The atmosphere was ticklish and tricky and it seemed difficult to find
a constructive energy in the room to get things moving forward.

There was much criticism on procedure and the final principles
governing the project were hammered out in a post-meeting encounter between the
cartels in presence: the mayor of London, the Trotskysts and the unions
(who may well be one and the same, it's impossible for an outsider to
know), and a few of the self appointedly central European groups.

I know that the French representatives of No-Vox, of which I was one,
were happy neither with the content of the results nor with the
procedure for reaching them. We think it is useless to call a "European Social
and Economic Forum" an event that will not put at the centre of its
preoccupations the voices and proposals of the excluded and their
organisations. We do not believe that the ESF should be either a leftist
Disneyland or a showcase for Ken Livingstone and his ilk, another platform
for their endless appetite for publicity and re-election.

That's why there was debate about the proposal to call in the stars to
attract media attention. Not because Nelson Mandela has probably had
more flowers and awards than he needs, were he to live a hundred more
lives; not because he has become a consensual father figure for those who
don't like the more brutal and thuggish varieties of capitalism. But
because the aim of the ESF is to bring together those who don't get the
awards and the media spotlight, those who urgently need to explore and
communicate and exchange about new ways of organizing anti-capitalist
resistance, those who are seriously interested in creating another world.
Those are the ones who need the ESF, who should be at the heart of its
design and organization, and whom it is important to mobilise.

It is true that the ESF and world forums always, by the force of
things, leave a large place for the more institutional forms of struggle and
organization. But in every case up to now a process of dialogue has
been found that allows the diversity of organisations and experiences, the
infinite number of "minority groups and practices" to appear, express
themselves and be visible.

What is different about the UK experience is that, for the first time,
it seems there is a chance that this might not be possible. The
proposed admission price is a symptom of this acceptance of exclusion.
Confronted with a proposed motion that would have written the insistance that
these people not be excluded by the organising group, Sunday morning's
facilitator remarked that in any case these people were not a priority
for the UK ESF.

More generally, my concern is with what I saw of a method of direction.
The method I witnessed during these sessions uses procedure to cut
short debate on content, in fact has no patience for debate, and does not
accept that, in order to reach consensus, taking time and finding
appropriate and innovative forms of discussion to resolve problems is of the
utmost importance. The people in charge of the discussions, at least in
the plenaries, seemed to have all been formed at the same Trotskyite or
neo-Trotskyite mould. You push things forward by asking for "consensus"
or "no consensus". You use the argument of efficiency and time
constraints to reduce the possibility of discussion. You are less concerned
with creating a true unity than with placing your pawns in all the right
corners.

I find this technique of direction disturbing for several reasons. One,
it is very old fashioned. It is the essence of the ways bureacrats and
power mongers have manipulated dissent and revolt since the beginnings
of the trade union movement. Two, it is very "masculine", not only in
the sense of being dominated by males, but in the sense of expressing a
culture of assertiveness, aggressiveness, domination much more
powerfully than a culture of inclusiveness, nurturing and collective advance.
Third, it is the procedural culture of just the very people we are
trying to fight. This weekend, I had no doubt where Tony Blair came from. If
you want to learn to ride roughshod over popular will, parliament and
party and still be electable as Prime Minister after the next elections,
use the techniques that were in evidence in the basement of the London
City Hall. No better school exists.

Moral of the story? I would strongly suggest that the people in charge
of the London ESF pause to do a little self examination and self
criticism. Certainly not their strong points, I have no doubt. But they may
yet decide that it is possible, indeed desirable that they change their
methods of direction. They may even conclude that they have something
to learn about the "other world" we wish to build. It will certainly not
be built with their present techniques.

I suggest they accept as an addition to the principles of the London
ESF the phrase that we wished to put forward Sunday morning and which
said, in essence:

"The London ESF and its organising committee will make every financial
and organisational effort to ensure a maximum participation of those
who are the most vicitimized and excluded by neo-liberal society,
including Europe's illegal migrants, homeless, poor and unemployed."

And finally, I suggest that those who call themselves the "British
left" think seriously about their political culture, where it comes from,
and what conception of power it really expresses. In order to get beyond
the sterile sniping at the government which was visible in most of the
literature on hand, something of a cultural revolution will have to
come about, which involves learning lessons from all the women's groups,
migrants' groups, grass roots organisations of all kinds who on micro
levels are trying to find alternative ways of moving forward.