Contribution to the Debate on the Future of the Social Forums and the Alter-Globalisation Movement

The whole debate on the Future of the Social Forums and the Alter-Globalisation Movement can be found on the website of the Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt

Dear all, [pardon aux amis d’Attac de n’ecrire qu’en anglais, je n’ai pas le temps de me traduire, merci de votre indulgence],
Many thanks to the Italian comrades for their extremely useful and constructive contribution. I agree with virtually all of it. The only part which I believe deserves further thought and thorough examination by all concerned relates to the International Day of Action [IDofA] in the alternate years when the WSF does not take place. I also agree with the Italians that we must choose our own date—not in January--and that Davos is irrelevant.

The results of this year’s IDofA were mixed: positive because there were well over a thousand events world-wide; negative because the only people who know this are us—i.e. there was virtually no press coverage anywhere. The media—if they notice us at all--are saying more and more that the movement is dead and they have moved on because, frankly, there’s nothing to talk about, write about, photograph or film. I think this is an objective assessment that is difficult to disagree with.
Two responses to this state of affairs are possible:
[1] We don’t care about the media or about reaching anyone outside the movement itself because the point of all the IDofA events—and of the WSF/ESF/other SFs themselves--is to reinforce the contacts and convergences among ourselves at various levels;
[2] We do care about greater outreach to the general public; enlargement and explanation of the movement and its values because we want our ideas to spread throughout society and to convince people that it is possible to fight against neo-liberalism, ecological destruction and to conceive of democratic systems of other “possible worlds”.
Over the past few years I have occasionally written to some of you to defend option [2] and to ask that the IDofA choose a common theme and common symbols in order to promote visibility and broader understanding of the alter-globalisation/global justice movement. I have not changed my point of view for the following reasons:
--It would not be “imposing” [to use our Italians friends’ term] anything on anyone to decide that we want to be more visible and that the media—whether we like it or not—are the only road to greater visibility. Furthermore, all the different campaigns could with a little effort link their own concerns to the central, chosen theme. It doesn’t take too much thought to recognise how everything relates to everything else [e.g. global warming and war; high finance and continuing poverty...] and still choose a common, identifiable, easy-to-understand, mobilising theme for the IDofA.
--It would not be “imposing” anything on anyone either to decide the principle that one central subject, which touches everyone in the world, can be commonly put forward once every two years. [Nor does it need to be the same one each time]. Offhand I would say that theme could be global warming, trade, out-of-control finance, debt... but there are surely others. I don’t even care what the theme is; it’s the principle of choosing it and of the unity that creates visibility that I think is important.
--It would not be asking anyone to give up their main pursuits 364 days of the year: they would simply agree to seek to create the broadest possible coalitions in each country or locality in order to organise one day of common concern and get their members to come out for it, worldwide, in a spirit of internationalism and solidarity, with common slogans and similar symbols. For example, if the common theme of a day of mourning for the dying planet were chosen, each culture would have its own way of mourning [deuil] and its own symbols, but the concept is universal. If the common theme were inequality, each culture has its own ways of showing rich-poor domination, but the concept [and the refusal] is universal. We could even decide to have a world laugh-in; each coalition/culture choosing the stupidest, most ridiculous, harmful institution in its own place and going together to make fun of and laugh at it.
--We need much greater convergence among those whose main concerns are [in broad terms] [1] global justice & neoliberalism [2] environment & climate change [3] peace & conflict issues. The great day 15 February 2003 brought out different constituencies spontaneously, but the momentum of the day was subsequently lost. On 16 February 2003, the New York Times called this movement the “Second Super-power”. It seems to me the question is now this: Is the movement mature enough to meet the real challenge to the Social Forums which is to actually become that “Second Super-power”? Is it mature enough to meet that challenge without a horrible and bloody war as the inspiration? We have the absolute numbers; we are much more numerous than the oppressors and those who profit from the present world order; we have workable proposals to solve the problems; but we need to identify these other constituencies, reach out to each other and build unity. An IDofA is one way of doing that.
Finally, let me be extremely blunt, even rude. I think it is narcissistic, selfish, arrogant, timid, childish—I could go even further.... to stay comfortably in our nice warm cocoon of the true believers who have, like all true believers of all “religions”, developed their own rituals, priesthood, vocabulary and means for excluding those who don’t belong. The movement needs to make an outward-looking effort of imagination and courage to meet the dire situation we collectively face. I feel sure we will fail if we pursue the present course and refuse to play to our own strengths. We might fail anyway, but at least we would have a decent chance of moving the tragic pendulum of history in the other direction.
In solidarity and friendship,
Susan George

Susan George is a Fellow and Chair of the Board of the Transnational Institute. Her latest book is La Pensée enchaînée: Comment les droites laïque et religieuse se sont emparées de l'Amérique [Fayard, 2007], to be published in English as: Hijacking America: How the Religious and Secular Right Changed What Americans Think [Forthcoming, Polity Press 2008].

www.tni.org/george