'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The IWCA strategy is straightforward. It recognises that if the working class is to recover its share of the national cake and bring about a return in the level of investment in health, education and pensions to even pre-Thatcher levels, the working class must first retake political control and responsibility for its own communities.
In practical terms this means bringing an independent working class analysis into the heart of local government thinking throughout Britain. In electoral terms it means supporting those candidates who are committed to putting the immediate interests of the working class first.

From the IWCA manifesto. They're a reformist organisation, they're not communists.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

http://www.iwca.info/?page_id=1001#quest19

No mention of classless society.

 

[Kizmet]

Reading their words and stated aims.

Can you show what made you think that?

New labour never had the aim of total social change. Just social reform. The IWCA seem different.

More naive, in my opinion, but definitely different.

 

[butchersapron]

From the IWCA manifesto. They're a reformist organisation, they're not communists.

Nice to see that your communist judging badge got through. Never know with the postal services these days. What in that makes them reformist? If you want to do this tired old dance of reformist vs revolutionaries. What is reformism? What is non-reformism? Striking a pose in your bedroom?

 

[butchersapron]

No mention of classless society.

You have no politics. You have a badge.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

No, the IWCA objective is explicitly stated to be total social change, through means such as the application of democracy to the economy.

Which is just vague nonsense, as if democratisation can be applied to a capitalist economy.

 

[butchersapron]

Which is just vague nonsense, as if democratisation can be applied to a capitalist economy.

Yes, that's exactly why they're revolutionaries you dolt.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

What in that makes them reformist?

If you want to do this tired old dance of reformist vs revolutionaries. What is reformism? What is non-reformism? Striking a pose in your bedroom?

Reformism is limited to making changes or alterations within capitalism. Revolution, or a classless society, is not the aim of the IWCA (as they pretty much say themselves, to be fair).

Revolution means moving outside capitalism, that has to be the aim, wherever the starting point is taken.

 

[butchersapron]

Reformism is limited to making changes or alterations within capitalism. Revolution, or a classless society, is not the aim of the IWCA (as they pretty much say themselves, to be fair).

Revolution means moving outside capitalism, that has to be the aim, wherever the starting point is taken.

You've just killed yourself.

 

[Random]

Anyway, I don't think it's useful to keep arguing in circles with Ibn. I never said the IWCA were communists, I said to Gmart that a classless society was the aim of communism, and that this same aim is implied by the politics of the IWCA.

Edit: more than implied, since a quick scan of the economic democracy paper shows them quoting Chomsky calling for change "which will transform the proletariat into free men by eliminating the commodity character of labour, ending wage slavery and bringing the commercial, industrial and financial institutions under democratic control" http://www.iwca.info/?p=10172

The IWCA go on to try to flesh out how this transformation would work. You can argue over whether it's possible, but you can't really argue that ending wage slavery is mere reformism. In fact for about 100 years ending wage slavery has mean ending class society - ending capitalism and replacing it with a classless society.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Yes, that's exactly why they're revolutionaries you dolt.

Or not. I thought you of all people here would be critical of this notion of democratisation, ith its lack of content, it would be you.

 

[butchersapron]

Or not. I thought you of all people here would be critical of this notion of democratisation, ith its lack of content, it would be you.

So ask why i'm saying this to you.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Anyway, I don't think it's useful to keep arguing in circles with Ibn. I never said the IWCA were communists, I said to Gmart that a classless society was the aim of communism, and that this same aim is implied by the politics of the IWCA.

Edit: more than implied, since a quick scan of the economic democracy paper shows them quoting Chomsky calling for change "which will transform the proletariat into free men by eliminating the commodity character of labour, ending wage slavery and bringing the commercial, industrial and financial institutions under democratic control" http://www.iwca.info/?p=10172

The IWCA go on to try to flesh out how this transformation would work. You can argue over whether it's possible, but you can't really argue that ending wage slavery is mere reformism. In fact for about 100 years ending wage slavery has mean ending class society - ending capitalism and replacing it with a classless society.

"We are not ending the principle of private ownership of capital (though it is likely to be less prevalent in our democratic economy). We are not fundamentally altering the balance between state and market: that, as now, will be a question of pragmatism, not principle (though the aim will be a ‘minimal state’)."

 

[butchersapron]

That's a quote arguing that reforms only do that. You faker. You've not read it. It's he end point of a long article that that argues the opposite. Shameful.

 

[Random]

"We are not ending the principle of private ownership of capital (though it is likely to be less prevalent in our democratic economy). We are not fundamentally altering the balance between state and market: that, as now, will be a question of pragmatism, not principle (though the aim will be a ‘minimal state’)."

Does that sentence mean that the working class will simply have a slice of the cake? Are you going back on your earlier claim now?

 

[Random]

I'll admit now that I've not read the economic democracy articles myself.

 

[butchersapron]

All these things you think ' we' are not arguments for them you read the conclusion alone fake. They are arguments against them.

 

[butchersapron]

I'll admit now that I've not read the economic democracy articles myself.

Just read the conclusion. It's mental how bad some people can get things.

 

[butchersapron]

Amazing, if say Krugman argued that we are only doing these crap thing in order to argue for a different course of action then Krugman is arguing for the course of action he has identified as damaging. You fake sheik.

 

[TruXta]

So who's the "we" in that quote?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Just read the conclusion. It's mental how bad some people can get things.

It should still be read in context, and I have ripped it out of context, but nonetheless (and I'll be prepared to admit if I got it mentalistically wrong . . .) they don't seem to argue against it and the rest of the article wouldn't make sense if they were. I originally read it a few months ago.

 

[butchersapron]

The author for the IWCA. I must eat some humble pie.

 

[butchersapron]

It should still be read in context, and I have ripped it out of context, but nonetheless (and I'll be prepared to admit if I got it mentalistically wrong . . .) they don't seem to argue against it and the rest of the article wouldn't make sense if they were. I originally read it a few months ago.

Look, you need to read the whole article and in the context of activity, it's no use skipping to the end.

 

[TruXta]

The author for the IWCA. I must eat some humble pie.

Sorry, was that in answer to my question?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Anyway, I don't think it's useful to keep arguing in circles with Ibn. I never said the IWCA were communists, I said to Gmart that a classless society was the aim of communism, and that this same aim is implied by the politics of the IWCA.

Edit: more than implied, since a quick scan of the economic democracy paper shows them quoting Chomsky calling for change "which will transform the proletariat into free men by eliminating the commodity character of labour, ending wage slavery and bringing the commercial, industrial and financial institutions under democratic control" http://www.iwca.info/?p=10172

The IWCA go on to try to flesh out how this transformation would work. You can argue over whether it's possible, but you can't really argue that ending wage slavery is mere reformism. In fact for about 100 years ending wage slavery has mean ending class society - ending capitalism and replacing it with a classless society.

They go further than social democratic reformism actually, but I still stay it's reformism if capitalist relations exist, yet it is a bit more radical than 'mere reform' and what I suggested, so I guess I take back that bit.

 

[TruXta]

I think I'll need to read the thing before saying anything else.

 

[Random]

I still stay it's reformism if capitalist relations exist

In any case, as I said above, it implies the ending of class divisions, not simply a championing of working class interests in some kind of identity politics.

 

[revol68]

IWCA, Militant for the post political landscape, fuck knows why so many anarchos have such a hard on for them? I mean Butchers what the fuck else is this but a statement of reformism

"We are not ending the principle of private ownership of capital (though it is likely to be less prevalent in our democratic economy). We are not fundamentally altering the balance between state and market: that, as now, will be a question of pragmatism, not principle (though the aim will be a ‘minimal state’)."

Right down to the Blairite language of it being a matter of pragmatism not principle.

Seriously the Socialist Party have a more revolutionary position and a more coherent program for implementing it.

 

[Random]

IWCA, Militant for the post political landscape, fuck knows why so many anarchos have such a hard on for them?

In my case it's because the IWCA's activity stands for direct action in the here and now; self organisation to win gains, rather than building up a political party that can one day form the government, as leftist parties want to do.