have you written anything specific on this, dear Jose, i.e. <its really the end of horizontalism as a credible organizing strategy, adbusters to occupy failed. WSF did a lot but as this article shows it waisted an opportunity. >
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:16 AM jose ramos <actionforesi...@gmail.com> wrote: > it's a solid analysis. I came to the same conclusions in my 2010 thesis :( > > the evolution of the idea should be for a shared platform for coordinated > / strategic action. > > its really the end of horizontalism as a credible organizing strategy, > adbusters to occupy failed. WSF did a lot but as this article shows it > waisted an opportunity. > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:08 PM Michel Bauwens <michelsub2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Great Transition Network <gtnetw...@greattransition.org> >> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:10 PM >> Subject: Farewell to the WSF? (GTN Discussions) >> To: <michelsub2...@gmail.com> >> >> >> From Roberto Savio [uto...@robertosavio.info] >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *[Per Paul's email, reproduced below, we are kicking off this month's >> discussion with a response from longtime member of the WSF International >> Concil Roberto Savio. We look forward to your contributions. -- JC] * >> *Farewell to the World Social Forum?* >> Roberto Savio >> Opening reflections for a GTN forum, 9/3/19 >> >> * LOOKING BACK* >> The first World Social Forum in 2001 ushered in the new century with a >> bold affirmation: “Another world is possible.” That gathering in Porto >> Alegre, Brazil, stood as an alternative and a challenge to the World >> Economic Forum, held at the same time an ocean away in the snowy Alps of >> Davos, Switzerland. A venue for power elites to set the course of world >> development, the WEF was then, and remains now, the symbol for global >> finance, unchecked capitalism, and the control of politics by multinational >> corporations. >> >> The WSF, by contrast, was created as an arena for the grassroots to gain >> a voice. The idea emerged from a 1999 visit to Paris by two Brazilian >> activists, Oded Grajew, who was working on corporate social responsibility, >> and Chico Whitaker, the executive secretary of the Commission of Justice >> and Peace, an initiative of the Brazilian Catholic Church. Incensed by the >> ubiquitous, uncritical news coverage of Davos, they met with Bernard >> Cassen, editor of *Le Monde Diplomatique*, who encouraged them to >> organize a counter-Davos in the Global South. With support from the >> government of Rio Grande do Sul, a committee of eight Brazilian >> organizations launched the first WSF. The expectation was that about 3,000 >> people attend (the same as Davos), but instead 20,000 activists from around >> the world came to Porto Alegre to organize and share their visions for six >> days. >> >> WSF annual meetings enjoyed great success, invariably drawing close to >> 100,000 participants (even as high as 150,000 in 2005). Eventually, the >> meetings moved out of Latin America, first to Mumbai in 2004, where 20,000 >> Dalits participated, then to Caracas, Nairobi, Dakar, Tunis, and Montreal. >> Along the way, two other streams—Regional Social Forums and Thematic Social >> Forums—were created to complement the annual central gathering, and local >> Forums were held in many countries. Cumulatively, the WSF has brought >> together millions of people willing to pay their travel and lodging costs >> to share their experiences and collective dreams for a better world. >> >> WSF’s Charter of Principles, drafted by the organizing committee of the >> first Forum and adopted at the event itself, reflected these dreams. The >> Charter presents a vision of deeply interconnected civil society groups >> collaborating to create new alternatives to neoliberal capitalism rooted in >> “human rights, the practices of real democracy, participatory democracy, >> peaceful relations, in equality and solidarity, among people, ethnicities, >> genders and peoples.” >> >> Yet, the “how” of realizing any vision was hamstrung from the start. The >> Charter’s first principle describes the WSF as an “open meeting place,” >> which, as interpreted by the Brazilian founders, precluded it from taking >> stances on pressing world crises. This resistance to collective political >> action relegated the WSF to a self-referential place of debate, rather than >> a body capable of taking real action in the international arena. >> >> It didn’t have to be this way. Indeed, the 2002 European Social Forum >> called for mass protest against the looming US invasion of Iraq, and the >> subsequent 2003 Forum played a major role in organizing the day of action >> the following month with 15 million protesters in the streets of 800 cities >> on all continents—the largest demonstration in history at the time. >> However, the WSF’s core organizers, who were not interested in this path, >> held sway, a phenomenon inextricable from the democratic deficit that has >> always dogged the Forum. >> >> Indeed, the WSF has never had a democratically elected leadership. After >> the first gathering, the Brazilian host committee convened a meeting in Sao >> Paolo to discuss how best to carry the WSF forward. They invited numerous >> international organizations, and on the second day of the meeting appointed >> us all as the International Council. Several important organizations, not >> interested in this meeting, were left off the council, and those who did >> attend were predominately from Europe and the Americas. In the ensuing >> years, efforts to change the composition created as many problems as they >> solved. Many organizations wanted to be represented on the Council, but due >> to vague criteria for evaluating their representativeness and strength, the >> Council soon became a long list of names (most inactive), with the roster >> of participants changing with every Council meeting. Despite repeated >> requests from participating organizations, the Brazilian founders have >> refused to revisit the Charter, defending it as an immutable text rather >> than a document of a particular historical moment. >> >> *AT A CROSSROADS* >> The future of the WSF remains uncertain. Out of a misguided fear of >> division, the Brazilian founders have thwarted efforts to allow the WSF to >> issue political declarations, establish spokespeople, and reevaluate the >> principle of horizontality, which eschews representative decision-making >> structures, as the basis for governance. Perhaps most significantly, they >> have resisted calls to transcend the WSF’s original mission as a venue for >> discussion and become a space for organizing. With WSF spokespeople >> forbidden, the media stopped coming, since they had no interlocutors. Even >> broad declarations that would not cause schism, like condemnation of wars >> or appeals for climate action, have been prohibited. As a result, the WSF >> has become akin to a personal growth retreat where participants come away >> with renewed individual strength, but without any impact on the world. >> >> Because of its inability to adapt, and thereby act, the WSF has lost an >> opportunity to influence how the public understands the crises the world >> faces, a vacuum that has been filled by the resurgent right-wing. In 2001, >> globalization’s critics emerged mainly on the left, pointing out how >> market-driven globalization runs roughshod over workers and the >> environment. Since then, as the WSF has floundered and social democratic >> parties have bought into the governing neoliberal consensus, the right has >> managed to capitalize on the broad and growing hostility to globalization, >> rooted especially in the feeling of being left behind experienced by >> working-class people. Prior to the US financial crisis of 2008 and the >> European sovereign bond crisis of 2009, the National Front in France was >> the only established right-wing party in the West. Since then, with a >> decade of economic chaos and brutal austerity, right-wing parties have >> blossomed everywhere. >> >> The unsettling rise of the anti-globalization right has scrambled many >> political assumptions and alliances. At the start of the WSF, our enemies >> were the international financial institutions, such as the International >> Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Now, these institutions support reducing >> income inequality and increasing public investment. The World Trade >> Organization, the infamous target of massive protests in 1999, was our >> enemy as well, for skewing the rules of global trade toward multinational >> corporations; now, US president Donald Trump is trying to dismantle it for >> having any rules at all. We criticized the European Commission for its free >> market commitment, and lack of social action: now we have to defend the >> idea of a United Europe against nationalism, xenophobia, and populism. >> These forces have upended and transformed global political dynamics. Those >> fighting globalization and multilateralism, using our diagnosis, are now >> the right-wing forces. >> >> * LOOKING AHEAD* >> Is there, then, a future for the World Social Forum? Logistically, the >> outlook is not good. Right-wing Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, an ally >> of authoritarian strongmen around the world, has announced that he will >> forbid any support for the Forum, putting its future at grave risk. Holding >> a forum of such size requires significant financial support, and a >> government at least willing to grant visas to participants from across the >> globe. The vibrant Brazilian civil society groups of 2001 are now >> struggling for survival. >> >> Indeed, right-wing governments around the world attack global civil >> society as a competitor or an enemy. In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo >> Salvini has been pushing to eliminate the tax status of nonprofits. Like >> Salvini in Italy, Trump in the US, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Narendra Modi >> in India, and Shinzo Abe in Japan, among others, are unwilling to hear the >> voice of civil society. Their escalating assault on civil society might >> spell the formal end of the World Social Forum, although the WSF’s refusal >> to evolve with the times left the organization vulnerable to such assaults. >> >> If the World Social Forum does fade away as an actor on the global stage, >> we can take many valuable lessons from its history as we mount new >> initiatives for a “movement of movements.” First, we need to support civil >> society unity. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, the Portuguese anthropologist >> and a leading participant in the WSF, stresses the importance of >> “translation” between movement streams. Women’s organizations focus on >> patriarchy, indigenous organizations on colonial exploitation, human rights >> organizations on justice, and environmental organizations on >> sustainability. Building mutual understanding, trust, and a basis for >> collective work requires a process of translation and interpretation of >> different priorities, embedding them in a holistic framework. >> >> Any initiative to build transnational movement coordination must address >> this challenge. While it is easier to build a mass action against a common >> enemy, nurturing a common movement culture requires a process of sustained >> dialogue. The WSF was instrumental in creating awareness of the need for a >> holistic approach to fight, under the same rubric, climate change, >> unchecked finance, social injustice, and ecological degradation. Building >> on that experience with how the issues intersect is critical to a viable >> global movement. The WSF has made possible alliances among the social >> movements, which got their legitimacy by fighting the system, and the >> myriad NGOs, which got theirs from the agenda of the United Nations. This >> is certainly a significant historical contribution, enabling the next phase >> in the evolution of global civil society. >> >> Second, we need to balance movement horizontalism and organizational >> structure. For the vast majority of participants in cutting-edge >> progressive movements over the past half-century, the notion of a political >> party, or any such organization, has been linked to oppressive power, >> corruption, and lack of legitimacy. This suspicion of organization, >> reflected in the core ideology of the WSF, has contributed to its lack of >> action. >> >> This tendency to reject verticality out of fear of its association with >> oppression poses a major challenge to the formation of a global movement: >> those who would be, in principle, its largest constituency will question >> overarching organizational structures. Based on historical experience, they >> fear the generation of unhealthy structures of power, the corruption of >> ideals, and the lack of real participation. Nevertheless, coordination is >> essential for a diverse global movement to develop sufficient coherence. >> The task is to find legitimate forms of collective organization that >> balance the tension between the commitments to both unity and pluralism. >> >> Third, a global movement effort must navigate a new media landscape. The >> Internet has changed the character of political participation. Space has >> shrunk, and time has become fluid and compressed. Social media has become >> more important than conventional media. Indeed, it was essential, for >> example, to the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil and Salvini in Italy, as >> well as Brexit in the UK. US newspapers have a daily run of 62 million >> copies (ten million from quality papers like the *Wall Street Journal*, *New >> York Times*, and *Washington Post*), while Trump tweets to as many >> followers. Contemporary communications technology, while used to sow >> confusion and abuse by the right, must be central to transnational >> mobilization campaigns fostering awareness and solidarity. >> >> Political apathy among potential allies remains as great a challenge as >> the right-wing surge. This is not a new phenomenon. The triumphant >> pronouncements of the end of ideology and history three decades ago helped >> mute explicit debate on the long-term vision for society. Instead, the >> technocrats of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the US >> Treasury foisted the Washington Consensus on the rest of the world: >> financial deregulation, trade liberalization, privatization, and fiscal >> austerity. The benefits of globalization would lift all boats; curb >> nonproductive social costs; privatize health and more; and globalize trade, >> finance, and industry. Center-left parties across the West resigned >> themselves to this brave new world. “Third Way” leaders like British Prime >> Minister Tony Blair argued that since corporate globalization was >> inevitable, progressives could, at best, give it a human face. In the >> absence of a real alternative to the dominant paradigm, the left lost its >> constituency. The wreckage left behind by neoliberal governments has become >> the engine for the populist and xenophobic forces from across the globe. >> >> Looking ahead, to build a viable political formation for a Great >> Transition, we must find a banner under which people can rally. Climate >> action has increasingly served this function, with the youthfulness of the >> climate movement a reason for hope. The climate strike movement, led by >> Swedish student Greta Thunberg, has engaged tens of thousands of students >> worldwide and shown that the fight for a better world is on. These new >> young activists, many of whom have probably never heard of the WSF, do not >> pretend to come with a pre-made platform; they simply ask the system to >> listen to scientists. The lack of a full vision allows them to avoid many >> of the WSF’s problems, yet still underscore how the system has exhausted >> its viability in the face of spiraling crises. >> >> Millions of people across the globe are engaged at the grassroots level, >> hundreds of times more than related to the WSF. The great challenge is to >> connect with those working to change the present dire trends, making clear >> that we are not part of the same elite structures and, indeed, share the >> same enemy. The historic preconditions undergird the possibility of such a >> project, our visions of another world give it a direction, and the growing >> restlessness of countless ordinary people is a hopeful harbinger. >> >> Can we find the modes of communication and alliance to galvanize the >> global movement and propel it forward? I do not see much value in a >> coalition of organizations and militants who meet merely to discuss among >> themselves. Collective action is necessary for counterbalancing the decline >> of democracy, increasing civic participation, and keeping values and >> visions at the forefront. In the WSF, the debate about moving in this >> direction has been going for quite some time, but has repeatedly run up >> against the intransigence of the founders. >> >> It would be a mistake to lose the WSF’s impressive history and convening >> authority. But we need to recreate it in order to reflect the present >> barbarized. Will we be able to reform WSF, and if this is not possible, >> create an alternative? Citizens have become more aware of the need for >> change than they were when we first met in Porto Alegre many years ago. But >> they are also more divided, some taking the reactionary path of following >> authoritarian leaders, some the progressive path of social justice, >> participation, transparency, and cooperation. As the conventional system >> destabilizes and loses legitimacy, giving life to a revamped WSF—or >> creating a new platform—might be easier than the challenge of launching the >> process eighteen years ago. Still, realizing the next phase will take new >> leaders, wide participation, and recognition of the need for new >> structures. In these times, this is a tall order. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> >> Tuesday, September 3, 2019 >> >> From Paul Raskin [pras...@tellus.org] >> ------------------------------ >> >> Dear GTN, >> >> Since 2001, the World Social Forum has served as civil society’s answer >> to the World Economic Forum, the annual powwow in Davos of the masters of >> the neoliberal universe. Over the years, the WSF has brought together >> hundreds of thousands of activists to meet, network, and reenergize >> commitments. It has stood as a tangible expression of the diffuse but >> vibrant “alter globalization” community, and a source of hope for the >> emergence of a systemic global movement. >> >> At the same time, the WSF has mirrored the movement’s immaturity. Most >> significantly, the disabling fragmentation within civil society has been >> reflected in the forest of separate tents that spring up at Forums, each >> devoted to specific issues and grievances, with little exploration of >> common visions, positions, and coordination mechanisms. More prosaically, >> the logistical chaos that has plagued Forums and frustrated attendees >> symbolizes the underdeveloped organizational capacity of the “movement of >> movements.” >> >> Now, as these deficits take their toll and the times change, the WSF >> seems to be losing momentum and relevance. So it’s timely to critically >> reflect on its achievements and whether the WSF, itself, needs a Great >> Transition. >> >> Our September GTN Discussion—*FAREWELL TO THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM?*—takes >> up the challenge. >> (Please organize your comments as responses to one or more of the >> following topics.) >> >> *Looking Back* >> *What has been the historic significance of the WSF? In what ways has its >> strategy of providing a neutral gathering space advanced (or curtailed) the >> “movement of movements”? * >> >> *At a Crossroads* >> *Does the WSF retain its vitality as a beacon of “another world,” or is >> it losing momentum? Has its unbending commitment to radical pluralism >> sacrificed movement unity? * >> >> *Looking Ahead* >> *Should the WSF continue to operate as an open space? Seek to reinvent >> itself as a collective force for political action? Or should attention >> shift to fresh initiatives for building a coherent global movement?* >> >> Roberto Savio, founder of Inter Press Service (IPS) and longtime member >> of the WSF International Council, opens the debate. His essay can be found >> here <https://greattransition.org/images/Savio-Farewell-WSF.pdf> . I >> look forward to your comments, whether brief or extended (but less than >> 1,200 words). >> >> The discussion will go through Wednesday, October 2, when Roberto will >> have an opportunity to respond. Per usual, we will then create a public GTI >> Forum that samples a range of perspectives raised in the internal GTN >> discussion. >> >> Over to you, >> Paul >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Hit reply to post a comment on the GT Network >> Read all comments (or reply) here >> <https://greattransition.org/gtn-discussions/farewell-to-the-wsf#3033> >> Note: Expect a delay between posting and receiving your comment >> Need help? Email jc...@tellus.org >> >> >> -- >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >> >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> >> >> >> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation