The New Global Resistance and the Emergence of the WSF

The New Global Resistance and the Emergence of the WSF
Transform Newsletter, March 2004

Since middle of 1990's, a new opposition has been growing to neo-liberal globalisation. Across the world, men and women from very different contexts realized they were
facing a new and common threat to their livelihoods, their environment and their rights.

Their struggles, their cultures, even their interests were diverse, yet again and again they came together through a whole variety of networks, coalitions, meetings and demonstrations of every kind. The most memorable moments in this remarkable global convergence are well known. The Zapatista insurgence has come to symbolise the beginning of this new resistance. It was a rebellion which expressed powerfully the search for a new kind of transformative power. Activists subverted the spaces provided by UN Conferences, most notably the world conference of women in Peking, to develop networks of action and strategy in the face of the growing neo-liberal offensive. The new awareness led to direct contestation with every new item on the agenda of the corporate led elites, from the protests against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, financial markets to the plans for global privatisation, the General Agreement on Trade in Services. The protests of Seattle, Washington,
Gothenburg and Genoa all marked the development a new subjectivity born in the process of confronting the authoritarian powers of market globalisation.

This new historical phenomenon is distinctive in its differentiated, constantly changing, many headed form. Its many subjects are constantly searching for and inventing spaces through which to connect.

It was out of this search and a belief in the need to take the struggle further than resistance that in 2001, the World Social forum was born. A core of Brazilian social organisations including the trade union federations CUT, the coalition of radical NGOs ABONG and the landless movement, MST, along with French organisations around Attac and Le Monde Diplomatique took the initiative.

The project was quite consciously created in a context of political crisis. It represented a search for radical transformation in a situation where there was no political project
or force able to challenge the hegemony of the new capitalism and yet where at the same time there was generalised scepticism about the political system and its profound degeneration.

The party political left is generally demoralized and in a state of decline. The 'Third Way' of moderate control of globalisation has failed and opened the way to the ascendancy of the right in North America and in Europe. The devastating effects of neo-liberal government policies have been exposed as untenable. The result is a widespread exploraton of alternative paths.

It was not surprising then, that over the following four years, the WSF gathered momentum, growing from 30,000 at the first meeting in Porto Alegre to 130,000 at the fourth WSF in Mumbai.

The WSF as space. The original project

Those who have participated in the WSF have in effect created a new kind of organisation. A process rather than an institution. One of its distinctive features is that at the
same time as being extraordinarily ambitious – for example in its diversity, in the scope and range of the activities and cultures which it hosts – it is also self-consciously modest about its role. For example, it's Charter is clear that it is not the only space for convergence. Those who participate understand it as one of many terrains in a wider process of global struggle. When it works effectively, it's role is as a catalyst, a facilitator, a resource and a base for the movements. It does not aspire to provide the framework or container for the movements development. The particular, catalytic, resource which the WSF provides is that of a space through which people sharing a common belief that 'Another World is Possible' can bridge geographic, cultural and political differences and freely develop new plans, initiatives and organisations.

The space provided by the WSF is not a neutral space. It is guided by a basic set of principles and goals set out in the Charter of WSF Principles. To sum up this charter extremely briefly: the goal of the WSF is to provide a space through which those involved in resisting neo-liberalism can develop alternative thinking and practice. This ideological conflict is symbolised by organising the WSF at the same moment as the elites of the global market pat each other on the back each year in Davos.

The WSF Charter sees the development of democratic civil society, autonomous from political parties and government as fundamental to the development of new alternatives. The WSF is helping to nurture a new political culture and a new self-confidence amongst civil society actors.

The Charter asserts the radical possibility of 'another world' without oppression and exploitation. At the same time it insists that this can only be achieved thorough no-violence, through a radical democracy based on pluralism and a constant refusal of hierarchies, and in general, through a creative egalitarian political culture beyond the narrow instrumentalism of the West.

The methodology of the WSF process is inspired by the horizontal ways of organising developed by the global social justice movement of recent years; a methodology which recognises the creative power of open and free spaces freely networked with each other. Like these movements, the WSF also emphasises the importance of self-organised activities and explicitly rejects any idea of spokespeople in the name of the WSF or final documents and positions agreed in its name. It must be said that this notion of diverse networks working in a similar direction with strongly shared values but without being co-ordinated 'from above' has many precursors in movements since 1968. Perhaps the one which has had the most profound implications for political culture of the left (though these have yet to be fully realised) is the feminist movement. The WSF draws on a variety of liberation traditions which spurn traditional notions of leadership and emphasises self-emanciaption. The Latin American traditions of popular education would be a further example. Indian traditions of non-violent direct action another. And so on. An awareness of these historical roots gives us a wider range of experiences from which to draw lessons (including lessons from failure) for the future of the WSF.

WSF as network The novelty

There is one factor which has enabled the new 'movement of the movements,' including the WSF to develop open spaces and horizontal ways of organising and combine democracy and efficacy at a qualitatively new level. This is the ingenious redeployment of the extraordinary communication tool of capitalist globalisation, the worldwide web. It has meant that previously utopian aspirations to reformulate the relations between the local and global, to achieve non-hierarchical co-ordination between different actors, creative exchange between communities and cultures, now have the technological means for their realisation. It has meant that geography is no longer an obstacles
to powerful possibilities of simultaneous organisation and action. The new possibilities, however, have brought with them huge new problems of 'translation' across cultures and contexts, of misunderstandings, of how to achieve consensus in decision-making. In short, there is an urgent need to explore new means of participation and democracy in the context of the new technologies and politics of horizontal networks.

Another factor contributing to the experimental, creative feeling of the Forums is that people are contributing to the WSF from a wide range of political traditions in a mood of critical assessment of their past allegiances. For example, groupings from Marxist/Leninist traditions are turning away from the presumptions of the 20th century of one correct line, one true political agent. Other socialist traditions, anarchism, religious communalism, the direct action movement and a variety of single issues campaigns have been influenced by the new openness and diversity of the WSF, as well as by the evident limits of their chosen paths. They are working together in pursuit of common goals rather than organising simply on the basis of their own identities. They are engaging in constructive debate with activists from other traditions, distinguishing 'what is alive and what is dead' in each tradition and helping define original strategies and visions.

Finally, a radical break from orthodox understandings of power – as concentrated through the nation state – has opened up many interconnected struggles over power, without losing a sober assessment of the continuing power of the state. It is no longer a matter of ' a winter palace' to conquer but many diverse power relations to break up, transform or subvert. Again the radical workers, feminist and urban movements of the late 60s and early 70's had begun this plural analysis of power. The anti-globalisation movement took this analysis of power further. On the one hand, it has had to organise in the context of the extremely opaque power structures of the neo-liberal world order, without an identifiable centre. On the other hand, it has spontaneously organised around the ways that capitalist power invades people daily life, in work and in daily consumption. The Forums have provided a context for activists from different struggles to fit together the jigsaw of power and map the points of potential vulnerability and resistance.

Forum as process. Dialectics and nodes

There are many ways in which as a space and a catalyst to convergence 'the WSF method' has worked. It keeps spreading and spreading. In the past four years, tens and maybe hundreds of Forums have been born. Sometimes they have been promoted by the International Council. Sometimes they have been organised spontaneously. The existence and character of the WSF has reinforced the strength of movements and networks. It has encouraged a new sense of hope. It has helped to break down barriers and has produced a real process of cross – fertilisation. Just about every force that has participated has been transformed by being immersed in a uniquely diverse political experience and by being part of a new transnational conception of political activity. The experience has had a particular influence on political parties, leading many of them to recognise that they do not have a political monopoly. There is a new awareness that they are only a part - and still a problematic part – of an emerging and plural agent of social transformation, not its vanguard.

On the other hand, the Forum process is not as open and democratic as it should be. There is a feeling that its organisation, the various decision-making bodies, formal and informal are too top-down and not sufficiently transparent. This problem persists but hese issues are being consciously addressed and openly debated and in general, the organisation of the WSF has proved sufficiently flexible and open to respond to the democratic pressures of those who participate in it.

For example, since the first forum, which at times was quite academic and a little elitist, there has been a process of democratic development and opening up, due especially to pressure from below and people taking practical responsibility for the forum, treating it as their own.

A related questioning of the WSF has arisen from a concern that, despite its intentions, it has ended up mainly as an affair of well-resourced employees of international NGOs, trade unions and other big organisations plus students and intellectuals. The fear is that the mass movements become the object not the active subject of the Forum.

The organisers of the WSF in Mumbai successfully worked to reach out to the movements, like the Dailit movement, resisting marginalisation and poverty. They also innovated in the organisation of the Forum, demonstrating, by contrast, that the previous Forums with their predominance of centralised plenaries had not moved far enough from old political cultures and methods to fully involve popular movements. It was an important experience which illustrated the potential of the Forum to reach out to diverse and excluded actors and cultures.

A final dialectic concerns the political dynamic of the WSF. Informally there is between some forces in the WSF a mutual wariness. On the one hand the most radical and militant activists are suspicious of the strong presence of NGOs in the WSF and influence of socially moderate organisations ("social democrats"). They frequently denounce the danger of moderating and institutionalizing the movements. They warn of the risk of Forum process being incorporated within the institutions of neo-liberalism's global institutions. On the other hand the influence of the moderate forces in the Forum has been weakened by the radicalising impact of events – Genoa, the continuing neo-liberal attack on public services, social rights, labour conditions, the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. They fear the risk of the Forum being taken over by the politicals of the radical left.

There are many participants however, who feel that the pressures of incorporation are best thwarted by putting energy into building effective autonomous grass roots networks.

There are important debates about how the innovative character of the WSF should develop. So far the debate has been posed as between the WSF as 'space' and the WSF as 'actor.' On the one hand, critics of the WSF as space argue that the refusal to take positions or promote WSF actions can weaken and disperse the movements. Others defending the WSF as an open space are concerned to avoid the suffocation of the WSF by traditional political organizations and practices.

The Social Movements Assembly through which organisations and movements can freely meet in the WSF to define a common agenda of mobilisations and campaigns, has gone someway to meet the need to promote actions. It is enough to remember the crucial role played by this space in global mobilisation against the war on February 15th and again on March 20th this year. Many activists participating in the Forum do not accept a simple choice between 'space' and single 'actor', arguing that the important thing is for the Forums to be organised in a way which better facilitates and supports the development of many actors and their possibility of acting together.

A further debate has been developed over the role of political parties and their explicit exclusion according to the Charter of Principles. Many people feel that the principle is
abstract and difficult to apply, especially where parties are creating new relationships with social movements (for example the Brazilian Workers Party and in Italy Rifondazione Comunista). There has been a similar problem with the exclusion of military organisations which effectively excluded the Zapatista insurgence in Mexico, which isn't at all a classical guerrilla and that for many people was a founding moment of the new political consciousness.

In general such discussions show that though the Charter is a foundation document, it should also be able to develop as the process develops and as new solutions are arrived at through constant political experimentation.

The node of efficacy

In the debate about how to develop the innovations of the WSF, the question of efficacy is an essential touchstone.

Many of the deeper shifts in the balance of power globally are not reported or reflected on the mainstream media but the development of a common sense that is deeply anti neo-liberal is unequivocal fact and an indication of the efficacy of global justice movements, including the processes associated with WSF.

The spirit of the Forum and the movement for another globalisation has had a strong and sometimes hegemonic influence in many organisations and even within global public opinion. For example, it is doubtful that the stand of the G21 at Cancún would have been possible if had not been for both the national pressure and global organisation of the trade union, peasant and social justice movements. Similarly, would the contradictions between Europe and the US have been possible without the
peace movement?

We have to face up to the contradiction between the extraordinary development of a global public opinion for peace and at the same time, our inability finally to stop the decision of the US and the UK to go to war. In the heartlands of neo-liberalism, political institutions have proved extremely unresponsive to popular pressures. This is a sign of the degeneration of 'representative democracy' but it is also an indication of the difficulties facing the new consciousness and the fact that it will need to invent new public, democratic institutions rather than simply takeover the existing ones.

On the more hopeful side, that the consciousness produced by the mobilisation for peace has produced a new alertness to the democratic flaws of the pro-war regimes. This is clear especially in the US, the UK, Italy and most dramatically in Spain.War governments, inspite of their desparate intentions are simply not being allowed to 'move on'. They are being called to account from every quarter, not just on the streets but from dissenting members of their own staff , and, finally as witnessed in Spain, from the electorate.

As we have mentioned before, the WSF's efficacy also lies in creating a greater openness in traditional movements, most notably the trade unions, to the culture and creativity of the new movements. It has also helped to create a dynamic of change and innovation in accord 'with the time that changes' as Arundati Roy puts it. But it also creates new tensions as organisations come together from very different traditions. They come together in circumstances of struggle and antagonism. It has generated a political culture that questions all taken-for-granted organisational models, and which produces many surprising experiences. We are in the midst of a process of refounding politics. Convincing new directions are not yet clear. There is much uncertainty. But there are many creative and generous suggestions.

The future of the WSF

There is a widespread feeling that a cycle in the development of the WSF is complete and it needs to move on in a new way. A debate on the future of the WSF is on the agenda of the International Council and is underway amongst the movements and networks which animate the Forum. The goal of this newsletter is to enlarge the debate and contribute to it.

Several points are clear:

• The Forums must continue to develop their primary role of first encouraging the networking and cross-pollination of organisations and individuals in the process of planning resistance and developing alternatives, and secondly, of expanding participation in the movement for another world.
• An implication of this is that the WSF needs to deepen its own process of internationalisation to make it easier for regions and actors still only on the boundaries of the process to become fully engaged. It can do this through its territorial and thematic articulation and through the itinerant character of the WSF process itself. Thus the idea of going to Africa or Korea for WSF 2006 would be of huge importance.
• Another development in this direction would be for the IC to become more consciously a facilitator of this process. Its composition and structure should reflect the process of network formation as well as the process of mobilisation that develop through this itinerant method. For example the IC should open its representation to the collective bodies which co-ordinate the continental and thematic Forums in a flexible way, on the basis of rotation rather than a personal basis; similarly to the coordinations of mobilisations; and to the significant networks developed within its process.
• Also, the IC should find out more about what the networks associated with the actually need and want from the Forums. Perhaps there is a case for some kind of 'Consulta' with the networks and movements who have participated in the Forum/Forums.
• An implication of this is that we must avoid any hierarchy between centrally organised seminars and plenaries and self – organised activities of various kinds. There should be fewer plenary events (following the Mumbai model) and centrally planned events should be organised in a more transparent and participative way. Indeed, their formulation could be an experiment in new forms of democracy within the Forum.
• The WSF has been and will be an incubator of new political projects. That is its explicit and implicit vocation. It is not a matter of redirecting the reality of Forum to become a political unity in the classical sense. The development and diffusion of a new political culture should remain at the centre of the Forum. It should continue to provide open spaces for self-organised activities emphasing its mission to share knowledge and spread alternative practices from below.
• One step in this direction is to do more work to value the results of the WSF, to collect the experience of all the molecular activities, networks and so on and with the help of video, audio, written documentation, inquiries, develop a more substantial WSF memory as an accessible. This would also empower its character of popoular university.
• Another path to follow would be to have a wider preparation of at least some seminars before the WSF (following an example already done in Mumbai) and structuring them more. This would mean that at the WSF they could achieve more in terms of transnational, transversal networks and the elaboration of common goals, projects and campaigns and organise effective actions. This is beginning to happen spontaneously but could be encouraged and facilitated.
• A further development, again building on what is already developing: the free plural and non compulsory elaboration of new charters of principles in close connection with networks of action and new ways of organising. This could become a horizontal and participatory way of developing a new political paradigm to strengthen the challenge to the neo-liberal and imperial world order. The development of charters of principles and action for another Europe through the ESF would be an important development in this direction.
• A final point must be about the issue of political parties: since the first WSF, movements have become increasingly interested in penetrating the political system in order to transform it. The war on Iraq, taking place against the will of the majority of people, has led more and more movement activists to believe that they cannot leave electoral politics to the right wing and the haphazard swing of the electoral pendulum. All over the world, social and trade movements are taking political activities into their own hands as a logical and necessary development of their movement concerns. This involves them in complex and tense debates and negotiations with political parties as an important part of their work. For this reason, the principle of excluding political parties is proving inappropriate;.such a separation can only delay the process of political refoundation.

The autonomy, breadth and rebelliousness of the movements is strong enough to resist any attempts to suffocate the creativity and diversity of the process by the old forms of politics.

It is worth therefore reminding ourselves of the basic flaws underlying the old politics so that we can recognise them and resist them while at the same time working towards a new antagonistic subjectivity, a new kind of unification.

The first false presumption is that there is a single 'true' strategy and programme and the task of the left is to convince everyone of the truth of this strategy/programme. It is not a break from this approach simply to accept that many diverse movements and organisations will contribute to 'the' strategy.

A vital innovation of the new movements is the idea that a plurality of actors and strategies is possible and desirable on the basis of common values and shared goals. People are straining to connect, to test out the most effective actions, to learn from failures, but there is no presumption that we will ever find 'the' true strategy. Rather, the emerging philosophy is an experimental one: it is a matter of constant experiment and the accumulation of wisdom from experience and the reflection on experience. This process of development will not be a calm and even one but will be shaken and moved constantly by struggles, crisis and conflicts. All this will challenge us in unpredictable ways and it will require a really altered and improved capacity for unification, built on these new foundations.

The second false presumption is that there can be a single centre of knowledge; even an over view which may draw from many sources but nevertheless is always drawn towards a fixed point of co-ordination is not a sufficient break from the past.

A vital innovation of the new movements (including the movements since 1968) is their valuing of a variety of sources of knowledge, practical and tacit as well as scientific and theoretical. Action itself produces new knowledge, so there are many centres of kowledge production. The important thing is that the knowledge is shared and communicated and that differences arising from it are openly and fearlessly debated. But the aim is never to come to some final agreement, rather to arrive at moments of consensus for particular actions and projects and to clarify perspectives and visions strengthening the reality of a new transformative subjectivity.

Any risk of subordination is best avoided by remaining firm in our beliefs:

in the deep crisis of the present economic and political system, which if it is not challenged could produce a crisis of civilisation; in the radically new character of subjects
of social transformation that are emerging to challenge the irrationality of the ruling order; in the impossibility of this new antagonistic subjectivity emerging and constituting itself through the existing political institutions; and finally in the ability of these new movements constantly to renew themselves through struggle and conflict and in the process to create new social and political relationships.