Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Slow Fix - IWCA on the rise of UKIP and decline of the left...

You're repeating yourself. But I also think you're jumping to a conclusion. The IWCA's definition of working class appears to be narrow. That is to say, it is concerned almost entirely with the white working class. In other words, it cannot claim to represent the entire working class anymore than the SWP can make that claim. Then there's its use of language. It tends to chuck the phrase "lumpen proletariat" around without any consideration (see the thread titled "Dealing with the renegades").

But it's really the fact that those people who claim to speak for the IWCA are as sectarian as those they position themselves against. It continues to bang on about immigration without actually challenging some of the widely held assumptions and myths. Then it claims not to be part of the Left, then in another article it will claim that it is on the Left. Some consistency would be nice.

I happen to think the IWCA has done some good work but it also alienates a large number of people - many of them working class. If it was successful in reaching out to Britain's working class, it wouldn't be limited to the Blackbird Leys Estate as it currently is.

One thing that really pisses me off is this smug, superior attitude of the IWCA towards those that don't agree with them on every issue. In that regard, it is little different to the RCP or even the RCG, which initially helped to sponsor it.

I never got the impression that the IWCA only concerns itself with the white working class. From reading their literature, speaking to their members and supporters I always got the impression that they were solely concerned with working class interests without consideration to the wants and needs of the middle classes. I can’t recollect them asserting that they claim to represent the entire working class either. It’s a no brainer that one, huge numbers of the working class don’t have any time for politics let alone that of progressive or non progressive organisations.

The use of the term “Lumpen proletariat” being used “without consideration”? Consideration to who or what? I have argued enough to members of the IWCA that their approach and attitude to anti-social drug taking rioting members of the working class IE the Lumpen is too alienating and ignores a righteous tradition of dissent that the UK has been rather good at for hundreds of years (the mob, not getting stoned a lot).

I don’t know what point you are trying to make, do you support the rioters of 2 years ago and Brixton 1981/85 etc or not?

As for the IWCA being sectarian, I can see how you might view their constant assessment of the so called revolutionary left and the scorn they pour forth as being sectarian but given the utter shite that makes up most of the left in the UK it’s hardly a surprise and needs to be done, like kicking a ball into a empty net, kick it hard, top corner man!

I have known the IWCA to work with many different types, anarchists, ex anarchists, republicans, all sorts. Your assertion and dismissal does not hold water. the IWCA “banging on about immigration”, that’s not how I read their politics. I don’t think they ever did. They and I question who benefits from open borders, I don’t see it being in the interests of any one bar capital to have mass immigration to serve the needs of ever bigger profits and lower costs supplied by insecure cheap labour, who else benefits?

This does not mean supporting immigration controls or opposing immigration, just questioning who benefits? It certainly is not the working class of the UK, nor the working class of other countries.


My uncle who hardly gets any more work as a plumber (since the restrictions of Poles working in the UK ended) does not benefit. Nor would I assert the Poles in Poland who can’t get their pipes fixed. Nor the influx of people from the Indian sub-continent who got encouraged to go and work in Poland as bus drivers to replace the ones who all came to the UK, let alone the now homeless Poles who have no work in the UK and no recourse to public funds, begging and living hand to mouth.

Hey as long as middle class cunts with money can smugly assert that they get a better service for less when they employ tradespeople and the profits of cunts like Pimlico Plumbers go up as they can resist demands for pay increases from their workforce all is well.

Capital and the bosses all love having workers insecure, it keeps costs down as people are alienated and find it hard to organise against their exploiters. They have been doing it for hundreds of years. The knock on effects of people hating newcomers stretching already thin resources sits well with capital as well. It’s a win win for them.
PS. Did I mention the SWP are all cunts?
 
http://www.facebook.com/AbolishBedroomTaxOrPrepareForBritainsCivilWar2013?hc_location=timeline

The guy who is running the 'Abolish bedroom tax or prepare for people's revolution 2013' F/B site, which is very active and interesting, has been polling his readers: the majority vote labour, many of these people are on the arses, really struggling, and yet they are still, saying at least, they will support the LP. If this is the case, I am less sanguine about the possibilities of a new left wing party than I was before.

ah,. hardly anyway voted, so not that significant, though some were Tories!
 
With regard to the assertion that the IWCA is only interested in the white working class. Is there any actual evidence of this? In the earliest IWCA related documents it was clearly stated that the constituency of the IWCA is "the bottom 40%" of society. There was no reference to race or ethnicity in that. The IWCA is not a racist organisation, but there appears to be a concerted effort by some here to paint it as such. Not a single piece of evidence has been provided to support this thesis other than an attempt to portray the IWCA's questioning of the wisdom of the left's shibboleth of Open Borders (a policy that is also embraced by the ruling class in Europe) to suggest that the IWCA is 'reactionary' and/or 'racist'.
 
Is it? Show me some evidence then.

Well I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for your assertion, frankly.

It would be pretty odd for an organisation "concerned almost entirely with the white working class" to have had a branch in Hackney, would it not? (The branch I was formerly involved in, for full disclosure).

Can you show me where the IWCA has stated that it is "concerned almost entirely with the white working class"?
 
I never got the impression that the IWCA only concerns itself with the white working class. From reading their literature, speaking to their members and supporters I always got the impression that they were solely concerned with working class interests without consideration to the wants and needs of the middle classes. I can’t recollect them asserting that they claim to represent the entire working class either. It’s a no brainer that one, huge numbers of the working class don’t have any time for politics let alone that of progressive or non progressive organisations.

Given the language used by several defenders of the IWCA on Urban, I'd say that's the impression I get. Yes.

The use of the term “Lumpen proletariat” being used “without consideration”? Consideration to who or what? I have argued enough to members of the IWCA that their approach and attitude to anti-social drug taking rioting members of the working class IE the Lumpen is too alienating and ignores a righteous tradition of dissent that the UK has been rather good at for hundreds of years (the mob, not getting stoned a lot).

It's used in a sweeping, generalising way. By this definition, the homeless are also "lumpen".

I don’t know what point you are trying to make, do you support the rioters of 2 years ago and Brixton 1981/85 etc or not?

I don't know what point you're trying to make when you ask me if I "support" the riots. That's rather presumptuous, don't you think? I seek to identify the underlying causes. Treating all the rioters as "lumpens" is misguided and dangerous and smacks of anti-intellectualism.

As for the IWCA being sectarian, I can see how you might view their constant assessment of the so called revolutionary left and the scorn they pour forth as being sectarian but given the utter shite that makes up most of the left in the UK it’s hardly a surprise and needs to be done, like kicking a ball into a empty net, kick it hard, top corner man!

No, it's smugness. The IWCA are just as bad as the rest when it comes to this kind of sectarian language.

I have known the IWCA to work with many different types, anarchists, ex anarchists, republicans, all sorts. Your assertion and dismissal does not hold water. the IWCA “banging on about immigration”, that’s not how I read their politics. I don’t think they ever did. They and I question who benefits from open borders, I don’t see it being in the interests of any one bar capital to have mass immigration to serve the needs of ever bigger profits and lower costs supplied by insecure cheap labour, who else benefits?

Yeah? Well, that's what I see on these boards.

This does not mean supporting immigration controls or opposing immigration, just questioning who benefits? It certainly is not the working class of the UK, nor the working class of other countries.

It's as if immigration was a new issue. It isn't. I don't see the IWCA challenging any of the myths or the widely held assumptions about immigration. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show me where I'm wrong here? One thing that I have noticed about the IWCA is that they have an anti-intellectual streak. Deny it if you must. But there are certain posters who use phrases like "pseudo-intellectual" as way to respond to criticism. Furthermore, this idea of anti-intellectualism holds that reading and learning are bad things...unless the reading matter comes from the IWCA of course.


My uncle who hardly gets any more work as a plumber (since the restrictions of Poles working in the UK ended) does not benefit. Nor would I assert the Poles in Poland who can’t get their pipes fixed. Nor the influx of people from the Indian sub-continent who got encouraged to go and work in Poland as bus drivers to replace the ones who all came to the UK, let alone the now homeless Poles who have no work in the UK and no recourse to public funds, begging and living hand to mouth.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.


Hey as long as middle class cunts with money can smugly assert that they get a better service for less when they employ tradespeople and the profits of cunts like Pimlico Plumbers go up as they can resist demands for pay increases from their workforce all is well.

I don't use Pimlico Plumbers. I live in social housing. Point?

Capital and the bosses all love having workers insecure, it keeps costs down as people are alienated and find it hard to organise against their exploiters. They have been doing it for hundreds of years. The knock on effects of people hating newcomers stretching already thin resources sits well with capital as well. It’s a win win for them.

PS. Did I mention the SWP are all cunts?

No, but I agree. They are cunts.
 
Well I think the onus is on you to provide evidence for your assertion, frankly.

It would be pretty odd for an organisation "concerned almost entirely with the white working class" to have had a branch in Hackney, would it not? (The branch I was formerly involved in, for full disclosure).

Can you show me where the IWCA has stated that it is "concerned almost entirely with the white working class"?
No, the onus is on you. I asked you the question (politely).

That's an old RCP trick you're using btw.

Oh, what happened to the Hackney branch btw? Isn't the IWCA now limited to the Blackbird Leys estate? Over to you.
 
With regard to the assertion that the IWCA is only interested in the white working class. Is there any actual evidence of this? In the earliest IWCA related documents it was clearly stated that the constituency of the IWCA is "the bottom 40%" of society. There was no reference to race or ethnicity in that. The IWCA is not a racist organisation, but there appears to be a concerted effort by some here to paint it as such. Not a single piece of evidence has been provided to support this thesis other than an attempt to portray the IWCA's questioning of the wisdom of the left's shibboleth of Open Borders (a policy that is also embraced by the ruling class in Europe) to suggest that the IWCA is 'reactionary' and/or 'racist'.

Perhaps you could explain the antipathy to multiculturalism (which appears to be described as a state project according some IWCA literature). I don't see it that way but then I'm just a poor pseudo-intellectual. :D

I just wonder what the IWCA would make of self-defence groups like the Black Panther Party. Identity politics?
 
open Borders (a policy that is also embraced by the ruling class in Europe)

Is there any evidence there is one ruling class in Europe? If there is, are we really sure that it embraces open borders what with attempts at cross border movement ending in death or torture so frequently: shootings by police, drowning, deportation to home airports with waiting intelligence officers etc so frequently?
Surely we do have open borders within the 'nations' of the constitutional monarchy of the UK, half open/half closed borders within the EU and traditional Commonwealth, mostly closed borders to populations outside.
If "the ruling class in Europe" embrace the border policy between Scotland England, why isn't it applied all over Europe?
 
No, the onus is on you. I asked you the question (politely).

That's an old RCP trick you're using btw.

Oh, what happened to the Hackney branch btw? Isn't the IWCA now limited to the Blackbird Leys estate? Over to you.

You: The IWCA is racist
Me (and other posters): WTF? No it isn't.
You: Prove it!

The Hackney branch left the IWCA and became Hackney Independent.
 
You seem to be saying that the IWCA prioritises its audience based on whiteness. Have I misunderstood you?

Yes, really.
You clearly have a problem with sarcasm (actually humour is an issue with the IWCA). I already know about Hackney Independent, hence the rolleyes.

The IWCA rails against "multiculturalism" and the word is used in the most disparaging and narrow terms.

So why are there no branches of the IWCA in the North?
 
You clearly have a problem with sarcasm (actually humour is an issue with the IWCA). I already know about Hackney Independent, hence the rolleyes.

I'm still no clearer to understanding the point you are trying to make.

You seem to be saying that the IWCA prioritises its audience based on whiteness. Have I misunderstood you?

The IWCA rails against "multiculturalism" and the word is used in the most disparaging and narrow terms.

Do they, actually?

IWCA said:
Race & class

For many years racism was opposed because people recognised that it divided the working class. Increasingly, however, there are calls for the state funding of religious schools, for segregated schooling and for segregated housing. All of which is promoted in the name of anti-racism.

However, experience shows that the funding of social projects purely on the grounds of race can only foster an us and them scenario, with the result that instead of being united by anti-racism, the working class can just as easily be divided by it. Multiculturalism, which insists everyone be treated differently, also undermines the concept of fairness at the core of anti-racism. For example, in America recent research has found that the application of the multicultural strategy has increased segregation in many cities and created a black middle class, often directly at the expense of the black working class.

The IWCA is against any strategies that artificially divide the working class against itself. In order to rectify past mistakes there will need to be recognition that:
  • Orthodox models of equal opportunities racialise social questions in such a way as to set communities against each other.
  • Equal opportunities models which assume there is a uniform access to power by all white people and a uniform denial of access to power by all black people must be rejected.
  • Systematic cuts in youth and community provision and a subsequent rise in racial tension are often linked by a straightforward relationship of cause and effect.
  • Anti-racist strategies that are not broadly accepted as reasonable and rational by working class communities are counter-productive and can deflect attempts to tackle the most extreme forms of bigotry.
  • Multicultural strategies which promote or result in segregation, particularly in housing and schooling, must be scrapped.
  • Organised and systematic racial violence needs to be dealt with from a political as well as criminal perspective.

So why are there no branches of the IWCA in the North?

I've not been a member of the IWCA since the departure of Hackney Independent in 2004 (and for the record I think I only joined about a year before that). So I would not be the best person to ask.

I can't speak for the IWCA, but could not let your bullshit assertion about them being primarily concenred with the white working class go without comment.
 
nino_savatte said:
The IWCA rails against "multiculturalism" and the word is used in the most disparaging and narrow terms.

They rail against top down multiculturalism iirc. The left shouldn't run away from that debate. It serves nobody's interests but those who seek to divide the w/c along racial/cultural lines.
 
So you oppose political support for 'open borders'. Once again then, you are strongly implying your support for immigration controls (you either have them or you don't, sometimes there are binaries), but wont actually come out and say so. As mass immigration is a fact of life, as you say, then the important political response is surely to talk about how we can work with those migrants to ensure that attacks and wages and conditions don't happen. But there is no mention of that from you, just the way migration works on behalf of capital. The implication is clear.

All the obvious candidates hyper- ultra - mega don't do justice to the surreal confusion of this post.

On the one hand it is conceded that mass immigration is at the behest of big business in order to under cut and undermine the working class as a whole.

On the other it is suggested that the havoc can be mitigated by ensuring that the "attacks on wages and condidtions don't happen".

But as we know too well there is no mechanism nationally, nor is in any identified in the post, to reverse the impact.

But even if there were super strong trade unions that could absorb new members and enforce the same rates, whatever settlements were

secured under an Open Borders approach, would be instantly destabilised by the next batch of new arrivals. Ad infinitum.

Inevitably in such circumstances super strong unions would want to influence how this could be prevented at source.

On the other hand if the unions could absorb the new arrivals leading to bigger unions the case being made for immigration by big business would cease, and go into reverse.

But back in the real world, as we all know, there are no super trade unions. These days the vast majority of the working class are not unionised at all.

Despite this stark reality the promotion of the Open Borders strategy is nevertheless

worn like a badge of honour and waved about with the maximum of moralising and

self-righteousness: "the implication is clear" and so forth.

But when stripped down, what the post actually invites us to do is to stand shoulder

to shoulder with the CBI against UKIP the BNP and the working class.

While the correct position surely is to stand shoulder to shoulder with the working

class against UKIP, the BNP and CBI?
 
All the obvious candidates hyper- ultra - mega don't do justice to the surreal confusion of this post.

On the one hand it is conceded that mass immigration is at the behest of big business in order to under cut and undermine the working class as a whole.

On the other it is suggested that the havoc can be mitigated by ensuring that the "attacks on wages and condidtions don't happen".

But as we know too well there is no mechanism nationally, nor is in any identified in the post, to reverse the impact.

But even if there were super strong trade unions that could absorb new members and enforce the same rates, whatever settlements were

secured under an Open Borders approach, would be instantly destabilised by the next batch of new arrivals. Ad infinitum.

Inevitably in such circumstances super strong unions would want to influence how this could be prevented at source.

On the other hand if the unions could absorb the new arrivals leading to bigger unions the case being made for immigration by big business would cease, and go into reverse.

But back in the real world, as we all know, there are no super trade unions. These days the vast majority of the working class are not unionised at all.

Despite this stark reality the promotion of the Open Borders strategy is nevertheless

worn like a badge of honour and waved about with the maximum of moralising and

self-righteousness: "the implication is clear" and so forth.

But when stripped down, what the post actually invites us to do is to stand shoulder

to shoulder with the CBI against UKIP the BNP and the working class.

While the correct position surely is to stand shoulder to shoulder with the working

class against UKIP, the BNP and CBI?
utter drivel. Confused and dishonest.

Do tell me tho Joe, how would your 'standing shoulder to shoulder with the working class' actually manifest itself when it comes to immigration controls. yet again, you make some generic points about capitalism, but offer no solutions. Once again you condemn arguments for 'no borders' but wont come out and say what you would put in its place.

Come on then.
 
On the other hand if the unions could absorb the new arrivals leading to bigger unions the case being made for immigration by big business would cease, and go into reverse.

It is in reverse in many places in Europe - Bavarian industry and profitable parts of the German business sector still do want to return the original guest workers home, precisely because they aren't part of the EU, and an unnecessary 'welfare' burden, especially since other East Europeans are around to lubricate the lower end.

It's a tricky problem to say the least.

But when stripped down, what the post actually invites us to do is to stand shoulder to shoulder with the CBI against UKIP the BNP and the working class.

It is sort of similar to the 'Asylum Seekers Welcome Here' episode in 1999-2000 - populist campaigns against centres and dispersals - most left response: with Labour councils against Tories and BNP.

Labour now proposes to reduce democracy at local council level. The BNP seems to have every chance of winning council seats. Checkmate to Labour: - to remove the BNP from councils (or at least prevent re-election) scrap local democracy as we know it and all with the backing of the middle class Left no doubt.

On the issue of immigration AFA has rightly identified the "Asylum Seekers Welcome Here" slogan of the LSA as being counterproductive. But for Black activists immigration and imperialism are inseparable. The resources of our homelands are taken here, to Britain, but our people can not follow them. Just think: the rubber on the soles of your Nikes. the cotton in your Levi jeans, the silk that make your 'lucky draws", the gold in your earring, the silver in your watch, the copper in your zipper, the aluminium in your telescopic fash bashing cosh (on hold) and the contents of both your double strength coffee (needed to read FT in one go) and that cigarette (killing you softly) all come from lands where the working class control neither the minerals beneath the soil nor the factories above the soil and should they try to follow the fruits of their toil to Britain face jail.

Immigration and imperialism are inseparable, we can't use immigration to lever against imperialist capitalism, but people shouldn't be deported either. So tricky
 
Perhaps you could explain the antipathy to multiculturalism (which appears to be described as a state project according some IWCA literature). I don't see it that way but then I'm just a poor pseudo-intellectual. :D

I just wonder what the IWCA would make of self-defence groups like the Black Panther Party. Identity politics?

I presume that the IWCA's position of 'class not race' would be more or less identical to that of AFA's. Anti-Fascist Action was against the separation of anti-racist and anti-fascist organisations along racial/ethnic lines, which is why, in theory at least, it opposed on principle forming organisations that based themselves purely on ethnicity, whether Black, White, Asian or Irish. However, our opposition to exclusivist and ethnically based groups would not have prevented us working with them on the ground against the fascists. We may have been a working class organisation but we were also pragmatists and where there was a common enemy (i.e. the BNP and other fascist organisations) we were always prepared to fight alongside other groups.

Incidentally, from what I recall, the IWCA's (edit: or maybe, more correctly Red Action's) analysis of multiculturalism (as state policy) was, in part, based upon the experience and political analysis of the BPP. Joe Reilly might be able to elaborate on this point...
 
I presume that the IWCA's position of 'class not race' would be more or less identical to that of AFA's. Anti-Fascist Action was against the separation of anti-racist and anti-fascist organisations along racial/ethnic lines, which is why, in theory at least, it opposed on principle forming organisations that based themselves purely on ethnicity, whether Black, White, Asian or Irish. However, our opposition to exclusivist and ethnically based groups would not have prevented us working with them on the ground against the fascists. We may have been a working class organisation but we were also pragmatists and where there was a common enemy (i.e. the BNP and other fascist organisatons) we were always prepared to fight alongside other groups.

Incidentally, from what I recall, the IWCA's analysis of multiculturalism was, in part, based upon the experience and political analysis of the BPP. Joe Reilly might be able to elaborate on this point...
Posted this in a different thread, but the trojan horse article in this link is excellent...

http://afaarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fighting-talk-issue-25.pdf
 
Posted this in a different thread, but the trojan horse article in this link is excellent...

http://afaarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fighting-talk-issue-25.pdf


People here are sophisticated enough to recognise that when supporters of AFA and/or the IWCA raise questions about multiculturalism and/or 'open borders', it would be from a class point of view not a racial one, i.e. it is a critique of multiculturalism and 'open borders' as state policy.

However, instead of informed debate, we have a deliberate clouding of the issue and the inference that not only is the IWCA opposed to multiculturalism as state policy (which involves the division of community and resources along racial/ethnic lines) but a further lie is promoted that the IWCA it is actually opposed to a multiracial society. The two are completely separate; one (multiculturalism) is state policy, the other (a multiracial society) is a fact of life and irreversible, but I suspect that those here who seek to misrepresent the IWCA already know that and are simply throwing enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick.

As with the 'Open Borders' policy of the EU and its member nations, it seems that 'the left' is also wedded to the state's interpretation of multiculturalism and all that it means for our communities in terms of the division of resources along racial and ethnic lines.
 
People here are sophisticated enough to recognise that when supporters of AFA and/or the IWCA raise questions about multiculturalism and/or 'open borders', it would be from a class point of view not a racial one, i.e. it is a critique of multiculturalism and 'open borders' as state policy.

However, instead of informed debate, we have a deliberate clouding of the issue and the inference that not only is the IWCA opposed to multiculturalism as state policy (which involves the division of community and resources along racial/ethnic lines) but they promote the lie that the IWCA it is actually opposed to a multiracial society. The two are completely separate; one (multiculturalism) is state policy, the other (a multiracial society) is a fact of life and irreversible, but I suspect that those here who seek to misrepresent the IWCA already know that and are simply throwing enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick.

As with the 'Open Borders' policy of the EU and its member nations, it seems that 'the left' is also wedded to the state's interpretation of multiculturalism and all that it means for our communities in terms of the division of resources along racial and ethnic lines.

Well from my reading of AFA stuff, back when, was "multiculturalism" was a new labour product that was sold, it was being used to buy people off in a really cynical way... i.e in a black W/C estate being able to say look at John Smith from here...he's gone to Uni... he's now a solititor/architect/doctor...whats the problem with the rest of ye, therefore feeding into the rightwing belief that its not class or race thats the problem, its that people are just too happy/lazy to sponge off the state, and are happy to blame their problems on "the man".

And 20 years letter, we know this has worked only too well. The Right claim Multiculturalism isnt working, they are wrong insofar as it was never meant to work in the way the phrase is regulaly interpreted, it is used as a stick to beat the working class of all backgrounds with.
 
As with the 'Open Borders' policy of the EU and its member nations, it seems that 'the left' is also wedded to the state's interpretation of multiculturalism and all that it means for our communities in terms of the division of resources along racial and ethnic lines.

Agree with the approach to multiculturalism, but why do we need to suggest that the EU does have an 'open borders' policy, it has various, sometimes very complex forms of unskilled and skilled immigration and emigration.

'Open borders' is too much of an idealised fantasy goal pushed on the subject. It can only make sense in terms of a massive revolutionary-level strength of organised labour imposing it, in which case imposing the revolutionary control of production is the obvious immediate aim.
 
Agree with the approach to multiculturalism, but why do we need to suggest that the EU does have an 'open borders' policy, it has various, sometimes very complex forms of unskilled and skilled immigration and emigration.

'Open borders' is too much of an idealised fantasy goal pushed on the subject. It can only make sense in terms of a massive revolutionary-level strength of organised labour imposing it, in which case imposing the revolutionary control of production is the obvious immediate aim.


I agree that the concept of 'open borders' is abstract, which is why I find curious the knee-jerk reaction of 'racist' and 'reactionary' (not from you, btw) to those who question the wisdom of the left actually championing such a policy.
 
Yes.

It's like someone being reactionary for not proposing armed workers' units to shut down Sandhurst which produces the people manning the drones over Afghanistan-Pakistan.

Sure dismantling Sandhurst (and the entire British Army) would be great, but can we start from such a position? Can we poo poo those who don't really want to involve themselves yet in armed workers units (which would be needed) to shut down Sandhurst.

This scenario is happening across parts of Europe:

Labour now proposes to reduce democracy at local council level. The BNP seems to have every chance of winning council seats. Checkmate to Labour: - to remove the BNP from councils (or at least prevent re-election) scrap local democracy as we know it and all with the backing of the middle class Left no doubt.
 
This is going to be longer than an AYATOLLAH post so brace yourselves, and I don't blame you if you cba to read it - I've had to split it into two posts cos it's too long! (Though I promise to at least try not to mention SOCIALISM or STRASSERISM unless it's absolutely necessary).

On the debate about the decline of the IWCA experiment - I too would be interested in a sober analysis of why this happened. But a couple of points on some of the reasons already offered.

1) Lack of resources/money - surely this is something that any left group with politics worth having will have to work to overcome - we're never going to get the kind of funding the right or Labour or whatever can get cos it's not in the interests of the people who can fund us to do so. So this is really, at best, a superficial answer - it only raises a second question: why were they not able to overcome this? Cos if they faced this obstacle you can bet your last fag it's an obstacle any future formation will have to overcome too.

2) Lack of people: Again, why were fewer people willing to get involved than would have been required to sustain the projects for any length of time? Now I've been involved in a couple of the discussions on the decline of the IWCA in the past - and in general when I've discussed this with IWCA people we've managed to keep the discussion respectful, though I have to say I've never really come away from it feeling like I understand things any better. One of the main reasons why is that the answer to why so few people were willing to get involved is generally that the existing left groups were not willing to cooperate. But at the same time we're told that these left groups are really part of the problem (a position I have some sympathy for, though I don't fully agree) in which case why would you want them to get involved? And since they're such a tiny, irrelevant force (definitely agree with that) why would they have made such a difference? Wasn't the point to get 'non-political' w/c people involved? (Something I openly admit the IWCA was better able to do than most of the left, which is why the absence so far of any kind of reflection is so disappointing - I seriously think the IWCA could have a hell of a lot of important stuff to say if they were willing to be a bit more self-critical) If so, the question is - why weren't they able to achieve this to the extent they needed to? (and I agree nobody else has either - I'm interested for the sake of future organising - couldn't give a flying fuck about the sectarian stuff)

3) Labour expending huge amounts of resources to defeat a left or w/c threat: I agree completely - but it follows that a successful grouping would have to overcome this - did the experiment offer any lessons in this direction? If the lesson is that we can't stand in elections and expect sustained success then fine - but you're going to face the same kind of opposition as a non-electoral force once you start to become a force to be reckoned with. So it will still be an issue - any lessons on that one?

We really really need to get beyond the my dad's bigger than your dad crap and approach this sensibly - and I say this not because I think the IWCA is worthless but precisely because I don't think that. If I thought it was a load of crap I wouldn't even bother asking. So in that spirit, I'm going to make a few suggestions as to why the traditional far left went into decline to answer red storm's post. Bear in mind I wasn't around when this happened so these are just a few suggestions:

1) Obsession with jargon, dead revolutionaries and the USSR. I don't want to be accused of 'speaking for' people (which is usually the accusation when you try and say anything about why you think ordinary people don't seem to support someone's personal hobbyhorse, whether it's open borders, workers defence squads, or anything else) so this is based on me and the people I know and speak to all the time - who are as representative a sample as I can come up with. Normal people are alienated by it - they don't want to know what dead Russians did, don't want to hear about how the USSR was actually a haven of freedom and liberation. And definitely don't want to have to buy a political dictionary just to figure out what the fuck we're on about. They generally want to know how your organisation can help them in their everyday lives - in the here and now and if not in the very near future. Not abstract crap about worldwide revolution.

2) Assumption that 'the class' (don't like that term either - it's yet more jargon, even though must will have an idea what you're talking about it sounds a bit odd and cultish) really wants your predefined brand of socialism but just hasn't managed to figure it out yet, either because they're stupid or brainwahsed by Murdoch. It's bollocks. The thing about shoddy goods rather than poor marketing is spot on. The left in general has been too interested in what the w/c should want rather than the issues that they actually do consider important to them and their lives. This is one thing the IWCA definitely have something useful to say on.

There's loads more I could say, but that's a starter.

(cont.)
 
But another issue relating to this ties in with the open borders debate.

There's a tendency among the left, and we've seen evidence of it on this thread (the most hilariously cringeworthy example coming from nino_savatte) that an acknowledgement of issues like the way immigration is used to undermine the conditions of non-migrant workers and so on means you must be racist/in favour of immigration controls etc. It's bollocks and it's insulting.

Here's why it's important that we acknowledge that this is true - it's very simple. If the people I know are anything to go by, w/c people already know it's true. To deny it is to reveal yourself as a liar and you've lost already. And to begin by taking a position of open borders is to not even get so far that they realise you're a liar, and since it's already been noted (and generally agreed it seems) that it's an abstract demand anyway why risk losing your audience over it and opening yourself up to attacks from bigots that you might not be around to answer? Cos nobody will take any notice. So you acknowledge it's a problem for workers already in the UK (including migrant workers who've been around a bit longer) - you have to, otherwise you'll never be trusted. After that you can go on to point out that border controls would be used by capital in exactly the same way - to make the point that any solution, even if it was state border controls (and I doubt it would be) would have to be forced through by the working class itself - through the kind of organisations that LLETSA's latest persona correctly points out don't even exist any more.

Responding to these kinds of things with 'do you deny that the establishment uses demonisation of migrants for divide and rule' is just fucking childish and shows the political level some people are at. What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? Of course they do - but does that mean we should lie to people and pretend this stuff isn't happening? Good luck with that one, you're really going to need it. In truth if we deny it we leave the door open for the ones doing the demonising - cos people don't like being lied to and they're not so stupid as to not realise you're doing it.

It's exactly the same with top-down liberal state multiculturalism. People know there's something wrong there. Again, if we pretend it's all rosey people will see through it. And that then means they're left to the only people taking a critical stance on it - the far right. But that's ok cos your liberal conscience is clean, right? Fuck off. If people are concerned about multiculturalism, and if these concerns are genuine (as they often are in my experience) we should offer a class based progressive critique. Cos just like with immigration, if we don't the far right will - in fact they already are, and they're well ahead of us. The only sensible reason for not doing this with both immigration and multiculturalism is if you think people are too stupid to understand a more nuanced position and will just misunderstand and think it's all about hating on foreigners. That's Ayatollah's position and at least he's honest enough to come out and say it. It's bollocks though. The working class doesn't need educated middle class people to work out what knowledge is 'safe' for them to have. It's yet another facet to the whole 'we know what the working class should want' thing that's been so damaging.

I'm also pretty much convinced that were there to be a socialist revolution here, unless world capitalism was smashed in its entirety, we'd need some pretty strict border controls. I can expand on the reasons if anyone's interested but this is already the longest post in the history of the internet so I won't do it here.

That's my to pennies worth, I'm being as honest and self-critical as I can, especially when you consider that I'm a part of one of the organisations that's guilty of at least some of these things (though I definitely do think it's the least guilty of the trot orgs and still, generally speaking, does a hell of a lot more good than harm - I wouldn't be in it otherwise). It's not comprehensive or detailed or antything but that's because I wasn't around when the decline happened. And obviously, as with the IWCA, you have to point out the objective conditions beyond their control - but since they're beyond our control they're only partial answers - cos you then have to work out how we get around these things.

I would genuinely love to see reflections from IWCA members and supporters that detail some of the reasons why it failed to take off in the way we'd all have liked it to (and also why it did achieve its limited though still impressive successes too). And I'll say it again - it's not so I can point score, I've got no interest in doing that - and it's not so I can mock the IWCA's mistakes or whatever. It's precisely because I think they generally had the right idea and the right approach so I'd like to know why it didn't take off so that in future we can come up with strategies to try and emulate the success without the downsides and build something sustainable. And with what's happening now across the country (with bedroom tax, HB caps, benefit cuts, reductions in service provision and so on) there will be plenty of issues around which these kinds of orgs can be built. But only if we get it right.
 
Back
Top Bottom