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

[frogwoman]

great posts spiney.

 

[Joe Reilly]

utter drivel. Confused and dishonest.

Once again you condemn arguments for 'no borders' but wont come out and say what you would put in its place.

The whole point that 'no borders' is not 'in place' is it? It's a ridiculous fantasy and a reactionary one at that. What makes it so reactionary is that it is entirely gratutious. 'Tribal narcissism' to a T. Grow up.

 

[belboid]

The whole point that 'no borders' is not 'in place' is it? It's a ridiculous fantasy and a reactionary one at that. What makes it so reactionary is that it is entirely gratutious. 'Tribal narcissism' to a T. Grow up.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You are nearing the bottom of the barrel now. nothing left from you but bluster.

 

[framed]

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You are nearing the bottom of the barrel now. nothing left from you but bluster.

Pot, kettle and black...

Are you a school teacher?

You have the air of a man who sits with a red pen marking jotters most nights.

 

[belboid]

If its so clear, I'm sure I can explain it to me. It's gibberish.

 

[manny-p]

The Hackney branch left the IWCA and became Hackney Independent.

What did it leave out of interest?

 

[DaveCinzano]

What did it leave out of interest?

Rebranding

 

[manny-p]

Rebranding

eh?

 

[manny-p]

Rebranding

So they just changed their name but stayed in the IWCA structure?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

So they just changed their name but stayed in the IWCA structure?

No, we left. There were some differences of opinion (over what I considered to be minor tactical/strategic issues). My preference would have been to stay.

Sorry if that's vague but I don't want to rehash the arguments again on here!

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Er, why "cringeworthy"? Much of what the IWCA says is open to misinterpretation and I'm not the only one who thinks this. Perhaps they should make their statements more, er, clear? Just a thought.

It's exactly the same with top-down liberal state multiculturalism.

I see this a lot. Tbh, I don't think this idea of "top down multiculturalism" is coherent. In fact, it's no more coherent than "Cool Britannia", Nu Labour's idea for creating a knowledge based economy by hijacking culture. The problem with "Cool Britannia" is that they thought they knew what the word "culture" meant but they didn't.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, we left. There were some differences of opinion (over what I considered to be minor tactical/strategic issues). My preference would have been to stay.

Sorry if that's vague but I don't want to rehash the arguments again on here!

Ah, ye olde "difference of opinion" and praytell, what were these differences?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Er, why "cringeworthy"? Much of what the IWCA says is open to misinterpretation and I'm not the only one who thinks this. Perhaps they should make their statements more, er, clear? Just a thought.

Generally by people who want to misinterpret it because of a knee jerk reaction to anything critical of multiculturalism. They'd probably appear clearer if you bothered to read them.

Because this:

I see this a lot. Tbh, I don't think this idea of "top down multiculturalism" is coherent. In fact, it's no more coherent than "Cool Britannia", Nu Labour's idea for creating a knowledge based economy by hijacking culture. The problem with "Cool Britannia" is that they thought they knew what the word "culture" meant but they didn't.

Shows that you haven't. Much of the piece is taken up by defining the terms - top-down liberal multiculturalism is defined historically, as a process. Your problem is that you don't appear able to separate multiculturalism in its descriptive sense - the lived experience of diversity - from top-down liberal multiculturalism as a policy agenda.

You need to grow up.

 

[nino_savatte]

Generally by people who want to misinterpret it because of a knee jerk reaction to anything critical of multiculturalism. They'd probably appear clearer if you bothered to read them.

Because this:



Shows that you haven't. Much of the piece is taken up by defining the terms - top-down liberal multiculturalism is defined historically, as a process. Your problem is that you don't appear able to separate multiculturalism in its descriptive sense - the lived experience of diversity - from top-down liberal multiculturalism as a policy agenda.

You need to grow up.

Grow up, eh? The IWCA line seems to be "everyone hates us and we don't care".

I don't "want" to misinterpret anything and, btw, others have made the same observation. It isn't just me. But what I find disappointing about your reply is that you deliberately (perhaps wilfully) avoided my point about the word "multiculturalism" - particularly the "culture" part of that word. Here's a question for you: what is culture?

Then there's the accusations of vigilantism. Care to talk about that?

Your problem is that you don't appear able to separate multiculturalism in its descriptive sense - the lived experience of diversity

You presume too much, Norm. Perhaps it's you who needs to "grow up". No?

 

[framed]

Grow up, eh? The IWCA line seems to be "everyone hates us and we don't care".

I don't "want" to misinterpret anything and, btw, others have made the same observation. It isn't just me. But what I find disappointing about your reply is that you deliberately (perhaps wilfully) avoided my point about the word "multiculturalism" - particularly the "culture" part of that word. Here's a question for you: what is culture?

You have sought to deliberately misinterpret the IWCA position at every turn. Deception by deliberate misinterpretation (aka spin) is seldom honest or well-intended. Even when the points have been clarified, you still choose to misinterpret them.

I will restate the point, which you and one other in particular seem reluctant to take on board, multiculturalism is a policy of the state, a multiracial society is a reality. The IWCA's quibble is with the multicultural policy of the state not with the cultural or racial composition of a multiracial society.

How difficult is that for you to understand or 'interpret'?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Grow up, eh? The IWCA line seems to be "everyone hates us and we don't care".

What? I am nothing to do with the IWCA and I have some fairly serious disagreements with them. I think it more likely that the the IWCA position is 'nobody's heard of us and we'd rather that wasn't the case' myself.

I don't "want" to misinterpret anything and, btw, others have made the same observation. It isn't just me. But what I find disappointing about your reply is that you deliberately (perhaps wilfully) avoided my point about the word "multiculturalism" - particularly the "culture" part of that word. Here's a question for you: what is culture?

It's irrelevant. That's how I know you've not even tried to understand their position. Because once again you betray the fact that you don't understand the distinction between multiculturalism in its positive, descriptive sense (people of different cultures living side by side, mixing together and sampling one another's culture etc) and multiculturalism as a state policy agenda (and one of the main reasons why it's criticised is because top down liberal state multiculturalism actually harms multiculturalism in its descriptive, positive sense). They criticise a set of state policies that the state itself defines as 'multicultural'. So why do I need to define culture? Why is it relevant to the discussion?

And yes - AYATOLLAH has also made that observation. But he's a fucking loon and he's usually foaming at the mouth and screaming about how anyone who doesn't mention SOCIALISM at least once every ten words is a STRASSERIST while he's doing it.

Then there's the accusations of vigilantism. Care to talk about that?

Not particularly, no. What with not being a member of the IWCA and having my own reservations on that one. So I'd much rather you continued to embarrass yourself by revealing your ignorance towards the class based critique of liberal state multiculturalism if it's all the same to you.

You presume too much, Norm. Perhaps it's you who needs to "grow up". No?

Yes, obviously I'm the one presuming too much. You tedious bore.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Then there's the accusations of vigilantism. Care to talk about that?

Yes

 

[manny-p]

No, we left. There were some differences of opinion (over what I considered to be minor tactical/strategic issues). My preference would have been to stay.

Sorry if that's vague but I don't want to rehash the arguments again on here!

Pm me a link to that please. ta

 

[nino_savatte]

You have sought to deliberately misinterpret the IWCA position at every turn. Deception by deliberate misinterpretation (aka spin) is seldom honest or well-intended. Even when the points have been clarified, you still choose to misinterpret them.

I will restate the point, which you and one other in particular seem reluctant to take on board, multiculturalism is a policy of the state, a multiracial society is a reality. The IWCA's quibble is with the multicultural policy of the state not with the cultural or racial composition of a multiracial society.

How difficult is that for you to understand or 'interpret'?

It's that word "multi-racial" that I find interesting, especially as "race" is socially constructed. People may object to a group of people because of the colour of their skin but there's more to it than that: they object to their cultures too. People object to cultures that they regard as "foreign". I suggest that the state's multicultural policy is as flawed as their cultural policies. Why? Because culture is one of those words that has more meanings than I can count on both hands. So what's the solution to "multi-culturalism"? Offering some kind of monoculture? It will never work. In spite of what the Kippers think, there has never been a single culture in this country.

I haven't deliberately "misinterpreted" anything btw.

 

[nino_savatte]

What? I am nothing to do with the IWCA and I have some fairly serious disagreements with them. I think it more likely that the the IWCA position is 'nobody's heard of us and we'd rather that wasn't the case' myself.

Fair enough.

It's irrelevant. That's how I know you've not even tried to understand their position. Because once again you betray the fact that you don't understand the distinction between multiculturalism in its positive, descriptive sense (people of different cultures living side by side, mixing together and sampling one another's culture etc) and multiculturalism as a state policy agenda (and one of the main reasons why it's criticised is because top down liberal state multiculturalism actually harms multiculturalism in its descriptive, positive sense). They criticise a set of state policies that the state itself defines as 'multicultural'. So why do I need to define culture? Why is it relevant to the discussion?

Culture is relevant to this discussion because that is what some people object to. Skin colour is only part of that. "They don't speak our language", "they dress differently" are some of the things that people say in relation to immigrants. These are complaints about cultures not "races".

And yes - AYATOLLAH has also made that observation. But he's a fucking loon and he's usually foaming at the mouth and screaming about how anyone who doesn't mention SOCIALISM at least once every ten words is a STRASSERIST while he's doing it.

Where have I done that?

Not particularly, no. What with not being a member of the IWCA and having my own reservations on that one. So I'd much rather you continued to embarrass yourself by revealing your ignorance towards the class based critique of liberal state multiculturalism if it's all the same to you.

Nope, sorry. I haven't "revealed my ignorance". I'm asking questions. It's what's known as a "learning process". Next thing I know, you'll be calling me a "liberal".

Yes, obviously I'm the one presuming too much. You tedious bore.

Ah, yes, play the man and not the ball. Bravo.

 

[framed]

It's that word "multi-racial" that I find interesting, especially as "race" is socially constructed. People may object to a group of people because of the colour of their skin but there's more to it than that: they object to their cultures too. People object to cultures that they regard as "foreign". I suggest that the state's multicultural policy is as flawed as their cultural policies. Why? Because culture is one of those words that has more meanings than I can count on both hands. So what's the solution to "multi-culturalism"? Offering some kind of monoculture? It will never work. In spite of what the Kippers think, there has never been a single culture in this country.

Perhaps you can explain how your philosophical appraisal of 'race' and 'culture' is relevant to the IWCA's position on multiculturalism as state policy? (i.e. various cultures, identities and nationalities competing against each other for a share of public resources, etc.)

Can you also cite any references to a proposed 'monoculture' by the IWCA from any of the material online such as the AFA article linked to here and the Red Action articles on multiculturalism linked to on the Beating The Fascists thread?

Did you even bother to read those before you started pontificating about what you perceive the IWCA position to be?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Fair enough.



Culture is relevant to this discussion because that is what some people object to. Skin colour is only part of that. "They don't speak our language", "they dress differently" are some of the things that people say in relation to immigrants. These are complaints about cultures not "races".

No it's not. Again, you've clearly never bothered to read the critique. I'll spell it out in really big letters this time just on the offchance it might sink in.

Multiculturalism in its positive, descriptive sense - the lived experience of diversity - is not under discussion - this is taken to be positive. And the concerns those who criticise m/c from a progressive perspective want to address are not those surrounding having people of different ethnicities, faiths or cultures living near them - because those people are bigots and this stuff isn't about accommodating bigots. Instead, this is about state policies that allocate resources along ethnic/cultural/religious lines - via community leaders - often, in the process, artificially producing 'communities'.

So sorry but I'm not going to follow your dead end diversion because it's not relevant.

And before you come back asking me what culture is again, please explain in your own words what you believe to be the IWCA critique of multiculturlasm - because so far all you've done is show that you don't even begin to understand it, as the questions you've been asking me demonstrate.

Where have I done that?

You don't even bother reading what other people say do you? I didn't say you'd done that. But the only other person I've seen who misunderstands and then hysterically denounces this critique is AYATOLLAH - and he does do that.

Nope, sorry. I haven't "revealed my ignorance". I'm asking questions. It's what's known as a "learning process". Next thing I know, you'll be calling me a "liberal".

If the cap fits...

But these questions reveal that you've not read the thing you're criticising - which marks you out as a bit of a plonker and someone not to be taken seriously.

Ah, yes, play the man and not the ball. Bravo.

You'll notice that I played the ball and then the man. In fact I took the ball, then ran the length of the pitch and passed it into an empty net. Before football was played by blokes like Beckham and Ronaldo who were too bothered about their hair and breaking nails to get physical that was considered a fair tackle.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've taken quite an interest in the IWCA stuff on multiculturalism - it's a topic I'm very interested in so I've made a point of reading everything they and RA have written on it. They never advocate a monoculture (Malik comes close at times but that's his look out, nowt to do with the IWCA) in fact what they are arguing for seems to be quite the opposite - a cultural meltingpot in which peoples' cultural lives are no business of the state.

What they say is that the state should keep its nose out of it and shouldn't allocate resources, or try to impose systems of social control, along cultural, ethnic or religious lines - because when you do that people start to identify themselves principly by faith/ethnicity/cultural origins. They oppose it because it serves to racialise politics and because if white working class people, who have seen their standards of living continually dropping and their position in society becoming more and more precarious will, instead of organising along class lines, regardless of ethnicity, see that politics is being done in this way and start to ask where their 'white' community leaders and state patronage are coming from. Up step the BNP. And their strategy for combating this is to organise the working class - whatever their culture, faith or ethnicity, along class lines.

I don't agree with them on everything but this is perfectly reasonable, fits the facts better than Nino's 'yeah but what is culture maaan' and is clearly more concerned with combating racialist politics and promoting class politics than imposing some kind of 'monoculture'.

The logic of state multiculturalism is the same logic as the new right's racialism. They've abandoned overt white supremacism in favour of separatism and use the language of diversity to justify it - separate but equal. This is precisely what state multiculturalism does - it's communalist to the core, encourages people to fight for provision - in other words to do politics - along racial lines. So rather than getting the kind of cultural melting pot I, and all sensible people, would want to see you instead get a kind of velvet glove apartheid.

But Nino isn't interested in this - that much ought to be clear to everyone by now. He's not bothered reading it - I'm not quite sure what he thinks he's doing but he is definitely making a bit of a twat of himself.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Perhaps you can explain how your philosophical appraisal of 'race' and 'culture' is relevant to the IWCA's position on multiculturalism as state policy? (i.e. various cultures, identities and nationalities competing against each other for a share of public resources, etc.)

He can't do that because he hasn't read it. These questions are intended to hide his ignorance by sending the conversation on a semantic detour.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Their decades old criticism of the left is irrelevant, it contains no threat to anyone or anything. The UKIP analysis is interesting. But grossly exaggerated.

Latest/highest poll for UKIP yet. At 22 per cent they are breathing down the Tories necks. Despite the determiend, so would say fanatical attempts to derail the thread, it is this projection that the iWCA analysis was all about.

 

[belboid]

Latest/highest poll for UKIP yet. At 22 per cent they are breathing down the Tories necks. Despite the determiend, so would say fanatical attempts to derail the thread, it is this projection that the iWCA analysis was all about.

Projection? What 'projection'? Yet another thing from you that makes no sense.Please do show how this poll in any way supports your evidence of significant UKIP gains amongst the working class. Which was what the IWCA analysis was, supposedly, all about.

As for 'derailing' the thread, it was one you were happy to go along with, you sad old hypocrite.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Projection? What 'projection'? Yet another thing from you that makes no sense.Please do show how this poll in any way supports your evidence of significant UKIP gains amongst the working class. Which was what the IWCA analysis was, supposedly, all about.

As for 'derailing' the thread, it was one you were happy to go along with, you sad old hypocrite.

LOL!

 

[belboid]

LOL!

deeply convincing comeback, Joke.

 

[Joe Reilly]

deeply convincing comeback, Joke.

LOL!

 

[articul8]

Latest/highest poll for UKIP yet. At 22 per cent they are breathing down the Tories necks. Despite the determiend, so would say fanatical attempts to derail the thread, it is this projection that the iWCA analysis was all about.

Do you really think they'll sustain this level of support into the next GE? They'll do well at the Euros, and Farage might get in as an MP if he chooses his seat right, but ultimately they'll pull the Tories to the right and it will come down to the big two again.