Recently both the Workers Revolutionary Party and the Class War Federation have slipped into voluntary liquidation. Rumours are also circulating that Militant are thinking of renaming themselves the Socialist Party. The discussions which led to the formation of the Independent Working Class Association not only preceded these events but appear to have predicted them. In a wide ranging interview with its acting secretary, we explore the background to the IWCA and its plans for the future.

RA: How did the IWCA come into existence?
IWCA: In May 1995 a document was distributed amongst sections of the left entitled 'It's Make Your Mind Up Time'. It called for the setting up of an independent working class association in response to the total abandonment of the working class by Labour.

RA: Who was invited to the initial meetings and why?
IWCA: The groups invited were selected on the basis that they had through their publications etc. publicly and consistently denounced the Labour Party as the class enemy prior to the Clause Four controversy and had either directly called for, or at least it was implicit from their line of thinking that such an initiative was set up they might support it. Given that the majority on the Left i.e. the Trotskyists, either support Labour or apologise for doing so, the initial meeting was dominated by a mixture of groups who would be termed Marxist, or Leninist, through to orthodox Anarchists.

RA: So given the diverse ideological backgrounds of the groups what was the flavour of the initial meeting?
IWCA: Needless to say given the component parts and the nature of what was being proposed the meeting was fraught with difficulties. Even though the common language was English some of the participants in trying to defend their own records and search out the motives of others, struggled to take it all in. One group felt that if there was a basis for unity it lay only in "anti-fascism" and suggested we try and organise around that. This caused a few raised eyebrows from the AFA delegates in attendance. Another group that did not survive the first meeting, wound up their contribution by agreeing with the overall analysis that the vacuum needed to be filled and they were the boys to do it! Yet another group had after almost four hours discussion somehow gained the impression that the new organisation intended to limit its activity to a single estate somewhere in north London! Significantly it was these same elements who struggled to come to terms with the message inherent in the proposals that what was required was both a new approach, and a decisive change of direction. This was the first major hurdle.

RA: Can you explain?
IWCA: Well, for the initiative to take off the participants needed to be prepared in part to decommission their own ideologies and accept that the Left both inside and outside the Labour Party had failed. And that by working off the old formula could only continue to fail. Some were unwilling or incapable of taking in the big picture and continued to judge their own contributions by the standards of the Left rather than look at the situation and themselves objectively, that is to say, from the perspective of the working class as a whole.

RA: Not exactly an auspicious beginning. Was this not entirely predictable?
IWCA: Of course it was predictable, in many ways it was anticipated. The issues on which the participants were confronted on was quite a fundamental choice. Steady, as she goes or accept the reality that the blue print for revolutionary change was fatally flawed. The facts that were laid out before them were as follows: Capitalism was changing society and changing the working class. Trade unionism as a political strategy is as dead as a dodo. Labour has ditched the working class. The existence of the 'labour movement' is a myth. The possibility of progressive reform nonexistent. What was needed was a radical change of direction primarily an orientation to where the working class live rather than where they work. Recognise as well that the Left had like, the working class, split into pro and anti Labour camps. That this was a positive rather than negative development, an opportunity rather than a problem. But to take advantage of the opportunity it would be necessary not only to break with Labour politically but to confront them directly; in other words the situation demanded that we organise without apology in working class areas against Labour. And as the title of the document indicated it was indeed a case of make your mind up time.

RA: The make up of the first meeting in July 1995 was almost right across the ideological board. How representative is the IWCA one year on, and how many groups are still involved?
IWCA: There were delegates from nine different groups involved in the first meeting. Some had fallen away by only the second meeting this continued throughout the year with the ones falling away being replaced by others signing up. There are now about the same number formally associated with the IWCA. But perhaps more important than the groups is the support from politically experienced but largely unaligned individuals that are beginning to form branches of their own. This is particularly important because the IWCA is no longer actively seeking political support among the anti-Labour Left, but is now looking more to those prepared to offer practical support.

RA: The IWCA stated that it was its intention to establish a demarcation line between those on the Left who supported Labour and those who stood with the working class. Are you then surprised that the public attacks have so far all come from your side of the demarcation line?
IWCA: The formation of the IWCA has established a political demarcation line within the Left. The choice is pro Labour or pro working class. If having made the correct choice, the logical next step surely is to decide what you intend to do about it. The groups that are anti-Labour but also anti-IWCA are presumably resigned to doing nothing about it. Certainly they can expect to do nothing on their own.

RA: So what do you think their problem is with the IWCA?
IWCA: These are the same elements that have been whining about the sectarianism on the Left for years, and now their bluff has been called. The published arguments against their being involved appear to be aimed at justifying to their own supporters the benefits of their continued isolation. They view the IWCA from the position of what it can do for them rather than what they might contribute to it. For some this mirrors exactly their attitude to any working class struggle. Others recognise the danger in testing their ideas in practice. So while in formal theoretical agreement with the IWCA they find themselves secretly hoping it will fail. They realise that the success of the IWCA will spell the end of the era of the sect. Given the challenge facing the working class not only here but in Europe the position they have adopted can only be regarded as reactionary.

RA: Despite overcoming apparently insurmountable obstacles the IWCA was first out of the blocks only to find that the SLP has stolen all the anti-Labour headlines and limelight. Is the prospect of being continually overshadowed by the SLP not a cause for concern?
IWCA: Not really. Remember the IWCA is not out to impress the Left or the media though the latter will be used when the time comes. It was inevitable that the media would focus in on Scargill primarily to see what damage he could do to Blair. The debate generated amongst the Left was equally predictable. The majority on the Left still lament the direction Labour has taken. The SLP represented their regret in tangible form. Inevitably, there was a certain amount of intrigue in pro-Labour circles, but I imagine that when the election comes round, the Trots will still recommend the original
to the copy.

RA: What is the current attitude toward the SLP and has it changed?
IWCA: Initially there were discussions on how the SLP should be approached but everybody recognised that its principal orientation would be to the Labour Parry so our paths would cross only occasionally. Basically the SLP is designed to appeal to people disillusioned by New Labour while the IWCA would expect to attract support from those alienated by Old Labour, alienated by labourism per se. It has been said elsewhere, but the paradox for the SLP, as an openly reformist party armed only with an electoral strategy, is what will they actually do between elections? Overall there is a distinct 70's feeling about the whole enterprise both in political analysis and its bureaucratic structures which has created the indelible impression that should the SLP ever adopt a crest for their official SLP tie it would probably be two whippets rampant over a cloth cap!

RA: Just to pick you up on a point there. If indeed the IWCA organises effectively against Labour is there not a danger that in some areas of the East End for instance this could have the effect of letting in the likes of the BNP?
IWCA: There are a number of points to be made on this issue. One, the BNP won a council seat in the Isle of Dogs without any help from the IWCA. It also secured over 30% of the vote in other wards. Canning Town etc. and came within a whisker of Labour in a ward in Newham. This remember is working class people voting far-right with the most right wing party since the war in power. The support for the BNP was not of course directed against the Tories but in protest against Labour in local government. How much more resonant the BNP message when Labour is running the country as well as the local council can well be imagined.

RA: Would you elaborate please?
IWCA: Well with the Tories discredited and 'socialists' in government mounting attacks on the working class, the BNP anticipate with some confidence that it is they who will be cast in the role of the natural opposition. In addition if the IWCA is effective against Labour, then it will be equally effective against the BNP. If it splits the Labour vote then it will have the same potential to split the BNP vote. At the end of the day we consider that the working class is our constituency. In the battle for hearts and minds, inviting the working class, as the ANL have done, to vote for a visibly corrupt council to 'Keep out the Nazis' is to betray both the working class and the principle of anti-fascism. One consequence of the extensive ANL campaign on the Isle of Dogs that is largely ignored is that the BNP vote jumped by 30%. This was not despite the ANL pro-Labour approach but because of it.

RA: Does this mean that the IWCA intends to stand in local elections?
IWCA: The case of elections is of course a tactical question and would be determined by conditions on the ground. Certainly an electoral strategy does not play a major part in IWCA thinking at the moment.

RA: Who would determine whether or not the IWCA would stand. What is the decision making structure. Is it simply a united front?
IWCA: As things stand, particularly in London, the sponsoring organisations are cast in a caretaker role until such time as their overall contribution is out-weighed by unaligned individuals joining the IWCA of their own accord. Though the organisation is just beginning to take shape around the rest of the country particularly in the Midlands and in Scotland, the ultimate decision would be a local decision determined by the activists on the ground. After all they would have to do the work and carry the can if things go 'pear-shaped'.

RA: You say it is not a united front but that the sponsoring organisations still have a caretaker role. Can you explain?
IWCA: Well, a united front generally means a combination of existing forces combined against a common enemy for a limited duration; a temporary or emergency measure based on the lowest common denominator. The IWCA is designed for the long haul. It has taken twelve months of discussions to put together; precisely one year to the day from commencement of discussions to the first real activity in London. Because of the painstaking approach work and the principled participation of the original sponsors, it has I believe an almost infinite capacity to evolve. The structure has been designed by the sponsors, not for the sponsors, but for future recruits. While some of the sponsors would be the first to admit that they will be able to contribute little by way of practical support I think they are all aware that this is where the real work begins. And as in any enterprise you get out what you put in. There can be no free lunches.

RA: Where apart from London does the IWCA have contacts and support?
IWCA: Well, over the last year I personally have spoken at meetings up and down the country London, Oxford, Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

RA: To go back to the issue of membership, how would you define your natural constituency?
IWCA: That is an interesting question precisely because the existence of the working class itself has been called into question. You notice that Labour and right wing sociologists no longer refer to the working class at all. Roy Hattersley is on record as saying that "we are all middle class now if only by aspiration." In other words if you live in a cardboard box and would like to get out of it he regards you as a social climber. The conservative Left on the other hand have concluded that practically everybody is working class. This is more to justify the strata they recruit from rather than any objective analysis. One of the larger organisations had just recently recruited a dole snooper and were boasting of it! As the IWCA will be orientating to working class communities our orientation, sympathies and support will be very much with the people on the other side of the dole snoopers counter so to speak

RA: Who then would you regard as your ideal recruit?
IWCA: Somebody with political experience of the Left and who is suitably jaundiced by its self-defeating nature. Somebody who already operates both politically and socially in a working class community, has the ambition to see things change and is prepared to take on the responsibility for making it happen. Of course the ideal recruit is by definition cynical. Only when the IWCA begins to prove that it is a clean break with the past will this strata begin to take interest. Until then it will remain a chicken and egg situation.

RA: The phrase 'a clean break with the past' has a certain intrigue. What does it mean? Is it simply an advertising technique to convey the impression that the IWCA is something fresh; a new improved formula etc. Surely to break with the past would you not have to break with the Left?
IWCA: To a certain extent this is true. The IWCA has not yet broken from the Left so far but has caused a political division within it. There is now the conservative Left grouped around Labour, a slightly less conservative group around the SLP and the radical Left grouped around the IWCA. As had been said before it is a case of taking up battlefield positions. The conservative Left have lined up with Labour against the working class. The IWCA has lined up with the working class against Labour. If I can refer you to the founding statement it states:
"From the outset it will be clear we have rejected entryism and the prospect of reform, be that reform of Labour or the economic system. We will not orientate or seek solace from the official 'labour movement'. Trade unionism as a strategy for total social change is no longer vaguely credible. Instead the IWCA will be community orientated and in time community based. It will be led by the working class but not limited to the working class. Essentially it will be a can-do organisation; an organisation that can make things happen or prevent them happening."
That statement can not be regarded as an attempt at improving the old formula. It is a clean break with that formula and the custom and practice that goes with it. The IWCA has identified the basic contradiction. And is now acting on it. The only way the fundamental change that is required can be achieved is by disentangling the basic contradiction.

RA: And the basic contradiction is?
IWCA: Continually calling for a working class alternative to Labour, while at the same time actively campaigning for a Labour vote and at each moment of crisis standing loyally four square behind them.

RA: The IWCA says it is against reform but the entire Trotskyist Left for instance reject reformism, while as you have pointed out, consistently calling for a Labour vote. How is this rejection any different?
IWCA: Read carefully the statement does not say that the IWCA rejects reform in principle. Nor is the statement based on a belief that reform is in itself undesirable. Instead it is a recognition that progressive reform, given that it needs underpinning by progressive taxation is no longer on the agenda of either of the main stream parties. So the word that needs to be stressed here is prospect. In brief when developing a long term strategy campaigning for progressive reform is a distraction and needs to be automatically excluded as a realistic possibility.

RA: The statement also says that trade unionism is not a strategy for total social change. Surely the emasculation of trade unionism is down to Tory legislation, and with a change of government is there not a possibility that this might be reversed?
IWCA: No. The massive decline in union organisation has not been as a result of Tory legislation as the conservative Left believe or because the working class have become more middle class as the Right pretends but is largely a result of the growth in smaller scale units, unskilled or part time jobs where industrial relations are not required and where union membership is an irrelevance. The Left's preoccupation with the point of production is in any case something of a sham. One organisation has appointed as their industrial organiser an individual who runs a crèche. The refusal to look reality in the face has rendered the Left unable to form any contemporary analysis - even - in their own interests. Theirs is a dogmatism unsullied by experience. If they prove unable to adapt they won't survive.

RA: Nevertheless, even from a selfish point of view is it not dangerous for the IWCA to ignore the unions entirely?
IWCA: The IWCA is not ignoring the unions as such, merely putting their value in regard to building links with the working class into perspective. It is in fact the unions who have ignored the working class entirely through concentrating on sectional interests exclusive to themselves. In operating as business unions it is they who have turned their backs on the social concerns and political interests of the working class as a whole.

RA: But can't this relationship be rebuilt by principled rank and file work for instance?
IWCA: Not really. The thing is that society, capitalism is changing. When capitalism was expanding, industrialisation herded people from rural to urban areas and they began to organise themselves around the point of production. De-industrialisation is having the opposite effect by forcing working people out of the customary manufacturing centres back into their communities. This is the case now and this is the future. The argument for attempting to organise the working class where they live as well as where they work would be a powerful one regardless. Particularly as working class communities are practically shunned by the parliamentary parties. As recent developments here and in Europe have shown a void the far-right is more than happy to exploit.

RA: It is not entirely accurate to say that the entire Left has ignored working class communities. Militant for instance retains a measure of support, councillors in a number of working class areas. Pollock in Glasgow is regarded as something of a stronghold?
IWCA: Certainly Militant have benefited from their work within communities but it is not so apparent that Militant's political occupation has benefited the working class. The evidence suggests that the Militant operation is simply a mixture of 'Old' Labour municipal socialism spiced with pork barrel politics and jobs for the boys. In short rather than the party being there for the people, the people are regarded as being there for the party. The shortfall in actual support locally is made up by shipping in, Militant cadres from elsewhere. So in an effort to ensure that Pollock remains a stronghold, Militant are being forced to literally colonise the area. I don't think the IWCA in Scotland would have any reservations about competing with them publicly when the time comes.

RA: Whatever the truth of the matter won't this belligerent approach be seen as just old fashioned sectarianism. Would it not be better to co-operate where possible. After all despite your criticisms your are fighting a common enemy for a common goal - community reform?
IWCA: In reality, there are neither common goals nor common enemies. Unlike Militant, the IWCA is not designed as a pressure group to walk the working class up the hill and down again, Primarily, Militant organise community campaigns with marches and lobbies of Labour Town Halls purely to enhance their own standing as reliable mediators between the working class and the state representatives. The success of the campaign is judged in those terms. Their over riding concern is to adequately reflect/channel the anger and interests of the working class; the better to advise the establishment that there will be a price to be paid or kudos to be earned by adopting this or that course of action. Their sole motivation is to enhance their reputations as brokers to an enlightened middle class. For them an orientation toward the 'politically enlightened' is the only practical basis for real change. So they adapt themselves to reality rather than attempt to change it. The logic of this approach reduces any long term objective to mere sentiment. In direct contrast the function of the IWCA is not to offer the establishments municipal functionaries protection from themselves by promoting this or that reform as a solution. Neither will it target the political establishment only. The IWCA remit is not about replacing. this or that councillor but their flunkies as well as the system per se. The IWCA is determined to break politically with Labour and ultimately break Labour - particularly its influence in working class areas. At the heart of the IWCA lies the concept of working class self determination: Labour's historical antithesis. And Labour is still Labour, by any other name be it Socialist, Militant or New.

RA: Well, if that is your attitude to Militant Labour what about New Labour?
IWCA: Though our ultimate goal is total social change the intermediate objective is working class political independence from all middle class parties and institutions. This does not mean we adopt a nihilistic approach to the local municipalities like encouraging the burning of housing benefit cheques or something. On the contrary our approach will be entirely practical based on the understanding that the attacks planned in Parliament will be implemented locally. With Labour in government Labour functionaries will no longer be able to use the Judenrat alibi (Yes we are selecting people for the concentration camps but only because of the Nazis, its all their fault). So to answer your question, the IWCA will approach any struggling Labour council with the same compassion and sympathy as we would offer any Tory council in similar difficulties. Ultimately, from our point of view it is not what the Left in Labour think they are doing, but what they are actually doing that matters

RA: How does the IWCA intend to set about the task of organising in working class communities. Where do you start?
IWCA: We are fully aware of the problems. The IWCA is forced to begin cold from a standing start. We have inherited nothing useful from the previous generations of the Left. The organic link with the working class has atrophied. There is nothing left to salvage. The relationship will have to be rebuilt brick by brick, So when considering addressing the working class directly there are a number of points that jump out straightaway. 1, Any agenda must be dominated by what interests the working class rather than what preoccupies the Left. 2, What interests particular working class communities is not likely to bear any resemblance to the issues that occupy the Left, "Defend the Welfare State!, Minimum wage! General Strike Now! Rebuild the 4th International!" etc.

RA: Are you saying the working class are not interested in the NHS etc.?
IWCA: Of course not but while the working class generally are in favour of a first class health service what the Left neglect to do is suggest a way in which the working class as a class can possibly influence the outcome. The suggestions for action usually revolve around proposals like: lobby your MP, union branch; Trades council, picket, demonstrate, petition. Ultimately vote Labour. All avenues when not complete cul-de-sacs invariably lead back to them. Avenues littered with the still warm corpses of previous campaigns are not designed to instil confidence that anything can be changed. Worse than that, pointless campaigns inevitably emasculate working class confidence, not just in the Left but more importantly, in the working class itself as a political force.

RA: Once again, if you think you have identified the problem, what is the solution?
IWCA: The overall strategy is simple. Once the problem is identified either the solution can be implemented by the IWCA itself or within the working class locally. Through this method we can establish a one-on-one relationship. There will be no appeals to a reluctant or hostile third party. It is by directing its primary effort to establishing a menage á trois (Lobby the TUC, General Strike Now!) that renders almost all such Left schemes instantly impotent. The IWCA approach will be to identify situations to the working class in which the remedy lies in their own hands and which is self evidently in their own interests. With the issues apparent, initial door-to-door canvassing of opinion would be conducted in order to find out what people want and what they themselves are prepared to contribute toward getting it. Once having established the needs, the process would then be repeated, this time advertising and eliciting support for the methods through which the needs might be met. This is the distinction between intensive organisation and the sterile stilted attempts to build rank and file unions or campaigns for left wing reforms either inside or outside the Labour Party.

RA: But if the IWCA genuinely gives the working class people what they want, is there not a danger it will fall prey to all sorts of racist and reactionary agendas?
IWCA: Funnily enough this question comes up constantly. It emerges again and again in meetings about the IWCA. Often those asking the question would have been just as insistent a few years back that there wasn't a problem. Now the attitude is that the problem is insurmountable. Usually it follows the discovery that there is no ready made programme of principles painstakingly prepared earlier. Its almost as if the programme was expected to act like a typhoid shot to immunise potential IWCA activists from contact with the working class or alternatively that in dealing directly with the working class on their terms 'our' principles run the risk of being contaminated and bent out of shape. All such a question proves is that the size of the chasm between the working class and the Left that many would seek to deny has not been exaggerated. Bridging that gap is a primary function of the IWCA.

RA: Accepting that such a chasm exists how did it arise and how can it be bridged?
IWCA: Quite simply if the working class won't come to the Left then the Left will have to go to the working class. How did the chasm arise? In the first place the Left talk at the working class (or as they say 'the masses'), not to them. They all tend to do so from a distance both to protect their illusions and to avoid retribution when they get it badly wrong, so there is no dialogue or actual communication. Without dialogue there can be no communication and without communication there will always be an absence of either understanding or trust.

RA: Can you expand on that point?
IWCA: Well, on the one hand they idealise the working class in their propaganda and if in reality they do not measure up they are, contemptuously dismissed as some lumpen aberration. This form of schizophrenia is home of the fundamental misunderstanding that to be working class is an honorific term; an honour that needs to be earned rather than a fact of life. So naturally according to their analysis to qualify as a member of the working class means having to meet some rather strict politically correct criteria. Criteria incidentally set down in tablets of stone by the middle class left. So, in having failed dismally to convince the working class proper, this is an attempt to square the circle by creating a new working class. With themselves as the most advanced elements. As the most advanced elements it has fallen to them to draw up a programme of principles for the working class. And so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and a recipe for failure

RA: And you regard this failure a inevitable?
IWCA: Yes because without the intimate involvement of the working class the programme drawn up will inevitably be an abstract formula. For it to work, reality and the working class will have to adapt themselves to the programme and the formula. And if they do not, the attitude will be, so much the worse for the working class and reality. Don't take my word for it look around you. The Left have been doing this for 50 years. See any revolutions?

RA: But surely some programme even a minimum one is necessary as a guide to activity?
IWCA: In reality the programme of 'principles first' approach leads to precisely the opposite happening. The Left have been tinkering with its collective programme with different degrees of enthusiasm since the war and have achieved nothing. In fact everything has come full circle. The far-right are once again setting the agenda. From the end of the war to the 60's practically the entire Left operated as an internal or external faction of the Labour Party. Then in the late 60's without breaking this bond and still proclaiming their fidelity to Labour, they saw the mass student movement of the time as the band wagon to an independent existence. They have been jumping on and off band wagons ever since and have achieved nothing.

RA: But surely campaigning for particular issues provides organisations with a focus and must be considered a legitimate form of activity?
IWCA: Fair enough, but for the most part these campaigns have nothing to do with the working class at all, nor do they (the Left) expect them to. And because of their loyalty to Labour would they want them to? Therefore they focus on liberal concerns, peripheral issues; or symptoms of a wider problem, which is given undue emphasis and then taken to extremes. This dilettantism is then presented to a bemused working class public as the epitome of revolutionary activity when it is simply liberal extremism. Not unnaturally the working class reject such a programme instinctively which causes its authors to return to the drawing board or seek out a more appreciative audience. The authentic approach is surely to draw up a programme of action to first engage the working class and in time the programme of principle will follow. Design the shoe to fit the foot rather than the foot to fit the shoe so to speak.

RA: Nevertheless is it not the case that for whatever reasons the working class in much of Europe has given widespread electoral support to far-eight and fascist parties? The problem appears deep seated and many areas of Britain display similar symptoms. How will the IWCA deal with that?
IWCA: In the first place 'for whatever reason' is hardly an analysis on which to base a strategy. We need to know precisely the reasons in order to remedy the situation. Now it is true and hardly surprising that on many issues the working class appear to exhibit a right wing instinct for, in the absence of the Left, the working class has been bombarded with right wing propaganda through the media, on the terraces, on the estates, for at least half a century. So the consequence of the working class only ever hearing one side of the argument, is that inevitably the Right and the far-right have set the political agenda

RA: So are you saying that the Left has had no contact with the working class at all in this period?
IWCA: No I'm not. What I'm saying is that the relative few from the working class who actually make a conscious effort to go out of their way to find out what the most advanced elements are thinking, are often dismayed to discover that the Left's revolutionary programme reduced to the essentials means - Love your neighbour and vote Labour. This combination of theoretical disdain and practical irrelevance has created the situation not just here but throughout Europe where the Left and the working class regard each other with a mixture of incomprehension and loathing. This is particularly true in the East End. That in the circumstances the Left are now suffering a collective loss of nerve is not surprising. The struggle frightens them. Nevertheless the nettle must be grasped. And areas like this must be contested. What is required now is probably more fighting and less philosophising.

RA: Nevertheless given the balance of forces, the media and so on; how can the IWCA hope to reverse the tide. Might it not be better to sit it out and wait for more favourable circumstances, a Labour government perhaps?
IWCA: Sitting it out, is the principle cause of the problem and if anything a Labour government will certainly change things only by raising the stakes and expectations all round then failing to deliver. In this scenario the far-Right will rightly expect to be in the ascendancy. The problem for them is that despite the crocodile tears for the condition of the working class in Labour boroughs, they don't even believe the working class should even have the vote, so rarely does the sympathy translate into anything more practical. At the moment in the absence of anything else it doesn't have to. However when confronted with a real class issue they tend to freeze in confusion. The poll tax was a case in point. Then they were totally exposed in working class areas as simply 'Tories in flight-jackets'.

RA: What makes it so easy for the far-Right and so difficult for the far-Left. What does the Left have to do to turn things around?
IWCA: What normally makes it so easy for the far-Right is that invariably the Left stands shoulder to shoulder with the local establishment in defence of the status quo. Generally this is sufficient to give the far-Right's agenda a veneer of radicalism, in that at least they represent a promise of change - any change. However, once the working class move in pursuit of their own interests two things happen. The scapegoating and bigotry doesn't disappear but is increasingly seen as an irrelevance or an obstacle. Then, it is not what this or that working class individual thinks on this or that issue that's important, but what the class is compelled to do to achieve even its limited aims. That is the key to social change. So in order to turn things around the Left must first set the agenda. And to do this we must begin to at least match the conviction and ambition of the far-right.

RA: What then are the IWCA's political objectives, short term, medium and long term?
IWCA: 1, A working class organisation independent of all establishment parties and institutions. 2, Working class control in working class areas. 3, Total social change.

RA: Is there an objective basis for your optimism that these can be achieved.
IWCA: Our optimism is largely based on the simple fact that there is a political gap in working class politics and so in a way we are just responding to market forces.

RA: What do you mean by political gap?
IWCA: The situation we have at the moment is that for the first time in 50 years all establishment parties are agreed that the basic human rights of working class people, the right to housing, the right to health, the right to work, the right to silence, must be sacrificed in the interests of the system, as all the parties are against the working class the working class must be against all parties. If a local council administration has proved itself hostile to the interests of the local population then the population must seek to replace it with the type of administration that adequately reflects its interests.

RA: What type of administration do you believe would adequately reflect working class interests and how might it be achieved?
IWCA: If you have a situation as at present where in many areas the police do not offer effective protection from crime within the community then the community must protect itself both from the criminal elements - and - from the police. In housing - if a neighbourhood has 2000 homeless and 6000 empty properties, simple division would provide an instant solution. If the system will not administer positively in allocating decent housing then neither should it be allowed to administer negatively - rent arrears, bailiffs, evictions, etc. If because of decisions taken at national level, local government cannot be made to work in accordance with the wishes of the electorate then local democracy has no meaning. For democracy to be given meaning under these conditions the administration of the working class must become the act of the working class themselves. So the IWCA objective is straight forward, working class rule in working class areas. Translated this means only one thing - de facto self government.

RA: If this statement 'de facto self government' is to be taken literally what are the conditions that make you believe that the ambition of working class rule in working class areas has any prospect of becoming a reality?
IWCA: As you point out this is an ambition or goal to be pursued. However circumstances are conspiring to create a situation where the working class will have no choice but to declare a unilateral declaration of independence; either working class administration and democracy or no services and no democracy. Already almost 90% of local funding comes from central government. While the percentage may increase, the funds allocated may well be reduced. No proper funding, no proper services, no proper services no need for accountable local government. Local government by quango is a very real possibility in the near future. A number of right wing journals are already flying this particular kite.

RA: Do you believe this is the likely scenario regardless of whether it is Labour or the Tories in government?
IWCA: Well for instance the average age of the Tory party is 65. If as it seems likely they lose the next election they can expect to be out of power for a generation. If you can't attract recruits when in power what hope is there when in opposition. The only way to attract youth is with a more radical agenda. As the Tories are already the most right wing government since the war such a development would herald a split either from the left or from the right. Either way, it can be anticipated that the New Tory would be more virulently nationalist more along the lines of the FN in France or the National Alliance rather than the old patrician Tory model. Labour is itself already following the American route. In place of progressive reform, they are committed to a programme of reactionary reform i.e. 'thinking the unthinkable'. They have come to believe that the working class no longer exist, so the emergence of a radical right party would drive them even further to the right. So I suppose the answer is yes.

RA: Clearly you believe that these and similar developments will harbour dramatic consequences for everybody?
IWCA: One way or .the other, in five years time much of the welfare state will have been dismantled. And as the establishment abandons responsibility for sections of the population socially, they will be forced as a consequence to abandon large sections of urban areas politically as well. This ceding, first of social responsibility, then of political control, will mean areas being abandoned commercially and eventually paramilitary police apart - territorially. This means that the political organisations that still seek to influence events in those areas will be doing so for the first time this century free from competition from either of the two main establishment parties. The Tories have no say in any working class areas now and Labour's manifesto means that they too are destined to a similar fate. The coming election will be the last in which Labour candidates will campaign in working class areas with any real confidence. So in any area where the Labour establishment want to break the working class from reliance on the state socially, break the culture of dependency, etc., rather than plead for them to come back or pursue a demoralising futile and mouse like resistance, the IWCA will instead seek to compliment this development by bringing it a step further, by using their momentum to break the same section of the working class from any reliance or allegiance to the state politically. This is the central purpose of the IWCA; the political re-conquest of working class areas by working class people. Consequently, as we approach the millennium, working class rule is not only possible, but without such an advance, without a politically independent working class, the democratisation of working class areas is impractical. And without this specific goal, without this social foundation, radical change is probable but progressive change is inconceivable.