WSF movement strategy
WSF movement strategy: pros and cons
(Excerpts from latest newsletter by Seatini, the Harare project
directed by Yash Tandon.)
Roberto Sarti
The recent third World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre (Brazil)
was held in a period in which great changes are taking place in
the world situation. This was reflected in the huge number of
visitors to the WSF. For the first time there were more than
100 000, which is a clear sign of the changing mood across the
whole of Latin America.The coming war on Iraq, the world economic
crisis and the development of the class struggles in Europe and
particularly in Latin America, were all items that should have
been put on the agenda and discussed thoroughly at the Forum.
The warm welcome given to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and
Brazilian President Lula da Silva was not a sign of a "degeneration"
of the movement, as some intellectuals argued. On the contrary, it
was a clear indication of the thirst for radical change among the
masses.
Unfortunately it became evident that the WSF organisers were more
interested in making the event into a rival with the Davos Economic
Forum in terms of size and media coverage of the meeting than in
discussing the real issues at stake. If one takes a look at the
coverage in the bourgeois press what emerges is a picture of an
event that has become harmless for the world bourgeoisie.
To organise an event such as the WSF, a huge amount of money is
needed. Among the financial backers were Petrobras, the Brazilian
state-owned oil company, and the Ford Foundation, that belongs to
the well-known US car company. Can we seriously imagine the latter
giving money to someone or something that is seen as posing a
threat to the capitalist system?
In weeks prior to the event there was a lot of talk about the need
to have a clear strategy for the antiglobalisation movement. So far,
no final declaration or documents have appeared on the Internet or
in the press, but it seems from the media reports that very little
was actually achieved.
Should the movement demand the cancellation of the debt or should
it call for it to be renegotiated with the IMF? It seems that we
now have the brilliant idea that anyone can choose either of these
two roads, according to the Italian il Manifesto (January 28, 2003).
Is the so-called "social" economy complementary or alternative to
capitalism? Well, according to a young delegate, since the movement
is not based on the concept of majority and minority, both roads
can be taken. It all depends on the short and medium term objectives.
(il Manifesto, January 28, 2003)
That there is confusion on the road to be taken is clear. The
behaviour of Lula is a very good example. He decided to attend
both the WSF and, the following day, the Davos Forum, provoking
some debate within the Porto Alegre delegates.
The problem is that the issues at stake are not abstract. They
concern the lives of millions of workers and youth all over the
world. A clear example is what is happening in Venezuela. Precisely
because the interests of capitalists were at stake in that country,
they organised the coup of last April. They were reacting against
very partial reforms proposed by the Chavez government. This shows
that a so-called "social" economy is incompatible with capitalism.
Another example is that of Argentina when it fell into its deepest
crisis ever because the IMF refused to renegotiate its foreign debt.
We have analysed the ideas of the leaders of the anti-globalisation
movement on more than one occasion (see our Globalisation section),
and we have repeated many times that no middle, "third" or "new"
way between reform and revolution is possible. All the events that
have unfolded over the last year have proved this beyond any doubt.
These so-called "new" ideas may be more attractive or fashionable,
but the question we have to ask is: "Are they working or not?"
The general confusion during the days of this latest Forum became
even greater - if that is imaginable. The incredible idea that
"we don't fight for power, but what we want is happiness", was
repeated during another big debate in the Gigantinho, the main
hall of the WSF.
Naturally we don't raise the question of the need for the working
class to take the power just for the sake of it. The workers need
to take power because only in this way can they really have
control over the instruments with which they can change their
living conditions.
The experience of the Rio Grande do Sul State government in Brazil
(of which Porto Alegre is the capital) is very useful in this
regard. This is where one of the key dogmas of the 'No-global'
theoreticians was implemented, that of the so-called "participatory
budget". The masses were given a consultative vote on how 10% of
the state budget should be spent. However, at the same time this
did not stop the federal and state governments from carrying out
cuts in jobs, health care and education. As a result of all this
in the last elections the PT lost control of Rio Grande do Sul!
Real economic power remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie while
the local PT leaders were forced to bow down to the diktats of the
bosses.
This is the challenge now also facing Lula in the running of the
whole country. Bertinotti, the leader of the Italian Rifondazione
Comunista, put forward the idea that "we must build a worldwide
Lula". Naturally we welcome the PT victory. It is an important
step for the Brazilian revolution. But the challenges Lula is
facing are very hard ones.
As we pointed out just after the elections that took place at
the end of last year:
"Despite all his promises, they fear that the new President may
be incapable of taking the tough decisions needed to "stabilise
the debt" that is, of attacking the wages and living standards
of the people who voted for him. Thus, they will react to his
election by sending their money out of the country at an even
faster rate than before. The result will be a strike of capital,
which will further damage the economy, causing an increase in
unemployment and poverty. This is the little present the
capitalists and bankers have prepared for the new President of
Brazil, as a gentle warning to him not to forget who is the real
master of the house.
"What the bourgeoisie wants is for Lula to carry out policies in
the interests of the rich, to continue Cardoso's unfinished package
of "market reforms", to cut pensions, to privatise state companies
and to facilitate sackings. In other words, what they want is no
change. But millions of Brazilians have just voted decisively for
a fundamental change. The President will find himself ground
mercilessly between two millstones.
"The Bible says: "You cannot serve two masters: you cannot serve
God and Mammon." That goes for the PT also. Lula has been elected
with the votes of the overwhelming majority of the electorate.
What matters more, the aspirations of more than 50 million
Brazilians, or the interests of a tiny handful of wealthy
parasites?" (from The Brazilian elections - a new stage in the
Latin American revolution, by Alan Woods).
Instead of these clear ideas, Bertinotti' simply adds even more
confusion with his latest slogan. We need workers' parties in
power not only in Latin America, but also in the rest of the
world. However, the formation of left governments represents
only the beginning, not the end of the process.
The programme which these parties adopt and the role that the
working class is to play in the process are fundamental. The
programme must be a revolutionary programme of expropriation
of the capitalists and landlords, of nationalisation under
workers' control of the major corporations. And the movement
must see that the working class has to play an essential part
in the revolutionary process, otherwise no genuine socialist
transformation of society is possible.
The workers cannot wait for a saviour, even if his name be
Lula or Chavez. They have to participate not with a
"consultative" but with a decisive role in running the new
society. This is the only way to assure the victory of the
mass movements that are developing all over Latin America.
Another key question facing workers and youth all over the
world at the present time is the impending war on Iraq. An
appeal was issued by the Social Forum to stop the impending
conflict. Naturally we all agree that it is necessary to stop
this war, but how is this to be achieved do it? Is it really
serious to say that we can do it by appealing to "everyone who
trusts a political and democratic solution to international
conflicts" (European Social Forum Appeal)?
All this is wishful thinking and ignores the fact that
Washington has no interest at all in a "democratic" solution.
That is why they are rushing into war. With these kind of ideas
the forces of the anti-war movement risk being channelled into
a frustrating campaign of simply "putting pressure" on the
western governments. What is really needed is to channel these
forces into an all-out class war. Mass action, general strikes
and an appeal to the Arab masses to rise up against their own
tyrants are the only real means to stop the war.
Those activists who look to events such as the 2003 Porto Alegre
WSF, must draw all the necessary conclusions. Halfway measures
are useless in this kind of situation. What is necessary is to
gather together all the best forces of the working class and
youth worldwide around a genuine socialist programme. This is
now becoming an urgent task, now more than ever.
This article first appeared on the website: In Defence of
Marxism and is published with their kind permission.
_______________________________
Future of the WSF: Smaller Is Better
Roberto Savio
The third edition of the World Social Forum represented an
important moment in the movement's history, whether for the
multitude of participants, the decision to hold the next meeting
on another continent, or for the institutionalisation of the
parallel forums accompanying it.
It is also important because it has achieved the unification of
the two generations of civil society: the NGOs that emerged in
the 1970s to fight for human rights, sustainable development, full
participation for women, etc, and in defence of human rights, of a
sustainable environment, of the full participation of women, of
the indigenous movement, and the movement that arose in the 1990s
as an opposition force to the neoliberal globalisation process.
The "older" and "younger" generations would not have met and
combined to form a global civil society if it weren't for Porto
Alegre. The problem now, from my standpoint as member of the WSF
International Council, is that we must begin debate on the
architecture of the Forum. We must recognise that the WSF entails
three equally necessary elements: mobilisation, participation,
and strategies for a better possible world.
We won't be able to achieve these goals in a gigantic event like
the WSF. The International Council decided that the Forum will
not take place on the same dates as Davos anymore. During the
annual meeting of the World Economic Forum there will be marches
staged wherever possible around the world. We will mobilise
millions more than was possible prior to the creation of the WSF.
In terms of participation, the decision to broaden the WSF
internationally has proved positive. The various regional Forums
(Europe, Asia, Africa), as well as thematic (such as Quito and
the Amazon about the FTAA), or local (such as in Argentina and
Palestine), have achieved much more in terms than the colossal
WSF. And, in the many more forums being planned, there will
always be the problem of disproportionate representation from
the surrounding region.
The third element, defining proposals and strategies hasn't
been resolved yet and doesn't seem to worry most people. There
were 1 714 panels and seminars in this year's WSF. Is this proof
of strength? If nobody can keep track of what went on in so many
debates, I have my doubts. This atomisation of dialogue means
that many valuable proposals were lost.
We will only be able to devise the way forward if we recognise
that at least one of the Forums must be much smaller, more in-depth,
with a strong methodology and systematisation. There must also be
horizontal communication among all Forums, whether regional or
thematic, so we know what has happened in each of them.
But that is not where India 2004 and Porto Alegre 2005 are leading.
Their success will be measured by the number of participants. Is
this the path we need to achieve a better world? And when it is said
that we have no proposals, that all we do is talk, will we answer that
we don't want to be elitist like other Forums? The time has come for
us to reflect so our route is broader, but stronger in order to
challenge neoliberal globalisation and its mercenaries.Roberto
Savio is a member of the WSF's International Committee and
President-Emeritus of IPS.
___________________
Editorial: What next after Porto Alegre?
Percy F. Makombe
"I was not elected by financial markets, and I was not elected by
the powerful economic interests.I was elected through the high level
of consciousness of Brazillian society," Brazil President Lula da
Silva told thousands of people who had gathered to attend the World
Social Forum (WSF), in Porto Alegre, Brazil from January 23-28.
That over 100 000 participants attended the WSF events this year is
testimony to the rapid growth of the Forum that began three years
ago with the slogan: "Another World is Possible". The Forum which
draws its participants from non-governmental organisations and
social activists runs parallel to the World Economic Forum (WEF)
in Davos, Switzerland. While WEF promotes global capitalism, the
WSF is opposed to the domination of the world by capital and to
any form of imperialism.
So when Lula spoke against "powerful economic interests", his
message struck the right chord not least because the formation of
WSF was a reaction to capitalism as represented by transnational
corporations, the World Bank and IMF. The growing numbers in the
WSF bear testimony to the fact that capitalism is in a crisis. The
President of the WEF, Klaus Schwab commented that "never before
in the 33 years of the World Economic Forum's history has the
situation in the world been as fragile, as complex and as dangerous
as this year." Schwab has reasons to be concerned. The recent
corporate scandals in the US, the battered economies of Africa
and Latin America largely as a result of failed Structural
Adjustment Programmes and global recession have pounded capitalism
and exposed it as an unworkable ideology. This partly explains
why the mood was sombre in Davos where the captains of capital
were meeting. The protest movement symbolised by the WSF has been
able to strike at the heart of capital. The fight for a new and
just world order has also found expression in anti-globalisation
protests that have take place in Seattle, Washington, Nice,
Johannesburg and Porto Alegre just to mention a few. In all these
protests the statement has been made that the global trading system
is exploitative and unfair. As the people take their fight against
exploitative globalisation to the streets, capitalism has been
seeking to reinvent itself.
The reinvention of capitalism is what is leading some people to
say that capitalism needs to be reformed to make it more humane.
This reformist agenda is dangerous because it seeks to fool people
into believing that the ideology of capitalism can be made to be
more accommodating. This belief is as unsound in theory as it is
unworkable in practice because it ignores the basic fact that the
global trading market only benefits those who enter the arena
already possessing a lot of wealth. The current international
market is controlled by transnational companies who use their
hegemonic economic power to control multilateral institutions that
are the de facto governors of this world. Against such a background,
it is impossible to reform capitalism. Capitalism just has to be
discarded not reformed.
So as the WSF grows from strength to strength it must be careful
not to be co-opted into the WEF agenda. The two are polar opposites.
The World Social Forum should guard against being used as the launch
pad for 'capitalism with a human face'. Saying the three year old
WSF is giving the 33 year old WEF sleepless nights is an
understatement. True the WEF continues to receive blows from the
WSF but the champagne bottles should not start popping yet. History
has shown that when capitalism is threatened, it is capable of
re-packaging itself and posing as something helpful. There is need
for an alternative development paradigm to counter the capital led
globalisation. This essentially means that non-governmental
organisations, civil society, individuals and governments have to
evaluate their engagement with the social and economic challenges
that confront the peoples of the world. Governments particularly
need to link themselves more with social movements and peoples
aspirations than with big businesses and profit.
The civil society need not relax and wait for the next World Social
Forum in India 2004 to be heard. There are a number of issues that
are already crying out for attention and need to be tackled as a
matter of urgency.
1.. Governments in developing countries must be pressured not to
sign trade agreements before understanding their implications.
They must for example not sign in on any new issues at the WTO.
2.. Governments must be pressured to delay negotiations on
international trade agreements, until it has been proved
beyond any reasonable doubt that the agreements will benefit
developing countries. There is no reason for instance in
continuing with Cotonou negotiations since the European
Commission has not made good its promise to fund studies
that would analyse the Cotonou agreement.
3.. African civil societies need to speak out and protest the
divide and rule tactics employed by the European Union in
negotiations. This means that South Africa's negotiations
with the EU which seem to be carried out in secrecy must be
condemned at every turn.
4.. African governments must be encouraged to negotiate as a
group rather than as individuals, because as a group they
have clout and will not be tossed around as would happen if
they negotiate as individual countries.
5.. Free trade agreements with the EU or with the US cannot take
place in a context that does not adequately deal with the issue
of subsidies and tariffs.
What is increasingly becoming clear is that Africa is getting rid of
its perceived beggar status. It would be difficult for Europe and the
US to survive without African markets. So when Africa negotiates, it
should do just that - NEGOTIATE, not beg. So while it is true that
the WSF is gaining ground on the WEF, this is no cause for celebration.
This is moreso given the belief that others are expressing that the
WEF and WSF can work together. Just because WEF allows Lula to speak
in their Forum does not mean that they will suddenly stop being driven
by profit. One would argue that letting Lula speak at WEF strengthens
rather than weakens the WEF. This way captains of capitalism will try
to take the moral high ground and proclaim that they are prepared to
accommodate everyone. WSF should continue campaigning for an
alternative development programme that places the basic needs of the
people above corporate profits. This agenda should have as its main
task the creation of an environment where people can live with
dignity and in peace.
---------
*Makombe is a Programmer Officer with SEATINI and Assistant Editor
for the Bulletin.
|