thanks! On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:54 AM jose ramos <[email protected]> wrote:
> https://eprints.qut.edu.au/40986/ > > On Sat, 7 Sep. 2019, 10:36 pm Michel Bauwens, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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: 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
