Transform: The latest "new party of the Left.

[Rob Ray]

Sure it's not doorstep conversation but it is nevertheless relevant - and I'd note for all that people like to bump the IWCA it never got far outside its home ground after it launched nationally in 2003. Two decades, and it declined/died with no clear successors. Clearly there was something missing from that strategy.

 

[chilango]

This came up on the doorstep on Oxford Leys Estate time after time

There's plenty of parties who lean into the "dogshit politics" of the doorstep though.

There has to be more to it than that.

 

[Rob Ray]

Does anyone know if there's a postmortem of the IWCA's electoral experience around? Stuart Craft clearly had a strong view but I don't know if that ever turned into a full analysis. Even in just the comments, talking about becoming part of the furniture and the lack of ability to change anything are quite interesting I think.

‘Class hero’ councillor to quit

SELF-styled working class hero and Oxford’s last remaining Independent Working Class Association city councillor Stuart Craft will stand down at…

www.oxfordmail.co.uk

 

[The39thStep]

There's plenty of parties who lean into the "dogshit politics" of the doorstep though.

There has to be more to it than that.

What are the missing pieces ?

 

[The39thStep]

Does anyone know if there's a full postmortem of the IWCA's electoral experience around? Stuart Craft clearly had a strong view but I don't know if that ever turned into a full analysis.

‘Class hero’ councillor to quit

SELF-styled working class hero and Oxford’s last remaining Independent Working Class Association city councillor Stuart Craft will stand down at…

www.oxfordmail.co.uk

I was just thinking that. I am sure there was a review of the pilot schemes and that it was discussed on here. The old IWCA website is down .

 

[chilango]

What are the missing pieces ?

If I knew that...

...but - in a general sense - a "political offer". Some sort of a vision of how a better world can be possible.

The "listening on the doorstep" is obviously part of that, but shouldn't limit it.

 

[LDC]

What are the missing pieces ?

Trust. Actually having some power. Not being weirdos or loons. Listening. A focus on the day-to-day needs rather than Palestine etc. Coherent political ideas and a realistic program showing how they can be enacted.

Just to add that none of that is very difficult or mysterious. It's just been lost on a number of levels over the recent years.

 

[Rob Ray]

Actually re: Craft's comments about feeling unable to get anywhere from a class perspective, that does have something to say about what folks sometimes talk about as a retreat from class into identity, I think.

One of my frustrations with these conversations is that they're often framed as a turn led by the feckless middle classes in an effort to bury class struggle behind cross-class appeals to identity. I would agree that poisonous and frequently successful efforts have been made in that direction, however that's not primarily been by the left, but by centrists. The left's embrace of identity is much more complex and haphazard, and I'd argue is more based on push than pull in many cases.

Craft for example is identifying a phenomenon that Colin Ward (among others) was warning about in the 80s - that unless it was stopped Westminster centralisation would gut local councils' power to the point of rendering them merely rubber stamps/enacters/enforcers for state policy. Capture of seats thus tends to destroy rather than enhance a radical organisation's reputation over time (the Greens in Brighton being one notable recent example) - you're either ineffective, or co-opted. No amount of door knocking and listening exercises can offset not being able to do anything about it.

That centralisation was part of the broad front of remaking the State that crashed the left as an economic force, leaving social reform as the main game where people could still cadge victories. I've tended to feel the left's focus being there has had more to do with not finding ways to win economically than it is to do with students and middle class sharp elbows. And while working on that, folks have had to consider how all these social changes, demographics included, fit together with the whole "get everyone on the same page in the workplace and in communities" thing.

 

[chilango]

I also wonder whether there is a tension between starting points for different people.

a) I want w/c political representation and the 'Left' is a vehicle for it.

versus

b) I want 'Left' political representation and the w/c is a vehicle for it.

Put crudely, I know.

 

[RainbowTown]

“Same old thing in brand new drag.”

 

[two sheds]

With Smarmer the reasons are evident but I'm still surprised Labour hasn't listed the policies that are popular, chosen the ones that align with labour 'values' like nationalization, financing NHS, building houses (on brownfields), etc etc and adopted them as policies. Show people where the money's coming from (windfall tax on energy companies, price gougers and fraudulent PPE, taxing the rich, punitive fines for tax evasion ...) so they're properly costed and keep pushing all that.

 

[The39thStep]

Trust. Actually having some power. Not being weirdos or loons. A focus on the day-to-day needs rather than Palestine etc. Coherent political ideas and a realistic program showing how they can be enacted.

That's actually what the IWCA attempted to do locally though. It wasn't just door step listening, it wasn't just being enablers; the vision was of working class control in working class areas and to try to find solutions to day to day needs through that lens.

The 'failure' of the IWCA to have a programme to win the w/class to was the stick that the Trot groups beat them with, the smaller the Trot group with the larger the programme the more severe the beatings. 'Parish pump politics' 'Parish councillors in bomber jackets'. Most anarchists dismissed them for standing in elections but there were some from anarchist backgrounds on here who very much supported them . There were some valid criticisms of them, my own was their pragmatic view that workplace organisation was largely finished was one, but they were very much open to debate.

There is a lot to learn from an IWCA type model in my view, they stood in a tradition of 'from below' and rank and file orientated on the w/class. Despite that, they were ostracised from the left in most cases, mainly for not measuring up against the orthodoxy of ideology and organisational design. As someone once said about the IWCA 'it worked in practice but not in theory

 

[LDC]

I mean that's a huge problem really. The fact that what needs to be done is so alien from much of what the left is politically and culturally that it will see it as the wrong approach at best and the enemy at worst, and spend time trying to destroy it. It's part of the reason why I think organising along those lines is pretty much dead in cities with already established left/activist scenes and groups, and the focus should be on small and medium sized towns with no real organised left about.

 

[belboid]

Except, it didn't work in practise did it? They failed. Made inroads in one fairly small area but couldn't develop from there, couldn't generalise the politics as to why there was dog shit everywhere. Which, especially when combined with the fact that, as RobRay points out, local councils are virtually powerless now and can only shuffle the deckchairs on the Titanic, means it is fucking hard work for not much return. It's incredibly difficult to sustain especially if you don't start off with a massive base across a widespread area.

At the end of the day, they had one insight, but then just copied some Sinn Fein and LibDem strategies as to how to achieve influence. But they never actually got much, what did they actually achieve?

 

[The39thStep]

Except, it didn't work in practise did it? They failed. Made inroads in one fairly small area but couldn't develop from there, couldn't generalise the politics as to why there was dog shit everywhere. Which, especially when combined with the fact that, as Idris points out, local councils are virtually powerless now and can only shuffle the deckchairs on the Titanic, means it is fucking hard work for not much return. It's incredibly difficult to sustain especially if you don't start off with a massive base across a widespread area.

At the end of the day, they had one insight, but then just copied some Sinn Fein and LibDem strategies as to how to achieve influence. But they never actually got much, what did they actually achieve?

Idris?

 

[belboid]

Idris?

sorry, RobRay, corrected now.

 

[LDC]

The PYD/Kurdish political movement in Northern Syria (Rojava) did/does stuff that's very interesting, and while not mindlessly cheerleading them, imo they do have a lot of good pointers for here, although obviously in a very different context. Partly inspired by that (and the IWCA and some Angry Workers stuff) a few of us tried some organising where we lived starting a group called Redbrick Solidarity in 2016-2018. We failed/gave up after a couple of years. Main reason was lack of people willing to put the work in, and a few specific things about the area. Had a number of 'activists' say it was brilliant and 'commit', just to slowly flake out after the long term hard work needed became apparent. There were a few other more specific things that were also difficulties, but think they would have been overcome longer term.

I'll try and find a copy of the newsletter we did; we put thousands of copies through doors in a relatively small geographical area, and also did loads of shop-to-shop, put on a few events, did a fuck tonne of chatting etc. Made an effort for it to have a mix of languages in and be inspiring and readable. The project got a great reception with people that lived in the area and it felt like had real possibility, but like I said the project died.

 

[Brainaddict]

I am in agreement with a couple of comments above that the Green Party has the most socialist manifesto of any part that regularly wins elections (albeit mostly local), and its policy positions are often very similar to what any new socialist party could come up with, so it makes much more sense to support them. I think there's a bunch of leftists (including on here) who will always dismiss it because it doesn't build in a class-focused way. It won't surprise long-term posters that it doesn't bother me that much, but I think more importantly - and perhaps some attention should be paid to this - I don't think most working class people want a party that operates in a class-focused way. You can say that's the correct focus all you want, it won't make people want it more.

That's not to say the Green Party couldn't work on its approach and offer to working class people - I think they absolutely should think about it more. But for most people that's what they want - to be offered concrete things that will improve their lives, not to have a party that comes in hard on how they are defined by their economic position. Realistically liberation and improvements to people's quality of life have come in many different guises over the years and they simply won't accept that the only way forward is to form a mythical united working class, particularly when many of them either don't identify as working class when they are, or do identify as working class when they're not. So yeah, I think the Greens are a better option than any shonky new socialist platform, and that ideological blinkers prevent some people from seeing that.

Ducks as he waits for the flak. At least butchersapron isn't around to be disappointed at me all over again.

 

[LDC]

Found a paper copy. A4 front and back pages and the centre spread in multiple languages. It got criticised by anarchists and others for looking too SWP like, but the irony was about fucking zero people where we lived had even heard of the SWP, let alone had seen their paper.

Took us 6 months of stuff (planned to go slow rather than rush things) to get to the stage of doing this newsletter.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Trust. Actually having some power. Not being weirdos or loons. Listening. A focus on the day-to-day needs rather than Palestine etc. Coherent political ideas and a realistic program showing how they can be enacted.

Just to add that none of that is very difficult or mysterious. It's just been lost on a number of levels over the recent years.

That’s good and I think the point others have made about connecting the dogshit to wider issues is good too.

In Hackney it was possible to connect a bunch of issues (poor street lighting, dumped cars, anti-social behaviour) to a planned running down of estates so they could be privatised. So it was possible to shame the council into doing things about, say, dumped cars AND link this to a wider agenda of stock transfer. AND the bigger picture of South Hackney becoming desirable because it was adjacent to The City.

Then that could translate into good local support for things like the occupation of Tony’s caff on Broadway Market as resistance to the council trying to sell it off and also wider issues of gentrification.

It worked for a while and then it didn’t / was hard to scale up. But a conversation about that is better than signing up for the latest party of left unity.

 

[Rob Ray]

Don't tell Starkers but tbh if Transform distracts some of the lefty unity types it might not be altogether a bad thing for local organising. Unlike Corbyn it's so obviously not a goer that it won't be hoovering up/disappointing many enthusiastic new organisers.

And new organisers is ultimately what we actually need - party politics are more often than not putting cart before horse. First you build a useful movement that people are happy to offer their time to, you build spare capacity and funding, then if you really want to you can put a little of it aside for garnering seats. Party first generally just means a half dozen people burning themselves out for a while.

 

[LDC]

I think honesty is also really important. Like don't hide or mask your politics. It means people are clear about why you're doing it, and not thinking you're some local community group, charity or political party offshoot. When chatting we always said something like, 'We're revolutionaries, we want to abolish the State and capitalism and want to do XYZ as part of that/building towards it.' Almost without exception we got a good reception to that, I mean people would often laugh and say 'you're mad' but more in a way of 'that will never happen' rather than 'I don't want that'. I think being able to explain your politics, the world, and how you imagine change happening and how what you're doing fits into that is essential. As is then saying that's the plan, but it's not a fixed program and can be worked out in the process of doing this stuff together.

One of the real lessons for us was that you're going to come across enemies (political opponents and social groupings like gangs and slum landlords) and at some point you need to be able to beat them with the ability to wield power and that's something that needs to be established quickly in order to have any credibility imo. That and listening to people's problems, being able to situate them in a wider political context and offer/enact solutions requires huge collective confidence and a lot of time and energy.

Confident, coherent and clear politics, being able to explain them to anyone easily, wielding the collective power to fix problems, and offering something appealing in the present (maybe socially as well as politically) would cover 90% of what's needed I think.

Anyway, sorry, enough rambling, back to TRANSFORM...

 

[Fozzie Bear]

LDC I think those Redbrick newsletters are good but am wondering why the content is so general and not local if they were for a small geographical area? Not a criticism just interested in the reasons?

 

[Pickman's model]

can't help thinking 'half-brick solidarity' would be better

 

[LDC]

LDC I think those Redbrick newsletters are good but am wondering why the content is so general and not local if they were for a small geographical area? Not a criticism just interested in the reasons?

It was a launch newsletter, so we had something on work on the front and something on housing on the back with a broader middle section. The idea was to try and present the politics in a couple of wider contexts (work and housing were chosen as we thought nearly everyone can relate to one or both of them) that showed the politics and hopefully would resonate with people. We didn't want to jump in with things that were too specific and 'local', we wanted to just 'start the conversation' (urgh) rather than deciding what needed to be done, although we did know that broadly housing and shit work were 2 topics people locally really struggled with. If it has worked more succesfully we might well have done more issues with local specific topics on if they'd come up as issues with people.

It was also wanting to avoid getting too bogged down in local council type stuff right at the start (like all the corruption stuff people often get into with this kind of stuff) and avoid falling into the trap of a casework model where we just ended up spending all our time sorting hyper-individualised problems. We did do some home visits for local people having issues with landlords, but none of them got anywhere really. (It pre-dated Acorn.) We did a fair bit of geographically mapping the area and working out what workplaces and how the housing was there as well, as well as thinking about facilities etc.

can't help thinking 'half-brick solidarity' would be better

We got criticism for the image as too lefty as it was, and despite it being a simple name we did spend lots of time discussing it believe it or not! We wanted something political but not too much so, something that related to the area (houses are mostly redbrick there) while not being too specific geographically, something that felt including rather than excluding and something that translated well into a mix of languages.

 

[Brainaddict]

I think honesty is also really important. Like don't hide or mask your politics. It means people are clear about why you're doing it, and not thinking you're some local community group, charity or political party offshoot. When chatting we always said something like, 'We're revolutionaries, we want to abolish the State and capitalism and want to do XYZ as part of that/building towards it.' Almost without exception we got a good reception to that, I mean people would often laugh and say 'you're mad' but more in a way of 'that will never happen' rather than 'I don't want that'. I think being able to explain your politics, the world, and how you imagine change happening and how what you're doing fits into that is essential. As is then saying that's the plan, but it's not a fixed program and can be worked out in the process of doing this stuff together.

One of the real lessons for us was that you're going to come across enemies (political opponents and social groupings like gangs and slum landlords) and at some point you need to be able to beat them with the ability to wield power and that's something that needs to be established quickly in order to have any credibility imo. That and listening to people's problems, being able to situate them in a wider political context and offer/enact solutions requires huge collective confidence and a lot of time and energy.

Confident, coherent and clear politics, being able to explain them to anyone easily, wielding the collective power to fix problems, and offering something appealing in the present (maybe socially as well as politically) would cover 90% of what's needed I think.

Anyway, sorry, enough rambling, back to TRANSFORM...

Respect for getting out there and doing organising on the street - so few people do. I agree with a lot of what you've said but would add that I think you've really got to listen to people and be prepared to change your own thinking. If you go out with a preset ideology and people feel like it's take it or leave it, they'll mostly leave it. To get them involved in organising they've got to feel that what they say will influence the actual politics. I know a lot of left activists, having done hundreds of hours of reading, are utterly convinced they've hit upon the correct political viewpoint, but it always turns out to be correct-except-that-noone-actually-wants-to-join-you, which is a pretty strange version of correct for a political tendency that believes in mass movements. You don't have to be so open-minded that your brain falls out, and there's nothing wrong with bringing in anti-systemic critiques to conversations, but you've got to be prepared to learn too.

 

[chilango]

Anyway. I'm going to shut up and read. I've no better ideas than those being discussed above, and am not doing anything better either.

 

[Knotted]

The IWCA were miles ahead of the game in identifying and tracing the retreat/intellectual and political collapse of the left away from even a professed interest in class politics and into participation in identity politics. It's also worth remembering that the 'IWCA type approach' was based on listening and supporting communities to tackle the issues that mattered to them, rather than grandstanding over issues where an impact couldn't be made.

Actually I think the critique they launched was more far reaching than that. ie. That the left had never had an interest in class politics and that this problem was more fundamental than some recent collapse into ID politics. Albeit there was a particularly pointed criticism of the SWP's alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain and of their anti-fascist circus.

 

[LDC]

Respect for getting out there and doing organising on the street - so few people do. I agree with a lot of what you've said but would add that I think you've really got to listen to people and be prepared to change your own thinking. If you go out with a preset ideology and people feel like it's take it or leave it, they'll mostly leave it. To get them involved in organising they've got to feel that what they say will influence the actual politics. I know a lot of left activists, having done hundreds of hours of reading, are utterly convinced they've hit upon the correct political viewpoint, but it always turns out to be correct-except-that-noone-actually-wants-to-join-you, which is a pretty strange version of correct for a political tendency that believes in mass movements. You don't have to be so open-minded that your brain falls out, and there's nothing wrong with bringing in anti-systemic critiques to conversations, but you've got to be prepared to learn too.

Yeah totally, and it's a fine line to tread sometimes. Like this is how we think the world is, this is how (roughly) we want it to be, and now together we need to work out how to get there from here. And the getting there has to some extent appeal to people that might not 100% be with you on what the world is like now and what we want it to be like. And also offer something now that makes life better if 'the revolution' never happens. So it's also got to have some cultural and social elements to it and offer improvements in the here and now.

 

[LDC]

Anyway. I'm going to shut up and read. I've no better ideas than those being discussed above, and am not doing anything better either.

We're all on the same page roughly I'd say, and I don't think the ideas are even complicated or esoteric, they're just fucking hard to implement in the current circumstances aren't they?