IWCA exasperated with mainstream politics

[chilango]

I think LLETSA and Sihhi make some good points.

To me, who has only ever had peripheral experience of similar strategies a number of questions keep re-emerging.

1/ LLETSA talks about the effort or work needed on the part of activists, and this raises the question of are/were IWCA style projects sustained by hyper-activism or have/can they be become self-sustaining through a wider distribution of work load?

This is a key question.

Yes, of course, changing society - even on a local level - is going to be hard work. But the last thing people want to add to their routine is extra hard work. Those that volunteer end up burning out (witness the road protests) or building martyrdom into the ethos (witness the AR movement).

How does/can the IWCA style model address this?

2/ The nature of communities and needs. This seesm largely unresolvable so far. The IWCA model has worked best in relatively homogenous and stable localities where the conditions are in place for a) some sense of shared identity and b) some pressing needs in common.

However, many (most?) areas are not like this. Too diffuse, too heterogenous in "class", too mobile, too many external poles of interest. People working outside the area, moving around, families/friends elsewhere, social life taking place outside etc etc. To identify common interests in such places is difficult and can often lead to either general political/economic concerns (cost of housing/job insecurity) that are not obviously suited to a localist community response or to issues of extreme localism (dogshit on the streets) that do not and need not justify an IWCA response.

Again, I don't know the answers, but from those who advocate this strategy or those with experience of it I would be interested in hearing their thoughts.

 

[chilango]

Ultimately I guess one of my main questions is whether the IWCA approach is only suited to certain types of areas, and if so what are the rest of us to do?

 

[belboid]

Probably because the CPGB of the 1930s had a live connection to the working class. Something that most left groups nowadays lack, but something that the survey method is designed to maintain.

substitute for you mean, not maintain. If that is the 'solution' it seems quite obvious it isn't going to be taken up widely. As I think LLETSA might have said, no one in (say) Wakefield is going to go out and do it no their own, or with a single co-thinker, so the idea is not going to spread. A massive, and obvious, drawback. And because there is no overarching principle (beyond the ultra vague and all but meaningless 'working-class rule and working'class areas), why should anyone bother joining outside of the established areas? they wont. At best they'll do a LLETSA and bung em a few quid. Thats not a way to build an national orgainsation. Its current demise was all too predicatable, it was inbuilt into the organisations whole structure.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

As far as I'm aware, the IWCA was initially open to the non-Labour supporting elements of the far left.

This is true and the offer was, with one or two minor exceptions, rejected.

Louis MacNeice

 

[sihhi]

Belboid - does this mean you think the IWCA substitute for a relationship with w/c and don't actually have a relationship with w/c?

Too diffuse, too heterogenous in "class", too mobile, too many external poles of interest. People working outside the area, moving around, families/friends elsewhere, social life taking place outside etc etc. To identify common interests in such places is difficult and can often lead to either general political/economic concerns (cost of housing/job insecurity) that are not obviously suited to a localist community response or to issues of extreme localism (dogshit on the streets) that do not and need not justify an IWCA response.

What do you mean heterogenous in "class" - too many managers and executives moving in? - then it's all the more reason to resist them?

Why can't external poles of interest not be replicated 'internally' aswell? Stuart Craft doesn't work in Blackbrid Leys, many of the Haggerston ex-AFA non-ex-AFA worked in the ward boundaries.

Why is cost of housing not worth a local response?

Job insecurity obviously needs work across the country - but someone could just aswell argue that regional or national efforts are meaningless because steel jobs can be exported to Romania or callcentre jobs to India, so you need to plan an international response before you do anything...

Fighting for job security needs strong base trade union branches which can only be strengthened by IWCA activity.

 

[belboid]

Did I post that? When? cant find it on the boards anywhere. Whatever, it isn't actually a response to anything I've written on this thread.

The 'survey' is the substitution, btw.

IWCA activity has never been around trades unions, and some members have even said that they are all but useless for the class struggle (on the IWCA's sociological definition of class) so your last sentence is utter nonsense.

 

[sihhi]

Did I post that? When? cant find it on the boards anywhere. Whatever, it isn't actually a response to anything I've written on this thread.

You said :

substitute for you mean, not maintain. If that is the 'solution' it seems quite obvious it isn't going to be taken up widely.

in response to

Probably because the CPGB of the 1930s had a live connection to the working class. Something that most left groups nowadays lack, but something that the survey method is designed to maintain.

The quoted bit is from chilango.


I'll come back to trades unions later except to say that IWCA support rank and file activity which as you know is different from building their "Broad Left" approach which most of the Trotskyist groups including the SP (with the most number of far-left reps in the country) does.

http://www.iwca-oxford.org.uk/cgi-bin/oxiwca.pl?record=9

 

[belboid]

I was referring to the bit you'd put in quotes when I asked 'did I say that?' (uhh, you've now said where that came from, sorry!)

The postie stuff is absolutely bogstadnard things that any leftie group does, usually more frequently than the IWCA ever did (SW one for the BA striekrs up here last week, one on defending workers from adult learning tonight frinstance)

 

[chilango]

What do you mean heterogenous in "class" - too many managers and executives moving in? - then it's all the more reason to resist them?

Yes. But already moved in, moved out a generation ago, five years ago, 6 months ago. Nothing too resist?

Why can't external poles of interest not be replicated 'internally' aswell? Stuart Craft doesn't work in Blackbrid Leys, many of the Haggerston ex-AFA non-ex-AFA worked in the ward boundaries.

Fair enough, but its yet another factor diffusing local identity and interests. Popel will have issues, pressing issues and interests away from the locality.

Why is cost of housing not worth a local response?

Of course it is. But it's a (inter)national issue too. People may not always see the localist response as being the best/most effective option.

Job insecurity obviously needs work across the country - but someone could just aswell argue that regional or national efforts are meaningless because steel jobs can be exported to Romania or callcentre jobs to India, so you need to plan an international response before you do anything...

Maybe you do. I'm not arguing that the local response or approach is wrong, just speculating reasons why it may not have taken hold or might prove difficult.

Fighting for job security needs strong base trade union branches which can only be strengthened by IWCA activity

Yes.


None of my points are "arguments". I would like the IWCA to be successful. But its not. Not yet. Nor looking like it will anytime soon. I'm just wondering, aloud, why that might be.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's not fair to say that their projects have faded, rather that their electoral plans have been met with the mainstream opposition playing really dirty, and going all out to defeat the IWCA.

Seriously? It's not that they faded but that the other side didn't play fair? What did you expect, exactly? What you say above isn't an argument that their projects haven't faded, it's a partial explanation for why they've faded.

Comparing IWCA to Militant Labour is not on.

I didn't compare the IWCA to Militant Labour.

I will try to get back to you on the more substantial parts of your post.

 

[Random]

substitute for you mean, not maintain.

No I don't.

Its current demise was all too predicatable, it was inbuilt into the organisations whole structure.

Odd, then, that the Labour party spent so much time and energy fighting it tooth and nail.

I'm happy to admit that there's plenty of drawbacks to IWCA theory and practice, but you're simply trying to shoehorn recent developments into your own tired Leninist analysis and paying no attention to the real situation.

Your favourite assertion now seems to be that the IWCA had no theory or ideology. This is not true at all, as anyone knows who has even a brief acquaintance with the group. You must know it as well.

 

[belboid]

For gawds sake, it prided itself on not having an ideology, it was one of the things it slated the 'left' for, you can't have it both ways (as it happens, I think its pronounced lack of ideology was somewhat dishonest, but it was a very prominent feature of its worldview). There is no shoehorning going on here, hell you havent even attempted to show any! There is no serious analysis of the failure of the organisation from its members here, which is sad considering its starting point. Indeed those members now seem to be behaving exactly the same way as they used to slate 'the left' for behaving when it (the IWCA) was set up.

 

[Random]

So the IWCA had no ideology - and it was the wrong one, in any case...

There is certainly a worked out system of ideas behind much IWCA activity, as anyone who's read the website will see. What there is not, is the kind of old left or Leninist ideology, which once worked out is then placed above actual working class experience.

 

[belboid]

There was a worked out set of ideas, and I think it had a (vague, not particularly coherent) ideology. But it stated publically, loudly and frequently that it was not ideological. You cant have it both ways. Nor can you offer any sensible reason for its demise it seems. Shame.

 

[Random]

There was a worked out set of ideas, and I think it had a (vague, not particularly coherent) ideology. But it stated publically, loudly and frequently that it was not ideological. You cant have it both ways. Nor can you offer any sensible reason for its demise it seems. Shame.

Good stuff, so we've managed to get past your untruthful assertion that the IWCA had no real principles apart from it's main slogan. So now we can actually look at your real criticism as being that the IWCA had worked-out principles, but that you disagreed with them.

The fact that it takes so much beating about the bush before we can even start to discuss the real picture of the IWCA is probably one reason why so little real discussion of the group gets done.

Myself I don't count myself a member any more, so I' can't comment on what the current announcement means. I do think it is clear that the IWCA can be seen as having accomplished some very very successful pilot projects, giving far more bang for the buck than any other similarly sized groups. And this based on the willingness to break with some basic left ideas. For example, all leninist groups believe that they are the clever ones, with the right ideas, the 'brain of the working class'; anarcho groups often slip into a leninism-lite based on the idea that activists are more politically aware than the general population. The IWCA is based on the idea that the working class already has a brain.

The problems I'd see as being a lack of ability to break out of those pilots, into other areas, and to get new people involved with existing projects. I'd grudgingly agree with Nigel irritable that perhaps more effort, or more success, on building alliances and reaching out to existing activists before hand is one of the reasons for the pilots now running out of steam.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

There was a worked out set of ideas, and I think it had a (vague, not particularly coherent) ideology. But it stated publically, loudly and frequently that it was not ideological. You cant have it both ways.

This is exactly correct.

The IWCA tried to present itself as non-ideological. That was part of the point of the surveys, that the IWCA were allegedly reflecting what "real" working class people were interested in and not the preoccupations of the constantly derided lefties. One particular example is the sneering at anyone paying too much attention to international issues, which real workers of course don't care about (entirely inconsistently this sneering wasn't generally applied to people with a.barely suppressed semi for Irish Republicanism but that's another story).

Of course, the IWCA was actually highly ideological.

It reflected the views of a small number of people, mostly coming out of RA/AFA, who already had a hostile view of most of the left and to some extent defined themselves against it. They had particular preexisting preoccupations. Before going near a doorstep with a survey it had already decided that an intense focus on the local was required - the surveys could help choose which local issues to emphasise. It had already decided on class politics as the key to the whole thing, again something stemming from their own pre-existing beliefs. It also had a rather inconsistent view of class, sometimes leaning towards the sociological in practice, which again reflected the preconceptions of its core activists.

Where they really weren't "ideological", or at least masked their ideology rather more convincingly, was on the subject of wider scales alternatives. They really didn't present one, just a range of potential local improvements. No stuff about socialism, or about some replacement for socialism, or even much about wider goals which stop far short of a systemic transformation. There was a relentless focus on less "ideological" local issues, for of course entirely ideological reasons. LLETSA actually touches on that himself, in his generally much more supportive post, when he talks about a lack of "overall alternative".

 

[belboid]

thnat doesnt actually say anything. It isn't really true they createed any 'very very succesful' projects. They managed maybe a couple of reasonably succesful ones, but that's it. That perpetual overblowing of their own trumpet (see also sihhi's absurd claims for 'innovative' practises that were nothing of the kind) is yet anjother example of them behaving in exactly the same way as the 'left' they pretend to have left behind.

It's sad how pathetically dishonest and defensive (ex, or never quite got round to it) members get about the organisation, and makes something of a waste of its ten years.

 

[articul8]

It also had a rather inconsistent view of class, sometimes leaning towards the sociological in practice, which again reflected the preconceptions of its core activists.

As opposed to what? the purely economic?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

As opposed to what? the purely economic?

I mean that they sometimes veer towards a "bourgeois sociological" version of class, which includes in the middle class not just the petty bourgeoisie proper but also certain strata of the working class. They were inconsistent on this rather than consistently wrong.

 

[sihhi]

Seriously? It's not that they faded but that the other side didn't play fair? What did you expect, exactly? What you say above isn't an argument that their projects haven't faded, it's a partial explanation for why they've faded.

I didn't compare the IWCA to Militant Labour.

sorry on the militant labour front, it sounded as if you were saying the model was already well developed in liverpool of the 80s (which was militant mabour) in response to butchersapron.

Originally Posted by butchersapron
They let the w/c people in those areas know that there was another way, that acting together can change things. This is your own model. But in the modern day - not in the Liverpool of the 80s? Why the hell shouldn't these lessons be re-iterated whenever we can?
There's no reason at all why something that basic shouldn't be re-iterated. What I'm asking is if the IWCA, after the experience of a decade of attempts, have anything of note to add to that.

If electoral success is the sole judge of things then one could simply attack the Socialist Party's fadings on the same grounds
Over one decade:
Socialist Alliance until 2001
then Socialist Alternative
then Socialist Green Unity Coalition
then the Socialist Party just by itself
then Campaign For a New Workers Party
then No2EU – Yes to Democracy
(and now Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition)

and none have achieved traction, have faded and should then be dismissed as irrelevant on the basis of organisational structure and ideology if you were to apply the same standards to the SP as you do to the IWCA.

 

[sihhi]

It reflected the views of a small number of people, mostly coming out of RA/AFA, who already had a hostile view of most of the left and to some extent defined themselves against it. They had particular preexisting preoccupations. Before going near a doorstep with a survey it had already decided that an intense focus on the local was required - the surveys could help choose which local issues to emphasise. It had already decided on class politics as the key to the whole thing, again something stemming from their own pre-existing beliefs. It also had a rather inconsistent view of class, sometimes leaning towards the sociological in practice, which again reflected the preconceptions of its core activists.

To be honest I've yet to find a consistent view of class - some say prison officers aren't working class, some say middle managers are working class, some say doctors are working class, some say lawyers aren't working class, some say teachers aren't working class, some say drug dealers aren't working class, some say police officers aren't working class, some say think tank workers aren't working class, some say estate agents aren't working class, some say plumbers who also own a second home are working class, some say machine tool engineers who sub-let a large property are working-class, some say secretaries for Lib Dem MPs aren't working class... we just go round in circles.

The problems of the IWCA didn't come from being unable to define working-class, the name is not the issue it could have produced a hundred-page position paper of what working class is and it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

If electoral success is the sole judge of things then one could simply attack the Socialist Party's fadings on the same grounds

I'm not saying that the IWCA are irrelevant because they only got a few councillors elected.

In fact, I think that the fact they built something of a base in a couple of small areas (as evidenced by council election results) makes them of some interest. Nevertheless, it is a statement of fact rather than a value judgment that those small electoral gains stagnated and then began to fade away. My point isn't to slag them off for that - it's to learn whatever can be usefully learnt from their success and from their failure.

The problems of the IWCA didn't come from being unable to define working-class

Well, actually I think that their views on class constituted one problem they had - an approach consistently targetting relatively homogenous "traditional" working class areas, and to some extent relying on the social structures found in those areas. Look back at LLETSA's posts, for example, and you have an IWCA supporter fairly bluntly saying that its approach would be at the very least more difficult in another type of working class area. That's a problem when huge swathes of the working class don't live in places very like Blackbird Leys.

But, as it happens, that wasn't the argument I was making in the post you are responding to. The particular passage you quote wasn't directly about explaining the IWCA's failure, but about the tension between the highly ideological and anti-ideological strains in its thinking. I was using their views on class as one of a number of examples of a highly ideological issue predetermined by IWCA activists, even as at another level they presented themselves as simply reflecting the views of "real" working class people in the areas they worked in.

 

[The39thStep]

and they (Stepney etc) managed all that without any surveys. There's nothing special about them, it's a tactic (helps get you known for one thing).

Its not about surveys as a principle.As as you say its a tactic but the principle is one of consultation/finding out what the issues are for the local working class rather than some preconcieved notion about what are the key issues for the working class.

The latter is well illustrated by the junior Trotsky brigade on here whose papers are full of weekly editorials on 'The key issues for the working class are ... ' and when assuming the vanguard position 'The key issues for the international working class are.....'

The difference between the IWCA approach and the cobweb left is very simple in that it doesn't set out from a position where it wants to win the working class over to an externally imposed ( and often ahistorical ) programme , it simply advocates the local working class forming a community trade union.

The cobweb lefts response was that this cut across their theoretical orthodoxy ie organise at the point of production and it was of no surprise that the cobweb left boycotted the IWCA projects or ignored them. Mainly I think because they were based on a notion that groups should not put their organisation's cult interests first but work to achieve what the local working class wanted.

As was once remarked 'The IWCA might work in practise but its doesn't work in theory'

The fact that some of its members have got tired swimming against the stream is disappointing but understandable . It doesn't make the project itself a faulty one.

 

[TopCat]

I would prefer to have some input to this debate by actual members of the IWCA itself ratherthan sifting through sectarian shite from people who's positions are based on a pile of muck.

 

[chilango]

I would prefer to have some input to this debate by actual members of the IWCA itself.

Yes. I'd be interested in hearing more from people's experiences, successes and failures. Sihhi and LLETSA's contributions have added a lot here.

...ratherthan sifting through sectarian shite from people who's positions are based on a pile of muck.

I think you're being a little harsh. Nigel Irritable has made some good points for example (though he may well be wrong, the discussion is worthwhile) and the counterpoint with the SP's strategy could be usefully illustrative.

 

[belboid]

It'd be nice if some members (or even ex members, or people who pretended to be members) could come up with a response that honestly dealt with why the organisation had a promising start, but then rapidly stagnated and then declined, without having to make puerile references to the 'cobweb left.' The IWCA was meant to leave all thart behind, but it is still the only thing they seem to make reference to (oh, except for the one refe4ence to 'the labour party came after us' - well, duh). All that does is make the group sound exactly the same as all the other lefty splinters, despite the protestations.

 

[belboid]

As was once remarked 'The IWCA might work in practise but its doesn't work in theory'

It doesn't really seem to have worked in practise either tho, does it? What did it actually achieve? Not being fuhnny, but what was the net result of its ten years? A couple of small time dealers stopped, some new street lighting and bollards? What else?

 

[Random]

Replying to belboid - it seems to be you who wants to make this all about your precious cobweb left, and how the IWCA is now getting it's just deserts for jilting The Left. At least nigel irritible has the intellectual honesty to admit the achievements of the IWCA, rather than screetching that it achieved nothing, nothing at all, oh no.

And the wrong kind of nothing, at that.

 

[Random]

The difference between the IWCA approach and the cobweb left is very simple in that it doesn't set out from a position where it wants to win the working class over to an externally imposed ( and often ahistorical ) programme , it simply advocates the local working class forming a community trade union.

Both sihi and NI are right on this point imo - in today's left climate such a position is 'new', when it is actually fundamental to workign class politics and should be taken for granted.

 

[belboid]

Replying to belboid - it seems to be you who wants to make this all about your precious cobweb left, and how the IWCA is now getting it's just deserts for jilting The Left. At least nigel irritible has the intellectual honesty to admit the achievements of the IWCA, rather than screetching that it achieved nothing, nothing at all, oh no.

I have no interest whatsoever about talking about the IWCA's relationship with the left, its been its supporters who have done that. I note its hypocrisy, thats all.

As to its succeses, I totally accept that it did well for a while in a part of Oxford, and not bad in two parts of London. Other than that tho, it seemed to achieve absolutely nothing, sorry but that's simply a fact, unless anyone can show me otherwise. Even in Oxford, I am somewhat at a loss to see what real gains it achieved for the class, no one has offered up anything so far. And that is what counts, not some abstract bollocks about 're-inventing' ways to fight or whatever. Stop moaning and tell me what it achieved, thats all I ask.

btw, was the groups periphery made up of lots of ex-catholics? cos there sure seems to be a lot of guilt going around for not doing more for them, while there is precious little by way of analysis of what went well and what went wrong.