Social Forums are springing up across the UK

shame that they hav'nt banned political parties yet...

Banning political parties is what fascists and Stalinists do. Hopefully, the Peoples Assemblies/Social Forums will not emulate this approach and be tolerant and inclusive.

making a fuss about political parties within social forums is a bit of a moot point isn't it?? social forums have been set up, in my opinion, as a response to the situation in which political parties do not represent the people they purport to and furthermore are part of a wider framework of usury and domination. having political parties operating within the forums will inevitably lead to twisted powers relations, domination, marginalisation etc etc, something which i would prefer to avoid, is something which can not possibly be conducive to a progressive social movement, i.e. one that is not based on the power relations that we currently live under. you'll be wanting block votes next...

Only they won't be a open discussion for ways to create a better world if they are dominated by SWP/GR and company.

Left wing political parties reflect different points of view, different trends, within the workers movement the oppressed movement generally. You may not agree with the point of view of this or that party, but you have no right whatesoever to say that they should not be represented within the Peoples Assemblies/Social Forums.

If you did try to ban a left party, you would be no better than the Stalinists/fascists. And as a de facto fascist, there is a case for banning YOU from the Social Forums: i.e. no platform for fascists. If for, example, you were to attempt to exclude a socialist party, I would consider it my duty to organise to physically restrain you from doing so. Hopefully it will not come to this, but I hope you see where the logic of your arguement leads...

its not about banning any particular political party but making social forums a space free from the bullshit that any political party entails. its not the ideology of any particular left party that i reject but the way they organise...i.e. along heirarchies that depend on age/sex/experience/knowledge of russian politics(!) etc. having groups operating within the wider forum can only lead to a situation where independents and part members enter into a social arrangement on an unequal pegging. can we not all enter the social arrangement as individuals, thus minimising the danger of certain parties dominating or co-opting the social forums and thus mimicing the power relations under which we currently reside...

"Banning political parties is what fascists and Stalinists do. Hopefully, the Peoples Assemblies/Social Forums will not emulate this approach and be tolerant and inclusive."

Is anybody in? Peoples Assemblies/Social Forums do not have the power to ban political parties, except from their own gatherings. Fascists and stalinists can only ban parties when they have the power to do so. Recently the UK government has been exercising that very power.

Anyway, on current form, unless explicitly excluded these social forums will be quickly overun by sad hacks from pp's trotting out the same tired and stale old formulas like 'uniting with the working class' and 'working within the trade union movement'. The 'ordinary people' who they seek to enlist to their cause will as usual quickly pick up the scent and do one, pronto

This question of political parties and social fora has been troubling a lot of us in the social forum movement for a while now. Personally, I would love social forums not to have political parties present, especially the SWP who are ideologically opposed to social forums as (a) they don't quite understand how they fit into their particular Marxist framework and (b) they will be unable to control them. They have already spent considerable energy trying to convince every meeting of the ESF, of stop the war coalitions and even social forum brainstorming sessions that 'we don't need' social forums, that we are not ready for them and that they only work when the G-8 or the IMF come to town. They oppose the creation of local social forums, but then when they spring up, they manage to get on committees, presumably to make the thing a big success...?

By the way, I'm not having a rant against the SWP here: this is their very clear political line at the moment, and quite frankly its good news, because the more they rubbish social forums, the more they will happen.

However, I don't think it is possible nor desirable to exclude 'political parties'. Let them participate as there is a fairly easy solution to ensuring that social fora remain open, democratic, non-hierarchical spaces for political dialogue, strategy-formation and alternative proposals for local issues: draw up a list of principles that participants in a social forum must abide by and include things as - non-domination, non-hierarchical, openness, mutual respect, no paper-selling and recruitment etc etc

Once these principles are enshrined in the forum, the moment that parties try and dominate, steer, recruit, spoil etc etc, you will be able to exlude them.

I for one will not be allowing one of the most exciting ways of reinventing democracy and political activism from being hijacked and destroyed by the Leninist-left who are convinced that 'their' way is the only way and will jump on anything outside of the model. Nor will I or anyone I know keen on the social forum experiment to have such things turned into just 'mobilising' instruments for big protests. We should be a lot more ambitious than that.

If the SWP feel that we are not ready for social forums it is their duty as a party not to attend. How ever if party members want to attend and are able to move on from party dogma and interact as reasonable individuals then all are welcome to express free thought and opinion. Social forums i hope will not be another means for hierachical parties and egotistical individuals with dubious intentions to dominate the left, we already have paper sales and aggressive recruitment tactics to do that!

Its good to see people defending the right of parties to take part in social forums. How undemocratic to exclude them. On that note, it is censorship to say that no one can sell a paper at a social forum. Why not - that's also undemocratic. Revolutionary Socialists are not afraid of democracy - why are the Anarchists, who always try to exclude the Socialists under the guise of excluding "political parties"?

Why should people only participate as "individuals"? People are members of organisations and do identify with them. Organisations sending delegates to Social Forums, and affiliating to them, would be an excellent thing. How else could we involved tenant's organisatoins, union branches, refugee campaigns etc. and really sink down local roots? these organisations are going to turn up as more than "individuals", hopefully!

And the movement will be a lot more powerful if it develops to represent real organisations that delegate their members going to make real decisions. That wouldn't mean individuals wouldn't have a voice - they could get involved in their local groups, and attend regular "mass assemblies". But if the Social Forum movement is going to develop into a strong one that organises real action with clout, and fills the "democratic deficit" with a real daily alternative to parliamentary politics, it will need to develop in its size and so its structure - at some point it will be hopefully big enough that we will need delegate structures, for instance, at least at the city-wide level.

Last thing, "Parties" have been involved in not just building social forums but leading the way. (or party-type organisations, since i wouldn't call the SWP a party when its only got a couple of thousand members, same goes for the rest of the left organisations in Britain). Workers Power has been at the forefront of building the Social Forum movement. We are part of Globalise Resistance and as early as last May called for GR to initiate genunine, action-oriented SFs in the run up to the Florence ESF - the SWP torpodoed it. Workers Power led the fight to call for the People's assembly in London last march to organise local assemblies - it got 40% of the vote, and would have been passed if the SWP and CPB had not joined up to block it.

WP supporters have set in motion meetings to organise real, meaningful SF's (or local People's Assemblies) in Cardiff, Manchester and Sheffield - and in Leeds, overriding the SWP's opposition, as others have noted.

How can the SWP take it over? This is just paranoia - or a cynical attempt by other "forces" to control the Social Forum movement by blocking the SWP and other revolutionary socialist organisations from participating or playing any role. The SWP could only take over the SF movement if we fail to build it beyond the small circle of activists and groups that presently exist in every town and city.

We missed a real, even historic, window of opportunity in March at the National People's Assembly. It's not too late to start organising now to regroup the thousands of people in Leeds who are anti-war, anti-racist, and pro-welfare services. If we do so, we will be in prime position to meet the next wave of rising protest, whatever issue it is based on. Lastly, building the Social Forum movement is our best bet to providing an alternative to the BNP at the moment.

Andy
Leeds Workers Power
www.workerspower.com

This argument seems to be all about The revillusionary Left upset about the fact that non-alligned 'anarchist' activists want to keep things that way.

It's not that SWP or any other such party might take it over, they can't but, when u have new social forums with the potential to attract diversity and depth to the political community then the last thing u need is ideological throwbacks from 1917 to start putting people off. Those who are new to political activism and those who haven't even got involved yet, will give up after a short while once they see such organisations primarily there to sell papers and recruit.

I can't be bothered about being anywhere where the Soccy Wokky Party are. They don't seem to realise that as an organisation full of people from a middle class background, they're wasting their time thinking they can win over the majority of working people. In Sheffield the swp have been a problem unrivalled by other trot outfits simply because they've had the biggest membership and therefor been the most dominant force in a one-party movement but not anymore now that there's a social forum.

Maybe the banning of paper sales at forum meetings would be a compromise, by all means give em away for free but then do trotskyists believe in compromise?

Hi all

I would be interested to know what Andy and others think a social forum is for?

- a campaign mobilising forum?
- a monthly conference?
- a space for dialogue between groups and individuals?
- an alternative form of democracy?

If we could flesh out what we think a social forum is and should be, we can sort
out the issue of parties, papers, etc

E.g. a monthly conference is very different to an laternative form of democracy, and how would excluding certain things following discussion, consensus and a vote be undemocratic?

And it isn't paranoia about the SWP attempting to hijack things etc..it happens every time, as you well know, which is why Workers Powers have split from the Socialist Alliance.

This is why people want to start social forums, to get away from all this crap.
This requires consensual rules and mutual respect.
Stu