Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I want to know what is wrong with their analysis? Not 'boohoo they're not that successful themselves, let's sell papers'.

OK, forget the IWCA. The strategy they describe is moving the political centre to the right, is it not?
I've given you some examples, you keep ignoring them, and trying to rapidly move on.

As an analysis, it takes a long time to repeat the standard IWCA critique about the vacuum in WC politics, makes some good (if belated) points on the decline of the BNP, and some rather more dubious points about UKIP.
 
:facepalm:

Not everyone can successfully lead campaigns. The IWCA never mentioned doing so. The SWP and SP did. And you still havent come up with one concrete example of the IWCA actually achieving anything.

'Achieving'... in comparison with what?

Is the IWCA to be measured by the 'achievements' of the now almost completely collapsed Trot vanguardist cults of the SP, SSP and SWP?
 
'Achieving'... in comparison with what?

Is the IWCA to be measured by the 'achievements' of the now almost completely collapsed Trot vanguardist cults of the SP, SSP and SWP?
Now you're doing it!

No, actual achievements for WC people. Jobs saved, services staying open, actual achievements for WC people. The fact that you have to keep trying to compare it to 'Trot vanguardist cults' just shows how weak those achievements must be.
 
it isn't really tho, is it? UKIPs support within the w-c is still a small minority of its support, as the academics referred to point out.

Yes it is, if you're understanding of written English is the same as mine. Falling into 'the domain of UKIP' does not imply that UKIP have won the hearts and minds of whole sections of the working class... yet.
 
'Achieving'... in comparison with what?

Is the IWCA to be measured by the 'achievements' of the now almost completely collapsed Trot vanguardist cults of the SP, SSP and SWP?

Even the rump SSP is in rather ruder health as a political organisation than the IWCA seems to be, although they may be sadly falling behind on the athletics club front. But that's not really the issue. Leave the rest of the left out of it. Take for granted that everyone else is dead, disappearing, irrelevant, or whatever else makes you feel good about yourself. Treat them as so irrelevant that it's pointless even to refer to them in your answer.

Why has the IWCA failed so badly by the standards it set itself?
 
I'd be interested in an IWCA article on why they think they've declined so starkly.

I'm only being sectarian towards the swp (perhaps unfairly linking the sp to them by trot association) because they themselves are interested in working with fucking nobody unless it's under their middle class lefty circle jerk banner. They're divisive.
 
Yes it is, if you're understanding of written English is the same as mine. Falling into 'the domain of UKIP' does not imply that UKIP have won the hearts and minds of whole sections of the working class... yet.
what does it mean then? Sweet FA as far as I can tell. Thy have not made significant inroads into WC support, the results from Middlesbrough and Rotherham shows that. So, what does it mean?

And you still haven't come up with a single concrete achievement of the IWCA.
 
Now you're doing it!

No, actual achievements for WC people. Jobs saved, services staying open, actual achievements for WC people. The fact that you have to keep trying to compare it to 'Trot vanguardist cults' just shows how weak those achievements must be.

I'm not comparing the IWCA with anything. I simply returned the serve. The Trots here seem to feel that their political hegemony is threatened by articles that broadly criticise 'the left'.

FYI, I am not a member of the IWCA, nor have I ever been a member of the IWCA. I do not have to be a member of an organisation to recognise the validity of their political argument.
 
I'm not comparing the IWCA with anything. I simply returned the serve. The Trots here seem to feel that their political hegemony is threatened by articles that broadly criticise 'the left'.

FYI, I am not a member of the IWCA, nor have I ever been a member of the IWCA. I do not have to be a member of an organisation to recognise the validity of their political argument.
but you are incapable of defending it.

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.
 
And you still haven't come up with a single concrete achievement of the IWCA.

As a non-member of the IWCA why would I have to provide a 'concrete example' of their work or 'achievements'? I agree with their analysis. I don't have to be a member with intimate knowledge of the organisation to do that. The issue here is the political substance of the article, the analysis, with which you have failed to engage.
 
but you are incapable of defending it.

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.

Decades old criticism? Has the IWCA even been in existence for decades? Gross exaggeration?

Perhaps you can provide an example of a left-wing political organisation in the UK that is a 'threat to anyone or anything'?

In what way is the analysis of UKIP grossly exaggerated?
 
UKIP aren't that popular outside the South East.

The 2012 by-election average stands at an embarrassing 21.9%. Manchester Central recorded one of the lowest post-war turnouts on record (18.2%). Ukip’s Christopher Cassidy picked up 4.5% of the vote and lost his deposit along with the Conservative candidate. The swing from the Liberal Democrats to Labour was 16.77%.​
Simon Zeigler stood for Ukip in Cardiff South and Penarth in the recent by-election and in 2010’s General Election. His vote share only increased by 34 to 1,179 as turnout fell by over 60% to 25.65%. Ukip finished in fifth place behind the major parties and Plaid Cymru twice.​
The controversial and homophobic remarks by Winston McKenzie did not prevent Ukip finishing a presentable third in Croydon-North. However, they were a distant third behind Labour and the Conservatives, as turnout hit a meagre 26.5%.​
The north did bring bigger success to Ukip as they came in second place in both Rotherham and Middlesbrough. For the latter, turnout had almost halved from 2010 (25.91%). Votes for the Coalition parties dropped dramatically along with the BNP’s. By in large, their votes either contributed to Labour’s big majority or divided among minority parties like Ukip.​
Like any minority party, Ukip have gained from low turnouts. It's not a reflection of their popularity nationwide. I'd argue UKIP simply picked a candidate that spoke in a language that would appeal to traditional conservative voters: http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/79d145f8-0cfa-4f54-9dac-ad5be5f18b5f/
James is an astute figure at local council politics, having won the Cranleigh and Ewhurst division on Surrey County Council in a by-election as an independent (but not declaring her UKIP membership).​
 
It's a shame that this thread so quickly became dominated by a sled towards the "the Left are shit" "the IWCA are shitter".

Ideally it could stay on task and look at the IWCAs analysis of UKIP etc.

However, I would like to hear opinions from all sides about whether the IWCA has failed, if it has why? If not why not? And to do this with minimal reference to the Left. I'd rather it wasn't on this particular thread but...
 
As a non-member of the IWCA why would I have to provide a 'concrete example' of their work or 'achievements'? I agree with their analysis. I don't have to be a member with intimate knowledge of the organisation to do that. The issue here is the political substance of the article, the analysis, with which you have failed to engage.
I had responded to various parts. You have ignored that response.

The IWCA was formed in 1994, close as damn it to two decades ago.
 
They were going to go into working class communities, win the battle for hearts and minds against the ever growing BNP and found a movement for working class rule in working class areas, weren't they?

As I recall it they tested the ground in one or two areas, that is hardly a 'movement'. They're not a vanguard cult in the mould of your own organisation Nigel. You appear to be judging them by the standards of your own cult.
 
Making a difference, not just a noise.

All you've talked about so far is the noise.

I haven't talked about anything other than the article and its analysis, which I agree with. Perhaps you can explain yourself and where your antagonism towards the IWCA comes from a bit better?
 
I haven't talked about anything other than the article and its analysis, which I agree with. Perhaps you can explain yourself and where your antagonism towards the IWCA comes from a bit better?
Perhaps you could defend the article then.

I have no antagonism to the IWCA, as I said before it was an interesting, tho limited, experiment. It's remnants can still say interesting things. I do get irritated by its supposed defenders who as soon as their is any criticism just come out with the same old dreary bollocks about 'trots' and can't/won't defend the article/whatever that was posed up.
 
As I recall it they tested the ground in one or two areas, that is hardly a 'movement'. They're not a vanguard cult in the mould of your own organisation Nigel. You appear to be judging them by the standards of your own cult.

No framed, I'm judging them by their record. Their ever quieter record as they recede into distant memory.

They "tested the ground" in a lot more than "one or two areas". They set up branches (or "pilot schemes") in quite a lot of places, pretty much all of which followed the same pattern. Intensive local work in one small area producing a decent council election result. And then, over a period, they weren't able to expand to neighbouring areas and weren't able to involve enough people in the original area to continue things as the initial activists got tired. So they disappeared. There were a few exceptions, where they never really got going in the first place for long, or, in the case of Oxford where they had more of an impact and consequently the whole process took a bit longer to play out. And resulted in a running club rather than complete disappearance.

At least that's how it looks from the outside. The IWCA don't like to talk about how it looked from the inside, because that would undercut their preferred approach of sneering at everyone else, presenting their own approach as the way forward and never providing any possibly uncomfortable evaluations of how their approach has actually worked out.
 
As I recall it they tested the ground in one or two areas, that is hardly a 'movement'. They're not a vanguard cult in the mould of your own organisation Nigel. You appear to be judging them by the standards of your own cult.
Several areas, not just two. And they INTENDED for that to be a start. It wasn't, was it?
 
Several areas, not just two. And they INTENDED for that to be a start. It wasn't, was it?

I think the article is quite honest at the end when it talks about limited resources (I presume in terms of both personnel and money) meaning the IWCA was unable to match its political ambitions.

Does the perceived lack of 'achievement' of the IWCA mean that their political analysis is wrong?
 
Haven't the IWCA also moved to the Right by arguing that immigration should be limited, i.e. the possibility of class conscious peoples entering the country is denied.

You have of course hit the nail right on on the proverbial head , nutnut. The (now resoundingly defunct) IWCA localist political initiative was apparently an attempt to "occupy the political ground" on big , mainly white, working class housing estates , that the BNP were making great headway in during the mid 1990's (until they imploded with their failure to deliver any pogroms or mass deportations to their bigotted voting supporters, or defend their poor white working class supporters against the emerging austerity offensive after the 2008 Crash).

The IWCA is in no way "of the Left". In fact its leading figures have repeatedly denounced "the Left" as having "nothing to offer the Working Class". Their localist, self-help, politics was/is in no way socialist - more a form of working class oriented self-help liberalism - with lots of emphasis on workers co-operatives - and local self activity to combat local crime and drug dealing - and huge illusions in the possibilities for localised working class advance deriving from winning local council seats. The IWCA political "offer" of course not only attempted to occupy the geographic ground that the BNP were for a while successfully winning, but with its slippery special hostile "take" on "multiculturalism" as being a conspiracy by the capitalist state to substitute "identity politics" for (working) class political identity and action, it was able to boast about "campaigning in local councils to oppose the award of grants to ethnic minority projects" whilst of course claiming that this wasn't for any racist reasons - oh no ... it was because of an adherence to solid working class politics. Went down well no doubt with the racist white bigots as well of course ! Similarly, with the IWCA's slippery and equivocal stance on immigration - in favour of immigration controls - and happy to go along with the lie that it is migrant workers who lower wages by competing with "indigenous workers" - but not for racist reasons of course - but from solid "pro-working class political motives" (well the indigenous working class anyway). Went down well no doubt with white bigots all too ready to blame fellow (migrant) workers for their falling wages and living conditions, too of course.

The IWCA has no broader, national, or international perspective or political analysis comparable to that of socialism. Certainly no vision of a society beyond capitalism. Their localist ,myopic, self help, slogan - "Working Class Power in Working Class Areas", says it all really. Utterly facile and delusional, Try creating "working class power" in somewhere like Stoke on Trent nowadays, lads - capitalism has upped sticks and gone away, and the council is having to impose cuts which will destroy even the most basic local council services . "Power" and resources generally simply aren't available or controlled at local level for the working class to get hold of in isolation. Only mass action, local, national, and internationally, around a socialist analysis and objective can tackle the plight capitalism has left us all in. A few workers co-ops, local projects, and dubious slippery accommodations to hostility to immigrant workers or ethnic minorities which choose to self identify culturally and religiously rather than in working class terms, just aint going to do it.

The IWCA "critique" of both the failures of the Left and the rise of the Far Right over the last 20 years is an entirely bogus one. They create a complete myth of "original thinking" by the Right - counterposed to the claimed lack of anything useful to say by the Left. This in fact deliberately mixes up and confuses the success of the last 30 years of the completely non-fascist neoliberal political agenda and its globalist freemarket ideology (now in ruins of course since the 2008 Crash), with the much lesser success of the fascist and neo-fascist Right across Europe during the last 20 years. The neo-fascist Right of course offered no new thinking at all (other than superficially substituting Islamophobia and general anti new wave immigrant hysteria for antisemitism) - but just benefitted from riding the wave of anti immigrant sentiment across Europe produced by globalisation and the importation of large numbers of new , ethnically different, migrant workers to fuel the long neoliberal boom. So what "new thinking" would the IWCA have the Left do to match the neo-fascist Right's success ? They would have us believe that it is to copy the work," on the landings", of the Far Right in big working class estates. Local anti austerity and community activism work by the Left on working class estates is of course a positive strategy, and one the Left needs to do much more of. Unfortunately most of the BNP's "local community work" has simply been racist shit-stirring - not useful community work. Campaigning against a new mosque, or campaigning against the award of council grants to ethnic minority cultural projects is NOT something the Left wants to engage in .

In the years ahead, with the austerity offensive now gathering pace, the fascists and their no doubt short-lived champagne hoorah henry petty nationalist rivals of UKIP (with their simplistic petty nationalist and barely concealed anti immigrant racism platform "protest vote" role for backward elements of the working class, as well as the more rabid Daily Mail readers of the middle classes) will continue to peddle their racist and petty nationalist political mesage. Socialists have a powerful alternative analysis and message - of hope and real radical social change. Sure the socialist Left was in the doldrums throughout the triumphant years of neoliberalist hegemony. That era is well over. Only militant socialists will be able to build a mass movement to build an effective resistance to the capitalist offensive. The fascists,and UKIP, have nothing to offer but scapegoatism and prejudice.

If the IWCA really want to impress anyone with some analysis I suggest you actually say something new yourselves, rather than banging on with the same old anti socialist claptrap, and bigging up the Far Right's growth, simplifications you've been peddling unchanged since 1995. The only thing you've noticed since then is that, a) the IWCA project completely failed - but was somehow also an amazing triumph ! and b) the BNP 's unstoppable forward momentum crashed and burned . Now you seem to think UKIP is on an unstoppable rise ! FFS, its a short lived bigots protest vote. UKIP's leaders are a bunch of dodgy bigotted used car dealers. That bandwagon will soon derail too. Eventually the fascists will of course come back strongly as the crisis really deepens - that's what happens in a social crisis as class antagonisms harden- but by then the radical Left will be growing fast too - just as it has been in Greece, France, Spain, Portugal.. The IWCA's rump of members will soon have to decide which side of the political fence to be on.
 
I was talking to one of the Birmingham ex IWCA lot recently, they had some success with an anti mugging campaign and getting muggers escape routes blocked on an estate, but said they also got police and council harassment, making progress unsustainable.
 
I think the article is quite honest at the end when it talks about limited resources (I presume in terms of both personnel and money) meaning the IWCA was unable to match its political ambitions.

It's an allusion to the fact that they didn't match their ambitions, but it's not an explanation or an account.

framed said:
Does the perceived lack of 'achievement' of the IWCA mean that their political analysis is wrong?

It means that they are on thin ice when they insist on using the alleged failings of everyone else on the left as the frame for their political analyses of just about everything. They could get sort of get away with that when they were a pristine new, untested, organisation putting out pristine, new, untested, strategic ideas. Not now. Now they either need an explanation of the failings of their own approach or a new framing device.
 
Does the perceived lack of 'achievement' of the IWCA mean that their political analysis is wrong?
I've already said what I think of the analysis. It's not particularly insightful (tho some of it was, when it was originally). It grossly exaggerates UKIPs influence within the class. And you still haven't said what the hell 'falling within the domain of UKIP' means.
 
Back
Top Bottom