[WSMDiscuss] World Social Forum: Pre-call to movements

[Matt York]

Hi there, 

I’ve been mostly a silent ‘observer’ of this group for the last couple of years.  The topics discussed here have been highly relevant to my PhD research and I am therefore very grateful for a wonderful learning experience.  But as Jai has explicitly asked for some new blood to contribute to this discussion I thought it might be a good time to ‘pay my dues’ and actually say something!

To begin with, I fully agree with Gustave Massiah’s assertion that the strategic debate should focus on ‘the nature of power and of the transition’.  And that we must keep as central the key question that he poses: How to go beyond the strategy adopted since the first international – ‘building a party, to conquer the state, to change society’.  And it is here where political organisations like the Progressive International (PI) in my view continue to fail in learning the lessons of the previous centuries – that the free society will not be imagined by vanguard intellectuals and politicians.  It must/can only be (co)imagined in common with those who will constitute it. 

Back in 1898, twenty years prior to the October Revolution, Élisée Reclus prophetically warned his ‘revolutionary friends’ in Russia of the dangers of conquering state power and in turn adopting the very tools of domination that their revolution was seeking to displace:  ‘If the socialists become our masters, they will certainly proceed in the same manner as their predecessors...  Once they have power, they will not fail to use it, if only under the illusion or pretense that this force will be rendered useless as all obstacles are swept away and all hostile elements destroyed.  The world is full of such ambitious and naïve persons who live with the illusory hope of transforming society through their exceptional capacity to command’.  And I believe the words of Reclus are as pertinent now as they were then, maybe even more so.

It also concerns me that one central purpose of the PI website is to develop a ‘blueprint’ for the new society.  Again – seriously?  Have we learned nothing?  And although an effort has clearly been made by PI to assemble a proportionate representation of participants from both the global South and North, it appears to be firmly grounded in a northern/western onto-epistemology.  So business as usual then!  There is no evidence of any cognizance, let alone active attempt to redress, the epistemicide that has been inflicted upon the South. 

And it is here where it seems clear the WSF has a unique and essential role to play.  The dialogical spaces of the WSF and experiments in operationalising a genuine epistemic diversity in the pursuit of an emancipatory ‘cosmopolitan ecology of knowledges’ must not be forgotten or lost to history.  Ultimately, for radical social change to be realised not through taking power, but through making/transforming power, such constituent imagination remains necessary at both local and global levels.  So rather than the tragedy of pursuing blueprint utopias (as I’m amazed to see contemporary organisations such as PI continuing to do) I see in the WSF the possibility to develop a mode of praxis that simultaneously imagines futures which realign movement trajectory and that grounds itself in present moment realities – an imaginative/responsive ongoing process, rather than reverting to default capitalistic, patriarchal, racist or anthropocentric modes of reproduction (as we always seem to end up doing).  I would further argue that such processes might even provide a means for sustaining free society on an ongoing basis in the absence of domination – so the means and the end.  Why not?

But a process it must remain.  I agree that the WSF charter of principles is a visionary document, with nuanced wisdom captured within it to be protected.  But unless it remains a living evolving document or set of principles it will become merely a historic document frozen in time.  And surely by concretising these principles the WSF becomes an institution rather than a process, and well – we all know how that goes! 

In our current historical moment the global COVID-19 pandemic has acted to temporarily decelerate linear time and make clear an immanence usually obscured by the disorienting pace of modern capitalist society.  We are witnessing forgotten social solidarities reconstituted and mutual aid groups formed spontaneously in countless communities across the planet (and joining the ones that never went away) - opening spaces for new collective visions to reimagine our world(s).  And so before these affective currents are redirected and repackaged as patriotisms and nationalisms, or indeed co-opted by our ‘leaders of the left’ to win state power for their own political projects, our task must be to strengthen and expand them into pockets of free society, and then to link them.  Just as the 2008 financial collapse played an animating role in the wave of global protest in 2011, so too must we now rediscover a radical solidarity borne of the deep commons.  And as Jai points out – if not the WSF, then who?  And if not now, when?  

I therefore think Jai’s proposals are sound and would back them.  But I look forward to also hearing what other experienced members of the group have to add to the discussion.  And I really hope it kick-starts a rejuvenation of the process started twenty years ago.  I’m in!

In solidarity,
Matt

-- 
Securely sent with Tutanota. 




12 May 2020, 21:01 by jai.sen at cacim.net:

>
> Tuesday, May 12, 2020
>
>
>  
>
>
> Greetings all
>
>
>             I’m writingto follow up my post of Gustave Massiah’s note to all of us, as below.  I have waited a little before following up inpart to give myself time to read and digest what others have said, but also in thehope that some more people might come in with their opinions !  Including, I had hoped, some on the list whohave perhaps not been involved with the WSF but were curious.
>
>
>             I’m thereforeframing this intervention of mine within a wider and larger landscape, in thehope of perhaps drawing some others in.
>
>
>             Let mestart by making clear that my understanding is that we are having this discussionhere on this list on the basis of an overarching agreement that with all itsfaults, the World Social Forum has also been an extraordinary experiment and initiativein the mobilisation of social and political thought – and action - at a worldscale.  And that beyond this, at thehistorical juncture that has now opened up – the combination of the rise of thecrisis of climate change, of the corona virus pandemic, and of the authoritarianright across the world, at the same time as the crisis of capitalism and of neoliberalism– the WSF has, if carefully nurtured, the potential to be a vital instrument inthe struggle for justice and peace, and of building other worlds.  And that indeed, it is the > only>  suchinternational space and instrument that is presently available.  It is not less than this.
>
>
>             Do we agreeon this ?
>
>
> (The announcement of the formationyesterday of the ‘Progressive International’ (> https://progressive.international/> )changes the landscape somewhat, in relation to the future and role of the WorldSocial Forum, but in my understanding and I think also Tord’s, not much.  The WSF, with its focus on wide physical participationand deliberation on an open-ended basis, remains a perhaps unique and politicallyvital asset.)
>
>
> I had said when I posted Gus’s notethat I had some points I wanted to make. But after revisiting his note and comparing it with what I was going tosay, and also re-reading all the comments that everyone else has come in with –for which, and once again, thanks -, I've realised that in many ways he hasaddressed most of my concerns, and even if I might express them differently andemphasise things differently.  And so,and to simplify things and make them shorter, I’d prefer to simply endorse Gus’snote and to propose the following :
>
>
> a)>     > Thatwe make Gustave Massiah’s Note (posted on May 8) the focus of our further discussion here on thislist on this issue – and that we critically engage with it, taking positions onall the points he has made;
>
>
> b)>     > Thatwe accept Rita Freire’s point that the upcoming meeting of the WSF’s InternationalCouncil, even in its present limited form, is important for the future of the WSF,and that we should therefore aim to contribute to that;
>
>
> c)>      > Thatas a part of this, we accept Carminda’s suggestion of meeting in the Viral OpenSpace on May 23, at a time that she proposes (but where, Carminda, I request youto please keep in mind that we have people on this list from Latin Americaacross to Asia, including in Africa and Europe, and so to find a time that can beas convenient as possible for as wide a range of people as possible);
>
>
> d)>     > Thatwe make the objective of our discussion here on this list and in the VOS on May23 to try and come to agreement on some broad issues – which I believe we couldusefully draw from Gus’ note – and that we aim to reach these thoughts to the ICby early June, and before its upcoming meeting, as our considered and critical contributionto its thinking (but see also the section below, ‘One other issue…’);
>
>
> e)>     > Thatthose of us who feel we would like to, continue to critically engage with andtake part in WSF-related processes from here on into next year, and try and contributeto *critically re-building the World Social Forum as an instrument of worldstruggle - and to (critically) reinvigorate it even as we walk, rather than onlydebate it ‘and then see’…; and –
>
>
> f)>      > Thatof course, and as a part of this, we also critically engage with and discuss thenature of the WSF event that has been proposed to be held in Mexico next year,and attempt to contribute to that debate as well, including what should be the natureand scope of that Forum. 
>
>
> (Just to remind you, it has beena tenet of this list from when it started in 2006 that the World Social Forumwas far too important to be left to its organisers and its InternationalCouncil; and that even if they are ‘there’ and we are here, ‘outside’, the WSF actuallybelongs to us who are not in the corridors of power as much as it does to thosewho are there - just as is true in relation to all enterprises; and so we shouldagain put this into practice now, and in this regard, as we did for several yearsin the 2000s, from 2006-2010, I think.)
>
>
> I hope – without getting intodetails - that this adequately respects the spirit of what others have also said,and makes sense not only to those on this list who are already interested in theWSF but also, I hope, to those who are interested in world movement more generally, and whereyou can and will see the WSF as an instrument of the struggle for justice and peace. 
>
>
> And in this spirit, I lookforward to comments – and, I would hope, perhaps also endorsement of myproposals here !  So that we can moveahead.
>
>
> One other issue… :
>
>
> There is however one specific pointthat I think I must engage with here, because it is on the one hand fundamentalto the World Social Forum, and on the other hand, is also – I have gatheredfrom the interventions that have been made so far, but that I also know from myown intense involvement and engagement with the WSF over many years – a fundamentalissue at stake in the present debate, and even as something of an iceberg lurkingin the waters : In short, the WSF’s Charter of Principles.  (On a third hand, this is also perhaps somethingthat many on this list may not know about, and where to engage with the WSF is reallyimpossible without reading it.)
>
>
> First therefore, I attach a copyhere for all those interested of the text of the Charter that I downloaded fromthe WSF’s then-website early in its history, back in 2003 (and which thereforemakes this a truly ‘historic’ document !).
>
>
> Second, I would urge anyone readingthis post to please open this document and read it.  If you do so, I think you may come to agree thatit is / was a truly visionary document (and / but where you also need to read itas a creature of its time, the early part of this century : Just after theBattle of Seattle in 1999 and just before 9/11 in 2001 and the subsequent Warof Terror without End.  It was an organicproduct of its time).
>
>
> But my main point here is that itappears, from the posts we have received, > that this document is apparently apoint of fundamental cleavage in the current debate within (and about) ‘the WSF’>  – which is therefore presently at a stalemate.  If we are interested in the future - andpotential - of the Forum, it is then essential that we (a) read and intimately knowthis document, and (b) engage with this issue. 
>
>
> The issue at hand, I understand,is whether the Charter should be opened up and discussed, and if necessary reviewedand revised, in the light of the historically new conditions we are now in; or whetherit is so well written, and so valuable, that it would be risky to do so – and thattherefore we should not allow it to be opened up. 
>
>
> (There is apparently also a relatedsub-issue – where those who are in favour of no-change have also prepared atwo-page note to be issued to all people registering for the Mexico Forum,where they will have to declare their agreement with the note, and in effect, withthe Charter as it stands.  And wherethose who have proposed reviewing the Charter have suggested that people shouldnot be asked to agree – and therefore to declare their allegiance – but only ‘torespect’ the Charter; but where their proposal has apparently so far been refused.)
>
>
> (Just for your information, neitherof these are new debates.  The first has beenthere since at least mid 2002, when as it happens, I along with others in theWSF India Committee had proposed that the Charter, that had been drafted in LatinAmerica under very particular historical and cultural conditions, should beopen to amendment in the light of the WSF being organised in India, which is andwas then a completely different context, with some radically differentconditions (such as the institution of caste). (I was deeply involved in the organisation of the WSF in Bombay till acertain point in late 2002, when I dropped out, in part because of a personal tragedy.) In short, this proposal – coming from usin WSF India - was resisted by the those who were then known as ‘the organisers’(read ‘founders’) of the WSF and by some others in the IC; and the powers thatbe finally sent an emissary to meet me during the WSF in Porto Alegre in 2003, anElder in the WSF, to let me know that it would not be wise - for the WSF or forme – for me to continue pressing for that. 
>
>
> (And in the case of the second, wehad precisely this same debate within WSF India in 2003 about a similar note thathad been prepared by the organisers of the Bombay WSF in 2004 – I by then hadstepped out of the organising committee – demanding allegiance.)
>
>
> By saying all this, I do notmean at all to personalise the issue, but just to concretise it, and to make clearthat these are fundamental issues.  I havenot been closely involved with the WSF for a decade now, and so do not know howand whether this issue has risen again in this time – but it seems from the poststhat it has again, now.  Specifically, thatBoaventura de Sousa Santos from Portugal has apparently again raised the issueof reviewing the Charter.  And where thereare now again some who believe that it is essential – for the health and futureof the Forum – for the Charter to be critically reviewed, in the light of contemporaryrealities; and / but where there are others who absolutely do not want this tohappen, and have so far blocked this possibility.
>
>
> I have therefore spelt all thisout here only so as to inform everyone who is interested of this issue, and so,I hope, to open up and democratise the debate and to put it in historicalcontext.  In many ways, I don’t think Iam overstating things if I say that > the future of this historically extremelyimportant experiment – with all its flaws – is now hinging on this question> .  We all have to decide where we stand.  Those of you who happen to know members of theexisting International Council may also like to reach out to them, and discussit with them.
>
>
> Jai
>
>
> att
>
>
> WSF Charter of Principles - Revised and Final Version 0601 xFSM website js 231003 rfmttd js110520
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20200513/2e545706/attachment.htm>