Update to world forum movement on the current state of London ESF 2004
activist | 29.01.2004 10:46 | European Social Forum | Analysis | Globalisation | Social Struggles
UPDATE TO THE WORLD FORUM MOVEMENT ON THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FORUM 2004
An overview and update on the ESF 2004 process:
From the start the ESF 2004 process has been on a difficult footing, with organisations that have opposed the setting up of local social forums calling for it to be held in London in 2004 – not the local social forums and those involved with them. Indeed, the Socialist Workers Party (and their front group, Globalise Resistance! -
http://www.swp.org.uk/, http://www.resist.org.uk/) who are opposed to local forums, UNISON - which has had virtually no part to play in the anti-war or global justice movement -, and the CND, took it upon themselves to put in a bid at the ESF in Paris (2003). Local social forums and independent activists then argued that because the bid for 2004 had been submitted without the consent of local forums, 2004 was too soon for a London ESF; work needed be undertaken by all to discuss location, principles, organisational form, etc. For this reason, local social forums argued that 2005 would be a better year to hold the ESF in the UK ( http://www.londonsocialforum.org/esf). This advice was not heeded and at the European Preparatory Meeting (EPA) just prior to the 2nd European Social Forum the bid was proposed and subsequently accepted at the EPA on 10 December 2003. It wouldn’t be wildly inaccurate to say the entire process of getting the ESF to come to England in 2004 has been farcical – and points to some severe deficiencies in the ESF bidding process.
The subsequent proceedings have – not surprisingly - been controlled by the SWP (and their front group Globalise Resistance! ( http://www.schnews.org.uk/mr.htm, http://www.schnews.org.uk/monopresist/monopoliseresistance/vampirealert.pdf), and people connected with the Greater London Authority ( http://www.london.gov.uk/). They have called meetings at short notice ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284508.html), withheld information so as to be deliberately difficult to grassroots and independent activists, and presented agendas that activists are unable to discuss or question; they have imposed democracy rather than consensus on the proceedings, refused to contact people who have indicated an interest in giving support, and labeled those who have called for greater transparency and horizontal methods of organization as 'traitors' and 'wreckers' of the process ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284356.html, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284379.html .
The Mayor of London and the hierarchy of those who called for the 2004 bid continue to shun attempts to broaden the call for more organisations to get involved, and even refuse to say who is pulling the strings in organizing the meetings ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284513.html). This logically leads some to conclude that the small cabal that is trying to dominate the event is attempting to exclude non-affiliated individuals and small organizations from having stalls or getting involved at all. At the very least, the GLA, SWP/GR, UNISON and the like are attempting to turn the ESF in London into a talking shop for the old-left - an event, rather than the an integral part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist or social justice movement in Europe. Indeed, the Mayor of London has personally called for Mayday protesters to be arrested by the police – which include some of people most active in the social movements in Britain itself! (See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/may-m01.shtml, http://www.sheffieldmayday.ukf.net/2001/ken.htm)
It is a ludicrous that an organisation that has opposed the creation of local social forums in Britain – and done its utmost to disrupt attempts to create them – is now trying to gain hegemony over the ESF process in London. It claims that Britain is ‘not ready’ for local social forums, but more likely sees them as a threat to its own influence. So even though France and Greece have at least 100, and Germany 50, for example, Britain has very few. Has this been GR!’s intention from the start – to prevent social forums from existing in Britain until it could control an event that will launch them instead and then claim to be the founder and initiator of local social forums, sell lots of newspapers and recruit activists? Whatever the case, the organisations that currently control the process have a warped notion of what the ESF and WSF are about, and are not representative of the forum movement globally, or the social justice movement.
It seems imperative - for the sake of the ESF and WSF - that something is done about this. It is now probably too late to stage the event in 2005 - which would allow us in Britain to properly discuss and organise a real bid to host the ESF. Instead the proceedings must become more transparent, using horizontal methods of organisation, with real consensus rather than imposed 'democracy' in meetings ‘packed’ by the authoritarian left. The events in England could seriously damage the reputation of the ESF and WSF as a whole, and should be a lesson to all of the regional social forums that the old-left can and will attempt to make the world forum movement a playground for its stale and failed form of politics, at the expense of those who have worked so hard to really try and create a world that is new.
Further References:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284413.html - Overview of preparation
for ESF in London Nov. 2004.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284424.html - an excellent summary
of the internal goings on inside the ESF 2004 London process.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/esf/ - updates and inside information on the workings
of the ESF 2004.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/282454.html - report from the
first ESF preparatory meeting.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284508.html
- - Meetings being called without transparency. The short notice of this
meeting prevents most from anywhere outside of London from attending;
is this inclusive organising? Proof at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284415.html.
http://www.fse-esf.org/ - European Social Forum 2003 Paris.
www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/ - World Social Forum discussion
documents.
http://www.gfk-ooe.at/projects/cp/esf/esf%20gb.pdf - Lina Jamoul – The European Social Forum : Reflections on the English Mobilisation.
An overview and update on the ESF 2004 process:
From the start the ESF 2004 process has been on a difficult footing, with organisations that have opposed the setting up of local social forums calling for it to be held in London in 2004 – not the local social forums and those involved with them. Indeed, the Socialist Workers Party (and their front group, Globalise Resistance! -
http://www.swp.org.uk/, http://www.resist.org.uk/) who are opposed to local forums, UNISON - which has had virtually no part to play in the anti-war or global justice movement -, and the CND, took it upon themselves to put in a bid at the ESF in Paris (2003). Local social forums and independent activists then argued that because the bid for 2004 had been submitted without the consent of local forums, 2004 was too soon for a London ESF; work needed be undertaken by all to discuss location, principles, organisational form, etc. For this reason, local social forums argued that 2005 would be a better year to hold the ESF in the UK ( http://www.londonsocialforum.org/esf). This advice was not heeded and at the European Preparatory Meeting (EPA) just prior to the 2nd European Social Forum the bid was proposed and subsequently accepted at the EPA on 10 December 2003. It wouldn’t be wildly inaccurate to say the entire process of getting the ESF to come to England in 2004 has been farcical – and points to some severe deficiencies in the ESF bidding process. The subsequent proceedings have – not surprisingly - been controlled by the SWP (and their front group Globalise Resistance! (
http://www.schnews.org.uk/mr.htm, http://www.schnews.org.uk/monopresist/monopoliseresistance/vampirealert.pdf), and people connected with the Greater London Authority ( http://www.london.gov.uk/). They have called meetings at short notice ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284508.html), withheld information so as to be deliberately difficult to grassroots and independent activists, and presented agendas that activists are unable to discuss or question; they have imposed democracy rather than consensus on the proceedings, refused to contact people who have indicated an interest in giving support, and labeled those who have called for greater transparency and horizontal methods of organization as 'traitors' and 'wreckers' of the process ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284356.html, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284379.html . The Mayor of London and the hierarchy of those who called for the 2004 bid continue to shun attempts to broaden the call for more organisations to get involved, and even refuse to say who is pulling the strings in organizing the meetings (
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284513.html). This logically leads some to conclude that the small cabal that is trying to dominate the event is attempting to exclude non-affiliated individuals and small organizations from having stalls or getting involved at all. At the very least, the GLA, SWP/GR, UNISON and the like are attempting to turn the ESF in London into a talking shop for the old-left - an event, rather than the an integral part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist or social justice movement in Europe. Indeed, the Mayor of London has personally called for Mayday protesters to be arrested by the police – which include some of people most active in the social movements in Britain itself! (See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/may-m01.shtml, http://www.sheffieldmayday.ukf.net/2001/ken.htm) It is a ludicrous that an organisation that has opposed the creation of local social forums in Britain – and done its utmost to disrupt attempts to create them – is now trying to gain hegemony over the ESF process in London. It claims that Britain is ‘not ready’ for local social forums, but more likely sees them as a threat to its own influence. So even though France and Greece have at least 100, and Germany 50, for example, Britain has very few. Has this been GR!’s intention from the start – to prevent social forums from existing in Britain until it could control an event that will launch them instead and then claim to be the founder and initiator of local social forums, sell lots of newspapers and recruit activists? Whatever the case, the organisations that currently control the process have a warped notion of what the ESF and WSF are about, and are not representative of the forum movement globally, or the social justice movement.
It seems imperative - for the sake of the ESF and WSF - that something is done about this. It is now probably too late to stage the event in 2005 - which would allow us in Britain to properly discuss and organise a real bid to host the ESF. Instead the proceedings must become more transparent, using horizontal methods of organisation, with real consensus rather than imposed 'democracy' in meetings ‘packed’ by the authoritarian left. The events in England could seriously damage the reputation of the ESF and WSF as a whole, and should be a lesson to all of the regional social forums that the old-left can and will attempt to make the world forum movement a playground for its stale and failed form of politics, at the expense of those who have worked so hard to really try and create a world that is new.
Further References:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284413.html - Overview of preparation for ESF in London Nov. 2004.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284424.html - an excellent summary of the internal goings on inside the ESF 2004 London process.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/esf/ - updates and inside information on the workings of the ESF 2004.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/282454.html - report from the first ESF preparatory meeting.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284508.html - - Meetings being called without transparency. The short notice of this
meeting prevents most from anywhere outside of London from attending;
is this inclusive organising? Proof at
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284415.html. http://www.fse-esf.org/ - European Social Forum 2003 Paris. www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/ - World Social Forum discussion
documents.
http://www.gfk-ooe.at/projects/cp/esf/esf%20gb.pdf - Lina Jamoul – The European Social Forum : Reflections on the English Mobilisation.
activist
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
and now for the facts....
29.01.2004 13:36
I am on the GR steering group, and we have never taken any decision on whether we are 'for' or 'against' local social forums, because people have different opinions about it - the ESF though is not synonymous with local social forums and just because a group calls itself a social forum it doesn't entitle them to any special rights in the process compared with any other activist group.
Now why are anarchists so interested in being part of the organising committee? It doesn't determine the content of the event, that is done by anyone wishing to put on a seminar or workshop, it organises the logisitics.
The proposal put forward at the UK assembly was put together by all the major trade unions and a number of NGO's, because they had to have some basic document that could allow them to give the substantial amounts of money to get the event on. It is the same structure as Mumbai and Paris and was worked out by the RMT and the GLA after discussions with the organisers of those events, it has nothing to do with the SWP or GR both of whom can in no way give the sums needed.
This was done in an undemocratic way because since the idea of bringing it to the UK was first mooted, various INDIVIDUALS have got on their hobby horse about not being consulted etc...etc..and have blocked any attempt to move the thing forward meaning we are now in January and still no money or organisation.
Let's be clear if the organising structure wasn't in place by last weekend then there would be no Social Forum AT ALL, all the unions meet in February we now have just over a month to raise significant amounts of cash, and unlike Paris we do not start with 3,500,000 euros from the local councils!
The WSF/ESF is not the PGA, it is a mass event that 1000's come to it needs to be organised and organised responsibly, some of the people attacking it here can't even be bothered to write up minutes from meetings when delegated the task - what does that say for openess and transparency?
The WSF/ESF process is a living one full of contradictions - despite being formally banned politcal parties have been central to all events, be it the Workers party in Brazil, the LCR in France, Rifoundizione Communista in Italy and the Communist Party in India and like any process it is involving new actors all the time, this is a sign of the movements continuing success.
A massively broad range of groups support the ESF UK here already, everyone from Unison to the National Assembly against Racism, the MAB and scores of others, we are no longer in the world of J18 we are now building mass coalitions, the only coalitions that ultimately can change the world.
noel
further clarifications
29.01.2004 15:51
The "anarchists" are not interested in the ESF process. The loose coalition of people trying to open the process belong to diverse organiations ranging from the Communist Party of Britain, Workers Power, Wombles, many environmental organisations, World Develoment Movement, Indymedia, and a long etc. Many of those groups had been working in the development of social fora, so it is only natural they will be involved in any attempt to bring the ESF to the UK. As I repeatedly told you and people from Unison and GLA, the social composition of the "movement" in Britain is very different from France, Italy, India or Brazil. The mass organisations and parties are substituted by a multitude of non-aligned individuals, the same you have just excluded from participating in the organisation of the ESF. Where are the volunteers needed to do doors, info-points, etc going to come from? I hope your student branches can get it sorted before it has to be outsourced to private event companies, like the translation kit. Everyone keeps going on about the need for money, as if we did not agree, completely deflecting the real issues being criticised.
The ESF is not PGA (www.agp.org), and we all agree on that. But is not an issue of opposition, many people involved in PGA have been present at the WSF and ESF, while others have been variedly calling for a boycott or alternative events. There is no unified PGA line regarding the fora. You say that the ESF has to be organised responsibly, as opposed to the PGA. This is silly. The PGA has been organising something different with tiny budgets and any comparison is ridiculous, although on the issue of consensus PGA coulde inform the ESF. It is neither about ESF superceding PGA, nor even about an involution, as many claim. Lets keep a grip. GR was excluded from PGA in the Milano conference because it didnt fit the commitment to local alternatives, diversity and autonomy. The ESF has a much wider remit and there is no basis to exclude anyone who agrees with the principles.
"Individuals" have not been blocking the ESF process. People had blocked the creation of a steering comitee in the traditional closed model. There have been lots of documents proposing alternatives, ammendments... and a lot of swallowing of anger for the sake of getting the ESF to happen. The problem has been the absolute lack of dialogue between the original bidders and the "modernisers", together with the absolute incapacity to run an assembly by consensus. Both these things are not our fault. Many people there have extensive experience in dealing with consensus and conflict resolution, but we have never been allowed to help facilitate. Instead, imposed robot-chairs have made impossible to get anywhere. I worked in the legal documents to try to define what we mean by consensus and working groups in order to help the process, not to derail it. Our work, and that of other working groups set up at the European Assembly, the only body you recognise as legitimate btw, has been ignored. The process has been sabotaged, and you explain this was necessary to get money in time. I disagree. We could have had the structure in place long ago if you were prepared to make any concessions, or even communicate at all.
The mass coalitions you are talking about are a fantasy of the politicos. The chaotic mess of social fora, this Turkish bazaar of political alternatives cannot be reduced to a unified mass. This is not an ideological statement, just a practical observation. I do not want you to agree with me, keep on trying your mass coalition, but you are excluding those of us who just want to make the most of the actual nature of the events to advance co-ordinated diverse networks. Here is where you totally miss the point in why people like me would want to get involved (I am not an "anarchist" by the way) in organising the event, instead of just consuming it. I do not want to control the program, just to maximise the level of interaction among participants. This has been a recurrent complain from previous SF. I do not care about the last final plenary where you will all be fighting to get your words in a statement. I wanted to build the FM translation system with Babel as a tool for grassroots communication, beyond the ESF, not just to save £250,000. The website could go beyond event management and be used before and after the event, co-ordinated with other initiatives (not just Indymedia) through syndication, calendar exchange, etc. I wanted to do extensive facilitation training for the workshops to help our movement find common grounds, so maybe one day you could actually have your coalition without mass indoctrination, and on a solid basis. I am the first one to criticise some people for being stuck on a J18/Seattle past glorious moment, but please do not generalise. Many of us are frying our brains out to find creative ways forward, which include helping organise the ESF.
javier
and a few more...
29.01.2004 16:51
I appreciate your comments, just quickly I'd like to comment on a few things...
Noel, the first article does not point solely at SWP/GR for the pitfalls of the ESFUK process. I agree that it's not simple, but nobody outside those involved really knows what has been happening behind closed doors. This has certainly not helped to dispell people's fears. BTW, I did not write it.
Well the problem is that there isn't much happening!!! One of my points and it is a crucial point - is our inability to work something out left the process last weekend in a position where it really was a case of either this proposal (the Alex Gordon) one is agreed or the event won't happen this has nothing to do with GR or the SWP and everything to do with getting money! - now whatever the problems of how it came about the content I think is unproblematic..which leads me onto....
The "anarchists" are not interested in the ESF process. The loose coalition of people trying to open the process belong to diverse organiations ranging from the Communist Party of Britain, Workers Power, Wombles, many environmental organisations, World Develoment Movement, Indymedia, and a long etc. Many of those groups had been working in the development of social fora, so it is only natural they will be involved in any attempt to bring the ESF to the UK.
And all those groups can be involved in the committee!!! Even the Wombles can get £50 quid together for fucks sake!!! We will ALL out our time in, we all should contribute to the cost it is a political responsibility!
As I repeatedly told you and people from Unison and GLA, the social composition of the "movement" in Britain is very different from France, Italy, India or Brazil. The mass organisations and parties are substituted by a multitude of non-aligned individuals, the same you have just excluded from participating in the organisation of the ESF. Where are the volunteers needed to do doors, info-points, etc going to come from? I hope your student branches can get it sorted before it has to be outsourced to private event companies, like the translation kit. Everyone keeps going on about the need for money, as if we did not agree, completely deflecting the real issues being criticised.
Javier the movement here is much stronger than you say - Stop the War are still having regular meetings in their hundreds in the smallest of places, the point about the ESF is that is bringing in the mass organisation into the movement (although they are already there in lots of ways) and for the first time working together...Unison has over a million members, I'm sure just like the FSU in Paris they will be up for volunteering!!! (I'm not saying here that non-aligned individuals aren't of value of course they are, I just don't think things are quite as polarised as you make out
"Individuals" have not been blocking the ESF process. People had blocked the creation of a steering comitee in the traditional closed model.
The model is one from Mumbai and Paris, it is open for anyone to join subject to paying £50....individuals are free to attend meetings as observers what is the problem?
There have been lots of documents proposing alternatives, ammendments... and a lot of swallowing of anger for the sake of getting the ESF to happen. The problem has been the absolute lack of dialogue between the original bidders and the "modernisers", together with the absolute incapacity to run an assembly by consensus. Both these things are not our fault. Many people there have extensive experience in dealing with consensus and conflict resolution, but we have never been allowed to help facilitate. Instead, imposed robot-chairs have made impossible to get anywhere. I worked in the legal documents to try to define what we mean by consensus and working groups in order to help the process, not to derail it. Our work, and that of other working groups set up at the European Assembly, the only body you recognise as legitimate btw, has been ignored. The process has been sabotaged, and you explain this was necessary to get money in time. I disagree. We could have had the structure in place long ago if you were prepared to make any concessions, or even communicate at all.
I don't agree there are a number of individuals who have been against the process coming here, and have had meetings with the right-wing of the movement around Bernard Cassen etc...who would dearly love the ESF not to come here, yes I agree that yourself and some of the others who have raised objections are serious and have concerns about the process as you know I don't think this is a problem, but actually because we don't have an organising committee (group....call it what you will) the working groups can't do there job, yes they were set up from the Euro assembly, but then so was the committee supposed to be, and so the whole process is arse about face!!!
The mass coalitions you are talking about are a fantasy of the politicos. The chaotic mess of social fora, this Turkish bazaar of political alternatives cannot be reduced to a unified mass. This is not an ideological statement, just a practical observation. I do not want you to agree with me, keep on trying your mass coalition, but you are excluding those of us who just want to make the most of the actual nature of the events to advance co-ordinated diverse networks. Here is where you totally miss the point in why people like me would want to get involved (I am not an "anarchist" by the way) in organising the event, instead of just consuming it. I do not want to control the program, just to maximise the level of interaction among participants. This has been a recurrent complain from previous SF. I do not care about the last final plenary where you will all be fighting to get your words in a statement. I wanted to build the FM translation system with Babel as a tool for grassroots communication, beyond the ESF, not just to save £250,000. The website could go beyond event management and be used before and after the event, co-ordinated with other initiatives (not just Indymedia) through syndication, calendar exchange, etc. I wanted to do extensive facilitation training for the workshops to help our movement find common grounds, so maybe one day you could actually have your coalition without mass indoctrination, and on a solid basis. I am the first one to criticise some people for being stuck on a J18/Seattle past glorious moment, but please do not generalise. Many of us are frying our brains out to find creative ways forward, which include helping organise the ESF.
Javier I agree with a lot of what you say, and again I really don't see how you are excluded, get together with your friends in the SF and get £50 together how difficult can it be????
You may think the coalitions I'm talking about are fantasies but there has been one very succesful coalition that has developed the largest and most vibrant social movements seen in the UK the Stop the War Coalition and there are many other examples too.....
noel
Reply to Noel
29.01.2004 17:30
You're trying to claim that its simply an impression that people are being excluded. But in reality, if people feel excluded, then they *are* excluded. You need to foster an environment of mutual trust and transparency; you need to adopt consensus and horizontal practices during your meetings and for decision making purposes.
Indeed, there is *no way* you will build a mass movement here in Britain. What Britain has is a huge diversity of individuals, some belonging to small groups, and some belonging to a number of parties from a variety of the political-left spectrum - in stark contrast to much of the rest of the movement worldwide. Its time you admit that fact, before you put off the very people you need to make the/our event a success. What we need is an environment where we can all work together, such as during the height of the anti-war movement (despite much of the same taking place within the Stop the War Coalition). We can work together, but you need to realise the culture that you are working with - at present you're steamrolling over it in ignorance and with continued arrogance.
Much of what has yet to happen is crucial to the outcome of this process: the movement worldwide will be watching your every action.
activist
banned or not?
30.01.2004 12:04
genuinely confused
top line!
30.01.2004 14:56
the evil bastards!
;-)