[DEBATE] : Vinod Raina: Surpassing Dichotomies in the WSF

[peter waterman]

*http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/noticias_textos.php?cd_news=480
*
Do Space and Action have to be Contradictory? - Towards an inclusive WSF 
strategy

*Vinod Raina*

The following definite opinion of Walden Bello, couched as questions, at 
the end of his article would appear to be at the heart of the present 
debate about the future of WSF:

/“Is the WSF still the most appropriate vehicle for the new stage in the 
struggle of the global justice and peace movement? Or, having fulfilled 
its historic function of aggregating and linking the diverse 
counter-movements spawned by global capitalism, is it time for the WSF 
to fold up its tent and give way to new modes of global organization of 
resistance and transformation?”/

It would of course have been helpful if Walden had also indicated, then 
or even now, the new modes that would be better than the WSF; as 
appropriate vehicles for the new stage in the struggle of the global 
justice and peace movement.

The major problem in the present strategic debate regarding the future 
of WSF is that those who feel that it has outlived its utility, or has 
become stagnant as a ‘space’, have not provided a compelling 
alternative, except rather lamely proposing that it become a platform 
for action, rather than reflection. I call it lamely because it isn’t as 
if various movements for global action do not exist; by converting WSF 
into another such movement, is it clear that there will be a major 
addition to global struggles? Many such suggestions to convert WSF into 
an action platform therefore appear as somewhat off the cuff remarks, 
and not perhaps stemming out of serious analysis of the possible 
alternatives. It appears as if some people, somewhat disheartened by 
various organizational, and hence political, limitations of the Nairobi 
forum were so deeply disappointed that they began theorizing for the 
need of abandoning or transforming the WSF altogether! Which is not to 
deny that there persists an unease regarding the outcome of the seven 
year old WSF process; whether it has been successful in denting the 
neo-liberal World order, particularly when one considers the enormous 
resources, time and energy that goes in organizing each World forum. It 
is true that many participating movements have been beset with the 
question: Is it worth it? But from there to conclude that the Forum 
should be wound up suggests a big mental leap, perhaps not supported by 
general evidence. Where as the ‘fatigue’ factor in organizing and 
participating in forums has been generally going around for some years 
now, debated even in the IC in terms of its frequency, it is equally 
true that there is no dearth of enthusiasm to organize national, 
continental and even World forums! There was obviously no skepticism, 
fatigue or disappointment evident at the Berlin IC in May 2007 when a 
special session late at night had to be organized to sort out competing 
demands to hold the Forum after Belem!

*Sectarian versus Broad-based*

It has been pointed out by many that the immense diversity and plurality 
present in the forum process would make it not only difficult, but most 
likely a divisive exercise to work out joint actions. Joint action 
requires a certain amount of ideological cohesiveness; to demand that 
from a platform of political diversity like the WSF would most certainly 
bring in sectarian considerations to the fore, thereby diminishing the 
broad-based nature of the forum. Others have countered that joint action 
does not have to be carved out for more than a few issues – like global 
peace, trade regimes and so on, which may not pose insurmountable 
sectarian problems. That really is not immediately apparent to me.

Consider the defining agenda of the WSF – fight against neo-liberalism, 
and just one political tendency within the WSF opposed to 
neo-liberalism, namely the Left. Is it obvious that all shades of left 
would easily be able to carve out a joint action against neo-liberalism 
if proposed in the WSF? Not to me. There is the non-party left - the 
social left, and the party left – the political left. Where ever the 
political left is in power, except perhaps in Cuba, the stated or 
unstated attitude to neo-liberalism would appear to be to follow the 
Chinese path of ‘market-socialism’, ‘controlled capitalism’ or some 
other form of ‘socialistic neo-liberalism’ – whatever that means! This 
is in sharp contrast to radical positions of most of the social left, as 
also of the political left in some places where it is not in power, 
which is an unequivocal rejection of capitalism. For the rejectionists, 
WSF itself, as composed of ‘market-socialist’ left tendencies, NGO’s and 
‘non-socialist’ movements is a major question mark, that was amply 
evident in the form of the parallel ‘Mumbai Resistance’ at the time of 
WSF2004. It is not therefore obvious that a joint action against, say 
the World trade regime, is likely to pose little problems even from the 
standpoint of one political tendency, the left; when one includes other 
tendencies present in the WSF, like fair trade, the Northern and 
Southern social movements and their differences in perceptions in 
relation to global trade, the obviousness recedes enormously.

That raises the other oft repeated question – if the diversity and 
plurality of the WSF is so enormous as to render it ‘impotent’ for any 
action, then is the idea of WSF of any value at all? Why invest 
resources, time and energy in an apparently impotent ‘space’?

*Providing ‘Space’ to create Global Action Forums*

Our ability to answer the above question is obviously critical in 
determining the future of the WSF. The intention of course has been that 
without being a forum for action itself, WSF must be the ‘space’ where 
many such Forums of Action are carved out by participating movements. It 
is true that we need an evaluation whether that has happened in any 
substantial manner since the first Forum in 2001, something various 
working groups of the IC are presently engaged in finding out. We also 
need to get a sense of that from the participating movements, again 
something that is being currently attempted by at least one working group.

But as we await some definite findings from the working groups, and 
based on the fairly large literature available, my perception is that 
the processes of action emanating from the WSF space could have been 
more widespread, inclusive and effective than they have been.

One major initiative to that end has been the Assembly of Social 
Movements, which was expected to become the ‘action platform’ linked to 
the WSF ‘space’. It has, in my opinion - which of course can be 
contested - not been able to organize itself into an effective and 
inclusive Forum of Action.

Ideally, more than one sustained, visible and effective global action 
forum should have emerged out of the WSF space – for labour, peasants, 
women, against war and for world peace, neo-liberal economy and so on. 
Amalgamating all these into a single Assembly of Social Movements, which 
produces a single statement following each World Forum, indicates 
exactly the tepidness that would drip from a single omnibus statement of 
action were the WSF to issue an action statement at its conclusion, with 
the added problem that without a due process, neither is the Assembly of 
Social Movements statement binding and inspiring to the movements, nor 
certainly would a WSF statement of action be.

So what should be that due process? For the Assembly of Social 
Movements, it has to be the way the Assembly itself is constituted and 
organized. Right now, it is a haphazard and motley collection of people 
who happen to be present at the WSF who read out a fairly hastily 
prepared statement – it is more like using the opportunity of being 
present together than any sustained organizational or well-thought out 
conceptual positioning. If the ASM is to be a Global Action Forum, it 
must exist independent of the Forum and not merely meet only during the 
Forum; and if its actions include calls for demonstrations, picketing, 
rallies and so on, and not merely issuing statements, it must have an 
organizational structure that ensures that it is in fact facilitated and 
led by representatives of movements who have constituencies that can 
undertake mass action, rather than by academicians, individuals from 
research and advocacy groups, or NGO’s. There must be primacy to 
movements that have ‘victims’ amongst them – the Southern people, 
indigenous people, the most oppressed women, dalits, workers and 
peasants. An action forum dominated by individuals from Northern groups 
who have ‘partners’ in Southern countries is unlikely to provide an 
effective and sustained political platform of action. In order to be 
effective vehicles of global solidarity, new Global Forums of Action 
will have to be politically conscious to avoid being the harbingers of 
new colonial relationships. That implies doing away with the traditional 
forms of funder, leader and ideas (North) and receiver, actor, 
subordinate (South) forms of relationships.

It is difficult to perceive that the WSF, or even the omnibus Assembly 
of Social Movements, can easily imbibe these politically imperative 
modes of functioning, in order to emerge as the true Global Forms of 
Action for all the important issues facing the people of the world 
today. Therefore specific attempts to create coherent Global Forums of 
Action for Peace, Economy and Trade, Women, Indigenous People, Workers, 
Peasants and so on need to be made; who in addition to their 
constituency based actions, may come together for joint actions from 
time to time. It is not as if Global forums for action in various areas 
do not exist today, who even have their own calls for annual global 
action days – Jubilee South is an example in relation to Debt - the 
point is that the WSF process could be used more vigorously to enlarge 
and deepen them, rather than turn WSF into an omnibus forum for action, 
which in a way could cause problems by encroaching on the political 
space various movements have already carved out for themselves.

If various forums for global action already exist, having played its 
little role in aggregating them, should the WSF fold its tent now? The 
space the WSF provides is, in my opinion, vital to enlarge the existing 
action forums and forge new ones; therefore the WSF has not exhausted 
its historical role. The potential for ‘space – action’ symbiosis that 
the WSF has innovated should in fact not be a transitory phase at all, 
but an ongoing new form of political organisation. What is necessary is 
to pay heed to the organizational and political shortcomings and 
limitations of the WSF process, rather than suggest abandoning it 
altogether. These shortcomings and limitations relate to the 
participation in the decision making processes of the WSF, the 
restricted nature of its IC, the organizing principles of the various 
forums, and the facilitation and liaison processes of the WSF.

In that respect the WSF2008 as a Global Day of Action has provided a 
uniquely new modality which can be combined with the World Forum 
effectively in future. The GDA does not have to be seen as a replacement 
of a physical forum, as in 2008. It could be part of the forum in future 
– for example along with the Belem forum in 2009, a Global Day of Action 
could be designated so that actions all over the globe could accompany 
the Belem events. The advantage of decentralised action being that 
movements and groups are free to make them as effective and radical they 
feel like. That could effectively answer the criticism that the WSF 
event is a festival of talks rather than a forum of action. It could 
also be a way to respond the ‘fatigue’ factor voiced by many groups 
regarding the annual frequency of the event. The physical event could be 
held every two years, but the GDA each year. The 2008 modality therefore 
opens new and creative ways to craft out new political processes, and 
hopefully, that could change the strategic discourse from the binary 
‘space versus action’ to an inclusive one, of ‘space and action’.


Feb 22, 2008

*Fonte: *
*Tipo documento*: Artigos de opinião
*Idioma*: Inglês

-- 



* 'Needed: A Global Labour Charter Movement', ESF Malmo Update: http://www.netzwerkit.de/projekte/waterman/gc

* 'Challenging Empires: The World Social Forum. (2nd Edition, 488 pp). Ordering: http://www.blackrosebooks.net/wsf.htm  

* 'Back in the (Ex-) USSR': http://zope2.netzwerkit.de/RusRepLatest.pdf

* 'Recovering Internationalism; Creating New Global Solidarity', http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/6439.html  

* 'Prague 1968: "Workers of the World, Forgive Me!"', http://www.tni.org/archives/waterman/prague1968.pdf  

* 'A Union Internationalism for the 21stC', http://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/nplutobrows.pl?chkisbn=9780745327563  

* 'International Labour Studies in the UK’, in "Work Organisation Labour and Globalisation", Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 180-200. http://www.analyticapublications.co.uk/