7-25 February 2006 on NIGD and Debate list exchanges @ http://www.nigd.org/docs/BamakoAppealSpikesControversy
On 18 January, the day before the opening of the polycentric World Social Forum 2006 (in Bamako, Mali) a controversial gathering took place. The conference, much initiated by Samir Amin, attracted some 80 altermondialists from different parts of the world and was called the "Peoples' Bandung Conference". The conference thus took place on the 50th anniversary of the 1955 conference of non-aligned nations held in Bandung, Indonesia. [See text of the Bamako Appeal in this volume]
The conference and the appeal gave rise to controversy and debate, both regarding its process and the content of the Appeal. Listed below is a compilation of the exchanges between NIGD and Debate list members.
In his first commentary on the Bamako Appeal, Peter Waterman writes on 7 February, 2006, "I would sign this appeal, I consider it radical, rather comprehensive, and an excellent basis for extensive discussion and amendment (e.g. specific critique of fundamentalisms, the right to sexual options, a lengthening and specification of the section on labour...)."
Peter Waterman, 7 February, 2006
My first, fast, and possibly superficial, reaction (if anyone's interested): I would sign this appeal, I consider it radical, rather comprehensive, and an excellent basis for extensive discussion and amendment (e.g. specific critique of fundamentalisms, the right to sexual options, a lengthening and specification of the section on labour...).
I find within the labour section many of the concerns I have addressed over many years, I would be interested to engage specifically with this.
I was opposed to the so-called Manifesto of Porto Alegre because of its authorship (a group of overwhelmingly male, middle-aged, white intellectuals, some of whom rapidly backed away from it when they saw it and the reaction to it), its site of issue (a luxury hotel), f its pretensions (confusing it with the WSF taking place at that time), and because of its banality.
This one, to me, seems on first impression, to have surpassed most of these shortcomings, though one would like to know the nature of the conference that gave it birth. And, again, it will create the impression of being the position of the WSF that is taking place at that time.
As for its implications on the WSF more generally, I see no necessary obligation for the WSF 'as such' to endorse and promote the document. The project can continue in parallel with/in the WSF - just as the ineffective Call of Social Movements, or in the place of such.
PS. Actually, this appeal has little or nothing to do with the inter-state alliance of authoritarian and populist Third World states at Bandung. And this is to its great advantage.
Francine Mestrum’s comments on 8 February, 2006 criticises the Appeal in regard to both its process and content, but concludes that, " I totally share the idea of having some sort of programme, not for the forum as such, but within the forum. If we could have three, four, five or more programmes, it would clarify the forum a lot.
Francine Mestrum, 8 February, 2006
I wish I understood the exact scope of the text. In Caracas, the text was presented by Bernard Cassen, Samir Amin and Francois Houtart; people I respect very much. All spoke of a 'consensus' text, approved by a number of organisations in Bamako. None mentioned the fact that it was open for discussion (and amendments?).
Now, it is proposed to Attac as being 'for discussion' (and amendment or just approval or rejection?).That is my first problem with it.
Secondly, I do not know who has been invited to that famous meeting in Bamako, and why them and no one else. And why before the forum and not during the forum?
Thirdly, I had fewer problems with the text of last year than with this text. Last year's text was very general; it was hard not to approve it. This year, some parts are very (too?) detailed, others are not. Some basic parts are missing, since not all world problems will be resolved by eliminating neoliberalism. I find it rather unbalanced. I totally share the idea of having some sort of programme, not for the forum as such, but within the forum. If we could have three, four, five or more programmes, it would clarify the forum a lot. But I would have to study this text much more carefully, before signing it.
And finally, on the point of procedure, these people are still white machos. Their seminar in Caracas was organised by 7 (seven!) white men, all talking far too long, so there was not a minute left for any debate or questions.
Francine wrote a further summary of her take on the Bamako Appeal :
The Bamako Appeal
1. First and foremost, I want to defend this initiative, since I think it is urgent and positive that movements inside the Global Justice and Solidarity Movement propose some alternatives. We cannot limit ourselves to be against neoliberal policies, we also need concrete alternative measures and we have to show in what way another world can become possible. Therefore, I fully support this initiative. It should not be seen as an effort to unite the whole movement around this one text, which at any rate would be impossible. Rather, I see it as one proposal that can co-exist with three, four or five other proposals that can be discussed within the open space the WSF should continue to be.
2. This being said, I regret the undemocratic way this proposal has come about and has been presented. What organisations where invited in Bamako and on what criteria? Why is there no possibility for amendments? Why has the ‘Consensus of Porto Alegre’ of last year not been discussed? Why is this text being presented by a group of white men?
3. About the content of the text: the Bamako Appeal contains lots of excellent ideas for ‘another world’. I somewhat regret that it is worded in the terminology of the ‘old left’ and uses words and concepts that young people of today are not familiar with. It is a proposal for a new kind of socialism, without clarifying what this socialism exactly means.
4. Most of all, I regret that some newer concepts and ideas are not included in the text or are only touched upon very broadly. I think a proposal for a really other globalised world, should reflect on:
a. Global public goods, ecologically and socially, including public services
b. A global system of social protection, based on social rights and going beyond ‘poverty reduction’
c. Global and multicultural citizenship
d. Global democracy, especially focusing on the interlinkages between the local, the national, the regional and the global level
e. A new concept of sovereignty, in the context of d.
f. Ecologically sustainable development, linked to another economic and financial/monetary organization
g. World public finances, global taxes, etc.
5. This important Bamako Appeal, which I fully support, can be an opportunity to broaden the debate and to involve other people and organisations.
The same day, Teivo Teivainen comments on the content of the Bamako Appeal, "I very much like most of the contents of the Bamako Appeal. ....One of the problematic silences in the document is the lack of any attention to questions of sexual diversity (gay and lesbian rights etc). ...My other slight worry in the document is the statement that "national democracy remains THE strategic level" (emphasis mine)"
Teivo Teivainen, 8 February, 2006
Dear NIGD,
After a quick read, I also confess that I very much like most of the contents of the Bamako Appeal. It would be interesting to hear from those of you who were in Bamako to get more reflections on the debates around it, the way it was constructed, and who has signed it?
One of the problematic silences in the document is its lack of any attention to questions of sexual diversity (gay and lesbian rights etc). My understanding is that this has been one of the problematic (or avoided) issues in the African WSF process, and may create controversies in attempts to construct a wide-based consensus on the issues that the movement of global democratization movements, or the WSF (no, I am not equating the two), need to confront, especially in the inter-cultural dialogues that "going to Africa" implies. I would be very interested in hearing suggestions on how the issue should be approached? To put it more provocatively, would an emphasis on gay and lesbian rights reflect an eurocentric bias?
My other slight worry in the document is with the statement that "national democracy remains THE strategic level" (emphasis mine). I very much agree that territorial (or "national") states need to be A strategic focus of the democratization movements, but does the formulation here suggest an overemphasis on the strategy of conquering the state at the cost of other strategies (both more local and more transnational)?
Peter continues the debate on the Debate list on 13 February, 2006 writing, "the question has to be raised of why this whole project was not placed WITHIN one or other WSF event rather than being staged separately. ..Many other questions need asking, such as, many of us have been frequently posing, with respect to the WSF itself: Promotor(s)? Funding? Relation to social movements, NGOs, parties, unions, states? Ethnic, Socio-Geographical spread? Gender balance? The key issue, however, is to address what the document actually says."
Peter Waterman, 13 February, 2006
I thought the Gender section was banal in general, with little heart or bite. Labour, on the other hand, actually proposes, as I may have already said, the most radical existing public position on the matter.
Whether, however, the appeal IS 'open to broader participation and reworking' would seem to depend on two things: 1) the motivation of the authors and 2) the interest of such critics as you, me and plenty of others.
The question has to be raised of why this whole project was not placed WITHIN one or another WSF event rather than being staged separately. 'Placing within' has been done by such other anti-capitalist projects as, Michael Albert's, 'Life after Capitalism', Porto Alegre, 2003; on the other hand, 'the Commoner' was, or felt, obliged to place its, 'Life Despite Capitalism' project outside the official WSF, London ESF, 2004.
Many other questions need asking, such as, many of us have been frequently Posing, with respect to the WSF itself: Promotor(s)? Funding? Relation to social movements, NGOs, parties, unions, states? Ethnic, Socio-Geographical spread? Gender balance?
The key issue, however, is to address what the document actually says.
I have, myself, taken note primarily of what has moved from the traditional positions of the Thirdworldists/Dependency thinkers in the period before the WSF. Others have been pointing out to me, personally, what continues.
The dialogue, hopefully, continues...
In the ongoing debate, the question came up as to whether or not to sign the Appeal, or actively take part in any possible development of the text. In the following interventions, Ruby van der Wekken stressed, "the (process of the) appeal is bypassing the essential methodological and educational process of the WSF process."
Peter on 14 February, 2006 wrote, "one of the ambiguities/mysteries surrounding this document is that it has been launched into space without explanation or target. It would be difficult so far to speak of a PROJECT. ... I have myself have suggested to two or three critical and well-qualified correspondents that they might do more than briefly react. My feeling so far is that such critics have been too busy with the WSF itself (or Itself), and with other possibly fading or hypostatised issues (Politics v. Space?) that they have been somewhat thrown by the Bamako Appeal. After all, the Bamako Appeal:
1) circumvents the 'Space' - though this is done often enough, in different ways, by Trotskyists, the ICFTU, Horizontals, Anarchos, or by invitations to someone's private house in Sao Paulo
2) is 'Political', in its heavy investment in the state and inter-state institutions, but without mentioning a party or parties (?)."
Ruth Reitan joined the debate on 14 February, 2006 with a critical stance on the Bamako Appeal writing, the most effective proposals have, and are, and will be coming up from the grassroots through the massive transnational networks that are alive and well ... Furthermore, the only way that these struggles are going be articulated and linked to any mass coordinated action is through the networking that has, is, and will be occurring among these and other networks who represent (acknowledging that that term is problematic) hundreds of millions of people worldwide..."
Ruth Reitan, 14 February, 2006
Dear all,
I've been following the discussion as best I can, but have been extremely busy with teaching so I have not been able to follow as closely as I would have liked. Essentially, I second Ruby (and probably Peter's) concerns and arguments. But at bottom, the most effective proposals have, are, and will be coming up from the grassroots through the massive transnational networks that are alive and well--on agriculture and food sovereignty and the WTO from the Via Campesina; also on the WTO and other trade agreements from, Our World Is Not for Sale; to addressing both patriarchy and poverty wrought by neoliberalism/capitalism from the World March of Women (and others); on how best to organize and fight against the war and militarism from the Global Anti-War Assembly; on radical youth ecological anarchism from the Peoples' Global Action; on fighting the debt and SAPs from Jubilee South; on environmental justice from Friends of the Earth International; on tax justice from ATTAC.
Furthermore, the only way that these struggles are going be articulated and linked to any mass coordinated action is through the networking that has, is, and will be occurring among these and other networks, who represent (acknowledging that that term is problematic) hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Such "synthesizing" appeals from academics are neither here nor there, and are not really useful, or are not going to amount to anything in terms of action without an organic process--a process which IS occurring, from what I can see, at the WSF, but not only there, also in such spaces as the Via Campesina's international meetings and forums, at OWINFS planning meetings, at regional forums, etc. Basta ya! Bamako Appeals, G19 manifestos, etc. macht nichts. This is not what we should be devoting our efforts to. Follow the movements, support them, research them, give them voice, but don't propose or suppose to do their thinking for them. They are more than capable of that, and most are anyway repulsed by this sort of patronizing vanguardism. I say NIGD should let it die the whimpering death that such appeals deserve.
Tord Bjork on 15 February, 2006 splits his commentary according to his reflections regarding the form and content of the future of the alter globalisation movements. Tord adresses the question, who will change politics and how: "is there a need for a more comprehensive generalist program of action, or as Ruth Reitan states a bottom up perspective linking massive transnational networks?" He points out the gaps in our knowledge on what actually happens through the WSF and between the social movement networks and other actors, and concludes with a look towards the Karachi forum, also within the context of the crises surrounding the Danish cartoons.
Tord Bjork, 15 February, 2006
Dear all
The discussion on form and content regarding the political future of the "alter globalization" movement on the NIGD list seems to have some interesting points, but is also lacking empirical arguments and connection to the political world outside the party left or established transnational movement network sectors.
Writing on a two hours train ride to Copenhagen, the political center of the right wing Western radicalisation of the political struggle against underprivileged, some of the discussion seem somewhat distant. The news today said that the protests against Denmark reached Pakistan causing some deaths, a country that will soon be hosting WSF.
To react upon the debate I have a few remarks and a proposal:
FORM
The discussion on form have like the masterly discourse made by Jai Sen, a necessary exercise to remind us all about the need to stick to principles and not drown in the pragmatic necessities when organising resources for huge events like WSF. But enough is enough, form without content will also never survive, and thus the counter arguments against looking only at form, and avoiding content will survive. The rather trivial discussion on whether WSF should be an open space or a decision making congress are continuous, but gladly, it is starting to be a bit more focused beyond the internal WSF questions. Asking the question, who will change politics, movements, political parties, NGOs, civil society you easily get trapped in a historical notion stating new century socialsim or strategy as something more valuable than old century ways of doing things, but not explaining much of what that difference is.
I am afraid that the issue at stake, parties or not parties is not the crucial one, but it is rather the issue that was buried when WSF sidestepped PGA. These delinked seminars, cultural manifestation and intellectual professional work from nonviolent mass civil disobedience, and also mystified the relationship to violence. The key ideological category in the present reactionary politics of Denmark and the EU is demonising system criticism as terrorism scapegoating, not only Muslims, but also those defending the welfare state as violent protesters threatening democracy.
CONTENT
Is there a need for a more comprehensive, generalist program of action, or as Ruth Reitan states a bottom up perspective linking massive transnational networks? Well is this not one more trivial dichotomy. What we might need is both, the generalist attempts in all its tendency of academic or other professional party-NGO limitations if it develops something that goes beyond the limitations of the single-issue campaigning. Problems cannot only be discussed from a sector organised network level; there is also a need for a more general view. I, myself, am actively promoting the kind of strategy Reitan propose within Friends of the Earth, but I have no illusion that this is enough to state from the bottom up. Changes do not only occur within such spatial metaphors, there is also a need for the perspectives "from above" or generalist, but one has to keep in mind that we have the academicians, WSF strategists or political parties we deserve.
The main argument against the discussion on parties, or linking movement networks is that we do not know what we do not include. We do not even seem to be empirically interested in what action actually takes place, what regard it is linked to WSF or other similar initiatives, and to what extend is it ignoring or excluding the WSF.
What actually takes place
I do not have the privileged position to have enough knowledge about these things, but I do have some fragmented pieces of information from my own region and the world. What I found out when studying different initiatives and social movements globally was that empirical efforts had a tendency to disappear. Social movement networks and Social movement directory both ended with contributions on their respective web pages in 2004. The Social movement networks last contribution came from Via Campesina authors critical towards WSF. At the same time, many were emphasising that the WSF used Via Campesina as a strong argument for legitimising WSF as it is. There has been a tendency to use social movement like MST and Via Campesina to state how good WSF is, and at the same time be uninterested in what Via campesina actually state about the WSF or what they do. In Mumbai many Via Campesina participated in the Mumbai resistance, or both WSF and MR. The meetings with Via Campesina and likeminded movements, like Friends of the Earth, World March of Women, or trade unions might be more important to them than WSF (an to the perspective Reitan propose). But it is hard to get an account on what actually takes place, not in its occassional self-admiration of the WSF events, but in the actual political cooperation between those forces that is stated to be the most important among the WSF actors.
Often stated is the importance WSF has had for mass mobilisations, especially against the Iraqi war. But how come this cannot be repeated? Or is it repeated, but in bad ways? It has been claimed that more mobilisation is now taking place (2005) than in the period between last year and the antiwar demonstration. But what in this is linked to WSF, and what is not? One strategic issue that seems to be to used is the millennium goals and the G8 meeting as a world wide campaign against poverty. If this was a central WSF idea, how come there was a lack of self-reflection on the role the WSF had in campaigning. Or is it only when calls from meetings at WFS are successful that they should be accounted for and not when the result is problematic?
Here in Scandinavia, only the Norwegians were able to step out of this NGO millennium lobbying and instead criticised the whole millennium goals. They made a totally different kind of campaign linking local and national antiprivatisation golas with the demands against global institutions by alter globalisers hand in hand with trade unions and parties contributed to an election victory of the center-left coalition. There is criticism against the millennium campaign, many see it as legitimising the present world order, or that very few results came out from it, but more than that it gave the impression that everybody now is equally concerned, from pop artists to politicians, about poverty. But what was the role of WSF in legitimizing the millennium campaigning, and its evaluation? Is the present focus of left political party politics and the state a reaction not an outspoken perspective of the civil society/NGO on the millennium campaigning?
Mass mobilisation starting inside or outside WSF?
More disturbing is the question of mass mobilisation. At Mumbai Arundhati Roy challenged WSF participants to start a boycott against American companies to protest against the occupation of Iraq. There have been no results reported. The dream from Mumbai has now been executed by the masses in the South. Hundreds of million of people boycott Danish products; meanwhile, the parties in Denmark actively confront the non-moderate Muslims in their own country, blaming them for the outrage against Denmark.
Mike Davis claims that the slums in the South have huge populations that are left as non-existent. The forces that are active among them are Pentecostal and Islamists according to Davis. When I visited Asia Social Forum in Hyderabad 2003, the most wanted among the speakers by the local population was not the well known leftists, but a Hindu expert on the Koran and Hindu texts who was asked to speak against Hindu nationalism to hundreds of people. The left used the same energy at this social forum to speak badly about traditional Hindu dressed participants. One wonders what the world looks like outside of left parties, and well funded transnational movements and their campaigning. But such knowledge is hard to get.
Karachi next
Finally this years last polycentric WSF will be held in Karachi. What has WSF to offer, and more importantly what social movements participating in WSF have to offer on the issue of Danish racism and freedom of speech. The Danish population is much in favour of bombing, they were the most extreme in Western Europe and North America regarding Serbia and also Iraq. Denmark is the test country for right wing xenophobian parties that are becoming mainstream, and their discourse is used more and more by the other parties. Their terrorist laws have now convicted Greenpeace, and new trials wait ahead against people collecting money to PFLP and FARC. Denmark made huge profit from both WWI and WWII, and have survived well by adjusting itself to the great powers at each stage in history. During WWII there were more Danish SS soldiers than participants in the armed struggle against the German occupants, a struggle that for a long time also was a civil war against the own government. Now Denmark is a model country for a racist welfare state successfully competing in the neoliberal world market while its underprivileged working class are labelled Muslims, and some of the Muslims react by becoming Islamists. A difference from other Nordic countries is that, in Denmark, supporting the violent liberation struggle in the South never became a mainstream concern. For example the Swedish state funded only ANC with 100 million euro, and in Finland and Norway it had both the popular and substantial state support. In Denmark the right of oppressed people to defend themselves violently was never accepted, and today it is a more and more xenophobian country. What does a political initiative in this conflict look like? And what about WSF relation to the right to use violence against oppressors, or is that a non issue of the old century? Or is it amidst the problems of tomorrow?
Simultanously, ideological campaigning started by the Swedish conservative spokesperson in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for European People's party to condemn communist crimes and rewrite history books etc. The majority voted yes to his proposal. His own opinion, going somewhat further than the adopted resolution, is that communism is evil, the French revolution horrible, and that the Paris Commune must be the birth place of evilness as he claims that in 1871 communism started here. Lots of efforts are laid out in Europe on demonising alla system criticism as being totalitarian and resulting in genocide, while at the same time excluding the liberal world order from any guilt. Besides the kind of perspective put forward in the Bandung Appeal, or in other documents from WSF meetings what are the views on Danish political development towards xenophobia, or the general trend towards putting a terrorist ban on system criticism is something to address. Maybe before Karachi? Maybe the two issues of Danish/Western xenophobia and demonising system criticism are linked? And is the NIGD seminar in Karachi on these issues possible to make - demonising protests against the system in Denmark and globally - what can popular movements do?
Yours
Tord Bjork
tord.bjork@mjvs.e
Marko Ulvila writes on the same day, "I find the Bamako Appeal and the subsequent discussion very welcome. To me the Porto Alegre statement last year and this one are similar to the work done in the assembly of social movements. The difference is that the Bamako Appeal stems from meetings of intellectuals... Since the Bamako process was basically by older men, should we not try to gather young women intellectuals to make the Karachi Appeal and Athens Appeal?"
Marko Ulvila, 15 February, 2006
Dear friends
I find the Bamako Appeal, and the subsequent discussion very welcome. To me the Porto Alegre statement last year and this one are similar to the work done in the assembly of social movements. The difference is that the Bamako Appeal stems from meetings of intellectuals. The more coordinated political initiatives that the open spaces of the WSF produce are better.
Like Thomas Wallgren wrote, as long as none of these joint initiatives start to represent the WSF or otherwise obtain a hegemonic position, there is scope for growth of the WSF and the related movements.
If we consider the Bamako Appeal similarly placed in the WSF process as the social movements assembly, would it not be useful to have a gathering of intellectuals in the forthcoming Social Forums, especially Karachi and Athens. And since the Bamako process was basically by older men, should we not try to gather young women intellectuals to make Karachi Appeal and Athens Appeal?
Peter writes in reply to Ruth on 15 February, 2006, "is there not, in both this exchange and in the WSF more generally, too much process, too little product? And since when did 'synthesising' - a classical role of critical and emancipatory intellectuals from Marx to Boaventura de Sousa Santos - come to require distancing quotes? My fear is that this is merely a defence of a status quo, largely by insiders."
Peter Waterman, 15 February, 2006
Ruth:
You say in part, 'such "synthesizing" appeals from academics are neither here nor there, and are not really useful and are anyway not going to amount to anything in terms of action without an organic process.'
You are not the only contributor to this little exchange who refers to an organic process, and/or to grassroots, networks, etc. Is there not, in both this exchange and in the WSF more generally, too much process, too little product? And since when did 'synthesising' - a classical role of critical and emancipatory intellectuals from Marx to Boaventura de Sousa Santos - come to require distancing quotes? My fear is that this is merely a defence of a status quo, largely by insiders.
I do not see how we can rule out, condemn, or even ignore a position taken by a group of academics - however much we might either disapprove of, or feel deprived of information about, the process by which they reached this.
In so far as I do not myself feel qualified to produce an extensive critique of, or an alternative to the Bamako Appeal, I should not be complaining about the failure, thus far, of any of the critics to produce such. But I am certainly prepared to contribute to discussion on those aspects of the Bamako Appeal about which I do feel qualified.
This should, however, be seen less as a complaint than an appeal.
And in so far as no one person or group feels qualified to produce an alternative - or feels that this was the wrong procedure - then why not a structured internet discussion about such, or a (more expensive) workshop or conference?
Ruth replies on 16 February, 2006 restating her argument by writing, I will restate that the best (to my mind and from my research) appeals have already been written by the various networks themselves and are dynamic and in the process of revision through their own internal processes and through their concrete linking with other networks...where do these manifestos put rubber to road?"
Ruth Reitan, 16 February, 2006
Dear Marko, tell us that you wrote that last line very quickly, right? Does anything seem remotely problematic about that statement, especially given mine and Ruby's cautions that we have expressed about these sorts of statements?
Not to say that Ruby and I speak for all young(ish) women, not at all, but at the same time we do share a certain sisterly anarchist sensitivity that cannot be fixed by 'gathering young women' like us to write and/or sign onto such appeals (not that we would be invited, since we would likely not cooperate).
Again, I will restate that the best (to my mind and from my research) appeals have already been written by the various networks themselves and are dynamic and in the process of revision through their own internal processes and through their concrete linking with other networks. This is what I have been studying for the past three years so I am not just guessing here. The rather longwinded Bamako appeal is simply a slightly Marxist wash on a synthesis of these networks' demands. In the next few days I will try to send out a short synopsis of those platforms (which are easily accessible on various networks' websites) so that you can compare for yourselves.
Again, I just want to underscore that I think there is a mistaken belief out there that the mass networks are remaining in their respective spheres and are not doing the necessary linking of ideas and actions from which will come a comprehensive, consensus platform, or at least loose strategy that gathers all the movements' concerns together--and this is just not so.
And again, my practical question is, where do these manifestos put rubber to road? For whom do they (purport to) speak, and to whom are they addressed? It just exists on this ethereal level, and has very little linkage to the networks, from what I can tell. Even the involvement in such appeals by people like Susan George or Bernard Cassen, who ostensibly "lead" a mass network like ATTAC, is problematic, in the sense that there are tremendous strains at the local levels of ATTACs who feel that these figures do not speak on their behalf. This is again not to say that manifestos are not appropriate at certain times in history written by specific figures (in addressing Peter's remark): But Marx and Engels being commissioned to publish a platform of a growing international Communist League--and thus naming very specifically on whose behalf they are speaking and to whom that manifesto was addressed--is a very different thing than what we've got going here.
Intellectuals not embedded! Organizations speak for no one but themselves today, as it should be. If they speak as a collectivity, they should be very clear about who or what that collectivity is. My opinion is that we should either speak for ourselves, or embed ourselves within a movement or organization and assist them in some way in speaking. But do not rush to speak on behalf of the network of networks, the WSF, or the evolving Left as "we". My comments are not a neurosis with leadership or representation, but rather what I think to be a sober read on the political Left zeitgeist (about which I could of course be wrong). These manifestos are marching orders for no one; to write as if they are is to entertain vanguardist fantasies that are going to only crumble in disillusionment and accusations of false consciousnesses. While I do not like being a buzz kill, we are not going to get to a revolution with this sort of pie in the sky posturing. So if the young ladies are going to gather themselves! to make a statement, it will likely be one very different, and probably not the delusions of grandeur that these, not accidentally, older European gentlemen socialists continue to manufacture.
Again, my sincere and real apologies for the tone of this; I do not want to offend anyone--we are all comrades and that is the spirit in which I write it--but I really need to communicate, in case Ruby and I have not been understood, that this is a fundamental methodological principle that is being chased out of the WSF and other spaces. I fought a losing battle on the ESF listserv on this one, but the ESF listserv is now itself lost, in case you have been following it. Most of the life and diversity is gone out of it. And another person on this NIGD list mentioned the alienation of the PGA from the "official" WSF processes, which is symptomatic of this ongoing marginalization. I certainly have my own (insider) critique of the PGA, but all is to say that these sorts of intellectual manifestos are not productive, and make people of a certain age look really, well, old. Not wise, not mature, just old. And, I may add, irrational, both in the instrumental and the substantive sense. They will not achieve the utopian ends that they champion because there is no organic process for them to do so, and they threaten or ignore the very democratic processual principles that they purport to embody and hold as their aim.
Peace (really),
Ruth
Tord writes on 15 February, 2006, "this is great. Finally Ruth Reitan gives us an alternative - to study the statements made by the various networks themselves which are dynamic and in the process of revision through their own internal processes and through their concrete linking with other networks. Especially the last proposal means going beyond the WSF limitations by putting an emphasis on dynamics between statements and movements capability to act. It would bring us a lot further than the endless and trivial discussion on whether WSF should be an open process or a body making political resolutions." Tord ends on the note that, ".. it is not enough to study the statements made, we must also look at the way they are used. And if there, at least in some countries, (as well as WSF strongly promoted campaigns) are setbacks in the ever-growing process of integrating different movement perspectives then we need generalist theories and empirical knowledge on the limitations of both movements, parties, WSF or PGA, and of course of self-selected circles of intellectuals claiming to have generalist qualities."
Tord Bjork, 20 February, 2006
This is great. Finally Ruth Reitan gives us an alternative to elaborate further upon; a global political programme made by intellectuals for like-minded forces related to the WSF-process - to study the statements made "by the various networks themselves" which "are dynamic and in the process of revision through their own internal processes and through their concrete linking with other networks." The last proposal, especially, means going beyond the WSF limitations putting an emphasis on the dynamics between statements and movements capability to act. It would bring us a lot further than the endless and trivial discussion on whether WSF should be an open process or a body making political resolutions. I do believe it would be useful to look in a comprehensive way at this perspective, not only for the last three years but also in a longer perspective.
I do look forward to the work of Reitan on movement statements. But still I maintain that however great single-issue movements develop into popular movements concerned about the whole society and link up with other popular movements to build a comprehensive program, we still need a generalist approach that questions the movements.
When looking at the most comprehensive campaign in the Nordic countries last year that involved the widest range of different popular movements, this was the end poverty campaign. The way this was handled is an example of the opposite of Reitans optimistic assessment of the process as a whole. She might be right in the long run, but it is also important to have a theory about what went wrong in some countries when the movements really tried their best with broad visions.
In Sweden the campaign was a success in terms of broad participation. Both the big trade unions and churches, as well as environmentalists, Attac, and "everybody" else all joined hands signing a platform that, to church and trade union standards, was very radical. There were only three problems. One was that it delinked the North-South struggle from domestic issues thus taking away the core linkage of issues that makes them of interest for others then those specially interest in North - South issues. Thus the campaign becomes a mystery for most people, be it against privatization and neoliberal politics labelled with a lot of fancy acronyms in the South, but there was no linkage to home?
Secondly the campaigning was built by cheating with words and thus giving legitimation to the official process. The campaign stated that the millennium goals asks for fair trade, but this is not the case. The ultimate tool for achieving these concrete goals is instead a uniform global transparent (etc.) financial and trade system. There is nothing in the millennium goals definition on a system that states it should be fair, instead all the key words used in international diplomacy for the contrary are used, non-discriminatory etc..
Finally it was hard to mobilise any people to take part in the campaign. In Finland they were more involved in the Helsinki Process, but did create some charity activities for the campaign of less or no political importance. In Norway the millennium goals were criticised to pieces, and instead they made a campaign linking domestic and global neoliberal demands on the streets, and other means, in a successful intervention in the elections. In Denmark a campaign started that exploited faces of victims on a disgusting web page totally devoid from any politics differing from the millennium goals light version. On the web page, pictures of starving and needing coloured people asked for help with their eyes, all lonely except on the last page where there finally was a black crowd with empty white bowls raised above their heads. In what way did this Danish campaign, with a very large coalition behind it, reflect the qualities that Reitan talks about? I do not know? (http://www.udrydfattigdom.nu/first8.html). On the contrary I see the same neocolonial and racist attitude that also triggered the ongoing protests against Denmark in the Muslim world at the moment.
In other words it is not enough to study the statements made, we need to also look upon the way they are used. And if there, at least in some countries (as well as at WSF strongly promoted campaigns), are setbacks rather than an ever-growing process of integrating different movement perspectives, we need generalist theories and empirical knowledge on the limitations of both movements, parties, WSF or PGA as well, of course, of self-selected circles of intellectuals claiming to have generalist qualities.
Yours I am afraid not to humble
Tord
The last development in this debate around the Bamako Appeal to be taken up in this newsletter is that the Bamako Appeal was launched for signature. Peter concluded 25 February, 2006, that "in introducing the declaration, it is stated that, 'the Bamako Appeal and the proposals for a plan of action included in the document were adopted by the Assembly of Social Movements of the World Social Forum which met in Caracas on 29 January, 2006, in the frame of the polycentric WSF 2006'. I was not myself aware that the Bamako Appeal had been approved by this ASM in Caracas, nor am I sure whether this ASM is the same as the now-traditional Call of Social Movements held in the connection with WSFs. I am, finally, somewhat alarmed to discover that this extensive, complex and uneven document has been issued for endorsement rather than for DISCUSSION. There is, indeed, no place on the website for the latter. The opinions of others on this latest development would be appreciated." |
