Do you really believe that the antiglobalisation movement´s strength is any way influenced by who is organising the esf. You regard mass-events as much a fetish as the SWP does. There are hundreds of thousands who were not in Paris, so what? No one is attemptimg to stop you from organising horizontally and locally - in order to stop the swp controlling you. The whole lament about wether the SWP takes control over the esf - frankly I don´t care! Better get going organising protests in the street than moaning about the SWP, - besides, you complaing lot probably want to take over leadership yourselves.

"You complaining lot probably want to take over the leadership yourselves.."

The difference, in fact, is that the people who are complaining object to "leadership"; which involves hierarchical structures designed to be able to force the ideas of the few upon the many. The "complaining lot", on the other hand, actually see the process of creation as consensus. That means working within non-hierarchical structures where no-one can force anything; it has to be done with discussion and agreement. This (rather excitingly) actually works, you know.

What the hell is this crap that Britain isn't ready for the ESF, Britain had/has the bigggest antiwar movement in history that has inspired the whole world.

These people are just trying to sabotage the ESF - first they tried to stop it coming to the UK, now they are trying to sour the mood because there tiny groups who have absolutely no impact on any major struggles can't set up some fluffy, woolly event.

Also. . .all of the ESFs have been dominated by certain groups, in France - ATTAC, in Italy, Rifondazione, but the bottom line is any groups or ideologies are free to organise fringe meetings and events. The Forum isn't about just about the big setpiece meetings co-ordinated by the organisers.

On a different note, I've noticed in my own city how anarchists seem to form a block with fluffy middle class environmentalists (who usually vote lib. dem). It's no accident that anarchists find their friends amongst reformists rather than the revolutionaries - there ideology is discredited and should be left to fester in the 19th Century where it belongs.

What irritates me about the people who endlessly complain about the ESF is that they never come up with any alternatives themselves - apart from vague wishes that it is 'non-hierarchical'.

When they objected to Ally Pally being booked as a venue for the event, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This would be a brilliant venue. What was the moaners' alternative? That come November we all stand out on the street freezing our t*ts off?

Some people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that the SWP are involved with. You can criticise people like the SWP if you like, but this party was at the heart of organising the 2 million people who marched against the war last year. They know how to get their arses in gear and do stuff - not just moan from the back of the room and then disrupt things when they don't get their own way like some people who post to Indymedia and make fools of themselves in ESF meetings.

If I'm not mistaken, incredible hulk, Jonathan Neale is a member of the SWP. And guess who the SWP told its members to vote for! Reformist OR WHAT?!

Those trying to control the ESF process are the real reformists: pro-state, pro-government bastards! Working with a career politician who's mates with the prime minister.

Anarchists simply have a more principled position on this, and if we *do* hang out with radical-liberals thats because we share a respect for real democracy and inclusive processes - something that the so-called-left (ie. the government in waiting) has never grasped properly.

Your vacuous slurs show a deep misunderstanding of what the ESF is about.

"What irritates me about the people who endlessly complain about the ESF is that they never come up with any alternatives themselves - apart from vague wishes that it is 'non-hierarchical'.

When they objected to Ally Pally being booked as a venue for the event, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This would be a brilliant venue. What was the moaners' alternative? That come November we all stand out on the street freezing our t*ts off?

Some people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against anything that the SWP are involved with. You can criticise people like the SWP if you like, but this party was at the heart of organising the 2 million people who marched against the war last year. They know how to get their arses in gear and do stuff - not just moan from the back of the room and then disrupt things when they don't get their own way like some people who post to Indymedia and make fools of themselves in ESF meetings.
Stop moaning - let's make the ESF a success! "

You sound just like chris nineham mate. Brain dead intellectually deficient political cretin. Cheerleading his way up the bullshit ladder. You are chris nineham. Long may you suffer the indignity of being a laughing stock.

* Positive vision for ESF2004 in London (The Horizontals)
 http://www.esf2004.net/wakka/HorizontalsDraft

* Positive Website design (IMC Cambridge)
 http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkCambridgeESFCommunicationsProposal

* ESF democratic deficit revealed
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285329.html

* Globalise Resistance - the dead left front - disintegrates
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285233.html

* ESF abuses from the dogmatic left
 http://www.esf2004.net/wakka/EvidenceLog

Why the fuck would we keep coming to your stressful, painful, tortous bloody meetings if we didn't actually care about the ESF and want it to succeed?!?

We HAVE made numerous serious, workable and constructive proposals, but they have been ignored. You then have the cheek to claim we have only come up with vague oppositional stuff.

Reality check please......

Coupla questions..

Article says 'democratic deficit in the ESF' but weren't y'all saying a few days ago that the whole problem was SWP/GR insisting on democracy (majority voting) rather than consensus? Are you for democracy or consensus?

Brazilian guy called for GLA to be excluded. Again, how does it square with greater democracy, openness etc to exclude certain groups?

No kidding, I want to understand.

For those who argue left unity, not quite at all cost, collective memory and experience cannot be put aside in favour of a superficial agreement. The SWP is quite rightly the target of suspicion and even hostility. That is a product not of some fevered sectarian imagination but of objective experience.

The SWP have been at it for years. Traffic light politics at its worst. Start a movement, R&F movement, Right to Work, ANL, GR, STWC. Fire up the engine with the loyal troops. Recruit a periphery. Sell them SW, recruit and then put the movement on ice until it is needed again.

Those who argue leaving the field for the SWP betray a naivety wholly appropriate to anarchists. Turn you back on where the real fight is and organise somewhere else. So Tony runs away leaving the focus of the debate and future action to the SWP. ‘More bullshit’ probably rightly identifies middle class environmentalists and anarchists as natural bedfellows – their ideology is in reality not that far apart – excepting syndicalists. However s/he shows along with ‘stop moaning’ an unprincipled willingness to engage uncritically with the SWP – unless of course they are SWP members.

On the basis that we will build a revolutionary party through splits in current alliances and fusions with others, a dialogue with the SWP is essential, it is the largest left grouping. But tactically we must be aiming to appeal to those in the SWP who see through the sectarianism of the prevailing ideology of the organisation.. SWP comrades should read Duncan Hallas article ‘Building the leadership’ ISJ 1969

 http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1969/xx/building.htm

This article my decision to leave the IS Group in 1977 on the basis of their flawed and ultimately sectarian analysis of the economic circumstances of the times. Cliff’s 1930’s analogy strikes a similar chord.

CPGB have it about right, the deficiency of a programme ultimately enables the SWP to duck key issues. The SWP cannot continue as it is; there are so many contradictions and confusions in their current positions. It is not good enough to walk away or to be uncritical but to engage critically and challenge their traffic light politics.

Ray Somerset

For those who argue left unity, not quite at all cost, collective memory and experience cannot be put aside in favour of a superficial agreement. The SWP is quite rightly the target of suspicion and even hostility. That is a product not of some fevered sectarian imagination but of objective experience.

The SWP have been at it for years. Traffic light politics at its worst. Start a movement, R&F movement, Right to Work, ANL, GR, STWC. Fire up the engine with the loyal troops. Recruit a periphery. Sell them SW, recruit and then put the movement on ice until it is needed again.

Those who argue leaving the field for the SWP betray a naivety wholly appropriate to anarchists. Turn you back on where the real fight is and organise somewhere else. So Tony runs away leaving the focus of the debate and future action to the SWP. ‘More bullshit’ probably rightly identifies middle class environmentalists and anarchists as natural bedfellows – their ideology is in reality not that far apart – excepting syndicalists. However s/he shows along with ‘stop moaning’ an unprincipled willingness to engage uncritically with the SWP – unless of course they are SWP members.

On the basis that we will build a revolutionary party through splits in current alliances and fusions with others, a dialogue with the SWP is essential, it is the largest left grouping. But tactically we must be aiming to appeal to those in the SWP who see through the sectarianism of the prevailing ideology of the organisation.. SWP comrades should read Duncan Hallas article ‘Building the leadership’ ISJ 1969

 http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1969/xx/building.htm

This article my decision to leave the IS Group in 1977 on the basis of their flawed and ultimately sectarian analysis of the economic circumstances of the times. Cliff’s 1930’s analogy strikes a similar chord.

CPGB have it about right, the deficiency of a programme ultimately enables the SWP to duck key issues. The SWP cannot continue as it is; there are so many contradictions and confusions in their current positions. It is not good enough to walk away or to be uncritical but to engage critically and challenge their traffic light politics.

Ray Somerset