[WSF-Discuss] Re : Heads of State in the WSF ?

Tue Aug 5 13:16:10 UCT 2008

Dear all,

The state is arguably the best we can think of now in terms of regulated and
controlled politics-economy, but the state may not be "the end of history"
so if on one side i do (pragmatically? no! not only) join political
opportunity arguments and pragmatists of all kinds (also those who
uncritically raise resources issues, when some sections of the WSF are all
about re-thinking our relationship with consumption and suggest we spend
less for our events - we don't make the media anyway by competing with the
elegant and stylish Davos and expanding our carbon footprint) i still hope
(now this is naive isn't it?) that the free space of collaborative
experimentation that the WSF was born to be, does not shut down as yet.

I found Berend's intervention refreshing (so i did Kolya's and Peter's which
originated this conversation). We seem to be reviving a rather stuffy
debate. But aren't there a number of debates that recur in cycles? I have
been reading quite a bit lately (sentimental...) about the 68 movements and
the decade that followed.

I make an argument that the cultural victory of a movement that was defeated
politically (so many critics like this simple-istic analysis) opened the way
to neoliberalism by "transforming" the struggle of all those who fought
against authority and those who repressed those movements ruthlessly into
"something new": that movement gave rise to the NGO movement that thrived in
(allegedly) anti-authoritarian, anti-state, neoliberalism.  (incidentally it
hasn't been written enough to highlight how the interest on "openness", so
dear to the WSF, is shared by Soros' foundation and the WTO just to mention
two cases) .

In a sweeping analytical and comparative attempt i wonder what would the
transformation of the season of anti-neoliberal struggles (from Marcos 1994
to roughly Genova 2001). There seem to be recurrent argument of political
pragmatism in "the movement" especially by those who did participate in the
earlier struggles (so many WSF "leaders" have "done" the 68 and other
struggles of that season) and now want, come what may, secure some (even
small) political gain/success/victory. As some would put, this is the phase
of institutionalisation of the movement and the WSF would by that
institution (simple-isitc analysis that provokes more than explains... and
yet it provokes...).

We observe also presently a fundamental convergence from right and left on
the "renewed" role of the state as guardian/enabler of the economy (of
course a "good" state, not a rogue/failed/failing/authoritarian/etc. state).
That convergence re-creates also the debate about "which" state is "good"
and deserves "us" to ally with, precisely as the WSF is discussing now (and
since its beginning).

I strongly recall the energy and the creativity of some aspects of the WSF.
I'm not sure such energy is over already but perhaps flowing somewhere else,
to more open and free spaces perhaps... or creating such temporary free and
open zone/spaces. I of course would like to imagine the WSF for what is has
offered itself at the beginning, a space for experimentation a laboratory to
think collectively about new possible articulations among movements and
social actors etc rather than the already experimented and already seen.

Ciao to all
Giu

2008/8/5 Madhuresh <madhuresh at cacim.net>

>  For the benefit of members of this list here is soemthing from Debate
> mailing list on the same theme ...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Berend Schuitema <okhela at iafrica.com> <okhela at iafrica.com>
> Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?
> To: pbond at mail.ngo.za, "debate: SA discussion list "
> <debate at debate.kabissa.org> <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
>
> Peter seems to be expressing excellent sentiments (sentimental?) as against
> a new pragmatism for cooperation between political forces and the WSF. I do
> not think that in itself makes much moral sense.
>
> The issue of policizing the WSF is not new, as earlier on from within WSF
> organizers there were ideas to enter the political arena on its (our) own
> steam. Thus rather than working in the direction of rotating and
> disintegrating administrative and control procedures and creating a free
> space as entry point to the "other world which is possible", today this
> recurring fad of expediency is dictating that the WSF work towards
> "consolidation" and clearer "direction". Thus retreating from the excellent
> but chaotic creativity that surrounded the first WSF's until recently it
> seems. The drift is to become a political force among other political
> forces
> on a planet rotted by political enforcers. Rather piss from inside the
> political camp to the outside, than piss from the outside onto the
> politicians. That seems to be the rationale.
>
> How does one draw the line between the political goodies and the baddies
> when politics itself is the transformation from yesterday's revolutionaries
> to tomorrows dictators? Like so cleverly indicated by the former master
> revolutionary struggle, Robert Mugabe?
>
> We are losing the "social" struggle and thinking "political" as these
> sell-out ideas to go into bed with corporations and political cabals
> inevitably gather momentum. Remember, today's liberating politician, Lula,
> Evo, Chavez and the rest included, may be tomorrow's dictators. No one
> would
> have argued that Nelson Mandela should not have attend. But what then to do
> with his successor, Mbeki? His footspoors would have left the pong of the
> master imperialist, Cecil John Rhodes! He actually lives in the same state
> house Rhodes built!
>
> Put a finger in the machinery of politics (whether "left", "right" or
> "working class struggle") and soon there is a whooshing sound as that
> machine sucks the whole body with it. Especially if that body is the
> amoebic
> but ultimately threatening manifestation versus financial imperialism!
>
> The truth of the matter may be that the entire thrust of the WSF is
> flagging
> and so the political vultures are coming down for their pound of flesh. We
> still speak about Seattle. But ten years on there is not much recognisable
> of the ethics which brought this breaking in of a new generation of social
> movement onto the streets. Actually, Peter is right - the Zapatistas had
> more to do with this. That may be the reason they are either not interested
> in this "counter thrust" or actually ostracized for their straight and
> face-down-the-politicians' walks and talks.
>
> The enthusiasm, the fun and pleasure of hitting out and realizing our force
> as network of loosely knitted together social movements is fading and
> waning
> as the cognitive, the epistemic industry takes over. This becomes the gap
> in
> which politicians and capitalists have struck back in devastating ways.
> Gleneagles was a total farce and the Blair charade of false promises with
> Bono cum suis actually hijacked the media portraying moral high ground.
> Those on the streets were made out to be a lost generation of hippies.
> Greenpeace has made its peace with Shell and gone into partnership
> agreements.
>
> Where does this end other than throwing out the flag of surrender? Berend
>
> ------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: debate-bounces at debate.kabissa.org
> [mailto:debate-bounces at debate.kabissa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Bond
> Sent: 03 August 2008 10:24 PM
> To: debate at vmc07.mweb.co.za:SA discussion list
> Cc: CACIM; nigd-list at nigd.org; ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe; Teivo
> Teivainen
> Subject: Re: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?
>
> peter waterman wrote:
> > ... I am appalled that whilst the embattled Zapatistas continue to be
> > excluded, the argument below would allow for the possible presence of
> > the head of a one-party dictatorship (addressed here by his first
> > name!), and one condemned by feminists and (global) civil society - if
> > not his courts - of raping his step-daughter.
>
> Excellent sentiments, Peter.
>
> And yet at some point an operative alliance between the likes of Chavez
> and the global justice movement must be forged. Peter, you just want to
> keep the WSF more pure? Fine, but where do you see inputting  the vast
> resources of states (at least those willing to consider social
> movements' grievances and demands), and the integrity of many justice
> movements' demands for more state social welfare? Having some exemplar
> states around can only help.
>
> But the bigger question (overdetermining the strategic one about
> when/who to invite from State Power) is about politics: do the WSF
> leaderships in various settings yet recognise the need for a more
> programmatic orientation? What should such an orientation do to ensure
> states are conceived of properly?
>
> Cheers,
> Patrick
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at debate.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
> --
>
> **********************************************
> CACIM, A-3 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024, India
> Ph : +91-11-4155 1521, +91-98-1890 5316 (Mobile)madhuresh at cacim.net / kmadhuresh at gmail.com www.cacim.net
> Check out the OpenSpaceForum @ www.openspaceforum.net
>
> Subscribe to WSFDiscuss, an open and unmoderated forum on the World Social Forum and on related social and political movements and issues. Simply send an empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
>
> And, NEW ! : Join CEOS at openspaceforum.net, the CEOS (Critical Engagement with Open Space) listserve for exchange and coordination on open space theory and practice and to facilitate a critical discussion of the idea of 'open space'.  Just send an empty mail to CEOS-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of
> information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World
> Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on
> related social and political movements and issues.  Join in !**
> _______________________________________________
> WSFDiscuss mailing list
> POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net
> SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to
> worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
> UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to
> worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe at openspaceforum.net
> LIST ARCHIVES:
> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/
> LIST INFORMATION:
> http://mail.openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20080805/37f67cd8/attachment.html 