[P2P-F] Farewell to the WSF? (GTN Discussions)

[Michel Bauwens]

and do you have a link to the last chapter, or the phd ?

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:32 PM jose ramos <actionforesight at gmail.com> wrote:

> Only a phd :)
>
> Last chapter laid it out
>
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep. 2019, 9:58 pm Michel Bauwens, <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> 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 <actionforesight at gmail.com>
>> 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 <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork at greattransition.org>
>>>> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:10 PM
>>>> Subject: Farewell to the WSF? (GTN Discussions)
>>>> To: <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From Roberto Savio [utopia at robertosavio.info]
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *[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 [praskin at tellus.org]
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 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 jcohn at tellus.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20190907/18eff95f/attachment-0001.html>