Statement on the ban from the Anarchist Book Fair Amsterdam 2025 by OVS

Initially, we had no intention of making a statement or writing about the circumstances surrounding the ban of our new organisation Organisatie v. Vrij Socialisme (OVS) from Anarchist Book Fair Amsterdam 2025. However, as people approached us for more information, we decided it would be helpful to offer some clarification for other anarchists close to us and to prevent misunderstanding.

This year, we applied early for a stand and a workshop titled "Organized Anarchism”: History, Theory, and Practice in the Netherlands. Last year, after sending two emails, we did not hear anything back until the last moment, where we received an email saying the ABFA Collective were sorry but had missed our email and did not have any space left for us.

This year, they acknowledged our requests but stated that "the vision we want to promote clashes with the one OVS promotes." We do not understand how our "vision" clashes with theirs; all we have done so far is announcing that we are building an especifist/platformist organisation. We haven't launched yet, nor published our principles and positions.

After inquiry, they replied:

The Anarchist book fair Amsterdam wants to create an event where many different tendencies and currents are present since we really believe in the fundamental idea of diversity of tactics and diversity of strategies. It is in this light that OvVS won’t get a stand or workshop in the program since it follows a tendency that among other things rejects diversity of tactics and strategies.

First of all, we think it is important to host different tendencies; every anarchist book fair worthy of the name has a duty to facilitate this. We welcome a diversity of tactics within the anarchist movement; it is through experimentation and critical reflection that our movement can grow. Their rejection of us is therefore all the more peculiar.

We furthermore consider it hypocritical that the ABFA Collective has decided to ban our organisation because of our alleged rejection of "diversity of tactics and strategies" while they themselves, in their own words, are upholding and only permitting a "specific range of anarchist ideologies" based on their own conceptions. It is not us, but the ABFA Collective which is rejecting a diversity of tactics and strategies based on their own narrow conceptions. Our organisation adheres to classical anarchist principles and positions that can be historically traced back over 150 years to the roots of anarchism itself.

Upholding a "diversity of tactics and strategies" could be understood in multiple ways:

1) Anarchists are not allowed to critique each other's strategies and tactics.

2) Anarchists are not allowed to physically, materially, or violently obstruct other anarchist strategies and tactics.

3) Anarchists should uphold a diversity of tactics and strategies within their own organization.

We might be guilty on the first point, but let us consider the others.

Point 2: we are definitely not in favour of using violence, physical force, or material obstruction to block other anarchists, and we cannot imagine a situation in the future where this would be necessary. We would do everything in our power to prevent something like this from occuring.

Point 3: As we have pointed out to the organizers of the ABFA, within platformism and especifismo the emphasis is on establishing collective goals and developing appropriate strategies and tactics to achieve those goals. In this sense, platformism and especifismo take a different approach than loose “big tent” anarchist federations or independent affinity groups. The idea is that when our combined social force is concentrated on collectively agreed upon strategies, to be carried out by the whole organization, there is a better chance of achieving real social transformation.

This requires individuals to voluntarily make sacrifices for the collectively established goal. Achieving this strategic and tactical unity is an aim of our organisation, but it does not mean there can be no differences in strategy or tactics, as Makhno himself describes:

"We reckon, first of all, that for the sake of unity of the Union, the minority should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. This would be readily achievable, in cases of insignificant differences of opinion between the minority and majority. If, though, the minority were to consider sacrificing its viewpoint an impossibility, then there would be the prospect of having two divergent opinions and tactics within the Union; a majority view and tactic, and a minority view and tactic." (Nestor Makhno, Supplement to the Organizational Platform)

The reason for this is to ensure that the practice of our organisation is not contradictory and does not waste capacity unnecessarily. We should have honest debates about what best serves our cause and which strategies and tactics advance these aims. See footnote [1] regarding minorities making concessions to the majority, understood as a voluntary commitment to collective decisions rather than blind or coercive obedience.

This brings us to point 1 again. We believe that anarchists should encourage constructive criticism and debate, because doing so allows us to learn from each other and grow as a movement. Refusing to do so would mean intellectual suicide for the movement and a free pass for thoughtless action.

For criticism to be productive, we should uphold anarchist ethics and expect the same from those who criticize us. For us, this means striving rationally for truth and understanding.

The decision to ban our organisation is based on ideological differences. To understand this conflict between ideologies, we think it's necessary to provide some historical context as we see this as a historical continuation of the same conflict between ideologies.

Dutch anarchist history, going back to 1892, is plagued with petty infighting and sectarianism, seeking almost in a religious way to uphold ideological purity at the expense of practical action, isolation from the oppressed masses and organizing. Numerous attempts to organize nationally were physically sabotaged and boycotted by this purist and anti-organizational camp, for which Domela Nieuwenhuis was it's earliest foremost spokesperson.

Albert de Jong, a Dutch anarchist, wrote in 1924 that any anarchist who advocated organization was labelled a "Bolshevik", by this purist and anti-organisational camp. Two years later, exiled Russian anarchists, drawing hard lessons from the movement's experiences and failures, especially those revealed by the Russian Revolution, put forward a proposal for more coherent anarchist organisation. This text, published in 1926, became known as the "Platform", and was immediately denounced by the same Dutch  circles as "anarcho-Bolshevik".

Zoe Baker explains in her book Means and Ends that the "The Platform aroused a great deal of debate [...]  [but] these responses tended to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresenting its ideas". There was little intellectual honesty or serious debate about the ideas and problems the "Platform" brought to light. To make matters worse, Archinov, a co-founder of the "Platform," betrayed his old comrades by promoting Bolshevism and discrediting anarchism in exchange for returning to Soviet Russia. All this led to a lot of rumours, misinterpretations, infighting, and false claims, and to the once esteemed anarchist Nestor Makhno being cast off as an authoritarian.

Early organizational anarchists, including those who supported the Platform, strongly criticized anti-organizationalists and anarchist purism. However, they didn't boycott them or spread false rumors. Instead, they adopted a "live and let live" approach and refused to work against fellow anarchists or obstruct their activities.

In our opinion, the ABFA Collective now upholds this historical tradition of boycotting fellow anarchists, and if they are serious about upholding the pluralistic nature and anti-authoritarian principles of anarchism, there would be no reason to block us. Instead, they are upholding double standards, since it's not hard to find critiques of other strategies and tactics in the pamphlets and books present at the book fair. One example is found in the pamphlet against the Rojava militia of the Kurdish liberation movement, stemming from the insurrectionist camp. This is not a problem, should not be a problem, nor should critical voices arbitrarily get banned.

Our sister organization in Brazil, Organização Socialista Libertária (OSL), has been invited twice in a row to give a workshop at the Anarchist Bookfair in New York. Our positions are similar to theirs, yet there is no issue with their participation. When a public event like this takes place, the organizers of the book fair should be held accountable for not abusing their position to exclude other anarchists whose views differ from their own.

As an organization, we strive for coexistence and mutual respect among anarchists, and we support the right of others to fight their battles however they see fit. We also uphold the freedom of constructive criticism where needed.

The Anarchist Group Amsterdam offered to give us a spot at their table, and we are most grateful for their display of solidarity. However, we ultimately decided it was not worth it, as we did not want to put them in a more difficult position as collateral in a further escalation of this dispute.

As an organisation, we sincerely hope this disagreement can be resolved through comradely dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared committment to strengthening the anarchist movement.

Organisatie v. Vrij Socialisme

[1]: This position, of the minority freely submitting to the majority out of solidarity and free will, has always been a common one within anarchism. As Malatesta writes here:

So, for example, if it were a question of building a railway, there would certainly be a thousand different opinions about the route of the line, the materials, the type of engines and carriages, the location of the stations, and so on, and these opinions would go on changing from day to day. But if the railway is to be built, one must still choose among the existing opinions, and one could not every day alter the route, move the stations, and change the engines. And since it is a matter of choosing, it is better that more people be satisfied than fewer, while of course giving the fewer all the freedom and all the means possible to spread and test their ideas and try to become the majority.

Therefore, in all those matters that do not allow several solutions to exist at the same time, or in which differences of opinion are not so important that it is worth splitting up and having each faction act in its own way, or in which the duty of solidarity requires unity, it is reasonable, just, and necessary that the minority yield to the majority. But this yielding by the minority must be the result of free will, determined by awareness of necessity; it must not be a principle, a law, applied as a consequence in every case, even when the necessity is not really there. And in this lies the difference between anarchism and any form of government whatsoever. (Malatesta: “Maggioranze e minoranze”)