and do you have a link to the last chapter, or the phd ? On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:32 PM jose ramos <[email protected]> wrote:
> Only a phd :) > > Last chapter laid it out > > > > On Fri, 6 Sep. 2019, 9:58 pm Michel Bauwens, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Great Transition Network <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:10 PM >>>> Subject: Farewell to the WSF? (GTN Discussions) >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> From Roberto Savio [[email protected]] >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> *[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 [[email protected]] >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> 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 [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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: 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
