I just had to publish this article from the U.k Guardian, it is by a elite 'aid worker' Conor Foley and while it may describe where the World Social Forum and the wider Social Forum SF movement is currently sadly at, it completely ignores the movements from below that helped create and sustain the SF movement, and imo, is an insult to them. I have also posted a reply from an irate reader who robustly challenged this piece.
From the UK Guardian's Comment is Free
Left out in the cold
New Labour's absence from events such as the World Social Forum puts it out of step with its former allies.
Conor Foley
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/01/a_new_isolationism.html
One of the striking things about participating in the World Social Forum (WSF) is not how much agreement there is amongst the broad, progressive left in the world, but how isolated the British New Labour party has become from these discussions.
Although there are a few "anti-imperialist sloganeerists" attending the conference in Nairobi, these are a tiny minority of the 100,000 or so participants. Most people are linked to trade unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community groups. The churches are probably the largest single organised contingent, but the mood is more social democratic than anything else.
As its charter of founding principles, states: the WSF
"is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences ... [it] is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, non-governmental and non-party context that, in a decentralized fashion, interrelates organizations and movements engaged in concrete action at levels from the local to the international to build another world."
No one is entitled to speak on behalf of the WSF and nor can it adopt positions on issues. With over a thousand events taking place in the space of four days, it is a "talking shop" in the best sense of the word.
It has been particularly interesting to observe the political dynamic between activists from Europe and Latin America. A very unscientific poll shows that most of the Europeans are from Germany France Italy and Scandinavia. Brazilians are the biggest contingent from Latin America. Indeed they are the biggest single group of international participants.
This is hardly surprising since, if the forum can be said to have any single collective political identity, it is from its roots in the Brazilian left and, more specifically, the social movements grouped around the Brazilian Workers' party (PT) who pioneered participatory democracy in their former southern strong-hold of Porto Alegre.
The first WSF was organised in 2001 by the same coalition of trade unionists, Catholic liberation theologians and NGOs that formed PT's bedrock of support. The success of the event led to the city council turning it into an official tourist attraction, which brought tens of thousands of people from all over the world in subsequent years. After his presidential victory in 2002 Lula became the only world leader ever to have been welcomed at both the WSF and the World Economic Forum in Davos.
This year's forum is being used by the Brazilian government to showcase its social projects, such Zero Hunger and Bolsa Familia, and also its policies of social dialogue and partnerships with civil society. The Brazilian stand is by far the most impressive and it was the only place that I could get internet access when the server crashed in the press room.
Four years of rather mixed achievements in government has taken the shine of some of PT's claims, but it is interesting to note how much in common its activists have with their counter-parts in continental Europe and Scandinavia. The German government is providing some of the funding for the event and the German delegation alone are hosting 65 separate meetings. A similar message comes across from both groups about the need for public and private partnerships, using markets to create wealth, but the State to ensure social cohesion and international cooperation to tackle global problems.
These are sentiments that I would not have thought that many on the mainstream British left should have any problems agreeing to, but the British contingent is very small. I have met a few friends from organisations such as the Minority Rights Group and various international development organisations, but I cannot imagine an official representative of Tony Blair's New Labour party feeling very welcome. Indeed the only context in which Britain's prime minister is ever mentioned is as an appendage of George Bush and his disastrous foreign policies.
I hope that this does not become part of the lasting legacy of Blair's tenure in office. The Labour party once prided itself on its internationalism and its absence from events like the WSF is a real shame. Another world is possible, if we work together, but isolationism never achieves anything positive.
here is the robust reply to it
What a cheek, Conor, Surely this is a rewriting of history? The Social Forum movement, if not the WSF, was inspired initially first by the Zapatista's and then by the international gatherings they hosted. It was given momentum by the many struggles from below that occurred in the late 90'0's:, water privatization in S. Africa, Indian farmers fighting against GM,the MSF land struggles,etc, It was then bolstered by the wave of 'anti-capitalist' protest culminating in London, Seattle and Genoa, where over one million people including hundreds of thousands from around the world marched against the Iraq war, against global poverty and the new imperialism.
The NGO/Unions/poltiical party/reformist strand and the influence of the PT in Brazil was only one strand in the S/F movement, but as usual money talks: they being the only people who could regularly attend such events, also many other decent campaigners decided such global meetings a disaster for the environment, etc. On top of that, the Far Left: the SWP and various Trotskyist's and Communist/Stalinist's of various hues, began to gerrymander and pack meetings, planning events, etc, culminating in a dire European Social Forum in London, where even Coca'Cola was on sale, despite Trade Unionists from Columbia speaking at the event.
The SF movement was always a broad alliance, now it is just a shelter for a third sector elite, and that includes the union hierarchy! Still, many independent and passionate campaigners against poverty and injustice carry on attending such events, but increasingly they are marginalised by groups whose real interests lie in those who attend the Davos beanfeast
What a shame for those who really care about and need Global Justice...
From the UK Guardian's Comment is Free
Left out in the cold
New Labour's absence from events such as the World Social Forum puts it out of step with its former allies.
Conor Foley
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/01/a_new_isolationism.html One of the striking things about participating in the World Social Forum (WSF) is not how much agreement there is amongst the broad, progressive left in the world, but how isolated the British New Labour party has become from these discussions.
Although there are a few "anti-imperialist sloganeerists" attending the conference in Nairobi, these are a tiny minority of the 100,000 or so participants. Most people are linked to trade unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community groups. The churches are probably the largest single organised contingent, but the mood is more social democratic than anything else.
As its charter of founding principles, states: the WSF
"is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences ... [it] is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, non-governmental and non-party context that, in a decentralized fashion, interrelates organizations and movements engaged in concrete action at levels from the local to the international to build another world."
No one is entitled to speak on behalf of the WSF and nor can it adopt positions on issues. With over a thousand events taking place in the space of four days, it is a "talking shop" in the best sense of the word.
It has been particularly interesting to observe the political dynamic between activists from Europe and Latin America. A very unscientific poll shows that most of the Europeans are from Germany France Italy and Scandinavia. Brazilians are the biggest contingent from Latin America. Indeed they are the biggest single group of international participants.
This is hardly surprising since, if the forum can be said to have any single collective political identity, it is from its roots in the Brazilian left and, more specifically, the social movements grouped around the Brazilian Workers' party (PT) who pioneered participatory democracy in their former southern strong-hold of Porto Alegre.
The first WSF was organised in 2001 by the same coalition of trade unionists, Catholic liberation theologians and NGOs that formed PT's bedrock of support. The success of the event led to the city council turning it into an official tourist attraction, which brought tens of thousands of people from all over the world in subsequent years. After his presidential victory in 2002 Lula became the only world leader ever to have been welcomed at both the WSF and the World Economic Forum in Davos.
This year's forum is being used by the Brazilian government to showcase its social projects, such Zero Hunger and Bolsa Familia, and also its policies of social dialogue and partnerships with civil society. The Brazilian stand is by far the most impressive and it was the only place that I could get internet access when the server crashed in the press room.
Four years of rather mixed achievements in government has taken the shine of some of PT's claims, but it is interesting to note how much in common its activists have with their counter-parts in continental Europe and Scandinavia. The German government is providing some of the funding for the event and the German delegation alone are hosting 65 separate meetings. A similar message comes across from both groups about the need for public and private partnerships, using markets to create wealth, but the State to ensure social cohesion and international cooperation to tackle global problems.
These are sentiments that I would not have thought that many on the mainstream British left should have any problems agreeing to, but the British contingent is very small. I have met a few friends from organisations such as the Minority Rights Group and various international development organisations, but I cannot imagine an official representative of Tony Blair's New Labour party feeling very welcome. Indeed the only context in which Britain's prime minister is ever mentioned is as an appendage of George Bush and his disastrous foreign policies.
I hope that this does not become part of the lasting legacy of Blair's tenure in office. The Labour party once prided itself on its internationalism and its absence from events like the WSF is a real shame. Another world is possible, if we work together, but isolationism never achieves anything positive.
here is the robust reply to it
What a cheek, Conor, Surely this is a rewriting of history? The Social Forum movement, if not the WSF, was inspired initially first by the Zapatista's and then by the international gatherings they hosted. It was given momentum by the many struggles from below that occurred in the late 90'0's:, water privatization in S. Africa, Indian farmers fighting against GM,the MSF land struggles,etc, It was then bolstered by the wave of 'anti-capitalist' protest culminating in London, Seattle and Genoa, where over one million people including hundreds of thousands from around the world marched against the Iraq war, against global poverty and the new imperialism.
The NGO/Unions/poltiical party/reformist strand and the influence of the PT in Brazil was only one strand in the S/F movement, but as usual money talks: they being the only people who could regularly attend such events, also many other decent campaigners decided such global meetings a disaster for the environment, etc. On top of that, the Far Left: the SWP and various Trotskyist's and Communist/Stalinist's of various hues, began to gerrymander and pack meetings, planning events, etc, culminating in a dire European Social Forum in London, where even Coca'Cola was on sale, despite Trade Unionists from Columbia speaking at the event.
The SF movement was always a broad alliance, now it is just a shelter for a third sector elite, and that includes the union hierarchy! Still, many independent and passionate campaigners against poverty and injustice carry on attending such events, but increasingly they are marginalised by groups whose real interests lie in those who attend the Davos beanfeast
What a shame for those who really care about and need Global Justice...
