Alternative Social Forum in Caracas: voices from the left
Alternative Social Forum | 06.02.2006 23:17 | Analysis | Free Spaces | Social Struggles
* In Caracas, Venezuela between the 23rd and 29th of January 2006, 10 local socio-political organizations offered an alternative forum and critique of national politics in response to the World Social Forum. The result was a smaller-scale event but self-directed and reflective of current self-organizing capacity. The alternative forum was independent, self-managed and borne out of years of experience of organizing in the Venezuelan context.
The Foro Social Alternativo (Alternative Social Forum – ASF) confronted the progressive institutionalization of the World Social Forum that has spelled its degeneration over half a decade of development. This bureaucratization of the WSF is contrary to its genesis and original principles, which spoke of a convergence of diverse and contradictory movements, a “movement of movements”. At its current stage, the WSF is serving to catapult and legitimize a series of leaders, governments, institutions, NGOs and leftist political parties with relatively large economic power and resources; this has the effect of furthering these interests and marginalizing more radical and “minority” movements. One of the priorities of the Alternative Social Forum was to generate an autonomous space to develop and interrelate various local movements, whose diverse subjectivities offer alternative visions to the imposed discourse and Manichaeism that has characterized Venezuela in recent years.
The ASF took place in three venues in the city of Caracas: the Universidad Central de Venezuela - UCV, the Colegio de Ingenieros and the Organizacion Nelson Garrido - ONG, and involved three types of activities: conferences, practical workshops and an independent film series. Activities were diverse and kaleidoscopic. The conferences involved a diversity of international speakers who shared their experiences and visions. Among these speakers was John Holloway who directed a talk on “Changing the World Without Taking Power” to an enthusiastic audience whose subsequent debate lasted over 4 hours. Other talks included: Daniel Barret (Uruguay) on “Horizons of Change in Latin America”, Ezequiel Adamovsky (Argentina) on “New Social Movements and Anti-Capitalism in the 21st Century”, Frank Fernandez (Cuba) on “Anarquism in Cuba”, Christian Guerrero (USA) on “Radical Ecology in the USA”, Javier Garate (Chile) and Andreas Speck (UK) on “The Relationship Between the Arms Race and Transnational Corporations”, Radical Critique (Brazil) on “Leftist Politics in Latin America”, Ricardo Garcia (Mexico) on “Autonomy and Magonismo in Mexico”, Rob Block (USA) on “The Anti-Prison Movement in the USA” and Kristina Dunaeva (Russia) on“The Chechnyan War and Anti-Militarism in Russia”.
The local contribution was no less impressive, opening events included a conference with Domingo Alberto Rangel on “Islamic Fundamentalism and Globalization”. Humberto Decarli conducted a discussion on “Militarism and Social Change in Venezuela”. Maria Pilar Garcia and the Amigransa collective hosted an eclectic day-long panel discussion on current ecological and indigenous struggles in Venezuela and the world. The Anarchist Black Cross of Venezuela organized a forum on prisons in the country. Others included: Francisco Prada on “External Invasion and the Integrationist Response”, Ricardo Benaim on “Xenophobia and Anti-semitism”, Lenin Ovalles on “Urban Culture” and Alfredo Vallota on “Foundations of Socialism in the 21st Century”. Participants lamented the absence of Douglas Bravo, whose dialogue on “Proposals for Today and the Future” had to be suspended due to family tragedy.
º Workshops for Activists
The workshops of the ASF shared a variety of tools for change among social movements and were realized by volunteer efforts by a variety of organizations. A two-day long “Introduction to Videoactivism” workshop was repeated on demand of enthusiasts; it was facilitated by Sonya Angelica Diehn and co-funded by Indymedia Arizona and Pan Left Productions (USA). This workshop developed basic knowledge and skills needed to actualize an independent audiovisual project. Carlos Nieto & the Venezuelan Anarchist Black Cross facilitated a workshop on “Human Rights in Times of Crisis”, elaborating judicial and legal strategies for defending Human Rights. Fabian Unlogistic, of the French band Unlogistic gave a workshop on “Basic Sound-Tech” teaching amplifying/ recording art and skill for musicians. Two other workshops were given by the International War Resisters, one of the oldest anti-militarism groups in the world. The first of these was on “Non-Violent Direct Action” and taught practical skills related to civil-disobedience as well as steps necessary to organizing actions and mounting campaigns. The second was on “Conscientious Objection and Anti-Militarism”.
All week long, the film series held showings in the university (UCV) and every night as of 7 pm in the Organizacion Nelson Garrido, where films were projected simultaneously in two different rooms. Among the many films presented, coming from over 8 different countries, the one to provoke the most commentary and enthusiasm was “Nuestro Petroleo y Otros Cuentos” [Our Petroleum and Other Stories], a film that has been censured by the Venezuelan government. It was shown at three different times to enthusiastic audiences in rooms at top capacity.
º Weaving Connections, Constructing Autonomy
The Organizacion Nelson Garrido was effectively converted into an epicenter of dissidence and counterculture all week long. Initial planning provided for breakfast and lunch to be served to over 60 people per day; water had to be added to the soup! in order to feed the crowds numbering over 100 who arrived at the ASF disenchanted with the official WSF and seeking a few hours of refuge from the discrimination and militarization of the official event. The menu provided both meat and vegetarian meals, coffee from peasant cooperatives from Portuguesa and cookies bought from small family businesses. Many groups held planned and spontaneous meetings at the ONG during the week, such as the Peoples Global Action Assembly and the International Anarchist Encounter that involved over 60 activists from 18 countries who designed the “Declaracion Libertaria de Caracas” or Caracas Libertarian Declaration.
Over the course of the 7 days, the ONG was also host to an independent material/media fair that sold books, publications, zines, T-shirts and music, resulting in 2 million Bolivares (800$ USD) in sales that financed and supported the self-managed nature of the event. The autonomous and independent nature of the ASF was also made possible by countless volunteer contributions such as the donation of publications for sale by the Fundacion Era Ecologica, Federacion Libertaria Argentina (FLA), and Colectivo Autonomo Magonista (Mexico) as well as the donation of T-shirts and video-projector by Brennan Wauters (Canada). Earth First! (USA) donated a percentage of vending sales. The Federación Anarquista Iberica (FAI), the anarcopunk band Los Dolares (Venezuelans in Catalonia) and the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair/Salon de livres anarchiste de Montreal, among others, organized activities in their respective countries to help fund the event. Added to the 4 months of fundraising previous to the event, these actions covered the organizing expense of over 7 million Bolivares (a little over 3000$ USD). Almost a third of these expenses went to the printing costs of the publication “Alterforo”. Over 10 000 copies of this FSA program and magazine were distributed, having an impact that surpassed the most optimistic expectations.
Funds also supported a mobilization organized by indigenous and environmental groups of the state of Zulia in the west of Venezuela. This march against the exploitation of coal and for indigeneous autonomy in Zulia was held on Friday Jan. 27th, despite the aggression and disturbances caused by Chavista [pro-government] groups. This counter-agitation was due to the fact that the march was denouncing not just the activities of the government coal company Carbozulia, but the entire government development policy regarding mining. This unsustainable development policy involves the oppression and dislocation of many indigenous peoples and is congruent with the planned IIRSA [Iniciativa para la Integración de la Infraestructura Regional Suramericana, a Latin American free-trade-treaty not unlike the FTAA]. These Chavista counter-actions were not the only instance of government intimidations against the Alternative Social Forum; political-police vehicles were circling the ONG all week long.
The objective of creating a week-long space fermenting dissidence against the Venezuelan government, the state-centric left, traditional political parties and Capital was achieved with success beyond expectation. The goal of spreading a multiplicity of political visions and strategies was achieved without the logistical support of the Venezuelan army and without any promotion or funding weighted with bureaucracy. The second objective, reconstructing a grassroots network of autonomous social movements, inspiring new ways of doing politics and building a transformational movement, is a project that transcends the time-span of a week. For this reason, each one of the organizations that convened at the ASF is driving forward with diverse programs at a variety of levels. The recovery of various movement agendas is critical: ecologists, students, neighborhood organizations, feminists, indigenous peoples’ movements, youth, citizens and campesin@s form an emancipatory challenge to our stagnant political system characterized by redundant electoral cycles and agendas imposed from above.
More information (in spanish & english) at www.fsa.contrapoder.org.ve and www.nodo50.org/ellibertario
ASF Media Team // Caracas, February 2, 2006
trsln: erica
Alternative Social Forum
e-mail:
forosocialalternativo@gmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.fsa.contrapoder.org.ve
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
How not to support the Venezuelan people's revolution
07.02.2006 01:30
When anarchism becomes a middle class lifestyle rebellion against 'authority' it really loses the plot.
.
the revolutionary state?
07.02.2006 06:35
Like any state, the venezuelan one will try to cement it's functions, and consolidate its power by converting popular grassroote energy into 'national' sentiments etc. The state can regiment and discipline the workforce every bit as much as private capitalists.
Don't get me wrong, there is much positive happening in Venezuela, but to credit this to Chavez and the State, and further elevate them from criticism is to repeat the mistake many made (and still make) in crediting the Bolsheviks and not the autonomous Russian people as *the* revolutionary force in 1917.
This isn't even an especially anarchist position: Marx stressed class struggle as the motor of capitalist development, recognising that power structures *respond* to pressures from below, rather than doling out gifts. Many Marxists ignored the autonomous side of the dialectic, since it negates arguments for vanguard parties and state participation etc.
Support the Venezuelan people, *all* power to them!
(A)
A critique of the WSF and Chavez is essential.
07.02.2006 07:32
The Counter WSF seems like it was well organised with a far-reaching program, requiring a bit more effort than merely biting from the sidelines. Whilst Chavez might appear to be a radical, it is only just that - an appearance. Compared to Bush and Cheney, he might seem like an authentic radical, but lets not forget that many on the UK left supported Gadaffi when he came to power in Libya! Supporting the Venezuelan revolution takes more than uncritically supporting Chavez, it means supporting the general population in their drive for liberation! No leader can give this power, this liberation, as it most certainly spells a death sentance for their own leadership. Chavez is a military man, remember that, whilst he might not be all bad, he's not all good either. Ask the Zapatistas what they think of Chavez, of Castro, of even - Morales. It is no mere incident that the Zapatistas turned down an invite to Evo Morales' presidential inauguration. Power must be decentralised, and come from below, not above. The emerging leftist power bloc in southern america is interesting, but lets not dumb ourselves down, keep sharp.
Authoritarian leftists of all nations, in every "revolution", clamped down hard against militant unionists, anarchists, homosexuals, hell, anyone who they felt pushed autonomy to far. They were "shot down like partridges" in many places. The flag waving for Cuba by UK leftists is a case in point - They completely ignore the discrimination against anarchists and syndicalists in this country, only recently were Cuban anarchists allowed to celebrate openly the anniversary of the Spanish revolution in public.
Chavez talks big about the environment, and protecting 'resources' - well just do some research into the multi-million dollar pipeline he's laying across the amazon rainforest, a pipeline that Greenpeace describes as 'massacre'. Ask the indigenious people what they think of it...
No Bush, No Chavez
e-mail:
don'tstopaskingquestions@irritatinganarchists.com
THERE IS A REVOLUTION IN VENEZUALA THAT WE MUST SUPPORT
07.02.2006 22:25
As someone who has taken part in 'alternative' events at the wsf, esf and elsewhere I sometimes despair at the 'anti-authoritarian' left's refusal to support the inspiring, diverse, real reclamation of their lives of their lives by oppressed peoples unless they fit some sort of lifestyle based prejudices about what revolution looks like. Thankfully most people I know involved in anti-capitalism get that the Venezuelan revolution is a Good Thing that we should support, not attack.
.
Living It
09.02.2006 08:34
* a "revolutionary state" is not a contradiction in terms. It's just not the revolution you read about in your text books.
* "Like any state, the venezuelan one will try to cement it's functions, and consolidate its power" - you do not know this. There are good people in this world who enter politics as much as the psyops would have you believe otherwise.
* "blah blah blah is to repeat the mistake many made (and still make) in crediting the Bolsheviks and not the autonomous Russian people as *the* revolutionary force in 1917" - how on earth is this relevant at all to chavez and venezuala? it isn't! no-one is alleviating them from criticism - but people are congratulating them on their good deeds. Especially their work aimed at slowing US Imperialism. This seems like the biggest task before us.
* "Compared to Bush and Cheney, he might seem like an authentic radical, but lets not forget that many on the UK left supported Gadaffi when he came to power in Libya!" - so you didn't like the work of Gadaffi therefore Chavez must be a baddy? Get real!
* "Authoritarian leftists of all nations, in every "revolution", clamped down hard against militant unionists, anarchists, homosexuals" - this is simply not true.
It is important to note that it doesn't really matter what political system we live under as long as we are free to express ourselves as we see fit, as long as we can protect ourselves and are free to earn a living some how.
More importantly, imperialism must be opposed in every way. The biggest imperial of now is US and the biggest imperial of the past few hundred years is of the UK. With that in mind it is essential to support Morales who is freeing up coca, and to support Chavez who is nationalising energy resources.
As long as liberation is matched with personal responsibility, I can't see it mattering 2 hoots if we live in an anarchist society, a monarchy, a representative democracy, a randomocracy or any other system. As long as we have freedom, and no-one tells us what to do, what does it matter? Why would you impose your system on someone else? No system of government/decision-making is going to be perfect for all the people all the time.
Real Life Anarchy
Reply to Real Life Anarchy
09.02.2006 12:02
"More importantly, imperialism must be opposed in every way. The biggest imperial of now is US and the biggest imperial of the past few hundred years is of the UK. With that in mind it is essential to support Morales who is freeing up coca, and to support Chavez who is nationalising energy resources."
Firstly, I don't agree that imperialism "must be opposed in every way". There are many instances of supposed liberation movements "opposing" imperialism in ways that were exceptionally authoritarian and not to be repeated. One example is the attitude of the Sandinistas (who were certainly progressive in many ways) and their attitude towards indigenous peoples in Nicaragua which was pretty shocking. The example given in the original text about Chavez's alleged prioritising of mining above indigenous rights in Zulia may be worth investigating in this light as indeed may the environmental and union issues relating to the mine in question (not to mention the apparent lack of consultation from a President apparently so concerned with the people).
Secondly, don't get too excited about Morales. His role in the uprisings last year does not appear as clear cut as many suggest and his recent cabinet appointments leave questions open (
"As long as liberation is matched with personal responsibility, I can't see it mattering 2 hoots if we live in an anarchist society, a monarchy, a representative democracy, a randomocracy or any other system. As long as we have freedom, and no-one tells us what to do, what does it matter? Why would you impose your system on someone else? No system of government/decision-making is going to be perfect for all the people all the time."
If you're arguing that the form of political system doesn't matter as long "as we have freedom" then surely you have a duty to examine which system is most likely to result in this???
Moreover, if you're keen on ensuring that no-one imposes their system on anyone else, I am presuming that you'd be happy for Chavez not to develop mines in Zulia? Or what about the example of the pipeline that "No Bush, No Chavez" asked you about? Even if you support Chavez surely it is best (if only in the interests of honesty) to be open about your opposition to these elements, or does your vision of politics involve keeping your thoughts to themself if they are in any way critical of Chavez (perhaps because otherwise we'd be "objectively helping the right" and all the rest of the leftist Manichean black-white with-us-or-against-us Bush type thinking)?
Leam
Reply To Leam
09.02.2006 14:48
Leam quotes me and writes - "No system of government/decision-making is going to be perfect for all the people all the time."
Leam ponders - "If you're arguing that the form of political system doesn't matter as long "as we have freedom" then surely you have a duty to examine which system is most likely to result in this???"
Absolutely! And I agree Social (as opposed to Lifestyle) Anarchy is the most likely candidate for bringing the maximum amount of Freedom to the maximum number of people. But we've seen time and again that Stateless Anarchy is very easily abused by its proponents and also its detractors. I'm not interested in standing under, or fighting for a banner be it "Queen and Country", "Patriotism", "The Left", "Gods Country" and also "Anarchy". All these terms become flag of honour for their advocates and there is an apparent tendency to forget what the flag represents.
IOW, I strive for the freedom Anarchy represents, not the "Anarchy" flag.
"Moreover, if you're keen on ensuring that no-one imposes their system on anyone else, I am presuming that you'd be happy for Chavez not to develop mines in Zulia?
Absolutely!
"Or what about the example of the pipeline that "No Bush, No Chavez" asked you about? "
Very important that awareness is raised about this. But I feel pretty desperate that neocon rule is almost complete and will be taking us into the next dark ages so I feel opposing US consolidation of global power to be a *much bigger* issue.
"does your vision of politics involve keeping your thoughts to themself if they are in any way critical of Chavez (perhaps because otherwise we'd be "objectively helping the right")
and all the rest of the leftist Manichean black-white with-us-or-against-us Bush type thinking)?"
I'm afraid to say there is a big element of this in my life at the moment. Well, not exactly - I see every effort to stop US imperialism as being absolutely essential. I worry sick that what these PNAC/Bush/US people are doing across the globe is absolutely horrendous and I am congratulating Chavez on his ability to stand up to it. Without these small number of leftists opposing US dominance, then world supremacy will be theirs. By spending time detracting from Chavez instead of Rumsfeld, Rumseld is out there building up his power, and that's a much bigger issue I believe.
The other issue I would like addressed is that I don't feel Anarchists will ever be organised enough to really oppose US or other moves at global domination. Anarchists are far too easily infiltrated, discouraged, blacklisted, identified and discredited.
Real Life
Leftism - the cure is worse than the disease
10.02.2006 09:32
destroy capitalism
Wit
10.02.2006 16:46
Great argument, superb wit, "Destroy Capitalism" is an intellectual giant willing to engage with hir political opponents in any context.
Real Life
Who is mind-controlled?
10.02.2006 17:53
London
hidden comments
11.02.2006 09:44
If a comment such as "destroy capitalism" adds no points about the current thread, has no editorial value and does not engage in argument about the issue. Shouldn't it be hidden? The net effect of comments like that is to stifle debate.
Now do people want to engage in debate? Or throw around personal attacks?
Real Life