The Socialist Alliance?

[Rod Sleeves]

but over fifteen years without significant advance (or even change), and its still fine to just plod on as if everything is hunky dory.

Look the IWCA will never be toppled by forces to the left of them.

No things are not hunkydory the IWCA is not exactly advancing smoothly, and will need to address that if it is to avoid stagnation and collapse (not saying they're on the verge of that), but I think rumours of their demise have been greatly exaggerated.

I think the basic premise of the IWCA - speak to people - listen to concerns and build a programme based on those concerns is the only way to build a relevent political movement, it is also essential to put in real solid work, pick winnable targets and concetrate on them.

I differ from them in that I now do not think you have to drop self description as socialist or anarchist, and indeed such labels may help to recruit an intial core of activists, that you can then break out of, by application of the idea above. Listen, act, get some small victories, build on them, there is an alternative, there are no short cuts.

My only real criticism of the IWCA is that maybe they should reconsider putting so much work into contesting elections, while I'm not against it in principle, and I'm aware of the arguments in favour, it does take a hell of a lot of work, you can expect to spend loads of money but if you actually make significant gains like in Oxford you can expect the establishement parties to crush you with superior resources, maybe sometimes that effort should be expended on building residents and tenents groups, or taking over existing ones where possible (not that the state won't take you on in that arena, but like the trade unions in the past it might be possible to rally more support for orgs that people really have a stake in), especially given the massive non participation in local elections, even where there is a credible alternative like the BNP, IWCA, Socialist Party etc.

 

[belboid]

I think the basic premise of the IWCA - speak to people - listen to concerns and build a programme based on those concerns is the only way to build a relevent political movement, it is also essential to put in real solid work, pick winnable targets and concetrate on them.

Wholly agree with that, and it is to the IWCA's great credit that they have reminded 'pro-working-class' (for want of a better description) people about doing some of thise, what used to be, basics. The old CP used to do it, and it served them well. Just a shame about thier politics.

What I rarely see from the IWCA supporters tho is any serious analysis about why they haven't been able to go further. For the 39th Steptoe it is simply a 'capacity issue', and therein lies a problem. If it is utterly reliant upon the 'right people' kicking it off in an area, and it still hasnt happened (not even in areas where there are supporters), is it the fault of those individuals for not being as good as Stuart Craft? Or of other lefties for not joining in? Or what? If a programme isn't generalisable in some way, it will fail. It may rise up in conjunction with some local struggles, but if it cant turn those local issues into wider ones, it will also fall away again as those issues subisde.

This appears to be what has happened weith the IWCA, tho it is very hard to tell specifically as there just isn't any reporting on what is going on with them, not even on their own sites.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The IWCA talk a lot of talk about how wonderful they are and how 'in touch' but what have they actually achieved on the ground in Oxford? Does focusing narrowly on a small ward really build socialism? They seem to be so localist as to actually bypass the class struggle and ignore internationalism. There are councillors such as Michael Lavallete, Dave Nellist, numerous old Labour councillors who probably are much more rooted locally & in touch but also take up bigger international and national issues than just their patch.
The IWCA seem to talk a lot of talk, but I don't see how they are superior to the SP councillors, old labour councillors many of whom (particularly 20 years ago) had incredible respect and profile with local people. There have been numerous left groups that have got rooted in local communities. They act as if they are the only ones posing an alternative to the BNP on white working class estates, but actually they have a very small number of councillors and other parties have achieved as much.

 

[belboid]

got any actual examples Udo? Or are you just basing this on some kind iof, i dunno, personal prejudice?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

got any actual examples Udo? Or are you just basing this on some kind iof, i dunno, personal prejudice?

Don't understand the question? Actually examples of what specifically? Other left groups who have got rooted?

I think we all know that many Labour Councillors pre-new Labour had genuine respect from a lot of people in working class communities and were seen to work hard and represent the people who elected them. I'm sure that Lavelette, or the Lewisham SP councillors are just as in touch as Stuart Craft with the working class people and communities they are based in yet don't duck the big issues.

 

[belboid]

examples of them 'bypassing class struggle', or indeed just failing to do whatever you thnk they should be doing.

You just seem to be arguing from a starting point of near total ignorance

 

[Louis MacNeice]

examples of them 'bypassing class struggle', or indeed just failing to do whatever you thnk they should be doing.

Maybe this sort of thing: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9164567&postcount=1.

Louis MacNeice

 

[tbaldwin]

Very willing to battle it out on either brain capacity or delusion but ask your chums ,who are members in Oxford or Islington, of the most right wing anti working class party since the post war about the fact that the IWCA took seats and votes off them.The truth is is that new labour are vulnerable to locally based opposition who pose an alternative based on canvassing and working in those working class communities. The BNP will continue to take votes from Labour not because of any emerging consensus of the need for the far right but because they combine old labour left of centre economic policies with local issues and have challenged the orthodoxy of multiculturalism. the fact that they succeed on a divisive basis only show the poverty of the so called left in its engagement with local working class communities.They, the BNP are sadly more at home in the white working class than new labour or the cobweb left.

I would love to see a left party based on the principle of putting the working class first but tell me if we are to avoid either reruns of every left unity initiative or something based on a blueprint of 1917 what would that party look like and how might we get there?

Actually a very good question..
For a start i think that it would have to be very democratic from the start.....It wouldnt have a totally wanky name like the IWCA.
It would have to a basic manifesto that was enough to frighten off the usual nut jobs attracted to new left initiatives....Maybe something about the need for a referendum on capital punishment and national service might do it.
I think it would have to argue the case against massive inequality in wealth and power. And i think it would have to have an aim of standing for council elections across the country on a shared minimum programme that lets local groups decide the issues they think are most important.

 

[liampreston]

If there is a "left black hole" following 4th June, what harm is there - dare I ask - of using IWCA as a base to form a (small s) socialist (small a) alliance? If there really is no chance of - if you excuse the pun - a Respect renewal, could taking the IWCA and going national with it be such a struggle?

I suppose this question is framed by my question on the Glasgow NE byelection thread; being Scotland, will there be a single socialist candidate?

 

[ericjarvis]

Actually a very good question..
For a start i think that it would have to be very democratic from the start.....It wouldnt have a totally wanky name like the IWCA.
It would have to a basic manifesto that was enough to frighten off the usual nut jobs attracted to new left initiatives....Maybe something about the need for a referendum on capital punishment and national service might do it.
I think it would have to argue the case against massive inequality in wealth and power. And i think it would have to have an aim of standing for council elections across the country on a shared minimum programme that lets local groups decide the issues they think are most important.

I'm inclined to agree with most of that. However I think it has to start with a constitution that ensures a solid democratic structure for the party organisation, for policy making, and for local groups. It is essential that from the outset every single member knows that they have not only a vote on who leads the party, not only a vote on major policy decisions, but also that they can as an individual member take the initiative in proposing a policy and if it has support expect it to go all the way through to a manifesto.

I'd suggest mandate democracy. So that each representative applies for a mandate from those they represent when dealing with policy changes or new policies and so on, and where there isn't time reports back on how they voted and accepts the consequences. Local groups should have complete autonomy aside from policy set nationally by a democratic process involving the entire party. The basis approach being that the party belongs to the members, and not to the party leadership. The party leadership should have NO authority that doesn't come from the membership via a democratic process.

Personally I think a solid requirement for a grass roots based democratic structure will actually scare off more of the usual nutjobs than anything else. If the constitution of the party makes it nigh on impossible to take over then it has a head start. However NO existing groups should be invited to join en masse until the new party has more members than they do.

As initially set in stone policies I'd start from something pretty basic. For instance that rewards and opportunities in this society should not be allowed to be based on class, creed, colour, sexual orientation. That the duty of the state is to ensure that political and economic power is always kept in check by political and economic responsibility. That to have any legitimacy the monarchy must be approved by national referendum every ten years or be abolished. Above all, that money should be the servant of the people and people should never be the servants of money.

 

[ericjarvis]

If there is a "left black hole" following 4th June, what harm is there - dare I ask - of using IWCA as a base to form a (small s) socialist (small a) alliance? If there really is no chance of - if you excuse the pun - a Respect renewal, could taking the IWCA and going national with it be such a struggle?

I suppose this question is framed by my question on the Glasgow NE byelection thread; being Scotland, will there be a single socialist candidate?

The harm is that so far every single new left initiative based on a previously failed or failing group has been a complete disaster.

 

[liampreston]

The harm is that so far every single new left initiative based on a previously failed or failing group has been a complete disaster.

You make a very good point.

 

[tbaldwin]

I'm inclined to agree with most of that. However I think it has to start with a constitution that ensures a solid democratic structure for the party organisation, for policy making, and for local groups. It is essential that from the outset every single member knows that they have not only a vote on who leads the party, not only a vote on major policy decisions, but also that they can as an individual member take the initiative in proposing a policy and if it has support expect it to go all the way through to a manifesto.

I'd suggest mandate democracy. So that each representative applies for a mandate from those they represent when dealing with policy changes or new policies and so on, and where there isn't time reports back on how they voted and accepts the consequences. Local groups should have complete autonomy aside from policy set nationally by a democratic process involving the entire party. The basis approach being that the party belongs to the members, and not to the party leadership. The party leadership should have NO authority that doesn't come from the membership via a democratic process.

Personally I think a solid requirement for a grass roots based democratic structure will actually scare off more of the usual nutjobs than anything else. If the constitution of the party makes it nigh on impossible to take over then it has a head start. However NO existing groups should be invited to join en masse until the new party has more members than they do.

As initially set in stone policies I'd start from something pretty basic. For instance that rewards and opportunities in this society should not be allowed to be based on class, creed, colour, sexual orientation. That the duty of the state is to ensure that political and economic power is always kept in check by political and economic responsibility. That to have any legitimacy the monarchy must be approved by national referendum every ten years or be abolished. Above all, that money should be the servant of the people and people should never be the servants of money.

Good post.
Agree about the need for a democratic structure...No slates for leadership positions. If you look at most left wing group including the SWP IWCA etc etc people can stay in leadership positions for 10 15 even 25 years and that makes for unhealthy ceasescue style politics.
I think there is a need for independent Socialists to be organised but not on strict party lines by out of touch dogmatists.

 

[Rod Sleeves]

Good post.
Agree about the need for a democratic structure...No slates for leadership positions. If you look at most left wing group including the SWP IWCA etc etc people can stay in leadership positions for 10 15 even 25 years and that makes for unhealthy ceasescue style politics.
.

The IWCA doesn't have a leader, the chair doesn't even have a vote at conference, if I recall correctly.

Anyway you can have the most democratic structure in the world, but if the internal culture doesn't encourage critical thinking, and the constant questioning of those in leading roles it won't make any difference, leaders can be democratically re-elected time and again for all sorts of reasons.

 

[tbaldwin]

The IWCA doesn't have a leader, the chair doesn't even have a vote at conference, if I recall correctly.

.

So the person who wrote most of the early stuff from IWCA gets voted down, does he these days? Probably not eh.

 

[belboid]

I'm inclined to agree with most of that. However I think it has to start with a constitution that ensures a solid democratic structure for the party organisation, for policy making, and for local groups.

how could a group actually start from that tho? Who writes it? How is who writes it chosen?

I agree that such a thing is absolutely vital, but the starting point must come earlier, with some basic agreement on direction and principle, but not detail.

And, as Rod notes, constitutions guarantee nothing. The US constitution looks lovely, and the old USSR one was widely agreed to be the most democratic and wonderful ever. It's just that both of them get ignored/interpreted in a strict class manner as and when it suits the ruling class.

 

[tbaldwin]

how could a group actually start from that tho? Who writes it? How is who writes it chosen?

I agree that such a thing is absolutely vital, but the starting point must come earlier, with some basic agreement on direction and principle, but not detail.

And, as Rod notes, constitutions guarantee nothing. The US constitution looks lovely, and the old USSR one was widely agreed to be the most democratic and wonderful ever. It's just that both of them get ignored/interpreted in a strict class manner as and when it suits the ruling class.

Anything set in stone can end up like a deadweight. But the one principle i think any new socialist organisation would have to have to have is a commitment to extend not limit democracy both internally and externally.

 

[belboid]

mm, that doesnt mean much in itself. obviously you mean no democratic centralism (fine) but how would you hold elected members and representatives accountable? wouldn't putting restrictions upon them be limiting their democratic 'rights'?

 

[tbaldwin]

mm, that doesnt mean much in itself. obviously you mean no democratic centralism (fine) but how would you hold elected members and representatives accountable? wouldn't putting restrictions upon them be limiting their democratic 'rights'?

Me i believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. ( I think!)
People elected would have to be accountable but being on the national committee, would not be such an elevated position anyway if the party had elected cllrs up and down the country.

 

[belboid]

so you actually would limit elected (internal or external) reps' democractic rights?

fair enough, i think thats right, but it shows you cannot simply say 'a commitment to extend not limit democracy' would be an absolute principle

 

[Nigel]

So what initiatives are the IWCA planning to rejuvenate their 'movement'?

 

[Rod Sleeves]

so you actually would limit elected (internal or external) reps' democractic rights?

fair enough, i think thats right, but it shows you cannot simply say 'a commitment to extend not limit democracy' would be an absolute principle

Indeed it's a fairly meaningless slogan.

For what it's worth I'm with tbaldwin on this in theory, but I think such an orgnisation would need to be built by real existing grassroots organisations like residents and tenent's groups, workplace orgs (including union branches) and various campaigning groups focussed around issues that are actually relevent to people, the policies and structures would actually have to come from them as well. I think it would have to be left up to individual areas whether they participated in elections or focussed more on other forms of political action.

 

[Nigel]

Still relying on the spontaneity of the 'working' class,?