Yes we do. There is a need for a space were constructive and creative dialogue can take place among all progressive forces that are united against war, neoliberalism and exploitation of oppressed countries and groups of people.

The UK already has certain groups that serve as convergences of smaller progressive groupings, such as the stop the war coalition and the socialist alliance. But there is a need for a permanent, non-single issue forum. The stop the war coalition is great; it is open and non-sectarian, but it will only serve as a united front to campaign against wars, and so far has not evolved into anything more. The socialist alliance is also a positive development, being fairly non-sectarian, but already a number of progressive forces have been excluded or have not joined this grouping.

A UK social forum would help to bring together groups that would not sit under a single party roof to campaign together for issues with which they all agree.

Dan, if you exclude the political parties in Britain, I am afraid in the forum will be only you and few chief executives from this or the other NGO, few academics etc
In Italy the Rifondazione did participate in the Genoa Social Forum and in Florence and there were number of political parties participating. I am afraid,like many other anarchists you are more concerned with the "fronts" like the Globalise Resistance, rather than the movement. Where all the anarchists have gone by the way. Are they waiting the next mayday?

Abd

Abd

Dan, if you exclude the political parties in Britain, I am afraid in the forum will be only you and few chief executives from this or the other NGO, few academics etc
In Italy the Rifondazione did participate in the Genoa Social Forum and in Florence,there were number of political parties participating. I am afraid, like many other anarchists you are more concerned with the "fronts" like the Globalise Resistance, rather than building the movement. Where all the anarchists have gone by the way. Are they waiting the next mayday?

Abd

I think there would be more people involved if there were no political parties. Most people concerned about globalisation are not party members, do not want to be party members and do not want to be the subject of recruitment campaigns. Open your eyes for once and realise that parties are not the beginning and end of politics.

Social forums are the gathering of social groups - from trade unions and think tanks to landless movements and peace groups. All parties have their conferences - we don't need more and we certainly don't need some of the tedious debate on theory that dominates these meetings. That does not mean Trotskyists - or even Labour and Liberal Democrats - should not be welcomed, but personally I feel a social forum should not be yet another platform for paper-sellers and dogma.

I will be taking part in the World Social Forum in Mumbai in January 2004, not as an NGO executive but as an individual opposed to neo-liberalism and environmental destruction. It will not be a place for the Congress Party and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to bicker. It will operate on the number of principles, one of which is "The World Social Forum 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 built another world." ( http://www.wsfindia.org/charter.htm) I recommend you do more research on the World Social Forum before you swamp it with your cadre.

By the way, I am not an anarchist.

And why was my previous comment deleted? It did not break IMC guidelines.

'swamp it with your cadre'

So, er, party members welcome but cadre not welcome? Problem: cadre = party members. So what are you saying?

Is it that you want party members to turn up in disguise?

Whenever parties decide that a movement is a good source of recruits, they swamp it with their members, like an army on the march. There are serious misgivings about party political involvement in Stop the War and Globalise Resistance, which certain groups have sought to control through the sheer weight of their numbers. By all means, people belonging to parties should be welcomed, but the pushing of party agendas will just destroy what a forum seeks to achieve.

A social forum should be just that - a forum. Not a front. Not a conference. Not a place for in-fighting. Nor a place for tirades, slanging matches, accusations and recruitment. It's a democratic forum where people should listen, understand and learn. Political parties should respect that - just for once. Before launching a social forum, maybe there needs to be greater understanding of what past forums have been about. Otherwise, it will be a complete mess and will only discourage and disempower people.

If it becomes a human version of robot wars, then I oppose a UK Social Forum. The British left needs to grow up first.

You want party members to turn up without a 'party agenda'? Think it through. These are people who have chosen to join parties. Presumably they have done so because they agree with the 'party agenda'. So in effect you are asking them to attend but forbidding them from expressing their opinions.

The problem is that it seems parties' only agenda is to dominate discussions with their ideas and produce the result they want, rather than listen to those who happen not to be interested in joining parties. I've been to the Marxism and CPGB conferences and have been shouted down for disagreeing with their party line. I guess I have to expect that I attend these party conferences and I am not complaining about these one-sided rallies. But I wouldn't want this kind of attitude over-taking a social forum. I think it would be ultimately counter-productive to allow platforms for parties or allow party stalls to be set up where the forum is held. They have ample opportunity to recruit elsewhere, but there should be a space where we can discuss things openly with open minds, for the sake of global justice and not for the sake of one or the other party becoming a vanguard.

I really cannot see the problem in parties being involved. They do not have to be involved officially, but to rule out the members of all political parties would be a bit like setting up an exclusivist "UK social forum party", and the last thing we need is another party. All the small left parties of the UK worked very well hand in hand with non-party members for the stop the war coalition. That is what we need, but a long-running, non-sinlge issue version of the stwc. We have shown that we can do it.

 http://www.insultmonger.com/generators/index.htm

politica2003: I think we agree with each other - I don't think party activists should be discouraged, but a social forum should not become a place for party politics.