourages people to be horrible listeners and communicators.

get used to it. Critiques are not helpful if they are overdone, there is no sacred anarchist criticism.

going off on any individual, especially when it is off-topic, will be removed.
your assumptions, per usual, are paranoid.
get off line and have a conversation with someone real. just a suggestion.

"Contemplating anarchist reading groups is a very boring idea, it sounds like more implicit control through binaries, more keeping your voice down and waiting your turn to speak, more worrying about being perceived as a fascist, blah blah blah."

That's just because of the culture you know of. Kinda like assemblies... they really aren't the same depending on where you are on the planet.

Last book group i was in we attempted to do Perlman's "Letters..." It was an uninspiring discussion, dominated by people that had known him, which had the.potential to be awesome, but ended up being lots of anecdotes about him and Lorraine, and less engaging with the text, which is too bad, as it is such a good book, and has lots of pieces that are potentially challenging to anarchist presumptions and moral constructs, but we never hit that to the depth i'd hoped, falling into surface analysis, semi-hagipgraphy, and reminiscences.

in reading groups, maybe the people most engaged could also think of it as an active form of education for the people who are less committed, as in, look the new comers in the eye to see if they really understand whats going on...and of course stop bothering them if they just aren't saying anything after doing that a couple times. Or, limit it entirely to paragraphs and poetry, the thing I've learned from being a writer is that concision is the most important rule. I really enjoyed leviathan...but i wasn't really too impressed by perlman's biography, seemed like a pretty normal "intelligent person" to me. HE LIKED TO TRAVEL. HE TAUGHT HIMSELF AN INSTRUMENT. This cult of personality bullshit has to fucking stop. I do enjoy learning about Renzo Novatore but that's because he just seemed so flamboyant, crazy, megalomaniacal....and his writing certainly reflected that.

my bets are that books are going to continue to be a source of alienation for the vast majority of people. They're still heavily associated with formal education, and that's the place where everyone firsts encounters them. My personal library is clearly a reflection of that.

And why are burnt out people going to pay money for books when they can pay less money for Netflix to hand them hours of seemingly real life experiences? People will certainly go back to books if the major normie institutions got rid of them!

wht happened to the bay area group at the Long Haul? Couldn't attend lately but noticed that the site went down and stuff? drama? conflict? technical issues?

a drinking club. a bottle each tuesday deink boozxe and aaahhhhhhhh you can break it or take it home

I want to start one but it's hard to find ppl interested in the stuff I want to read. Anyone in Portland interested in reading something besides boring workerist and antifa stuff from the 1920's?

I bet. Just put up flyers saying it’s an erotica centered bookclub.

Flyers saying gay socialist bookworms should do the trick, and fun also ;)

killing/abusing fascists and nazis...cool! It will keep them from saying dumb rascist stuff and sending us to concentration camps!

but is that what they do? No...they protest nazis and fascists, and the punk kid goes and fights them...at the risk of getting arrested...while the cops seem to have some wierd freudian connections to white supremascists...

idk why anarchists haven't killed themselves yet!!! I tried to but uh, didn't happen.

i organized and attended a local anarchist reading group for about 6 months. even with inconsistent attendance/attendees and the everpresent ML scourge, it was a lot of fun and everyone who came seemed to find something useful in the texts. the major problem i found, when contrasting it to the normie reading groups ive organized, was the perceived purpose of the group. some wanted to read the texts closely to understand the authors, viewpoints, and history of anarchist theory in order to discuss its relevance today. others just wanted to use the text as springboard to either ask pedestrian questions about anarchism ("but how will you feed yourself?" *cringe*) or to socialize with other local anarchists.

i think all of these purposes are worthwhile, but im not sure if a "reading group" is the best venue for all of them. in the end, whoever showed up decided the direction and purpose of the reading group that day. maybe this wasnt the most productive in terms of studying texts, but it certainly had its benefits.

#spore

Add new comment