"Manufacturing Dissent": Anti-globalization Movement Funded by Corporate Elite

"Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as "making the World safe for capitalism", reducing social tensions by helping
to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government (McGeorge Bundy, National
Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))

"By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the
ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, ... and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation
components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions" (Paul
Kivel, You call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )

"Under the New World Order, the ritual of inviting "civil society" leaders into the inner circles of power --while simultaneously
repressing the rank and file-- serves several important functions. First, it says to the World that the critics of globalization "must
make concessions" to earn the right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global elites should --under what is
euphemistically called democracy-- be subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it says "there is no
alternative" to globalization: fundamental change is not possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an
ineffective "give and take".

While the "Globalizers" may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not
challenged. And what this "civil society mingling" does is to reinforce the clutch of the corporate establishment while weakening and
dividing the protest movement. An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens of thousands of the most
principled young people in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City [1999-2001] are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they
reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so
that a few may get richer.

This rank and file and some of their leaders as well, are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the right
of the "Globalizers" to rule. This requires that we rethink the strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass
movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they
are the force that must be mobilized to challenge those who plunder the Globe." (Michel Chossudovsky, The Quebec Wall [1] , April
2001)

The term "manufacturing consent" was initially coined by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.

"Manufacturing consent" describes a propaganda model used by the corporate media to sway public opinion and "inculcate individuals with
values and beliefs...":

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain,
and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional
structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires
systematic propaganda. (Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky [2] )

"Manufacturing consent" implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social
hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. "Manufacturing consent" describes the submission of public opinion to the
mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.

"Manufacturing dissent"

In this article, we focus on a related concept, namely the process of "manufacturing dissent" (rather than "consent"), which plays a
decisive role in serving the interests of the ruling class.

Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail. It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and
protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent,
but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.

To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the
development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism. In other words,
"manufacturing dissent" acts as a "safety valve", which protects and sustains the New World Order.

To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of
the protest movement.

"Funding Dissent"

How is the process of manufacturing dissent achieved?

Essentially by "funding dissent", namely by channelling financial resources from those who are the object of the protest movement to those
who are involved in organizing the protest movement.

Co-optation is not limited to buying the favors of politicians. The economic elites --which control major foundations-- also oversee the
funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the
established economic and social order. The programs of many NGOs and people's movements rely heavily on both public as well as private
funding agencies including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.

The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and
charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil)
with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.

The mechanisms of "manufacturing dissent" require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals
within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.

Whereas the mainstream media "manufactures consent", the complex network of NGOs (including segments of the alternative media) are used by
the corporate elites to mould and manipulate the protest movement.

Following the deregulation of the global financial system in the 1990s and the rapid enrichment of the financial establishment, funding
through foundations and charities has skyrocketed. In a bitter irony, part of the fraudulent financial gains on Wall Street in recent years
have been recycled to the elites' tax exempt foundations and charities. These windfall financial gains have not only been used to buy out
politicians, they have also been channelled to NGOs, research institutes, community centres, church groups, environmentalists, alternative
media, human rights groups, etc. "Manufactured dissent" also applies to "corporate left" and "progressive media" funded by NGOs or directly
by the foundations.

The inner objective is to "manufacture dissent" and establish the boundaries of a "politically correct" opposition. In turn, many NGOs are
infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the
progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.

Piecemeal Activism

The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people's movement into a vast "do it yourself" mosaic. War and globalization
are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war
movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate "issue oriented" protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women's
rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in
the counter G7 summits and People's Summits of the 1990s.

The Anti-Globalization Movement

The Seattle 1999 counter-summit is invariably upheld as a triumph for the anti-globalization movement: "a historic coalition of activists
shut down the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, the spark that ignited a global anti-corporate movement." (See Naomi Klein,
Copenhagen: Seattle Grows Up, The Nation [3] , November 13, 2009).

Seattle was an indeed an important crossroads in the history of the mass movement. Over 50,000 people from diverse backgrounds, civil
society organizations, human rights, labor unions, environmentalists had come together in a common pursuit. Their goal was to forecefully
dismantle the neoliberal agenda including its institutional base.

But Seattle also marked a major reversal. With mounting dissent from all sectors of society, the official WTO Summit desperately needed the
token participation of civil society leaders "on the inside", to give the appearance of being "democratic."

While thousands of people had converged on Seattle, what occurred behind the scenes was a de facto victory for neoliberalism. A handful of
civil society organizations, formally opposed the WTO had contributed to legitimizing the WTO's global trading architecture. Instead of
challenging the WTO as an an illegal intergovernmental body, they agreed to a pre-summit dialogue with the WTO and Western governments.
"Accredited NGO participants were invited to mingle in a friendly environment with ambassadors, trade ministers and Wall Street tycoons at
several of the official events including the numerous cocktail parties and receptions." (Michel Chossudovsky, Seattle and Beyond: Disarming
the New World Order , Covert Action Quarterly, November 1999, See Ten Years Ago: "Manufacturing Dissent" in Seattle [4] ).

The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not
directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.

Funded by private foundations (including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Charles Stewart Mott, The Foundation for Deep Ecology),
these "accredited" civil society organizations had positioned themselves as lobby groups, acting formally on behalf of the people's
movement. Led by prominent and committed activists, their hands were tied. They ultimately contributed (unwittingly) to weakening the
anti-globalization movement by accepting the legitimacy of what was essentially an illegal organization. (The 1994 Marrakech Summit
agreement which led to the creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995). (Ibid)

The NGO leaders were fully aware as to where the money was coming from. Yet within the US and European NGO community, the foundations and
charities are considered to be independent philanthropic bodies, separate from the corporations; namely the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation,
for instance, is considered to be separate and distinct from the Rockefeller family empire of banks and oil companies.

With salaries and operating expenses depending on private foundations, it became an accepted routine: In a twisted logic, the battle against
corporate capitalism was to be be fought using the funds from the tax exempt foundations owned by corporate capitalism.

The NGOs were caught in a straightjacket, their very existence depended on the foundations. Their activities were closely monitored. In a
twisted logic, the very nature of anti-capitalist activism was indirectly controlled by the capitalists through their independent
foundations.

"Progressive Watchdogs"

In this evolving saga, the corporate elites whose interests are duly served by the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, will readily fund
(through their various foundations and charities) organizations which are at the forefront of the protest movement against the WTO and the
Washington based financial institutions.

Supported by foundation money, various "watchdogs" were set up by the NGOs to monitor the implementation of neoliberal policies, without
however raising the broader issue of how the Bretton Woods twins and the WTO, through their policies, had contributed to the impoverishment
of millions of people.

The Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Network (SAPRIN) was established by Development Gap, a USAID and World Bank funded NGO based
in Washington DC.

Amply documented, the imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) on developing countries constitutes a blatant
form of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states on behalf of creditor institutions.

Instead of challenging the legitimacy of the IMF-World Bank's "deadly economic medicine", SAPRIN's core organization sought to establish a
participatory role for NGOs, working hand in glove with USAID and the World Bank. The objective was to give a "human face" to the neoliberal
policy agenda, rather than reject the IMF-World Bank policy framework outright:

"SAPRIN is the global civil-society network that took its name from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI),
which it launched with the World Bank and its president, Jim Wolfensohn, in 1997.

SAPRI is designed as a tripartite exercise to bring together organizations of civil society, their governments and the World Bank in a
joint review of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and an exploration of new policy options. It is legitimizing an active role for
civil society in economic decision-making, as it is designed to indicate areas in which changes in economic policies and in the
economic-policymaking process are required. (  http://www.saprin.org/overview.htm SAPRIN website, emphasis added)

Similarly, The Trade Observatory (formerly WTO Watch), operating out of Geneva is a project of the Minneapolis Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy (IATP), which is generously funded by Ford, Rockefeller, Charles Stewart Mott among others. (see Table 1 below).

The Trade Observatory has a mandate to monitor the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA and the
proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). (IATP, About Trade Observatory [5] , accessed September 2010).

The Trade Observatory is also to develop data and information as well as foster "governance" and "accountability". Accountability to the
victims of WTO policies or accountability to the protagonists of neoliberal reforms?

The Trade Observatory watchdog functions does not in any way threaten the WTO. Quite the opposite: the legitimacy of the trade organizations
and agreements are never questioned.

Table 1 Minneapolis Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) largest donors
(for complete list click here [6] )

Ford Foundation $2,612,500.00 1994 - 2006
Rockefeller Brothers Fund $2,320,000.00 1995 - 2005
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation $1,391,000.00 1994 - 2005
McKnight Foundation $1,056,600.00 1995 - 2005
Joyce Foundation $748,000.00 1996 - 2004
Bush Foundation $610,000.00 2001 - 2006
Bauman Family Foundation $600,000.00 1994 - 2006
Great Lakes Protection Fund $580,000.00 1995 - 2000
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation $554,100.00 1991 - 2003
John Merck Fund $490,000.00 1992 - 2003
Harold K. Hochschild Foundation $486,600.00 1997 - 2005
Foundation for Deep Ecology $417,500.00 1991 - 2001
Jennifer Altman Foundation $366,500.00 1992 - 2001
Rockefeller Foundation $344,134.00 2000 - 2004

Soruce:  http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/16-institute-for-agriculture-and-trade-policy

The World Economic Forum. "All Roads Lead to Davos"

The people's movement has been hijacked. Selected intellectuals, trade union executives, and the leaders of civil society organizations
(including Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) are routinely invited to the Davos World Economic Forum, [7] where they mingle with the
World's most powerful economic and political actors. This mingling of the World's corporate elites with hand-picked "progressives" is part
of the ritual underlying the process of "manufacturing dissent".

The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders "whom we can trust" and integrate them into a "dialogue", cut them off from their
rank and file, make them feel that they are "global citizens" acting on behalf of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which
serves the interests of the corporate establishment:

"The participation of NGOs in the Annual Meeting in Davos is evidence of the fact that [we] purposely seek to integrate a broad spectrum
of the major stakeholders in society in ... defining and advancing the global agenda ... We believe the [Davos] World Economic Forum
provides the business community with the ideal framework for engaging in collaborative efforts with the other principal stakeholders
[NGOs] of the global economy to "improve the state of the world," which is the Forum's mission. (World Economic Forum, Press Release 5
January 2001)

The WEF does not represent the broader business community. It is an elitist gathering: Its members are giant global corporations (with a
minimum $5 billion annual turnover). The selected non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are viewed as partner "stakeholders" as well as a
convenient "mouthpiece for the voiceless who are often left out of decision-making processes." (World Economic Forum - Non-Governmental
Organizations [8] , 2010)

"They [the NGOs] play a variety of roles in partnering with the Forum to improve the state of the world, including serving as a bridge
between business, government and civil society, connecting the policy makers to the grassroots, bringing practical solutions to the
table..." (Ibid)

Civil society "partnering" with global corporations on behalf of "the voiceless", who are "left out"?

Trade union executives are also co-opted to the detriment of workers' rights. The leaders of the International Federation of Trade Unions
(IFTU), the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), among others, are routinely invited to
attend both the annual WEF meetings in Davos, Switzerland as well as to the regional summits. They also participate in the WEF's Labour
Leaders Community which focuses on mutually acceptable patterns of behavior for the labor movement. The WEF "believes that the voice of
Labour is important to dynamic dialogue on issues of globalisation, economic justice, transparency and accountability, and ensuring a
healthy global financial system."

"Ensuring a healthy global financial system" wrought by fraud and corruption? The issue of workers' rights is not mentioned. (World Economic
Forum - Labour Leaders [9] , 2010).

The World Social Forum: "Another World Is Possible"

The 1999 Seattle counter-summit in many regards laid the foundations for the development of the World Social Forum.

The first gathering of the World Social Forum took place in January 2001, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This international gathering involved the
participation of tens of thousands of activists from grass-roots organizations and NGOs.

The WSF gathering of NGOs and progressive organizations was held simultaneously with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). It was intended
to voice opposition and dissent to the World Economic Forum of corporate leaders and finance ministers.

The WSF at the outset was an initiative of France's ATTAC and several Brazilian NGOs':

"... In February 2000, Bernard Cassen, the head of a French NGO platform ATTAC, Oded Grajew, head of a Brazilian employers' organisation,
and Francisco Whitaker, head of an association of Brazilian NGOs, met to discuss a proposal for a "world civil society event"; by March
2000, they formally secured the support of the municipal government of Porto Alegre and the state government of Rio Grande do Sul, both
controlled at the time by the Brazilian Workers' Party (PT).... A group of French NGOs, including ATTAC, Friends of L'Humanité, and
Friends of Le Monde Diplomatique, sponsored an Alternative Social Forum in Paris titled "One Year after Seattle", in order to prepare an
agenda for the protests to be staged at the upcoming European Union summit at Nice. The speakers called for "reorienting certain
international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO... so as to create a globalization from below" and "building an international
citizens' movement, not to destroy the IMF but to reorient its missions." (Research Unit For Political Economy, The Economics and Politics
of the World Social Forum [10] , Global Research, January 20, 2004)

From the outset in 2001, the WSF was supported by core funding from the Ford Foundation, which is known to have ties to the CIA going back
to the 1950s: "The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects
without alerting the recipients to their source." (James Petras, The Ford Foundation and the CIA, Global Research, September 18, 2002) [11]

The same procedure of donor funded counter-summits or people's summits which characterized the 1990s People's Summits was embodied in the
World Social Forum (WSF):

"... other WSF funders (or `partners', as they are referred to in WSF terminology) included the Ford Foundation, -- suffice it to say here
that it has always operated in the closest collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency and US overall strategic interests; the
Heinrich Boll Foundation, which is controlled by the German Greens party, a partner in the present [2003] German government and a
supporter of the wars on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (its leader Joschka Fischer is the [former] German foreign minister); and major
funding agencies such as Oxfam (UK), Novib (Netherlands), ActionAid (UK), and so on.

Remarkably, an International Council member of the WSF reports that the "considerable funds" received from these agencies have "not
hitherto awakened any significant debates [in the WSF bodies] on the possible relations of dependence it could generate." Yet he admits
that "in order to get funding from the Ford Foundation, the organisers had to convince the foundation that the Workers Party was not
involved in the process." Two points are worth noting here. First, this establishes that the funders were able to twist arms and determine
the role of different forces in the WSF -- they needed to be `convinced' of the credentials of those who would be involved. Secondly, if
the funders objected to the participation of the thoroughly domesticated Workers Party, they would all the more strenuously object to
prominence being given to genuinely anti-imperialist forces. That they did so object will be become clear as we describe who was included
and who excluded from the second and third meets of the WSF....

... The question of funding [of the WSF] does not even figure in the charter of principles of the WSF, adopted in June 2001. Marxists,
being materialists, would point out that one should look at the material base of the forum to grasp its nature. (One indeed does not have
to be a Marxist to understand that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".) But the WSF does not agree. It can draw funds from imperialist
institutions like Ford Foundation while fighting "domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism" (Research Unit For
Political Economy, The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum [10] , Global Research, January 20, 2004)

The Ford Foundation provided core support to the WSF, with indirect contributions to participating "partner organizations" from the McArthur
Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the European Commission,
several European governments (including the Labour government of Tony Blair), the Canadian government, as well as a number of UN bodies
(including UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, ILO and the FAO) .(Ibid).

In addition to initial core support from the Ford Foundation, many of the participating civil society organizations receive funding from
major foundations and charities. In turn, the US and European based NGOs often operate as secondary funding agencies channelling Ford and
Rockefeller money towards partner organizations in developing countries, including grassroots peasant and human rights movements.

The International Council (IC) of the WSF is made up of representatives from NGOs, trade unions, alternative media organizations, research
institutes, many of which are heavily funded by foundations as well as governments. (See Fórum Social Mundial [12] ). The same trade unions,
which are routinely invited to mingle with the Wall Street CEOs at the Davos World Economic Forum (WSF) including the AFL-CIO, the European
Trade Union Confederation and the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC) also sit on the WSF's International Council (IC). Among NGOs funded by major
foundations sitting on the WSF's IC is the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) (see our analysis above) which oversees the
Geneva based Trade Observatory sit on the WSF's International Council.

The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), which has observer status on the WSF International Council plays a key role. While
channelling financial support to the WSF, it acts as a clearing house for major foundations. The FTNG describes itself as "an alliance of
grant makers committed to building just and sustainable communities around the world". Members of this alliance are Ford foundation,
Rockefeller Brothers, Heinrich Boell, C. S. Mott, Merck Family Foundation, Open Society Institute, Tides, among others. (For a complete list
of FTNG funding agencies see FNTG: Funders [13] ). FTNG acts as a fund raising entity on behalf of the WSF.

Western Governments Fund the Counter-Summits and Repress the Protest Movement

In a bitter irony, governments including the European Union grant money to fund progressive groups (including the WSF) involved in
organizing protests against the very same governments which finance their activities.

"Governments, too, have been significant financiers of protest groups. The European Commission, for example, funded two groups who
mobilised large numbers of people to protest at EU summits at Gothenburg and Nice. Britain's national lottery, which is overseen by the
government, helped fund a group at the heart of the British contingent at both protests." (James Harding, Counter-capitalism [14] ,
FT.com, October 15 2001)

We are dealing with a diabolical process: The host government finances the official summit as well as the NGOs actively involved in the
Counter-Summit. It also funds the anti-riot police operation which has a mandate to repress the grassroots participants of the
Counter-Summit.

The purpose of these combined operations, including violent actions committed by anti-riot police forces, is to discredit the protest
movement and intimidate its participants. The broader objective is to transform the counter-summit into a ritual of dissent, which serves to
uphold the interests of the official summit and the host government. This logic has prevailed in numerous counter summits since the 1990s.

At the 2001 Summit of the America in Quebec City, funding from the Canadian federal government to mainstream NGOs and trade unions was
granted under certain conditions. A large segment of the protest movement was de facto excluded from the People's Summit. In turn,
organizers agreed with both the provincial and federal authorities that the protest march would be directed to a remote location some 10 km
out of town, rather than towards the historical downtown area were the official FTAA summit was being held behind a heavily guarded
"security perimeter".

"Rather than marching toward the perimeter fence and the Summit of the Americas meetings, march organizers chose a route that marched from
the People's Summit away from the fence, through largely empty residential areas to the parking lot of a stadium in a vacant area several
miles away. Henri Masse, the president of the Federation des travailleurs et travailleuses du Quebec (FTQ), explained, "I deplore that we
are so far from the center-city.... But it was a question of security." One thousand marshals from the FTQ kept very tight control over
the march. When the march came to the point where some activists planned to split off and go up the hill to the fence, FTQ marshals
signalled the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) contingent walking behind CUPE to sit down and stop the march so that FTQ marshals could lock
arms and prevent others from leaving the official march route." (Katherine Dwyer, Lessons of Quebec City [15] , International Socialist
Review, June/July 2001)

NGO Leaders versus their Grassroots

The establishment of the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 was unquestionably a historical landmark, bringing together tens of thousands of
committed activists. It was an important venue which allowed for the exchange of ideas and the establishment of ties of solidarity

What is at stake is the ambivalent role of the leaders of progressive organizations. Their cozy relationship to the inner circles of power,
to corporate and government funding, aid agencies, the World Bank, etc, undermines their relationship and responsibilities to their rank and
file. The objective of manufactured dissent is precisely that: to distance the leaders from their rank and file as a means to effectively
silencing and weakening grassroots actions.

Most of the grassroots participating organizations in the World Social Forum including peasant, workers' and student organizations, firmly
committed to combating neoliberalism were unaware of the WSF International Council's relationship to corporate funding, negotiated behind
their backs by a handful of NGO leaders with ties to both official and private funding agencies.

Funding to progressive organizations is not unconditional. Its purpose is to "pacify" and manipulate the protest movement. Precise
conditionalities are set by the funding agencies. If they are not met, the disbursements are discontinued.

The WSF defines itself as "an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free
exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism
and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person".
(See Fórum Social Mundial [16] , accessed 2010).

The WSF is a mosaic of individual initiatives which does not directly threaten or challenge the legitimacy of global capitalism and its
institutions. It meets annually. It is characterised by a multitude of sessions and workshops. In this regard, one of the features of the
WSF was to retain the "do-it-yourself" framework, characteristic of the donor funded counter G7 People's Summits of the 1990s.

This apparent disorganized structure is deliberate. While favoring debate on a number of individual topics, the WSF framework is not
conducive to the articulation of a cohesive common platform and plan of action directed global capitalism. Moreover, the US led war in the
Middle East and Central Asia, which broke out a few months after the inaugural WSF venue in Porto Alegre in January 2001, has not been a
central issue in forum discussions.

What prevails is a vast and intricate network of organizations. The recipient grassroots organizations in developing countries are
invariably unaware that their partner NGOs in the United States or the European Union, which are providing them with financial support, are
themselves funded by major foundations. The money trickles down, setting constraints on grassroots actions. Many of these NGO leaders are
committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are
often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.

Global capitalism finances anti-capitalism: an absurd and contradictory relationship.

"Another World is Possible", but it cannot be meaningfully achieved under the present arrangement.

A shake-up of the World Social Forum, of its organizational structure, its funding arrangements and leadership is required.

There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests which are the target of the
protest movement. In the words of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979),"Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could
be regarded as 'making the World safe for capitalism'".




----
References:

[1]  http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/trade/chossudovskyquebec.html
[2]  http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html
[3]  http://www.thenation.com/article/copenhagen-seattle-grows
[4]  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15988
[5]  http://www.tradeobservatory.org/about.cfm
[6]  http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/16-institute-for-agriculture-and-trade-policy
[7]  http://www.weforum.org/en/index.htm
[8]  http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Non-GovernmentalOrganizations/index.htm
[9]  http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/LabourLeaders/index.htm
[10]  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP401A.html
[11]  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PET209A.html
[12]  http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=3_2_1&cd_language=2
[13]  http://www.fntg.org/funders/index.html
[14]  http://specials.ft.com/countercap/FT37OP0LUSC.html
[15]  http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Lessons_QuebecCity.html
[16]  http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/index.php?cd_language=2&id_menu=