IWCA v BNP, on your radio

[The39thStep]

Well given i've not argued for no platform i'm still wondering who you're referring to.

the world just isn't about you Fed.

 

[Fedayn]

the world just isn't about you Fed.

I would hope not.

 

[love detective]

Where did anyone portray this as a BNP victory? What would give the IWCA member the impression that anyone said it was a BNP victory?

Well I presume we all share the same objectives - the development of progressive pro working class politics and the lifting of the veil in relation to the politics of reaction of not only the far right but the current political mainstream

So with that in mind, presumably political decisions made by both you and us are done in order to advance the pursuit of those objectives

You have claimed that Stuart's decision was the wrong one. Presumably because you believe that if he had done what you would have done (not countered the BNP's arguments at the time they were making them), the development of pro working class politics and the effective counter to politics which stand in its way would have been advanced greater than what has actually happened in reality.

So if your decision would have brought about a greater advancement in progressive pro working class politics and the lifting of the veil in relation to politics of reaction, then it follows that not doing as you would have done would result in a relative failure to progress pro working class politics. And given this is a zero sum game arena, it follows that not doing what you would have done has resulted in a victory for the BNP (i.e. the progressive pro working class politics that they loath has not been advanced as much as it could have done)

If on the other hand you are saying that this is not a fair and logical deriving of the situation, then i'm puzzled as to why you think Stuart's decision was the wrong one - if it didn't have the consequences I set out above, why was it the wrong decision?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Really important stuff from Stuart C based on a decade of successful work in a working class community. No-one on here (after 5 pages of debate) seems to have engaged with the points made which seem to me to be directly relevant to the issue at debate.
stuart craft said:

While some posters on U75 seem to base their concerns on the impact of our stance on multiculturalism purely hypothetical, academic (and very patronising) assumptions about working class people, the IWCA uses a tried and tested empirical approach.

Our position on divisive multiculturalism has been explained not just on the doorstep, in the local media and within the council chamber, but also several times over the last decade in our popular newsletter the ‘Leys Independent’ which was regularly hand delivered to all 5000 homes across Blackbird Leys over a ten year period. This has left very little room for any misunderstanding amongst the electorate (although it’s true that the ‘left’ have done their best with very limited success - other than within their own ever depleting circle - to portray us as racist/fascist etc).

If our electorate had been convinced that we were indeed racist or anti-immigrant, we would not have returned four city councillors (one having been voted in 3 times) off the back of the most ethnically diverse electoral ward in the city. Many of our voters, supporters, activists and IWCA Athletics Club members come from ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these are attracted to us because of our position on multiculturalism – i.e. the fact that unlike other parties we treat them as unique individuals whose interests are best served by working in common with other working class people.

Parties such as the BNP, Labour and Respect have everything to gain by playing different ethnic groups against each other as their end game is power at all costs (with an increasingly Balkanised, easier to manipulate, society into the bargain).

The IWCA seeks to genuinely unite working class people for the greater good, so any strategy that delivers electoral success at the expense of social cohesion would be counter-productive. Even the electoral route itself has now been ditched (for the time being at least) as it has proved to work against local working class interests (i.e. because time-consuming work in the council chamber began to take us away from the very grass roots work that got us elected in the first place).

We hate the likes of the Islamists, Jamaican and Somali drug gangs and Pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls, and we have no qualms about raising these issues in the same way as we have confronted the extreme anti-social behaviour of groups who happen to be white. We understand that our feelings towards these scumbags are shared by the vast majority of decent working class people from these particular ethnic groups (who are often the biggest victims of the groups’ violence and intimidation) and we make sure to also publicise this. We will not be brow-beaten into either ignoring these issues because the fear of being accused of racism trumps any desire to actually do anything to address them (as is the case with Labour and the rest of the ‘left’) or of racialising social problems by tarring all members of these ethnic or religious groups with the same brush, in the hope of sparking a race war (ala the BNP/EDL etc). Both of these positions are racist, both complement each other.

From our experience, explaining our position to working class people from across the ethnic spectrum is an almost effortless process. The fact that some on the ‘left’ assume that this is an area fraught with danger merely exposes their own lack of practical experience in this field, their own lack of genuine empathy with working class communities and above all their own lack of faith in the intelligence of working class individuals.​

 

[ayatollah]

So , on "No Platform", the IWCA has decided that the present day existence of vast areas of social media outlets for the fascists to put out their poison, means that anti fascists should no longer even try to prevent the dissemination of fascist propaganda in areas which might be influenced by protest, ie local and national press, TV, local and national radio ? Does this extend to disapproval of the refusal of postmen to distribute fascist electoral materials ?

The confidence exhibitted by IWCA people that their arguments will always trump fascist ones , because "working class people are intelligent.. not "STUPID" as apparently the Left believes" really is quite extraordinary. Have you guys never heard or understood of the role of "ruling class ideology" in maintaining the status quo in any society ? In no society , particularly a "liberal democratic bourgeois" one like the UK, is it the army and police which maintains the status quo most of the time -- it is the "mental straightjacket" of belief in the dominant ideas propagated by the mass media , education, mass culture, constantly, which leads to most of the population, most of the time, accepting the gross income disparities universal in a capitalist society.

Part of this ideological mix promoted for generations by the ruling class "world view" is "racism", "nationalism", "love of the queen", "infatuation by "celebrity culture trivia", "belief that you personally can escape poverty by lottery wins", etc, etc, on it goes. Though strangely the IWCA DOES appear to recognise that ideologoical beliefs like "Islamic extremism" or "self identity " on ethnicity/religious lines rather than on a class basis IS " ideological false consciousness" based on ideology fostered by the ruling class to divide working class people. Strange that. Is it only non-white workers who are "stupid" then ? Maybe "stupidity actually isn't the issue at all ?

The issue is how to put across to working class people an analysis of their position/situation in a deeply unequal capitalist society which demonstrates how they have overiding interests in common with all other working class people DESPITE their ethnic /cultural, or religious differences , and that together they can build a better, more rational society with radically different ways to distribute resources and power, ie, Socialism. Unfortunately for the IWCA, having rejected socialism , you have no national or international vision of an alternative to the capitalist system to offer , or indeed an understanding of how capitalism works - only a shallow "pro working class localism" WITHIN CAPITALISM" ... which of course in the context of the current world capitalist crisis and ever tightening austerity at local level, gives you no ability to either DELIVER ongoing benefits to local people, defend local jobs or services, or explain why the system is in such crisis.

Which is why of course the IWCA experiment is a clear failure, and going nowhere. "Working class power in working class areas" as a political mantra is not going to build anything significant , other than get a few local people , seen as good local activists, elected to a few council seats - but it leads precisely NOWHERE.

 

[Nigel]

Really important stuff from Stuart C based on a decade of successful work in a working class community. No-one on here (after 5 pages of debate) seems to have engaged with the points made which seem to me to be directly relevant to the issue at debate.
stuart craft said:

While some posters on U75 seem to base their concerns on the impact of our stance on multiculturalism purely hypothetical, academic (and very patronising) assumptions about working class people, the IWCA uses a tried and tested empirical approach.​

​

Our position on divisive multiculturalism has been explained not just on the doorstep, in the local media and within the council chamber, but also several times over the last decade in our popular newsletter the ‘Leys Independent’ which was regularly hand delivered to all 5000 homes across Blackbird Leys over a ten year period. This has left very little room for any misunderstanding amongst the electorate (although it’s true that the ‘left’ have done their best with very limited success - other than within their own ever depleting circle - to portray us as racist/fascist etc).​

​

If our electorate had been convinced that we were indeed racist or anti-immigrant, we would not have returned four city councillors (one having been voted in 3 times) off the back of the most ethnically diverse electoral ward in the city. Many of our voters, supporters, activists and IWCA Athletics Club members come from ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these are attracted to us because of our position on multiculturalism – i.e. the fact that unlike other parties we treat them as unique individuals whose interests are best served by working in common with other working class people.​

​

Parties such as the BNP, Labour and Respect have everything to gain by playing different ethnic groups against each other as their end game is power at all costs (with an increasingly Balkanised, easier to manipulate, society into the bargain).​

​

The IWCA seeks to genuinely unite working class people for the greater good, so any strategy that delivers electoral success at the expense of social cohesion would be counter-productive. Even the electoral route itself has now been ditched (for the time being at least) as it has proved to work against local working class interests (i.e. because time-consuming work in the council chamber began to take us away from the very grass roots work that got us elected in the first place).​

​

We hate the likes of the Islamists, Jamaican and Somali drug gangs and Pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls, and we have no qualms about raising these issues in the same way as we have confronted the extreme anti-social behaviour of groups who happen to be white. We understand that our feelings towards these scumbags are shared by the vast majority of decent working class people from these particular ethnic groups (who are often the biggest victims of the groups’ violence and intimidation) and we make sure to also publicise this. We will not be brow-beaten into either ignoring these issues because the fear of being accused of racism trumps any desire to actually do anything to address them (as is the case with Labour and the rest of the ‘left’) or of racialising social problems by tarring all members of these ethnic or religious groups with the same brush, in the hope of sparking a race war (ala the BNP/EDL etc). Both of these positions are racist, both complement each other.​

​

From our experience, explaining our position to working class people from across the ethnic spectrum is an almost effortless process. The fact that some on the ‘left’ assume that this is an area fraught with danger merely exposes their own lack of practical experience in this field, their own lack of genuine empathy with working class communities and above all their own lack of faith in the intelligence of working class individuals.​

This position is also a way of scapegoating people of different ethnic groups and ignoring the problems that there is as much an account of such anti social behaviour in the 'indigenous' population. This position also soesn't take into account that for many people in this country who are not white and/or have different cultural backgrounds confronted with the onslaught of racist xenophobic bigotry speilled out and repeated by much of the white working class for their own sense of superiority identfying with cultural and national bqackground gives a sense of self worth.

This is obviously a publicitty stunt too far for both the IWCA and Gary Smiths' 'Community Radio.

 

[Nigel]

This is not to say that various careerists do not use muliticulturalism as a construct for their own opportunist ends.

 

[mk12]

Has Stuart Craft been on the radio yet? I want to see if he mentions Palestine.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

This position is also a way of scapegoating people of different ethnic groups and ignoring the problems that there is as much an account of such anti social behaviour in the 'indigenous' population. position also soesn't take into account that for many people in this country who are not white and/or have different cultural backgrounds confronted with the onslaught of racist xenophobic bigotry speilled out and repeated by much of the white working class for their own sense of superiority identfying with cultural and national bqackground gives a sense of self worth.

The IWCA approach is firmly based on class - and unifiying people on that basis. By way of contrast the BNP, Labour, Respect have adopted an approach of playing different groups against each other to compete for the same scant resources.

And yet you claim that the IWCA approach promotes scapegoating and presumably believe the opposite approach promotes inclusivity.

 

[frogwoman]

We hate the likes of the Islamists, Jamaican and Somali drug gangs and Pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls, and we have no qualms about raising these issues in the same way as we have confronted the extreme anti-social behaviour of groups who happen to be white.

what is wrong with saying "we are against crime and drug dealers etc no matter who it's committed by?" you know full well that it isn't exclusively people from these ethnic groups who are doing this stuff. i know the iwca isn't racist but i think there's a better way of putting it than this.

 

[frogwoman]

You can address those issues and those scumbags without going on about their race.

 

[past caring]

This position is also a way of scapegoating people of different ethnic groups and ignoring the problems that there is as much an account of such anti social behaviour in the 'indigenous' population. This position also soesn't take into account that for many people in this country who are not white and/or have different cultural backgrounds confronted with the onslaught of racist xenophobic bigotry speilled out and repeated by much of the white working class for their own sense of superiority identfying with cultural and national bqackground gives a sense of self worth.

This is obviously a publicitty stunt too far for both the IWCA and Gary Smiths' 'Community Radio.

Bonkers in the nut.

 

[past caring]

what is wrong with saying "we are against crime and drug dealers etc no matter who it's committed by?" you know full well that it isn't exclusively people from these ethnic groups who are doing this stuff. i know the iwca isn't racist but i think there's a better way of putting it than this.

And you don't think that there might be a difference between how things are expressed when explaining the IWCA's politics to the public at large and addressing specific criticisms of that position that have been specifically voiced on U75? i.e. the post that you quote is the latter.

 

[frogwoman]

And you don't think that there might be a difference between how things are expressed when addressing the public at large and addressing criticisms that have been specifically voiced on U75? i.e. the post that you quote is the latter.

yeah, i still don't think going on about "pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls" is the best way of addressing those types of criticisms tho whether it's in public or on here. why not say that you oppose that type of scum no matter where they're from and reject the idea that this could be seen as racist etc?

like seriously why mention these cunts' race at all?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

yeah, i still don't think going on about "pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls" is the best way of addressing those types of criticisms tho whether it's in public or on here. why not say that you oppose that type of scum no matter where they're from and reject the idea that this could be seen as racist etc?

like seriously why mention these cunts' race at all?

"We understand that our feelings towards these scumbags are shared by the vast majority of decent working class people from these particular ethnic groups (who are often the biggest victims of the groups’ violence and intimidation) and we make sure to also publicise this. We will not be brow-beaten into either ignoring these issues because the fear of being accused of racism trumps any desire to actually do anything to address them"

 

[past caring]

yeah, i still don't think going on about "pakistani men who prostitute under-age girls" is the best way of addressing those types of criticisms tho whether it's in public or on here. why not say that you oppose that type of scum no matter where they're from and reject the idea that this could be seen as racist etc?

like seriously why mention these cunts' race at all?

Because whether we like it or not, race has already imposed itself into the discourse of how the problem is/was discussed/reported. And race/culture was undoubtedly a factor - i.e. iirc, although the men concerned were not (as the BNP tried to portray things) preying exclusively on white teenage girls, young Pakistani girls were most certainly not counted amongst their victims. Whether that was because they held their "own" girls in higher regard, or whether it was simply a case that they thought doing so might increase the possibility of their activities coming under closer scrutiny, I don't know. However, leaving the race of the perpetrators out of the equation in such circumstances makes it appear either that you are (at best) discussing some other case entirely, or that you are (at worst) entirely frightened by the prospect of having to discuss how some cultural aspects for some individuals might factor in to their behaviour (i.e. we can't discuss this for fear of making it appear that the BNP might have a point).

 

[frogwoman]

the bnp and fash do it themselves though. groom underage girls i mean.

you know full well that it isn't just pakistanis etc who are involved in this type of activity. so why put it like that? why not say "scum who prostitute underage girls"?

is there not a possibility that a pakistani guy for example could read that statement and feel a bit intimidated even though that wasn't your intention? is there not a possibility that they could be put off by stuff like that if it's not done sensitively?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Yeah, one of the reasons why the left has nothing to say about a range of issues impacting on working class communities (but by no means the ONLY reason) is because of a fear that being seen to do might see them branded racist. Best ignore it, sweep it away, generalise it to the point of meaningless etc.

Not only does this give the far right a free run on the particular issue but it also ignores the fact that the majority of those on the receiving end are also normally also ethnic minorities e.g. the mugging epidemic in Newtown.

 

[belboid]

I asked Stuart to provide his own position on this - here it is:-

thanks for that, its an interesting piece. The first thing that jumps out is what a fuckig prick the guy from that station is. Some people say they would vote BNP if they could. They cant, because the BNP dont stand there (yet). And then someone decides that the beat way to stop the BNP getting votes it to, uhh, invite them into a studio from where they can begin to organise a branch that will stand locally. Fucking madness. Doing so is clearly only going to benefit the BNP, no matter who is also on to oppose them.

Now, the fact that the station boss is a prick is obviously not the IWCA's fault - tho you'd hope they made similar points and said they didnt think there was any value to inviting the BNP in in the first place. But how best to deal ith it? The desired result is for the BNP not to appear, surely? So accepting the request to debate means accepting that they will appear. A refusal would start to put pressure on the station not to have the fuckers on.

If the station is still insisting, what then? Stuarts reply, and your comments throughout the thread, argue that the only way of responding is to accept the debate and sit down round a table with them. The idea that you could reply seperately, going on the station afterwards, is never even considered. Why not? Why is it sit down debate or nothing?

 

[DrRingDing]

frogwoman you need to remember that it's not your, with respect, trot ears, that the statements for.

If you're politically active it's very easy to find yourself in bubble. Most people do not live in that bubble.

 

[frogwoman]

i take your point but is it not beyond the limits of credibility to think that the way it was put may have been a bit more sensitive?

 

[frogwoman]

The idea that you could reply seperately, going on the station afterwards,

The idea that you could reply seperately, going on the station afterwards, is never even considered. Why not? Why is it sit down debate or nothing?​

​

to be fair i thought they said that they were gonna interview stuart on his own at some other point.​

 

[past caring]

the bnp and fash do it themselves though. groom underage girls i mean.

What of it? What's your point? That the BNP are hypocrites? That cuts no ice, because the logical conclusion is only that a better class of fash is what's needed - i.e. ones that might practise what they preach. And if the BNP weren't hypocrites, if they were (excuse the pun) whiter than white? What then?

you know full well that it isn't just pakistanis etc who are involved in this type of activity. so why put it like that? why not say "scum who prostitute underage girls"?

is there not a possibility that a pakistani guy for example could read that statement and feel a bit intimidated even though that wasn't your intention? is there not a possibility that they could be put off by stuff like that if it's not done sensitively?

And you know full well that the piece/comment was suggesting neither that it is just pakistani men who groom young girls nor that all pakistani men groom - it was simply pointing out that we don't shy away from condeming such behaviour when it involves a particular group (and the case that made the headlines - i.e. the one actually being referred to did involve a particular group) for fear that condemnation might be seen as racist.

And again, you need to remember the "statement" has seen no wider circulation than this forum - it isn't lifted fromb any IWCA material - it was penned to address specific criticisms made here on this thread.

 

[Joe Reilly]

This position is also a way of scapegoating people of different ethnic groups and ignoring the problems that there is as much an account of such anti social behaviour in the 'indigenous' population. This position also soesn't take into account that for many people in this country who are not white and/or have different cultural backgrounds confronted with the onslaught of racist xenophobic bigotry speilled out and repeated by much of the white working class for their own sense of superiority identfying with cultural and national bqackground gives a sense of self worth.

There you have it; the true voice of the unreconstructed Left who deep down see the working class as an obstacle to their socialism, who tacity accept that for them to prosper the working class must first be subdued; who routinely campaigned against the IWCA in BBL and got their usual loyal 30 votes. 'Something to build on' natch.

The establishment's loyal little helpers.
First as farce.

 

[Joe Reilly]

[/quote]

 

[Nigel]

So the end result of this is that the BNP got a platform to speak upon with almost no opposition

 

[audiotech]

Nigel is the voice of Nigel.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So the end result of this is that the BNP got a platform to speak upon with almost no opposition

No. The OP stated, in fact, the opposite - the BNP 'platform' was being actively contested by Stuart from IWCA.

This approach was criticised and the suggestion made that the correct approach was that BNP should have appeared on their own and that the challenge consist of the 'anti fascists' standing outside waving lollipops whilst they were being interviewed - and then confront their ideas in an interview separately and later.

 

[Nigel]

More to do with the consciousness of the working class and how to go from a transition from the chauvanistic perspective that people are indoctrinated on a day to day basis, with the indigenous white working class seeing racism and xenophobia in their interest or stereotypes of what various classes are supposed to be and developing class consciousness in the interest of working class as a whole.

 

[love detective]

Unfortunately for the IWCA, having rejected socialism , you have no national or international vision of an alternative to the capitalist system to offer, or indeed an understanding of how capitalism works

Unlike you, we don't profess to have all the answers, but rather than cowardly sticking to failed, discredited dogma, we are making a sincere effort to find a progressive way forward as far as the bigger picture is concerned. Two major pieces on 'Economic Democracy - the need for a vision' , part 1 here and part 2 here, for example, is our attempt to contribute to the mapping out of a pro-working class alternative economic model, one grounded in the concept of economic democracy.

These are not put forward as the final word on the matter, but as a starting point to stimulate discussion and criticism. Not surprisingly there has been little or none of that from the traditional left in regard to these. You may not agree with this alternative economic model (we would welcome your comments/opinions) but to say that the IWCA does not have any alternative vision to the capitalist system is somewhat disengenious when a cursory glance at the IWCA's website would show these two major pieces with the statement of a 'need for a vision' in their very title.

As to not understanding how capitalism works, well, I think you'll find we know exactly how it works (in fact you were praising me the other day on another thread for being able to pull apart the arguments of some pro-capitalist crank because I knew exactly the ins & outs of both the deep essence and its manifested forms)

The issue is how to put across to working class people an analysis of their position/situation in a deeply unequal capitalist society which demonstrates how they have overiding interests in common with all other working class people DESPITE their ethnic /cultural, or religious differences , and that together they can build a better, more rational society with radically different ways to distribute resources and power, ie, Socialism.

The above comment very much points to the view of an outsider looking in - IWCA activists generally don't refer to working class people in the third person, instead being not only for, but off, those communities from which we're active. And the IWCA critique of political top down multiculturalism does exactly as you say - yet somehow you're still not happy because of some of the words employed while doing so.

What is this socialism of what you speak anyway - we've set out some thoughts as to what we think could be a possible alternative vision, why don't you do something similar, and also if it's so straightforward how could and should it be obtained without the type of work that the IWCA does in local working class communities rebuilding working class confidence from the ground up, dispensing with the usual building of castles on sand approach

As to the subtle attempts to portray the IWCA as racist, the exact same thing has been tried by the Labour Party in Oxford and that this actually resulted in a rise in ethnic minority support for the IWCA at the expense of Labour as a) many local people from ethnic minorities found the IWCA stance on multiculturalism refreshing and inspiring b) people generally don't like being lied to or being taken for mugs.