Notes/thoughts from an indymedia activist:
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-oxford/2004-January/000583.html

Text of the proposal, and some of the suggested amendments:
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-oxford/2004-January/000585.html

another reportback:
 http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-oxford/2004-January/000586.html

Although I agree entirely with this analysis of the meeting itself, I think that there is hope for the ESF process yet. The ESF will simply be too big for the usual suspects to dominate it....it always has been, and promises to be again, impossible for one group to fully control. There is also the issue that _nothing_ was agreed in that meeting...even by the standards of the unions and the SWP, who don't believe in consensus. There was no vote...just some loud clapping! If passing decisions by accalamtion is what we have been reduced to, we might as well not bother with this other world that is allegedly possible....

Basically, the decision has been made to become 'serious' and 'mature' in a corporate stylee, so that the trade unions feel comfortable about investing their money. This is a perfectly reasonable concern...but one that should have been raised with dialogue and discussion, rather than coercion and stitch-ups. Of course, this veer towards corporate organisation will alienate the very grassroots energy and enthusiasm that will be needed to build a successful and vibrant ESF that incorporates the energy of the anti-war and anti-capitalist movements.

The good news is that the process is still entirely open. A few people working hard and putting together alternative proposals will have the capacity to change this organising process into something resembling the democratic, open process we all want it to be...so I'd urge everyone to get stuck in! There's no point in moaning about the outcome if you haven't been involved in trying to change things for the better...

Matt

Definitely; there's still plenty of scope for people to make a difference.

It's a bit rich, Matt S, to be talking about 'democratising' the ESF - what you mean was that you lost the argument. How long must the process be held up because you don't agree with the decisions that have been taken by the vast majority? Your time and energy would be better spent organising a benefit to raise awareness and some money for the ESF.

I also seem to remember you were a leading signitory to the petition that was circulated late last year that tried to prevent the ESF from coming to the UK at all this year. You lost the argument then too because the vast majority of activists in this country want to see the ESF succeed, not to have it blocked at every turn as you seem to want to do.

Why would we want to block the ESF? Do you seriously believe this to be true!?

When we offer constructive proposals, they are ignored.

When we try to get involved, we are excluded.

We want to see the ESF succeed as much as anyone, but for us a very important measure of its success is in the *way* it organises itself, and in that, so far, we are failing.


Have you asked yourself the any of following:

Why were the recommendations of the process group ignored?
Why were the preparations for this recent meeting made in secret?
Why did the GLA representative alter and omit other people's amendments when summarising them?
Why are we claiming to use consensus decision making when this is patently not happening?

The biggest threat to the ESF is not from those who want to see it organised differently, but from those who are steadily turning it into a meaningless and sterile space in which the decisions are made behind closed doors beforehand, then rushed through with the mantra of There Is No Alternative.

Richard sed:

"You lost the argument then too because the vast majority of activists in this country want to see the ESF succeed, not to have it blocked at every turn as you seem to want to do."

So, is the ESF now a steamroller that ignores the concerns of activists, and decides things on the basis of "winning the argument" by stitching up decisions, and excluding those who have concerns? Is it being organised "top down" perchance?

If its a competition for power, and lead by leaders, then it seems to me that people were right to be wary of having it here in the first place.

Have you read these Richard?

 http://www.fse-esf.org/francais/article538.html

Do you agree with them?

I suspect that you probably don't believe what you're coming out with, richard, but are rather following a party line of some variety or other. For your information, it was impossible for me, or anyone else, to lose the argument at the UK Assembly meeting...precisely because there was no argument! There was no dialogue, no possibility to amend the proposals, and no consultation...if that meeting comes anywhere close to your conception of democratic proceedure then I shudder for whatever organisation you belong to.

I don't want to 'block the ESF'. I want the ESF to happen...but I want it to be open, transparent, accountable and democratically organised. These should not be radical or shocking proposals...clearly to some people they are.

I have no agenda of my own to get across...other than the primacy of the WAY in which we organise these events. The ESF will achieve nothing if it is one long self-congratulary rally, organised and dominated by large unions and excluding the grassroots. All social forces that oppose neo-liberalism need to work TOGETHER...believe me when I say that is what I want.

Much love,

Matt

I completely agree with "annoyed"'s analysis of the meeting, which was an anti-democratic disgrace. Endless speakers processed to the microphone to praise the only proposal (not circulated prior to the meeting) as "the one and only way forward". I thought at first this was merely bad chairing - people endlessly repeating their support is a waste of time in trying to get a consensus, when we should have been debating any points of divergence - but then I realised that it was deliberate, a process designed to squeeze out debate. This was because, as the proposer of the "organising committee" told me himself, no amendments would be discussed or voted, because the original signatories of the proposal (some trade unions) would not accept them. So the properly constituted UK Assembly for the ESF was degraded into a mere rubber-stamp for a decision already made. So, "Richard" (were you there?), you are quite wrong to say that "Matt S" lost the argument. There simply was no argument.
In fact, of course, everyone recognises that a proper organising structure is necessary for the London ESF to succeed. And I would add to that my opinion that the contribution of the trade unions, financially, organisationally and politically, is essential. It's great that the unions look like they will put their weight behind the ESF. But the question is how unions with huge financial clout and some authoritarian parties of the left can be prevented from excluding smaller groups from the wider civil society. Matt S claims that the process is still entirely open. Unfortunately it is not. The lowest payment for a group to be able to participate in the organising committee is £50. Individuals cannot join.
So my proposal is this: as a trade unionist and socialist, I plead for all anarchists, autonomists and all other people who feel excluded by this process to get together in small groups and stump up the £50 so that you have a voice to continue the fight for a democratic ESF. From the reports coming back from Mumbai, it's worth fighting for.....

If the ESF is so badly stitched up by the usual suspects, then it will backfire on then. As someone has already noted, these groups NEED us to be on board. If the ESF 2004 consists of nothing more than the SWP/GR, a couple of trade unions and the CND then nobody will even bother turning up to it.

Maybe it will be good if these authoritarians destroy the credibility of the ESF - at least it will be an early warning of what happens when entryism goes mad. And perhaps prevent the bidding process and the running of the event being destroyed by those with connections and a bit of money; it may go towards democratising the entire WSF process if its so badly damanged.

We can try to influence from inside the decision making of the ESF, and if we can't, we can contaminate it - by organising a separate grassroots event. I for one do intend to get involved in the process, but prospects of defeating these groups are pretty dim.

can i suggest all the people pissed off about the farce of a meeting that was the UK assembly come back to the next uk assembly meeting (with their friends, political allies & anyone they can drag off the streets) & MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.

They can't vote so the can't 'push through' their agenda unless we sit back & allow them to.

If you don't like what's going on then stand up & say so.

See you all at the next meeting

dean

ps the details will be posted up with a provisonal agenda (cos we anarchists like to do things fucking proper) so people will know just what is to be discussed/decided upon.

I also went to the meeting and these are my impressions. One of the people we hooked up with spent a number of hours trying to find out information about the meeting and couldn't so to us it appeared to be an uncoordinated, barely-chaired meeting, a few points led discussion.
It was hard to take notes in such an unstructured environment.
For example, the agenda was published but it seems that no-one had managed
to get hold of it.
No-one was voted to chair the meeting - it was highjacked to all intents
and porpoises by the chairs of the previous December assembly.
No-one was asked to facilitate the meeting.
No-one was asked to take minutes.

Agenda: Once an agenda was pushed through, it was not displayed.
The agenda included discussion of days of national action against
the colonial aspirations of Bush and Blair and the continuing foreign
wars but this item was then refused time and the microphones turned
off when a delegate tried to discuss the item. An antiwar splinter group,
unavoidably without the consensus of the whole assembly, decided that ESF
would back a London march/local marches on 20th March. I think some of
us found this sidelining of such a serious theme disappointing. A sheet
of paper was left on most seats titled Amendments. Amendments to what?
It turned out that the amendments were to a paper hardly anyone had seen
that had been composed behind the ubiquitous closed doors so favoured by
some groups but iniquitous to indypeople and put together by Alex Gordon.
The proposals were later circulated.
After a few minutes of gaff, a stalwart Undercurrents delegate called
Hamish marched up to the front of the meeting and demanded that it be
declared void until a facilitator was elected and agenda agreed on and
a meeting structure put in place. This caused a whole lot of hullabaloo!!
Brilliant.
Undercurrents remained represented at the front of the room throughout,
much to the disgust of a few delegates who seemed to be entrenched in an
outmoded vertical fashion, behind closed doors and blacked-out windows.

Grassroots: London ESF should follow the leads of Mumbai and Fiorenza
fortezza and be dominated by roots, so a horizontal organization *is* achievable but
only at the expense of certain groups intent on self-publicity. It appears that
money to run Mumbai came mainly from grassroots: registrations from individuals as
well as organisations and NGOs such as Oxfam as well as local NGOs. No public
money was acceptable nor money from capitalist organisations. This is very
interesting because so far as I can see, most of the money to run London ESF will be
from Unions and public money. Is this the case?

Process: Almost as soon as Hamish had objected to the procedure and bunch
of 23 people joined a queue to speak. There was discussion about how to proceed from now on so that a reasonable plan for funding can be endorsed by the members of the assembly but I don’t know if anything was decided and although transparency was called for a professed repeatedly, it seems that many meetings about process and structure are to be closed.
A speaker from MCB begged for a mission statement that we could all show to
interested parties (for instance, 2 people on the bus on the way back to
Oxford, picked up on our conversation and wanted more info). The statement should
include aims for universal human and religious rights.
Things got very confusing with an enormous amount of repetition - this is
what happens when there is an ineffectual chairman.
Amendments to the proposed structure: Some of the proposed amendments were
read out by Redmond Someone but why not all of them? We wanted to vote on them
but were not allowed to. They have to go to committee. Some of the amendments were
mocked. I am not sure that is the way to proceed and found it rather shocking.
Representation: A few speakers stood out, one of them, Katya who spoke to
the "tyranny of structurelesness" in a meeting where individuals appeared not to have a
voice but only those representing groups. Katya, and many like her, don’t necessarily
represent groups but can disseminate information to thousands who belong to the groups she belongs to.
These are the people ESF is meant to be about and anyone who can inform them
should not be disenfranchised. In fact, at the end of the meeting a form was handed
out for members to sign who wanted to be kept informed of the process or structure as it was being created but you could only sign if you represented a group! Unbelievable. On the same point as Katya, a delegate from N London spoke about racism in major unions. He felt unrepresented by his union. It seems that while racism is condemned publicly by all unions, in practice it is alive and well in most work places. He complained that the people ESF should represent were the sort of people who could not pay fees and were not represented by delegates in the way unions consider fair. He said that that you shouldn’t have to have a checkbook to be free. The speech was shocking and fascinating and got applauded by black delegates and others but, oddly, not by the union
representative in the seat in front of us, who sat and shook her head!

Splinter groups: In the pub later, someone thought the meeting
"gobsmackingly peculiar" and someone else that it will be hard to communicate with "guys who are used to living in cupboards". The meeting was called to "give the process legitimacy" and not to ask about or take on board alternative opinions, and the organisers were shocked to find so much disapproval when what they had wanted and expected was a whole load of willing "foot soldiers" willing to allow "jobs for the boys" - quite substantial amounts of money are already flying around. Indymedia people were pissed off by the end and some of us thought of splintering but it was decided that on the whole the London ESF was a good thing and should be worked with albeit independently.

From the above discussion, I'm not clear what the anti-authoritarian left think of trade union involvement in ESF. Does anyone want to comment?

It seems to me that there are groups and individuals who want to see the ESF fail and who are coming up with all sorts of pretexts to block the ESF. It's almost as if these people want the ESF to fail because it suits there agenda to say at the end of the process "I told you so." This is why Im angry about those people who tried to prevent the ESF coming to the UK at all this year and who are now blocking the whole process again with their spurious arguments.

On the other hand there are other groups like globalise resistance who are bending over backwards to make the thing succeed. One person asked about trade unions - Im glad that there are groups that are bringing the trade unions on board. The trade unions represent millions of workers - it is these people who can ultimately change things, the working class.

But instead of recognising this, there are those who are stuck in a cosy activist ghetto, who talk about "contaminating" the whole process and seem reluctant to give up there yah boo politics.

interesting take on the situation richard.

Surely the esf will have 'failed' if the cornerstones of the very process - transparency, openness, accountability, democracy (oh how we are going to learn to hate those words by november) are ignored & violated. The only people so far who have contravened those principles are the very people you are seeking to defend.

To respond to 'just wondering'. I don't imagine anyone has a problem with union participation at whatever level. I certainly don't, although i'd much prefer local grass roots union participation & ordinary rank & file members involvement.

Ta for that, reassuring.. I was worried 'cause some people on here have talked of trade unions as 'enemies', along with Muslims and the SWP. Am I right in thinking I shouldn't pay those sort of posts too much attention?

Personally, my answer would be that we see rank-and-file trade unionists as potential allies. However, we are often hostile towards what we see as illegimate trade union 'leaders' and bureaucrats.

Well Im a rank and file trade unionist, and I want the ESF to succeed. Not in some esoteric way - ie it only succeeds if it adheres to some abstract concept of organisation, as some people are suggesting - I want it to succeed in reality, by becoming a focus for anti-capitalism in the UK and Europe, generating all sorts of ideas about how we can fight for a better world.

The people who are doing the on-the-ground organising etc seem to me to be people like globalise resistance. Im glad they have brought the trade unions on board, its a big step forward.

Other people are coming up with all sorts of spurious reasons to 'contaminate' the process and put obstacles in its way. but they dont seem to have any alternative, beyond a lot of squeals because they are out-numbered by people who want to see the ESF make some progress.

This observation isnt me following some sort of "party line" as Matt S insultingly suggests. I dont need someone else to tell me when there are people who want to disrupt the process. Its obvious. I dont trust people like Matt S's motives when he was a leading signatory to the petition to stop the ESF coming to the UK this year.

Why are you continuing to slander me? (or possibly libel, since this is a written form).

I DO NOT OPPOSE THE ESF BEING IN LONDON. I DO oppose the ESF being undemocratic,
stitched-up and dominated by the usual suspects rather than a broad array of social
movements and grassroots activists. This should not be a controversial position, and
I really do not understand why some people have such difficulty with it. The meeting
on the 24th was a sham, and anyone who has a shred of decency will admit as much. Any
meeting which discusses one proposal which cannot be amended or rejected, and which has
not been adequately circulated beforehand or even seen by a large number of people,
cannot be considered to be transparent, open or fair. When these meetings begin to
be organised democratically (or at least in good faith, striving to be open and
transparent) then I'll start praising them. Until that time I'm afraid I won't fall
into line, richard, so you'll keep having to tell lies about my motivations.

Matt

P.S. In case I didn't make it clear, I support the ESF coming to London. I just want it
to be good, rather than shit. Controversial, I know.

Yes - the process has to be contaminated! This movement has come about because we are fed up with political parties, fed up with vertical organisation, fed up with being pushed around by politicians and capitalism.

This is why the ESF process has to be contaminated: so that it represents the needs of the grassroots, and allows us to build a truly global network that offers revolutionary possibilities.

To allow the ESF to degenerate into a talking shop for (aspiring) politicians, NGO representatives and the reformist Trade Unions would be to see a huge failure for a movement that has lots of potential.

See: www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/ for more discussion.