IWCA exasperated with mainstream politics

[FreddyB]

Is this thread about the IWCA moving away from a particular strategy or ceasing to exist?


Also

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.

This.

 

[Fun-Sized]

The IWCA did quite well in my borough, Havering, a few years ago but seemed to suddenly disappear. A shame, because the BNP are now infesting the very same wards where the IWCA were once active.

They were the only leftish group I know of that actually focused on the issues that people cared about on a day-to-day basis, rather than being obsessed with identity politics and Palestine, etc.

And as for what they acheived - well, the SWP have been around for decades and what have they done, other than going on demonstations and taking over and then destroying political alliances?

 

[Random]

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.

Not bad for a group that probably had no more members than one of the tiniest leninist groups. This is what I mean by more bang for your buck, and why I'd expect this useful experience to be learnt from, instead of written off.

But we all know that the various tiny leninist groups are more interested in trying to get hegemony over the rest of the left, and therefore the working class, than in getting involved in concrete social change. Which makes your point about 'real gains for the class rather disingenous', to say the least.

 

[Random]

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.

And you wonder why no one bothers replying to you.

 

[belboid]

because you have no answers it would appear.

I'm quite surprised you're gouing down this route Random, you used to be fairly honest. Only LLETSA (LLETSA ffs!) and sihhi have made any attempt at honestly assessing what went on.

 

[Random]

because you have no answers it would appear.

I'm quite surprised you're gouing down this route Random, you used to be fairly honest. Only LLETSA (LLETSA ffs!) and sihhi have made any attempt at honestly assessing what went on.

My answers are there for anyone to read. Comment on them and I'll expand, if you like. Or keep it up with the jibes, and I'll keep writing you off as a clapped out trotbot.

 

[belboid]

sorry, I missed this post before.

Not bad for a group that probably had no more members than one of the tiniest leninist groups. This is what I mean by more bang for your buck, and why I'd expect this useful experience to be learnt from, instead of written off.

But we all know that the various tiny leninist groups are more interested in trying to get hegemony over the rest of the left, and therefore the working class, than in getting involved in concrete social change. Which makes your point about 'real gains for the class rather disingenous', to say the least.

Glad to see you're not going on about 'the left'.

AFA wasn't that tiny, tho I take your point. I am still rather at a loss about what are these vital lessons to learn. Frankly most people could already have told you that community work is long and hard, and the results take a while. I'm unconvinced by the need for the survey. Listening to what people actually want is a good idea, not exactly a new insight either (not to anyone who had ever been involved in any kind of electoral politics especially). The group couldn't provide any experience about building a national or lasting group. So just what is it we're meant to be learning?

(incidentally, I have had a look at the national, Oxford & Blackbird Lees websites to see wht the groups have been up to, but there's nothing on any of them from the last two years!)

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Not bad for a group that probably had no more members than one of the tiniest leninist groups. This is what I mean by more bang for your buck, and why I'd expect this useful experience to be learnt from, instead of written off.

It is difficult to learn from the experience when the people involved or sympathetic seem to have so little of substance to say about its actual successes and failures.

 

[Random]

It is difficult to learn from the experience when the people involved or sympathetic seem to have so little of substance to say about its actual successes and failures.

The actual successes I see are things like the running community patrols to re-take space; running a community newsletter; getting several councillors elected and using that platform to challenge Labour. All under the umbrella of working class self-organisation, and without any of the cult-like behaviour of most Leninist groups or the disassociation from reality of most anarchist groups.

The failures are the inability to sustain this activity, which is partly linked to the understandable revulsion against Leninst-style recruitment. Plus the inability to fight Labour on their electoral turf, which is based on the unequal resources of the two sides.

But the fact that so much was achieved with so little, and that the Labour Party saw it as a real threat, says a lot about the potential for this kind of work, if more people got involved.

The aim of the IWCA was always to act as an example, and hopefully lead to a snowball effect. This hope has not been realised, but I think it was important to try, and that a lot of good has been done along the way.

 

[Random]

Glad to see you're not going on about 'the left'.

You got me on that I blame you for whinging about how the IWCA were doomed for not being more like a recognisable leftist group.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The actual successes I see are things like the running community patrols to re-take space; running a community newsletter; getting several councillors elected and using that platform to challenge Labour.

I agree that these are actual successes, but the first is one of very limited applicability and the second, third and fourth are hardly groundbreaking.

The failures are the inability to sustain this activity, which is partly linked to the understandable revulsion against Leninst-style recruitment. Plus the inability to fight Labour on their electoral turf, which is based on the unequal resources of the two sides.

Well we agree that the failures are chiefly:

1) It failed to spread.
2) It failed to sustain itself where it was built.

These are pretty substantial failures. Because of these 2 factors, it never got to a stage where the kind of political effect or impact it would have on a larger scale could be judged.

Here you offer two explanations for these failures, but I don't think that they really tell us very much. Any left wing oppositional grouping is going to have to deal with mainstream parties having more resources - if that's to be treated as an insurmountable barrier we may as well give up and go home.

As for the part about a failure to recruit, because of "revulsion" at Leninist recruitment practices, if that's accurate it implies a genuinely shocking level of self-defeating stupidity. The kind of thing I associate with the sillier end of the anarchist spectrum.

 

[The39thStep]

And you wonder why no one bothers replying to you.

Not even Chavez

 

[belboid]

so what was the experience in your branch steptoe?

oh no, you made up your branch didn't you? one of those oh so useful 'supporters' who made the organisation what it was

 

[The39thStep]

so what was the experience in your branch steptoe?

oh no, you made up your branch didn't you? one of those oh so useful 'supporters' who made the organisation what it was

To describe you as odd would be an insult to those less fortunate , to describe you as a liar wouldn't do the term justice. Putting a caption underneath a picture of a trip to a beer festival really can't be construed by anyone as making a branch up apart from you.Remember you were the only one who thought it was real and you got all embarassed.

Get over it.

 

[belboid]

oh dear, touched a nerve have I steptoe?

M y memory is somewhat different to that, but no matter. The essential point remains, you were a vocal supporter of the IWCA on here and elsewhere, so why didn't you actually set anythjing up? What was it stopped you? Fact is you did the same as me - bunged them a few quid, and that was it.

 

[belboid]

The actual successes I see are things like the running community patrols to re-take space;

re-take space from whom? and what is offered to those people instead? I guess we're taliong drug dealers and 'anti-social behaviour' young people. the former will just have moved, the latter need something to do (tho i do know that the IWCA was fairly good on tryiong to find alt youth provision)

running a community newsletter

old as anything, most recently (well,m about 30 years ago) made a big thing of by the Liberals (tho the IWCA sheets had rather better politics)

getting several councillors elected and using that platform to challenge Labour. All under the umbrella of working class self-organisation

a good thing, but sadly meaningless if thats all it is, and it isnt built upon.

and without any of the cult-like behaviour of most Leninist groups or the disassociation from reality of most anarchist groups.

irrelevant

Sorry, but that really aint much. And while it is worthwhile it isn't mould breaking at all.

 

[FreddyB]

I wish someone with from the IWCA would post their view of the situation instead of Belboid posting a caustic account of what he thinks is going on and why he wants it to be true

 

[belboid]

I dont want it to be true, it'd be fucking ace if I'd have been wrong and it had offered a real way forward. I'm just not surprised.

 

[Random]

Here's a recent recording of an Oxford council meeting, featuring IWCA councillor Stuart Craft. He's the one sitting closest and to the left.

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decCD/FullCouncilVideo19April2010.htm

 

[Random]

old

meaningless

irrelevant

 

[newbie]

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.

Is that actually the case? I've said before I find the secrecy with which the IWCA conducts it's affairs quite difficult to understand: no visible national structure, private annual conferences, unsigned position statements, the libel case, now it appears sihhi isn't "allowed" to discuss a long ago election experience. There appears to be a single IWCA view, rather than views debated openly.

When I've raised this here I've always been told it's none of my business as I'm neither a member nor a constituent. Which is fair enough but it's much closer to what I'd expect from the ideological left with revolutionary pretensions than from a party which simply aims at community advocacy.

Secrecy raises doubts about the perspective, and agenda, beneath the simple veneer. How can you or any other non-insider know whether there is a programme being 'imposed'?

 

[belboid]

sums up the IWCA's pseudo-supporters attitude perfectly.

 

[sihhi]

Here's a recent recording of an Oxford council meeting, featuring IWCA councillor Stuart Craft. He's the one sitting closest and to the left.

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decCD/FullCouncilVideo19April2010.htm

That's the perfect example of what's been going on repeatedly - an IWCA councillor makes one point and that's it, Labour and Lib Dems block any discussion, it's to be expected though.

 

[The39thStep]

Is that actually the case? I've said before I find the secrecy with which the IWCA conducts it's affairs quite difficult to understand: no visible national structure, private annual conferences, unsigned position statements, the libel case, now it appears sihhi isn't "allowed" to discuss a long ago election experience. There appears to be a single IWCA view, rather than views debated openly.

When I've raised this here I've always been told it's none of my business as I'm neither a member nor a constituent. Which is fair enough but it's much closer to what I'd expect from the ideological left with revolutionary pretensions than from a party which simply aims at community advocacy.

Secrecy raises doubts about the perspective, and agenda, beneath the simple veneer. How can you or any other non-insider know whether there is a programme being 'imposed'?

I think you will find that if you join you get the national structure, voting rights, invite to the annual meeting. You also get to join in with online newsletters and contribute to not just positions but tactics.

In any case the alleged 'secrecy' you describe could cover any group with or without any political view rather than what you describe as the 'ideological left with revolutionary pretensions', what ever that is supposed to be.

 

[The39thStep]

sums up the IWCA's pseudo-supporters attitude perfectly.

what are psuedo supporters Belboid? Is it one of you patented discoveries like 'neo Blairism' which you comically applied to the Wilson govt.

And why didn't I go and set up an IWCA branch locally? - long hours at work, kids, a precious social life and middle age I suppose.

 

[Pickman's model]

sums up the IWCA's pseudo-supporters attitude perfectly.

you've got crap pseudo-politics.

 

[belboid]

what are psuedo supporters Belboid?

very sorry you dont understand english steptoe, should be obviousd even to you.

I've no interest in carrying on a spat with a creep like you, much as you may wish to keep the discusson off topic, so there I'll leave it.

 

[belboid]

That's the perfect example of what's been going on repeatedly - an IWCA councillor makes one point and that's it, Labour and Lib Dems block any discussion, it's to be expected though.

when does he make his contribution? Buggerred if I'm going to sit through 3 hours of a council meeting for one point!

 

[Pickman's model]

Buggerred if I'm going to sit through 3 hours of a council meeting for one pint!

corrected

 

[TopCat]

very sorry you dont understand english steptoe, should be obviousd even to you.

I've no interest in carrying on a spat with a creep like you, much as you may wish to keep the discusson off topic, so there I'll leave it.

Classic belboid.