[WSF-Discuss] That Other World

[CACIM]

That Other World

Diego González | February 24, 2009

Translated from: Ese otro mundo <http://ircamericas.org/esp/5881>
Translated by: Michael Collins

@ http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900

Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP)
americas.irc-online.org

*"So where is the Left?" asked José Saramago as the crisis was reaching its
peak. Wall Street was becoming socialist and its very foundations were
collapsing. The response was muted, representative of a moment of withdrawal
and general uncertainty.*
Belém, Brazil: Site of the ninth World Social Forum.
Photo: http://www.fsm2009amazonia.org.br/

It was in this context that, between January 27 and February 1, the ninth
World Social Forum (WSF) took place in Belém do Pará, Brazil. The
northeastern port city, which sits on the banks of the Amazon, hosted
133,000 representatives of various organizations, social movements,
left-wing parties, nongovernmental organizations, as well as other
alterglobalists from 142 countries for a debate that had become an
inevitability. For some, the WSF had to carry on being a "non
decision-making" space for "civil society" which should limit itself to a
space for meeting and exchanging experiences. But the issues raised by many
others veered in the opposite direction. By understanding the Forum not as a
solution in itself, but rather as a tool to build an "other world" that so
many years ago was said to be possible, the crux of this new debate had to
center on providing a moderately-structured response to the current
financial collapse and the various wars taking place.

The WSF began in 2001, in the Brazilian city of Porta Alegre, the birthplace
of "participatory budgeting" and the notable stomping ground of the Unique
Workers' Center (Central Única dos Trabalhadores, CUT) and the Landless
Workers' Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, MST). Those
were tough times, with constant steps taken backward in the face of the
galloping advance of the neoliberal model. The situation was urgent and
there was not enough room for sophisticated theories and political
definitions that would have ended up excluding those who were already
marginalized by organizations that violently opposed resistance.

This is why the WSF was conceived with a wide, inclusive slogan: "Another
world is possible." After the slogan was devised, every possible form of
alter-globalization was incorporated. Within this, there were no political
platforms nor were there concrete action programs, to such an extent that in
its founding letter the WSF defines itself as a "non-deliberative and
non-decision-making" space. The symbolic enemy was always the Davos World
Economic Forum (WEF), which year after year took place in a sophisticated
Swiss ski resort and which, this time around, although fearful of a social
backlash, once again supported the free market and openly demonstrated its
opposition to a return to the "excessive regulation" of the 70s.

Eight years on from the events of 2001 (and after eight World Social Forums
across the globe1 <http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_edn1>), the world
has changed. Capitalism has again shot itself in the foot, devouring itself,
demonstrating, this time around, a lack of capacity for reinvention. As
such, Davos lives on but this time it is without the significance
traditionally attached to the event. Only desperate proclamations and
nervous faces emerged from the Forum.

The neoliberal crisis, the silence of the Left, and the ascent of
progressive governments in the region demanded another type of debate.
Raised fists and eloquent slogans didn't go far enough when faced with this
battle.

This is why, for the first time, five current Latin American presidents were
present in Belém, while only two showed up to
Davos.2<http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_edn2> The
debate was gathering pace, just as it had at the III Continental Summit of
Indigenous Pueblos and Nations of Abya Yala which took place in 2007 in
Guatemala. It went from a debate on "resistance" to one on "taking power."
Of course, not everyone agreed with this move. In fact, the disagreements on
this matter were what universally divided the Forum.
Debates

In previous meetings, the MST had played a key role in the organization of
the WSF, providing resources and participants. This time around that was not
the case. It limited itself to participating in and organizing only one type
of event: the presidential leaders' attendance.

The signs were there for all to see. By not inviting its one-time ally,
Inácio Lula da Silva, to Universidad Estadual on January 29 for the debate
involving social organizations and the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia,
Ecuador, and Paraguay, MST was delivering a clear indication of a crack in a
relationship which has yet to reach a breaking point.

João Pedro Stedile, leader of the MST and Vía Campesina, did not mince
words. Behind closed doors, in front of little more than 1,000 audience
members, he showed austerity. "We want to exchange opinions, because the
fight against neoliberalism brings us to where we are today. But now we must
take steps toward structural change," he said.

Directing his comments to the four presidents, he told them, "You haven't
moved fast enough. You have your meetings, you tell us your opinions on
current events, but we want more. We want structural changes, not medicine
for capitalism. I hope that the social movements will be invited to your
next government summit."

In turn, he called for unity and action. "It is time for us all to unite. We
cannot waste any time on our differences. We have to unite popular struggles
to fight the crisis of capitalism. The search for 21st century socialism
could last a century, but we need it tomorrow. We spoke here of recovering
our sovereignty and breaking with dependence. What we need to do is talk
about the nationalization of banks, because with the financial grip they
have, the people's moment will never come."

Yet even more compelling was the real debate, which surrounded the chosen
speaker. By withdrawing from the general organization, he isolated many NGOs
which, by definition, spurn governments regardless of the politics they
stand for. The MST opted—and this is not a minor point—to discuss ideas and
projects with governments.

The intellectual camp was not oblivious to the sidelining.

"What attitude is being taken toward those governments, who are the
representatives of the continued confrontation of neoliberalism that are
struggling for the construction of alternatives to the model? They [the
forum organizers] were not prepared, because they organized for the
resistance phase, limiting their action to a supposed 'civil society,'
excluding the political sphere and, therefore, political parties, the state,
the governments, and the strategy," summarized Emir Sader, the executive
secretary of the Latin American Social Sciences Council (Consejo
Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, CLACSO), present at the forum in
Belém.

"In this context, the forums were going in the wrong direction, and stopped
being the focal point of anti-neoliberal opposition, thus handing over their
power to governments who put into practice measures of varying scope and
success to break the model."

The Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa
Santos3<http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_edn3> wrote
that, "The largest media outlets broadcast over and over again the diagnosis
of the global situation outlined by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in its
meeting this year. It is a somber diagnosis which correlates many points
made in the diagnosis outlined by the World Social Forum in successive
meetings since 2001. It is not important to know if the WSF was right, but
ahead of time, or if the WEF is right, but too late. On the contrary, it is
important to reflect on the fact that the WSF has not had the influence or
been able to apply the pressure it had hoped to on political
decision-makers."

He continued, "This is due, in part, to a choice made by the WSF: to be an
open space for every movement and organization that fights peacefully for
the possibility of another world, without realizing that such openness could
be compromised by political decisions and the complete inability to obtain a
consensus."

The Egyptian economist and historian, Samir Amin, confronted the issue
head-on. "We have stumbled because of objectives that are short on morals,
too general, and merely say, 'we are for a better and more just world.' You
have to define what a better and more just world is and the political
strategies needed for its implementation!"

"I believe that now we have to raise the question of political strategies.
We don't necessarily have to unite as one organization, but rather we must
find a meeting point within our diversity. Various fronts, diverse cultural
references, diverse transformation goals, different types of struggles ...
But the political question is central to all of this and we must dare to say
so," Amin said defiantly.4 <http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_edn4>
"The Devil"

It was a warm night on January 29, inside the hangar of Universidad
Estadual. The Forum's location was packed by the presence of hundreds of
students, natives, trade union members, and activists from around the world.
A globe was spinning in the center of the building, but behind the main
stage a banner contained the outline of the South American continent. The
roundtable discussion was on "Latin America and the challenges of the
international crisis." The speakers: Hugo Chávez, Rafael Correa, Fernando
Lugo, Evo Morales, and Inacio Lula da Silva.

The Bolivian leader was the first to take the floor. Like many of his
colleagues, Morales recounted the obstacles he faced in order to get to
previous Forums, when he was a simple *cocalero*. He assured the audience
that his government is like a child of the WSF, and that the "other world"
is not only possible but rather it has already begun, and he later proposed
three campaigns to embark on.

One—against the invasions of Gaza, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and he
called for an end to the right of veto at the UN Security Council. "We have
to end the monarchy at the UN. It is not possible to have one country with
more power than 190. The anarchy at the UN has to end if democracy is to be
achieved," he argued.

The second initiative broached the idea of a "new international economic
order based on solidarity, justice, and mutual respect among nations," which
reforms the financial and commercial institutions set up at Bretton Woods.
"The World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the World Trade
Organization have to be fundamentally transformed if they want to be
financial institutions at the service of the people. We cannot allow them to
be given a make-over so that they can continue as they are."

The goal of the third campaign is to save the planet. To do this, according
to Morales, it is necessary to "change consumer habits, since Mother Earth
is our home and our life source."

The subject of the environment was another issue at the Forum. It was the
idea of the organizers who, not coincidentally, chose a location for the
meeting which was as remote as it was symbolic: the heart of the Amazon. In
turn, the climate change issue played the role of a rallying call which the
banner of "another world is possible" could no longer satisfy. In Belém, no
one denied the serious impact that the capitalist crisis was having on
various areas, one of which was food. Facts are facts: according to the UN's
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the number of people in the world
suffering from hunger rose from 832 million in 2007 to 963 million in 2008.

Next up in the hangar was Ecuador's Rafael Correa. As a self-defined
"economist with a lot of common sense," his speech oscillated from the
technical to the charismatic. He stated that today, South America is not
experiencing "an era of change, but rather a change of era" and he assured
the audience that the current crisis is "inherent to the capitalist model"
and therefore "it is time to change the dominant paradigm."

Correa began the debate on controversial "21st century socialism" defining
it as a "collective action to solve problems as one entity." He called for
economic planning, highlighting the role of the state and its involvement in
public matters. Coming from a dollar-dominated country, he asked for
regional unity to accelerate a single currency, and he proposed promotion of
an Organization of American States (OAS) which includes Cuba and excludes
the United States. At the same time he distanced himself from real socialism
because its "competitive manner was jeopardizing labor and social
conditions." The new project, he assured, "does not have set recipes,
because self-criticism is necessary. Socialism is neither unique nor static,
and we do not believe in manuals or dogmas."

Later, the forum saw the introduction of Fernando Lugo (president of
Paraguay) to the public. With a poetic tone, the bishop asked, "What are we
waiting for in order to declare the construction of another world at the
permanent assembly?" And he surprised everyone when he looked directly at
Lula and raised the issue of the disagreements between both countries on the
subject of the Itaipu hydroelectric dam.

Hugo Chávez said little, just what was necessary. "Previously, Fidel Castro
and I were the demons." Now, there is only "one devil." His role was to
rally the social organizations, asking them to "redouble their support and
become more of an 'offensive' force."

Lula took to the stage, grabbed the microphone from its place, and rolled up
his sleeves. Part evangelical pastor, part trade unionist-turned-president,
he charismatically strolled across the stage, sweating while firing off
sarcastic remarks, campaign slogans, and memorable sound bites.

"The developed world told us what we had to do in Latin America. They seemed
infallible and we seemed incompetent. They sold us the idea that the state
couldn't do anything and the market would develop our countries. That market
has failed due to lack of responsibility and control. Today we must say,
'another world is possible' and even more than that, it is necessary and
essential for us to look for a new order," he quipped. "This crisis is not
our crisis," he added, and the hangar, full of *Petistas*(members of Lula's
PT Workers Party), agreed wholeheartedly.

He could have let the disagreements raised by Lugo pass. But this was not
the case. He confronted them with a conciliatory tone. He charmed both the
Paraguayan and Morales, with whom he has had friction over the
nationalization of oil in Bolivia. "I will never allow a steel worker from
Sao Paulo to fight with an indigenous Bolivian," he promised.

In Belém, the World Social Forum experienced a seismic internal shift. There
was a clear and categorical debate on organizational methodology and
strategic objectives. The debate was healthy, and shows that the Forum is
dynamic and understands when it needs to reconsider its opinions. The
locations being put forward for the next meeting in 2011 are the United
States, Senegal, and South Africa. Two years will have passed and no doubt
the meeting will require other debates. But in Brazil, a positive precedent
has been set, which is even more significant if we recall that at the same
time, on the other side of the world, the former superpowers have been
rendered impotent and nervous as they become entangled in a crisis of their
own making.
End Notes

   1. <http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_ednref1>Porto Alegre (2001,
   2002, 2003, and 2005), one in India, the complex forum of 2006 that took
   place in Mali, Pakistan, and Venezuela, the controversial forum of 2007 in
   Kenya, and the decentralized post of 2008.
   2. <http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_ednref2>Álvaro Uribe of
   Colombia and Felipe Calderón of México were present at the WEF in
   Switzerland.
   3. <http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_ednref3>Articles from
   Boaventura de Sousa Santos (in Portugese),
   http://www.rebelion.org/mostrar.php?tipo=5&id=Boaventura%20de%20Sousa%20Santos&inicio=0
   .
   4. <http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5900#_ednref4>Taken from Rebelión
   (Spanish),
   http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=80231&titular="luchas-muy-importantes-no-están-presentes-en-el-foro-social-mundial"-<http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=80231&titular=%22luchas-muy-importantes-no-est%C3%A1n-presentes-en-el-foro-social-mundial%22->
   .



*Translated for the Americas Program by Michael Collins.*
*

Diego González is an independent journalist in Buenos Aires and an analyst
for the CIP Americas Policy Program, www.americaspolicy.org.
*

To reprint this article, please contact americas at ciponline.org. *The
opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily represent
the views of the CIP Americas Program or the Center for International
Policy.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20090226/e59c6e45/attachment-0001.html>