Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
charlie mowbray said:To Joe reilly
Looks like this conversation is degenerating...QUOTE]
On the contrary we are I believe already in the end game.
charlie mowbray said:To Joe reilly
Looks like this conversation is degenerating...QUOTE]
On the contrary we are I believe already in the end game.
Joe Reilly said:Only on this thread Ray, in the real world it's the other way round.
Chuck Wilson said:Ray I just had a look at your site and found it interesting. I can understand your diffrences with the trot left what I don't understand is this ..take away the labels...why wouldn't the IWCA form of organisation and orientation be acceptable to your group?
Ray said:Still, on this thread, everyone is blinded by ideology except you, right?
Convenient.
Ray said:To be clear, its not my site, as I'm no longer a WSM member, though I'd still agree with pretty much everything there. I don't know enough about the IWCA to comment really - I know they ran in council elections, which I'd generally disagree with, but that they seem to be trying to get a mandating system going for their councillors, which is interesting.
butchersapron said:So then are you going apply that evidence to marx/marxism then and draw the only logoical conclusion that it has no serious future? If not, why not?
Pickman's model said:it's dark outside! can't see much out there!
butchersapron said:Yes, Joe, we all understand your argument, it's coming across quite clearly - it says all ideologies are bad, anarchism is an ideology thefore it's also bad. And that you're uniquely starting from a non-ideological reading of Marx. Well done. The last free man on earth. Freed by Marx.
What about those of us broadly supportive of the IWCA approach - are we equally blinded by ideology? An approach that we were actually arguing for as one of the last remaining chances to get out of the shit the working class was in, whilst you were still a leninist incidentally.
Joe Reilly said:It is most convenient. And the advantages are evident.
Chuck Wilson said:Aren't elections even for anarchists a tactical question rather than a principle?
Ray said:Missed this, sorry.
I think its a question of principle, rather than tactics*. Anarchists are opposed to representative democracy, and want to replace it with direct democracy. Elections are a form of representative democracy. The IWCA's attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole is interesting, but I suspect that sooner or later the long term and short term goals will come into conflict.
* some anarchists might disagree, but I have the International Anarchist Tribunal on my side.
Louis MacNeice said:Does this mean that delegates can only be selected by lot?
Louis MacNeice said:Does it also mean that no exchange of views and opinions takes place at an assembley of delegates?
Louis MacNeice said:Isn't the point of delegation not to stop a delegate breaking their mandate in the light of new information/circumstances, but rather to make they immediately responsible by means of recall if they break the mandate (or for that matter if they are found to have misrepresented the views of those mandating them). The point being that delegate democracy and elections are not incompatible (since some people will make better delegates than others and elections are a way of choosing between prospective delegates); there isn't a square peg and a round hole.
Ray said:No, it means they have no power to make decisions outside their mandate.
No, not at all. But the delegates can't approve of anything on their own, they can only bring it back to the bodies which mandated them.
The point of representative democracy is to choose someone to make decisions for you. The point of direct democracy is to choose someone to carry out your decisions.
The square peg and round hole problem is this. Suppose a community elects someone from the IWCA on to the council, and mandates them to vote for X. The councillor goes to the council meeting, and votes against X.
In a direct democracy situation, the delegate would be deselected, and (if possible) the decision overturned. But (AFAIK) there is no real way for the councillor's constituents to do this. QUOTE]
Yes but your forgetting the role of the IWCA itself. If a councillor voted against IWCA policy then the councillor would be deselected and (if possible) the decision overturned. A radical party like the IWCA also has the option of legally binding any candidate to abide by organisation decisions once elected - or - standown.
butchersapron said:Ok, have you never been a Leninist then Joe? Straight question. I may well have been misinformed. I notice that you chose to skip over the question that preceded that last sentence though...
QUOTE]
'Are you blinded by idelogy in your support for the IWCA?'
Well, I don't know if blinded is the right word but almost certainly your support for the IWCA is reliant on it, in your eyes, meeting certain anarchist criteria.
Using the same criteria, other anarchists reject the IWCA for not being anarchist enough. As for the Leninist jibe - RA have almost from the very beginning been called anarchists by the Leninists and leninists by the anarchos: a barrier against fraternisation presumably.
As is well known the initial thinking behind the 'IWCA approach' came from within militant anti-fascism stimulated by the Isle of Dogs campaign in 1993 and given impetus by the retreat of the BNP from the streets in 1994.
By and large the anarchists in AFA (including DAM) rejected the analysis forwarded and more or less boycotted further discussions where they had influence. So if indeed the 'IWCA approach' was being discussed among anarchists elsewhere it wasn't very evident within AFA at the time.
Joe Reilly said:Yes but your forgetting the role of the IWCA itself. If a councillor voted against IWCA policy then the councillor would be deselected and (if possible) the decision overturned. A radical party like the IWCA also has the option of legally binding any candidate to abide by organisation decisions once elected - or - standown.
Random said:Here you assume that 'IWCA policy' is exactly the same thing as a community's mandate. The point of direct democracy is to keep delegates in line through constant living contact with bodies of the people who have mandated them -- you can't replace this with a party's whip, no matter how 'radical' the party.
Your doing it again. No anarchist would support "simply making phrases and doing nothing" as you know quite well.Joe Reilly said:I personally agree with as direct a democracy as is possible. But not standing for elections in working wards and thus allowing middle class parties to dominate (on a minority vote) and then push through a neo-liberal agenda is more than a bit of a cop out.
The problems of elected officials being kept in check by the organisation and the organisation being in tune with the local population are all areas that need to be worked on to ensure the entire enterprise becomes/remains organic.
But none of the potential probems should be used as an excuse for standing on the sidelines issuing edicts. Simply making phrases and doing nothing is no longer an option.
redsquirrel said:Your doing it again. No anarchist would support "simply making phrases and doing nothing" as you know quite well.
Joe Reilly said:I personally agree with as direct a democracy as is possible. But not standing for elections in working wards and thus allowing middle class parties to dominate (on a minority vote) and then push through a neo-liberal agenda is more than a bit of a cop out.
The problems of elected officials being kept in check by the organisation and the organisation being in tune with the local population are all areas that need to be worked on to ensure the entire enterprise becomes/remains organic.
But none of the potential probems should be used as an excuse for standing on the sidelines issuing edicts. Simply making phrases and doing nothing is no longer an option.
Random said:Fair enough. It seemed to me that you thought IWCA party policy could already work out these issues. I agree that they need sorting and the sorting has to be done through solid action.
Joe Reilly said:A lot of thought has gone into the issue within the IWCA, however it needs the solid practice and example of having candidates elected to provide a practical basis for working through the possible pitfalls.
To shun the existing electoral process, as imperfect, means also to boycott working class concerns on housing, drugs, gentrification, policing, etc which is the context of the landscape, neo-liberalism, BNP and so on, cannot surely be justified any longer by anyone who claims to be politically radical.
catch said:The attempts at recallability for IWCA candidates is something I think is interesting, and if it worked practically, I'd certainly not oppose contesting elections in a similar way to R&B's post, with community assemblies discussing the issue then mandating the councillor. However, my main problem is that the tactic seems to be aimed exclusively at borough/city/town-level councils, which apart from their basis in representative democracy, are quite large bureaucracies run by unelected managers and which have their own power structures existing alongside that of the elected councillors, probably much stronger, and difficult for a councillor (or even a majority of councillors long term) to have much effect on.
What I'd like to see is people contesting (or setting up) community/parish/local councils, which don't have paid bureaucracies, but which have some, if only a few, legal powers - especially on transport, planning, meeting and community facilities and a few other things. This is the lowest current level of democracy in the UK with policy making powers, and could potentially allow local assemblies/federated residents' associations a degree of power over their own wards or similar size areas, and could easily be run on an entirely direct democratic basis with the elected postions quite flexible for rotation and recallability.
Joe Reilly said:This I think is where we part company. The primary IWCA reason for being is to provide a platform for working class concerns. By contrast your priority seems to be with finding a way to implant anarchism through a variety of organisational foibles. And whatever else you might say about it spontaneous or organic it certianly isn't.
rednblack said:while i agree that standing in local elections can be useful, i'm certainly not against getting councillors elected - i don't think you can say that those opposed to such a strategy are not justified to call themselves radical is pure hyperbole - there are other ways - for instance building strong, local, independent residents and tenants associations - which can campaign on a wide range off issues of importance to local people (personally i'd like to see them organised on a class basis as well) and can remain independent of the council/labour party/police etc if the people involved want them to be
the electoral issue can be left open, individual local groups should be trusted to decide whether to stand or not - my own choice would for a fucntioning campaigning group which already has a presence in a ward/on an estate to survey the residents six months before the local elections to see whether people thought standing/voting in elections was worthwhile - and if not, why not - and what alternatives would they suggest, for instance community assemblies