IWCA - playground lefties

[butchersapron]

And jesus christ nino, you pull a quote from a question and answer session from about 5 years ago to support your claim that "they seem to spend much of their time attacking socialism." - truly crap. And this after i've just shown you what their real focus is on - the labour party, who you said they ignore. It's truly pathetic and desperate.

(Actually the focus is on the needs of working class people, but in oxford that nessacrily entails fighting labour).

 

[dennisr]

So why do they claim that "socialism hasn't worked"? That is something that none of you have answered.

A lot of folk claim that. I worked for a long while with polish lads who were the most solid trade unionists and had the most 'socialist' attitude in their work and personal relations you could have met. Absolutely sound - but their experience of 'socialism' was the polish dictatorship so only one came around to being 'socialist' officially. The others attitude of me was 'he's alright for a commie'. Thats understandable. I could still trust and work with them when it came to 'us and them' in practice.

The reaction to 'socialism' (and especially considering some of those claiming the mantle of socialim in the uk at the moment) and its preceived failure is also an understandable one - even if I don't agree with all the conclusions drawn - by Red Action.

I think their reaction is also an understandable to the years within the SWP but thats another thing...

I think the IWCA represents a wider and genuine trend among working class folk although I don't think most folk are as intractable in their opposition to what I see as 'socialist' ideas. I am willing to test that against the IWCA - i won't do that by simply slurring them as reactionaries'

 

[nino_savatte]

What sort of reply is that? You say the IWCA as a party ignore labour and i prove you to be utterly ill-informed and conclusively wrong and you come back with some waffle about some posters on here - and i can't recall any IWCA posters going on about students either. Oh i get it, its posters who are secretly in the IWCA doing it. Sort yourself out. Make accurate criticisms not hese malicious petty uninformed knee-kerk prejudiced crap.

Like I said before, any critique ofthe IWCA is regarded as "name-calling". I find that sort of approach to criticism worrying.

 

[tbaldwin]

So why do they claim that "socialism hasn't worked"? That is something that none of you have answered.

What kind of Socialism do you think has worked then Nino?

 

[butchersapron]

Like I said before, any critique ofthe IWCA is regarded as "name-calling". I find that sort of approach to criticism worrying.

What criticisms though? The totally inaccurate ones from you above, the ones that have all been shown to be wrong, wildy wrong. Make some serious sustained criticisms, backed up with accurate evidence and defendible conclusioons that follw from that - not this rubbish above. IWCA posters on here have i over the years always responded when that has happened with postive engagement. But how can you positvely engage with some of the idicies we've seen above?

 

[poster342002]

And the IWCA does have a "sound grasp of reality" that isn't rooted in romantic notions of the "working class"?

Come off it.

Unlike all those lefty outfits that had romantic notions of the holy "organic link" betwen TU beaucrocrats and the labour party, eh? That link that for so long justified voting labour nomatter how reactionary or detrimental to working-class interests it's policies became? Then there was that romantic view that the working classes "betrayed expectations" of a labour governemnt would lead to a surge of militancy?

 

[nino_savatte]

What criticisms though? The totally inaccurate ones from you above, the ones that have all been shown to be wrong, wildy wrong. Make some serious sustained criticisms, backed up with accurate evidence and defendible conclusioons that follw from that - not this rubbish above. IWCA posters on here have i over the years always responded when that has happened with postive engagement. But how can you positvely engage with some of the idicies we've seen above?

Well, let's begin with their disconnection from the past. The claim "socialism hasn't worked" is fundamentally wrong. Socialism hasn't been given a chance to work because of the way outside factors have impacted upon it. To give an example, the US was never going to give Britain money to create a socialist 'utopia'. Most of the truly left wing parties in the parliament before the war, disappeared afterwards. The left wing parties of Italy were heading for victory in 1947 until the CIA began an intensive campaign of disinformation and funded the CDs election campaign.

"Socialism hasn't worked"? It's never been given the chance to work.

 

[nino_savatte]

Unlike all those lefty outfits that had romantic notions of the holy "organic link" betwen TU beaucrocrats and the labour party, eh? That link that for so long justified voting labour nomatter how reactionary or detrimental to working-class interests it's policies became? Then there was that romantic view that the working classes "betrayed expectations" of a labour governemnt would lead to a surge of militancy?

Where did I say that the Labour Party represented "working class interests"?

 

[nino_savatte]

What kind of Socialism do you think has worked then Nino?

 

[nino_savatte]

A lot of folk claim that. I worked for a long while with polish lads who were the most solid trade unionists and had the most 'socialist' attitude in their work and personal relations you could have met. Absolutely sound - but their experience of 'socialism' was the polish dictatorship so only one came around to being 'socialist' officially. The others attitude of me was 'he's alright for a commie'. Thats understandable. I could still trust and work with them when it came to 'us and them' in practice.

The reaction to 'socialism' (and especially considering some of those claiming the mantle of socialim in the uk at the moment) and its preceived failure is also an understandable one - even if I don't agree with all the conclusions drawn - by Red Action.

I think their reaction is also an understandable to the years within the SWP but thats another thing...

I think the IWCA represents a wider and genuine trend among working class folk although I don't think most folk are as intractable in their opposition to what I see as 'socialist' ideas. I am willing to test that against the IWCA - i won't do that by simply slurring them as reactionaries'

So, what do we do? Say that socialism is dead and open up our arms to anyone claiming to have the "real solution" that is free from the 'evil' taint of socialism? I find their historical revisionism disturbing and I suppose the reason why they have said what they've said about socialism is to appeal to voters who would, ordinarily, vote for the BNP or other far-right parties. I worry when I see this and I think that I have every right to be concerned.

Another thing that I have taken issue with is this notion of a homogenised working class where individual cultures or identities are submerged into a 'working class' whole (this would not be organic, rather a construction). There is something rather reactionary about that and I know where it comes from too. It comes from their idea that "multiculturalism has failed". The subtext to this argument is that this country has never benefited from those immigrants who have come here. And that these immigrants “are taking homes from us”. Ignoring the fact that no new council homes have been built for the best part of 30 years.

 

[poster342002]

Where did I say that the Labour Party represented "working class interests"?

Whilst many on the left never did say that, they still called for a vote for Labour on the basis of a heap of romantic illusions that it was still percieved by the working classes as a workers' party when - in reality - most workers outside those in quasi-full time TU work had long abandoned any such illusions.

 

[poster342002]

open up our arms to anyone claiming to have the "real solution"

Liek certain areas of the left have done with political islamism, then?

 

[nino_savatte]

Liek certain areas of the left have done with political islamism, thern?

What? What does this have to do with the IWCA? Or are you sayng that the IWCA are reacting to RESPECT, who it sees as "Islamists"

Please note that use of the word "Islamists" was satirical.

 

[nino_savatte]

Whilst many on the left never did say that, they still called for a vote for Labour on the basis of a heap of romantic illusions that it was still percieved by the working classes as a workers' party when - in reality - most workers outside those in quasi-full time TU work had long abandoned any such illusions.

I don't think there are that many who are fooled by Labour and its grand words. The truth is that the IWCA are limited to a handful of councils around the country - most of them are in the south.

Er, didn't the RMT sever its links with Labour?

 

[butchersapron]

Well, let's begin with their disconnection from the past. The claim "socialism hasn't worked" is fundamentally wrong. Socialism hasn't been given a chance to work because of the way outside factors have impacted upon it. To give an example, the US was never going to give Britain money to create a socialist 'utopia'. Most of the truly left wing parties in the parliament before the war, disappeared afterwards. The left wing parties of Italy were heading for victory in 1947 until the CIA began an intensive campaign of disinformation and funded the CDs election campaign.

"Socialism hasn't worked"? It's never been given the chance to work.

Ah, so your argument against the idea that socialism hasn't worked is actually consists of agreement that socialism hasn't worked but simply adding a yet on the end. Righty ho. Don't you think that the fact it's never been in a postion to be implemented, or where it has been in such a postion its gone disasterously wrong should give you some pause to reflect on why that is and to change your behaviour and approach as a result of your conclusions as to why this has been the case? That's simply what the IWCA have done. Don't you think that this is a sensible way to go about things?

Looking at the past and drawing conclusions for today isn't a diconnection from the past, it's directly using lessons from the past to come up more relavent forms of political action today.

You seem to me to be too hung-up on formal labels and identifications - you must call yourself socialists, you must not attack the historical track record of socialism or draw new conclusions from it - that's a recipie for total political inertia and alienation from changing conditons, and so from the class as result. And guess what, take a look around and that's exactly where much of the left who adopted this aproah have ended up.

Aside from which, you were/are unable to actually say what you mean by socialism anyway which makes this all rather vague.

On an historical note, which 'truly left wing parties in the parliament before the war, disappeared afterwards.'? Not sure who you mean here.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ah, so your argument against the idea that socialism hasn't worked is actually consists of agreement that socialism hasn't worked but simply adding a yet on the end. Righty ho. Don't you think that the fact it's never been in a postion to be implemented, or where it has been in such a postion its gone disasterously wrong should give you some pause to reflect on why that is and to change your behaviour and approach as a result of your conclusions as to why this has been the case? That's simply what the IWCA have done. Don't you think that this is a sensible way to go about things?

Looking at the past and drawing conclusions for today isn't a diconnection from the past, it's directly using lessons from the past to come up more relavent forms of political action today.

You seem to me to be too hung-up on formal labels and identifications - you must call yourself socialists, you must not attack the historical track record of socialism or draw new conclusions from it - that's a recipie for total political inertia and alienation from changing conditons, and so from the class as result. And guess what, take a look around and that's exactly where much of the left who adopted this aproah have ended up.

Aside from which, you were/are unable to actually say what you mean by socialism anyway which makes this all rather vague.

On an historical note, which 'truly left wing parties in the parliament before the war, disappeared afterwards.'? Not sure who you mean here.

I think you're missing my points because of your obvious attachment for the IWCA.

Do the IWCA know what they mean when the use the word "socialism".

Aside from which, you were/are unable to actually say what you mean by socialism anyway which makes this all rather vague..

I don't think that what you've said here proves anything. I noticed that you weren't forthcoming with your own definition of the word "socialism" And I was right about that thread too.

Your first paragraph presupposes that my questions about the IWCA have no sound basis an that I'm simply trying to accuse them of being "racist" or some such nonsense... but then I suspect ,that there is a tendency here, to defend them no matter what. I'd expect the same thing from a swappie tbh. As for your comments about my perception of socialism, I'll take that with the kilo of salt it deserves.

You have accused me of being vague but here, the IWCA are quite vague about tackling racism. This is from their site.

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.

Who are these "working class communities" and what is the ethnic composition of these "communities"?

 

[butchersapron]

There's no reply to a single one of my points in that. It's quite simply a continuation of your earlier MO - state something, have it refuted, then ignore it and make another unconnected claim as if this undermined the points made in reply to your original claim.

 

[dennisr]

I worry when I see this and I think that I have every right to be concerned.

You worry to much then.

They are a wee organisation that get a bit of an echo on a few bulletin boards you also happen to go on - often from folk using the valid questions they raise as an excuse for doing nothing or attacking socialists. Those folk would find some other excuse if they had one.

The IWCA do represent a genuine trend - they may bend to much in trying to takes those views on board in both our opinions, they may well over egg the pudding on reaction to multiculturalism and they may throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the wealth of experience that can be learned from socialists in action historically - but they are trying to listen to those around them even if they may be accused of trying to apply their own ready-made theories to what they hear (something they would critisise socialists for - sometimes with reason). At the moment their ideas are just that - ideas (applied in a very limited local way) like my ideas.

I think one has to put answers to those valid questions being raised via the IWCA or from elsewhere. I think one has to learn from the plus points they have and put forward socialist solutions to the perceived failings they see - have those ideas compared and tested. I'm actually quite confident that the ideas I put forward a good enough and happy to have them tested without worrying too much or slandering other folk.

I am more concerned about the damage (and tarring by association with the rest of us) being done by some so-called socialists in the name of socialism who are clearly a lot more visible. But even that is not that important in the big scheme of things.

 

[butchersapron]

You worry to much then.

They are a wee organisation that get a bit of an echo on a few bulletin boards you also happen to go on - often from folk using the valid questions they raise as an excuse for doing nothing or attacking socialists. Those folk would find some other excuse if they had one.

The IWCA do represent a genuine trend - they may bend to much in trying to takes those views on board in both our opinions, they may well over egg the pudding on reaction to multiculturalism and they may throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the wealth of experience that can be learned from socialists in action historically - but they are trying to listen to those around them even if they may be accused of trying to apply their own ready-made theories to what they hear (something they would critisise socialists for - sometimes with reason). At the moment their ideas are just that - ideas (applied in a very limited local way) like my ideas.

I think one has to put answers to those valid questions being raised via the IWCA or from elsewhere. I think one has to learn from the plus points they have and put forward socialist solutions to the perceived failings they see - have those ideas compared and tested. I'm actually quite confident that the ideas I put forward a good enough and happy to have them tested without worrying too much or slandering other folk.

I am more concerned about the damage (and tarring by association with the rest of us) being done by some so-called socialists in the name of socialism who are clearly a lot more visible. But even that is not that important in the big scheme of things.

Sensible points put acoross in a way designed to leave the issue open to further debate and discussion rather than instant dimissal - are you mad? . This is what i find so frustrating whenever this happens, there's some really important subjects that we could talk about in relation to the IWCA and related or similiar projects, questions that need both to be asked and answered - for example, how, given that past instances of working in an and against the system have invaribaly ended up broken or co-opted into the worst sort of reformism (as an ideology rathe than immediate defence of interests) from above do the IWCA plan to avoid these paths? What measures are in place to guard against them? How do they envisage the spread of the 'model' to other areas with majoriy tranisient populations and so on. But all this nonsense about yeah, they just go on about students and lefties while ignoring labour and making up lies and being dodgy on race etc just helps to bury all this potentially interesting stuff in bile and what you, quite rightly note, effectively amounts to political slander. It seems to happen everytime the IWCA is mentioned though.

 

[brasicritique]

I thought I would take it apart


Nice one Attica - You attack those on the left who seem to be trying to reach out ot people which is more than can be said for your social elitist Anarchist simpltons where are the IWCA based ? In inner city communities -where are you based Attica -up your own arse ?

Unfortunately Anarchism in britian today is as socially diverse as a vote boris tea party

I would say that the sniping from the rest of you on this thread at this group is really below the belt but then this is urban and it is well known that you are all out of touch frustrated ( in more than one way ) SWAPIES

 

[nino_savatte]

There's no reply to a single one of my points in that. It's quite simply a continuation of your earlier MO - state something, have it refuted, then ignore it and make another unconnected claim as if this undermined the points made in reply to your original claim.

Tut tut tut, to hear you talk anyone would think that you were above reproach. This reply is based on a selective reading of my posts.

You never told us what your definintion of socialism was, yet you expect me to produce something on demand. Oh, the arrogance!

The IWCA, like any other political organisation, is not above criticism.

 

[nino_savatte]

You worry to much then.

No, I just don't accept things blindly and without question.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

What? What does this have to do with the IWCA? Or are you sayng that the IWCA are reacting to RESPECT, who it sees as "Islamists"

Please note that use of the word "Islamists" was satirical.

Why satirically? Islamism has just as much currency as terms such as capitalism, socialism or facism. There's nothing illusionary about it.

 

[durruti02]

You worry to much then.

They are a wee organisation that get a bit of an echo on a few bulletin boards you also happen to go on - often from folk using the valid questions they raise as an excuse for doing nothing or attacking socialists. Those folk would find some other excuse if they had one.

The IWCA do represent a genuine trend - they may bend to much in trying to takes those views on board in both our opinions, they may well over egg the pudding on reaction to multiculturalism and they may throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the wealth of experience that can be learned from socialists in action historically - but they are trying to listen to those around them even if they may be accused of trying to apply their own ready-made theories to what they hear (something they would critisise socialists for - sometimes with reason). At the moment their ideas are just that - ideas (applied in a very limited local way) like my ideas.

I think one has to put answers to those valid questions being raised via the IWCA or from elsewhere. I think one has to learn from the plus points they have and put forward socialist solutions to the perceived failings they see - have those ideas compared and tested. I'm actually quite confident that the ideas I put forward a good enough and happy to have them tested without worrying too much or slandering other folk.

I am more concerned about the damage (and tarring by association with the rest of us) being done by some so-called socialists in the name of socialism who are clearly a lot more visible. But even that is not that important in the big scheme of things.

good post dennis

I would also add that they have put their agenda to the test, in a small way. IWCA/HI have stood in about 10/15? wards, ( yes attica i know there about what is it 30k?) but in these areas got very significant votes ( % and totals), and of course a number of councillors, (in Oxford), for such a small organisation/s. Look at their website for details.

The elctoral side is of course only half of the deal and i believe both IWCA and HI have had less sucess in building strong w/c organisations on the ground.

It is imperative that we look openly and honestly at where we have been successful. SP in Coventry/ SA/Respect in Preston and IWCA in Oxford ( and BNP!) and see what has been done there and how we can learn lessons from those places.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

No, I just don't accept things blindly and without question.

*cough*

 

[mk12]

The IWCA article seems spot-on for the most part.

True.

 

[mk12]

Like I said before, any critique ofthe IWCA is regarded as "name-calling". I find that sort of approach to criticism worrying.

from what i've read on this thread, you haven't offered any decent criticism which can be back up at all.

 

[The Black Hand]

I thought I would take it apart


Nice one Attica - You attack those on the left who seem to be trying to reach out ot people which is more than can be said for your social elitist Anarchist simpltons where are the IWCA based ? In inner city communities -where are you based Attica -up your own arse ?

Unfortunately Anarchism in britian today is as socially diverse as a vote boris tea party

I would say that the sniping from the rest of you on this thread at this group is really below the belt but then this is urban and it is well known that you are all out of touch frustrated ( in more than one way ) SWAPIES

The article was crap, it had no purpose. They were not trying to do anything with it, and have not been trying to reach out to people. That has been part of my critique for the past few years. 15 years, and they have 3 groups and 3 councillors. The same number as they started with. You know the old refrain theory practice praxis theory pratice praxis... There practice is going nowhere fast. As for the IWCA, Oxford is not a inner city, didn't you know? Take Oxford with its peculiar local conditions out of the equation and they have nothing. You are mistaking me for somebody else too - who's an anarchist these days

 

[The Black Hand]

Note that the lefties on here aren't actually taking apart the IWCA's arguments - just resorting to silly name-calling.

I think that says it all, really.

Did you miss the first post on this thread?

 

[cockneyrebel]

15 years, and they have 3 groups and 3 councillors. The same number as they started with.

It's true that the IWCA model has been no more successful than any other in the last 10 years, and they seem to be going nowhere fast (like the rest of the far left or in the IWCAs case, an off shoot from it). So you could ask, why bother writing an article about them?

To be honest the IWCAs model and ideas are presented as something new, but in reality have been done and tried many times in history in many different places.

Butchers in terms of the more interesting stuff (and I agree with you that this thread has missed it), why not go ahead with debating that and ignore the stuff that misses the mark?

This story about Oxford Council backing the postal workers:

http://www.iwca.info/cgi-bin/iwcanews.pl?record=18

is interesting as it's one of the first times I've seen the IWCA comment on trade union struggles. Maybe a change in tact from that point of view?