[WSF-Discuss] Fwd: 5th international--yes, why not?
Jai Sen
jai.sen at cacim.net
Wed Feb 10 11:35:09 UTC 2010
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
For reasons I am not sure of, the posting below, from Ruth Reitan,
seems to have not come through on this list.
I’m therefore sending it on. Apologies in advance for duplications,
if that has happened !
Jai
fwd
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Reitan, Ruth" <rreitan at mail.as.miami.edu>
> Date: February 10 2010 4:00:45 pm GMT+05:30
> To: "pwaterma at gmail.com" <pwaterma at gmail.com>, "jai.sen at cacim.net" <jai.sen at cacim.net
> >
> Subject: RE: 5th international--yes, why not?
>
> dear jai & peter--my message seemed to have bounced from most/all of
> the recipients that i replied to--could you kindly post it where you
> think is appropriate? thanks, ruth
>
>
> dear all,
>
> reflecting on Chavez's call for a fifth international; while i tend
> to agree with most everything that Peter and Jai say, in this
> instance, i believe that our concerns are misguided; if you read the
> statement, at least as was reported on the Links site (International
> journal of socialist renewal http://links.org.au/node/1372), what
> Chavez is calling for is pretty clearly a 'new international
> organisation of left parties'. I do not believe he is trying to
> recreate the wheel of the PGA, nor the WSF--other wheels, yes; but
> none that should overly concern movements. And anyway, he IS Chavez
> and he will in the end, with or without or blessings or curses,
> create whatever damn wheel he wishes or has the power and support to
> do so....
>
> Morales's MAS party is first on the list (as reported by the above
> link) to endorse this call, so that should allay whatever concerns
> we had about it overshadowing Morales's climate summit--let's assume
> they'll sort that out amongst each other; so too endorsing this call
> for a 5th int'l are the other left parties in power in the ALBA
> countries; while Brazil's PT, present at the meeting where Chavez
> made the call, is cool about it, owing to this initiative stealing a
> bit of thunder from their own Sao Paolo Forum; European parties
> the Left Bloc, Die Linke and Partido Gauche reportedly expressed
> interest, while the communist party of Greece--which if memory
> serves refused to participate in the 4th European Social Forum
> hosted there--is opposed.
>
> The statement at least pays serious lip service to many of the
> diverse struggles--and diversity itself--that animate today's social
> movements. Further, a seriously progressive/green amendment was
> suggested by the Australian delegation to the original call,
> reading, “In synthesis, the crisis of capitalism cannot be reduced
> to a simple financial crisis, it is a structural crisis of capital
> that combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food
> crisis and an energy crisis, which together represent a mortal
> threat to humanity and nature. In the face of this crisis, the
> movements and parties of the left see the defence of nature and the
> construction of an ecologically sustainable society as a fundamental
> axis of our struggle for a better world.” -- I am not sure we could
> say it better ourselves.
>
> So, my point is that political parties need their own space, because
> their position within the WSF, as most of us know, has been a rather
> large elephant constantly crashing the room/space (well, i'm mixing
> up my metaphors of the 'elephant in the room' with the 'bull in the
> china shop'--and probably 'putting pearls on a pig'--all of which
> could be applied to the relationship of political parties to the
> world social forum). We end up arguing endlessly over how 'masked'
> that party elephant/bull/pig needs to be, or how it needs to be
> properly invited, and its power bound, etc. etc., so as not to
> violate the WSF Charter, and more fundamentally the concern that
> underlies it--which is that parties will try to hegemonize the space.
>
> A 5th International would take the pressure off the WSF, and let
> them have their space and let the movements (or, NGOs, if you
> like...) have their space, and let Morales or the Climate Justice
> Now! & Climate Justice Action, etc., host one-off hybrid summits and
> protest actions in defense of mother earth, etc., and it seems to me
> that there is sufficient good will as well as human and
> organizational connections among those that participate in all of
> these spaces for cross-pollination--and hopefully, in future the
> adequate mechanisms and structures to translate or interface between
> these party, movement, NGO, UN & hybrid spaces that need to be
> constructed--to occur. Let a thousand flowers bloom! But more or
> less in their own boxes, please, at least for the next couple
> seasons, and with a sufficient swarm of bees and worms etc. to buzz
> or slither back and forth amongst the patches!
>
> So, returning to the world of men, let Chavez (and MAS, and die
> linke, etc.) have their party space; movements (and intellectuals)
> do not need to hegemonize every patch, do they/we, much less the
> unaffiliated lone wolf/ individual who cannot commit to an
> organization?
>
> For what it's worth, I would endorse the Albert et. al. proposal as
> it was circulated, which is sort of a scholar-activist part-
> blessing part-warning to a 'Parties party' that is anyway going to
> go on without us and it is not extremely clear whether we are whole-
> heartedly invited, and certainly not as the honored guests.
>
> Let's wait and see what happens (shades of Peter's dire predictions
> enter one's mind here :-)), but of course figure out ways to get
> reports-back AND importantly cross-over or convergence spaces (which
> have already been tried in social forums past) at upcoming forums,
> in Senegal next year at the WSF 2011 in particular, I should think,
> in a more systematic and better organized and unabashed way, that we
> certainly have time to plan for.
>
> best thoughts, (& now, i am off to a funeral).
>
> Ruth Reitan
>
> ________________________________________
> From: worldsocialforum-discuss-bounces at openspaceforum.net [worldsocialforum-discuss-bounces at openspaceforum.net
> ] On Behalf Of Jai Sen [jai.sen at cacim.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:51 AM
> To: Post WSFDiscuss; Post Activism News Network; Post Social Movements
> Cc: Jai Sen
> Subject: [WSF-Discuss] Fwd: Last chance to become an initial
> endorser...please join us
>
> Thursday, 4 February 2010
>
> Further to the two postings I did yesterday in relation to a
> Proposal for a Participatory Socialist International, I am posting
> here my own contribution to that process, sent in to the organisers
> late yesterday.
>
> Aside from my general attempt to engage with the very idea of an
> International at this stage in history, some of you might find my
> letter of some interest in part because I argue that the organisers
> of this initiative – apparently addressing themselves at this point
> to Hugo Chavez’ call for a Fifth International alone – need to also
> address the extremely significant call by the Bolivian government
> for a ‘Peoples’ World Conference On Climate Change And The Rights Of
> Mother Earth’, www.cmpcc.org<http://www.cmpcc.org/>; see my posting
> on this on this list on January 7 2010. As it happens, this
> conference is also scheduled for the very same month as the
> Venezuelan one, April 2010, and is of course also taking place on
> the same continent.
>
> And secondly, aside from making several other points, I also attempt
> to draw some lessons from what I understand to be the magic of the
> World Social Forum for the proposed International.
>
> In my understanding at least, and even though I am quite critical of
> the Proposal as it stands, and have proposed several changes, I
> respect the initiative and believe that it is very important to try
> and seriously engage with it and with other such initiatives.
> (Therefore my letter.) I hope that my posting it here might also
> provoke some others to comment on it (or on my comment), and in
> general debate these developments !
>
> Finally, it would be good to know if anyone on this list is
> expecting to be going to either of the two conferences – and as to
> whether you are open to exchanging views before going, and after ?
>
> JS
>
> fwd
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jai Sen <jai.sen at cacim.net<mailto:jai.sen at cacim.net>>
> Date: February 3 2010 10:52:17 pm GMT+05:30
> To: michael albert <sysop at zmag.org<mailto:sysop at zmag.org>>
> Cc: Jai Sen <jai.sen at cacim.net<mailto:jai.sen at cacim.net>>, Ezequiel
> Adamovsky <e.adamovsky at gmail.com<mailto:e.adamovsky at gmail.com>>,
> Xavier Dias <reachxdias at gmail.com<mailto:reachxdias at gmail.com>>,
> François Houtart <francoishoutart at yahoo.fr<mailto:francoishoutart at yahoo.fr
> >>, Michael Löwy
> <michael.lowy at orange.fr<mailto:michael.lowy at orange.fr>>, Milan Rai <milanrai at btinternet.com
> <mailto:milanrai at btinternet.com>>, Peter Waterman
> <pwaterma at gmail.com<mailto:pwaterma at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: Last chance to become an initial endorser...please join
> us
>
> Wednesday, February 3 2010
>
>
> Dear Michael, hello
> (Copy to those signatories I know : Ezequiel Adamovsky, Xavier Dias,
> François Houtart, Michael Löwy, Milan Rai, Peter Waterman (+ added
> later, Vandana Shiva)
> (But I’d be happy if you would like to also send this letter on to
> the others)
>
> Thanks for this invitation to endorse and comment on the
> intervention you are proposing in the process initiated by Hugo
> Chavez last year towards forming a Fifth International.
>
> I think that it’s very good that you have taken this initiative, and
> I am interested in endorsing it, but first I have a few comments to
> make and questions to ask.
>
> First, I want to declare my agreement with almost all the
> observations and comments made by Peter Waterman on the Proposal in
> the posting he made yesterday [Peter Waterman, February 2010 –
> ‘Beyond a 5th International (Question-Mark) : A Global Justice and
> Solidarity Network (Exclamation-Mark)’. Posted on Debate, February
> 2 2010 at 7:40 pm IST (GMT+05:30)]; viz :
>
> · Michael does not really discuss the Chavez project nor, 2),
> is it clear … how his proposal might be presented prior to or at
> [the Caracas] conference. Whether and how the two eventually relate
> - or fail to do so – to each other may give us more to say about both.
>
> · Given … the state-party source of the Chavez initiative, I
> believe that any radical-democratic or participatory-socialist
> alternative to such, has to specify on the concept of 'autonomy'. …
> [And where] I take ‘autonomy’ to imply independence from domination
> by capital (money), state (power from above) and parties (mediators
> between these hegemons and society). ‘Autonomy’ from such implies a
> primary source in and address to the collective self-activity of
> radically-democratic social movements, their support bodies,
> academics, cultural activists and others related to such.
>
> · I would prefer to exclude Left political parties, given their
> common state-dependence and/or their quasi-universal statism -
> meaning their prioritisation of the state (or inter-state
> organisations), and vanguardism. ….
>
> · Hegemonisation is not, of course, a problem limited to Left
> political parties. Social movements based in or originating from the
> North can act as patrons in relation to Southern ones or those of
> the poverty-stricken ex-Soviet bloc. Given this tendency, the
> granting of voting power according to organizational membership
> would be fatal.
>
> · Any new international(ism) needs to be have a clearly
> expressed 'preferential option for the poor' (liberation theology),
> or act as an 'intentional open space' (to paraphrase Jeff Juris on
> the Atlanta Social Forum in the US).
>
> · Any new international(ism) also has to be significantly more
> historically-aware than either the Chavez or the Michael Albert
> project has yet shown itself to be. It is not sufficient to make
> reference to previous Left internationals, or to simply castigate
> them…. Those who do not know their own history or pre-history are
> condemned to repeat it. … There has to be an explicit process of
> self-reflexivity built in to any such project…
>
> · The implication of these remarks are that the few weeks left
> before the Chavez-sponsored conference are far too short for
> discussion on the nature of a new international(ism) which will not
> reproduce the ideological or structural shortcomings - or the
> counter-productive, or Eurocentric, or androcentric nature - of
> previous Left internationals.
>
> · … I am more open to the project of the Bolivian President,
> Evo Morales, for a conference on a ‘Peoples’ World Conference On
> Climate Change And The Rights Of Mother Earth’, www.cmpcc.org<http://www.cmpcc.org/
> >, also scheduled for April 2010. This is not primarily a matter of
> preference for the Bolivian over the Venezuelan state, or of Evo
> over Hugo. It is because this initiative is NOT ideologically-
> politically specified, NOT universalistic (addressing everything
> everywhere), does NOT propose a new institution, uses new language
> (the rights of the earth?), and is directly addressed to one
> specific and fundamental global issue.
>
> I would like to most strongly urge that you and your co-signatories
> pay close attention to each of these points, in the re-drafting and
> finalisation of the Proposal.
>
> Beyond these points however, but also in relation to some of them, I
> also have the following points to make. Before doing so though, I
> feel I must say that you really have given us far too little time to
> react and contribute to this process (and where your “LAST CHANCE”
> letter today has come in just two days after the initial
> invitation !). Please do try and avoid this kind of process and
> culture in the future.
>
> As a result of this extremely short time however, and where I
> realised that I had several things to say, I just haven’t had the
> time to even attempt to re-draft the text you have circulated, and I
> am limiting myself instead to comments that I can only hope you and
> your co-drafters will find useful. My comments are also perhaps a
> little rough and ready, but I do hope that you and your co-drafters
> will accept them in the spirit of critical solidarity intended :
>
> 1. The preamble to your letters make clear that this
> intervention is explicitly in relation to the Chavez initiative for
> a Fifth International. But, and more specifically than Peter has
> said, I feel very strongly that this proposal must also relate to
> the initiative taken by the Bolivian government, a ‘Peoples’ World
> Conference On Climate Change And The Rights Of Mother Earth’, www.cmpcc.org
> <http://www.cmpcc.org/>, which is also scheduled for the very same
> month, April 2010. In particular, and here I again agree with
> Peter, we should do this because the Bolivian Call is also about
> forming an international - but in a very different way and, I feel,
> pointing to an international far more akin in terms of the values
> that this initiative speaks for and hopes for. In theory at least,
> what they seem to be proposing is a process international - an open,
> and open-ended, non-institutional international.
>
> This might be entirely unintended and inadvertent, but by
> privileging the Chavez Call and by not even mentioning the Bolivian
> Call (even though it is also taking place in the very same month,
> and even though it has been called by an even more ‘friendly’ state,
> and moreover by a ‘social movement state’ led by indigenous
> peoples), your initiative, which after all is aiming high (nothing
> less than for planetary endorsement) is in effect - as it stands -
> blanking out this other initiative; one which in my opinion is far
> more valuable and relevant.
>
> It is possible that the unstated and underlying intention of your
> initiative is to specifically try and influence what you see as so
> far being a powerful but negative initiative – and it is for this
> reason that you have felt it appropriate to not also mention the
> Bolivian one; but I think that the lack of mention, at this stage in
> world history, and especially for an initiative like this one, will
> – in the long run – be resounding. I’d therefore like to most
> strongly urge you to correct this.
>
> I’d also like to make the specific suggestion that if there is a
> delegation of whatever of signatories going to Caracas, either to
> attend the Chavez event or to hold a parallel one, that some or all
> of you definitely plan to also attend the Cochabamba Conference.
>
> 2. Although the preamble to your letter makes this
> clear, as Peter has also said the text of the Proposal as it stands
> does not explicitly refer anywhere to the Chavez call for a Fifth
> International. If this is your intention, then it surely must say
> so in the opening paragraph itself. And, as I suggest above, it
> should also specifically refer and relate to the Bolivian Call.
>
> 3. The Proposal as drafted says “We, the undersigned,
> endorse the idea of a new International”. But you nowhere make
> clear what you mean by an International, especially in terms of its
> organisational and political culture; but where, given that there is
> precedent, it would surely be absolutely natural for anyone reading
> this to think that what you mean is one more in that sad line. I
> recognise that Points 3, 4, and 5 are steps in this direction, but
> the formulations are still rather preliminary; and even these come a
> little late in the document. I think it would be good to make the
> political culture and character of what you are proposing clear,
> right at the beginning, even in a summarised form, and how what is
> proposed differs from the previous ones.
>
> I suppose it could be said that you have in fact signalled this in
> the very title, in your call for a “Participatory Socialist
> International”. But while some Chavezistas might well be attracted
> by this title, with due respect for socialism and participation
> there are plenty of concerned, sympathetic and active people out
> there in social and political movement today who are likely to be
> cautious about involvement just because of this wording. I’m not
> asking you to necessarily change the title; but I am asking you to
> make explicitly clear in the very first few lines what this Proposal
> stands for, and then let people decide.
>
> 4. While in spirit I agree with Peter’s point that he
> would prefer to not see political parties eligible for the
> International you are calling for, I don’t expect you to agree. But
> even if you don’t, I think you must try and spell out what you mean
> by “political”, in Point 5. In particular, does this include so-
> called “social” movements and organisations, or does it not ?
> (Which, incidentally, the Bolivian Call specifically includes, as
> did the original Chavez call ?)
>
> And also “project” : Would you, for instance, agree that any
> voluntary association of individuals to do something or the other is
> a ‘project’ ?
>
> 5. In terms of content, and especially your Point 1, I
> think that the following key areas and issues are missing, and must
> be addressed and included :
>
> · The sovereignty and autonomy of all human beings, and their/
> our right to and freedom of self-determination and self-governance
> · Questions of social transformation and justice and of
> emancipation (and where these crucial words and concepts do not even
> figure anywhere in the Proposal, at the moment)
> · The special position and rights of the indigenous peoples of
> the world, the relations between indigenous peoples and nations and
> settler societies, and the question of redressal of the past
> · The question of as-yet unrecognised peoples and nations,
> both indigenous and others, and how this is to be addressed
> · The question of likely consequences of the climate change we
> are already seeing on our planet for social conditions, and in
> particular in relation to the likelihood of the onset of rapid and
> unpredictable increase in conflict and war, between nations but also
> between peoples and movements. (Given the very particular stage of
> history we are at, I don’t think it is enough to just signal this by
> the term ‘ecology’.)
> · Instead of using the very governmental and institutional
> term “immigration”, the right and freedom of human beings to migrate
> at will across the planet (which is something that will become of
> even greater relevance in the foreseeable future, as the heat builds
> and as conflicts grow).
>
> I personally believe that we are entering a new stage of not just
> human but planetary history, and so the Proposal – for something as
> ambitious as an International - must, at this juncture, attempt to
> address this moment; and not just signal it by generic categories.
>
> 6. Coming now (or returning) to the question of
> process, and having said the above : So far, and in terms of
> process, your letter and the Proposal seem to say that the only
> opportunity for changes in the text is now; and that after this, the
> text will be final and posted only for support and endorsement. At
> least, that is what the process paras sound like. Do I understand
> you correctly ?
>
> If I haven’t understood you correctly, then please just try and
> modify the process parts of the letter etc and ignore the following;
> but if I have understood you correctly, then I have to say that I
> feel this closure – where really only the initial and present
> endorsers (all of whom are there by invitation, in other words
> itself a closed process) can propose modifications - is unnecessary
> and politically inappropriate to the task at hand. I would
> therefore like to strongly urge you to change this and, rather than
> trying to finalise the proposal now, that you open the draft
> Proposal for proper and open debate and aim to finalise it not now
> but say by the end of March – which would still be well in time for
> the Caracas meeting. If indeed you do this (= move to open debate),
> (a) you would be living out the ‘participatory’ nature of the future
> that you are calling for, rather than contradicting it, and (b)
> those convening the Caracas meeting would certainly be listening in
> (or would have every chance to, because the process will be open),
> and so there is no question that they would not have enough time to
> absorb the new ideas coming in…
>
> Frankly, I am also quite concerned that the process you seem to have
> proposed / to be taking is in danger of falling into precisely the
> same kind of culture, and process, that the Bamako Appeal prepared
> by Samir Amin and others in 2006 exhibited : In short, and very
> sadly, although well intentioned, also somewhat undemocratic and non-
> participatory; and therefore contradictory to the values it espoused
> - and that this Proposal espouses, even more explicitly. As in the
> case of the Bamako Appeal, a group of people, of unknown size, have
> drafted this document in private; and a still quite preliminary
> draft has been floated for modification and endorsement within a
> closed list and with a guillotine in terms of time. This has been
> done, of course, for good enough reasons and in terms of a very
> positive initiative, to address and influence what the authors seem
> to suggest (but don’t actually spell out, as mentioned above) is a
> faulty, inadequate, and maybe even negative initiative that is
> looming in front of us. As a result however, and not to put too
> fine a point on it, those who are approached both want to be
> associated with such an initiative – quite aside from also just
> acting on trust, as we often do – and are also perhaps a little
> panicked into signing up…. !
>
> I don’t want to go into details here as to how closely this seems to
> parallel the Bamako Appeal process and experience (but where you can
> get the details in a Reader on the Appeal that the Centre for Civil
> Society, Durban and we at CACIM in New Delhi published in 2007;
> available in full at www.cacim.net<http://www.cacim.net> and www.nu.ac.za/ccs
> <http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs>), and I certainly don’t mean to accusative
> in any way, but given this experience I would like to most strongly
> urge that you reflect on this and re-consider your decision to
> ‘close’ the Proposal at this stage. To the contrary, please do keep
> it open, for further modification. (And in any case, nothing is
> ever really ‘closed’…)
>
> 7. Finally, you have / the draft Proposal has suggested
> that the membership of the International, or whatever, is restricted
> to organisations (etc), specifically proscribing individuals (or
> rather, prescribing that if they want to be involved, they must join
> groups). Two points : One, given this it seems strange and vaguely
> contradictory to me, and even a little amusing, that the Proposal
> for this organisation-only process has so far been signed (and
> authored, I assume) by individuals alone, with no organisational
> authority or legitimacy; and two, you are implicitly recognising
> that it is organisations alone that have the legitimacy to
> deliberate and make decisions, for society and the planet; and that
> individuals have no role in such processes, as individuals. I
> believe that if nothing else, the experience of the World Social
> Forum – the very substantial experience now, of the World Social
> Forum – should make us reflect on this very classical formulation,
> and make us ask the question of whether there is no other way. Is
> it really the International Council of the WSF, based as it is on
> the conventional principle of organisational representation, that
> ‘decides’ what the WSF is and does ? Or does the magic of what the
> WSF is, and what it does, lie somewhere else entirely ? In, as
> Arturo Escobar, Graeme Chesters, and others including myself have
> argued, self-organised and self-organising activities ?
>
> But if it lies somewhere else, then what lessons should we be
> attempting to draw from this, when we consider the possibility of
> trying to build something new ? Should we once more instinctively
> return to the tried and tested, and completely inadequate, default
> option of organisational design, and try and practice new politics
> through old forms ? Or should we try and draw on, for instance, the
> writings of people such as Ezequiel Adamovsky (such as his essay
> ‘Autonomous Politics and its Problems : Thinking the Passage from
> the Social to the Political’) ? Especially at moments like this, I
> personally feel that we perhaps have not even begun to understand –
> comprehend - what the WSF offers us, and feel so strongly that this
> initiative that you have taken can and should be one more process
> through which we try and do so, and through which we forge a new
> politics; rather than setting ourselves in concrete from Day One.
> For what, after all is said and done, is the larger objective of the
> ‘international’ you are proposing ? Is it not to build another
> politics, another world, a new world ? But can we really hope to do
> so through old forms ?
>
> Enough said. Having said the above, I think I can say that I would
> like to endorse the Proposal but only if you feel you can open it up
> for debate. If you think you can do so, then count me in !
>
> Let me know.
>
> With warm greetings,
>
>
> Jai
>
> PS : A small point : Your revised list of signatories, as here,
> shows Peter Waterman as coming from the US… Unless he has recently
> shifted, I think he belongs to either Netherlands or to the UK (or
> both); or to Cyberia, as per his more recent writings.
> But – separate point – the fact you have decided to resort to
> organising this list by countries (“nations”) is also, even if
> useful for identification, recognition of balance etc etc, a little
> ironic in a statement of this kind… towards building a new
> international !
>
> On Feb 3 2010, at 12:52 am, michael albert wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Did you receive the proposal bearing on the April fifth
> international gathering in Caracas?
>
> I would be great if you would endorse it - or, if you have some
> problem with it, perhaps could let us know what it is in case there
> are changes we can make.
>
> There are already over 50 initial endorsers, and we will finalize
> that process and go live online for people to endorse there, in a
> couple of days. So that is why it is now urgent that you please take
> a look and reply...if you want to be an initial endorser, that is.
>
> The proposal seeks to enlarge the discussion of features for a new
> International - before, during, and after the gathering now planned
> for April in Caracas. We have already been asked for a Spanish
> translation for the committee planning the gathering, and we are
> preparing that with help from folks in Venezuela.
>
> The initial endorsers of the proposal are listed beneath it,
> below...and that is where we hope you will join in....
>
>
>
> ====
>
>
> Proposal for A Participatory Socialist International
>
>
> We the undersigned support the idea of a new International and urge
> that its conception and founding include collectively assessing,
> refining, and implementing as many of the following points as the
> International’s founding participants decide mutually agreeable:
>
> 1. That a new International should at least be centrally concerned
> with economics, gender and kinship, culture and community, politics,
> international relations, and ecology with no need for, and no point
> trying to elevate any one of these focuses above all the rest since
> (a) all these six central domains will critically affect the
> character of a new world, (b) each of these six domains is capable
> of manifesting influences that would subvert efforts to reach a new
> world, and (c) the constituencies most involved in and affected by
> each of these six domains would be intensely alienated if their
> prime concerns were relegated to secondary importance.
>
>
> 2. That in a Participatory Socialist future:
>
> * economic production, consumption, and allocation should be
> classless - which includes at least equitable access for all to
> quality and accessible education, healthcare, food, water,
> sanitation, housing, meaningful and dignified work, and the
> instruments and conditions of personal fulfillment
>
> * gender/kinship, sexual, and family relations should not
> privilege by age, sexual preference, or gender any one group above
> others - which includes at least ending all forms of oppression of
> women while providing daycare, recreation, health care, etc.
>
> * culture and community relations among races, ethnic groups,
> religions, and other cultural communities should protect the rights
> and identity of each community up to equally respecting those of all
> other communities as well - which includes at least an end to
> racist, ethnocentric, and otherwise bigoted structures as well as
> and while simultaneously securing the prosperity and rights of
> indigenous people
>
> * political decision making, adjudication of disputes and
> implementation of shared programs should deliver “people’s power” in
> ways that do not elevate any one sector or constituency above others
> - which includes at least participation and justice for all
>
> * international trade, communication, and other interactions
> should attain and protect peace and justice while dismantling all
> vestiges of colonialism and imperialism - which includes at least
> canceling the debt of nations of the global south and reconstructing
> international norms and relations to move toward an equitable and
> just community of equally endowed nations
>
> * ecological choices should not only be sustainable, but should
> care for the environment in accord with our highest aspirations for
> ourselves and our world - which includes at least climate justice
> and energy renovation
>
> 3. That as guiding values and principles to contextualize and inform
> all its internal deliberations and programmatic actions a
> Participatory Socialist International should:
>
> * highlight solidarity as part of its ethos. An International is,
> after all, about aligning worldwide movements and projects into
> mutual aid and collective benefit.
>
> * highlight diversity as central to is practice, both due to the
> obvious ecological necessity of doing so, and due to the observation
> that in any undertaking minority views thought to be crazy today can
> lead to what is brilliant tomorrow.
>
> * highlight equity as a guiding aspiratation, even if the
> International retains contradictory “certainties” about just what
> constitutes equity.
>
> * highlight Peace with justice and ecological sustainability and
> wisdom as guiding aims for the obvious reasons of international
> survival and fulfillment.
>
> * ensure “democracy” in its practice and goals, and hopefully
> reach further to a more inspiring conception of “people’s power,” or
> “participatory democracy,” or “self management.”
>
> * and finally, determine and implement whatever structural steps
> may prove essential to organizationally embodying solidarity,
> diversity, equity, and informed, confident, participation by all its
> members in its political, economic, and social life.
>
>
> 4. That a new International becomes the greatest sum of all its
> parts and embodies internal differences as a source of strength
> rather than becoming a coalition attached only to universally agreed
> but very minimalist claims, or embodying a single line that attempts
> to capture all views in any one narrow pattern - and that to achieve
> this the new International would:
>
> * include and celebrates “currents” to serve as vehicles for
> contending views where the International’s various currents would be
> seen as a strength warding off sectarianism and guaranteeing
> constant growth.
>
> * establish that currents would take for granted that the
> intentions of other currents were good, that differences were about
> substance and not motive, and subject to substantive debate which
> would be a serious part of the whole project.
>
> * afford each of its component currents visibility and means to
> engage with all others to try to advance new insights bearing on
> policy and program.
>
> * guarantee that as long as any particular current accepted the
> basic tenets of the International and operated in accord with its
> norms and methods, it would always be heard and minority positions
> would, to the extent possible, be given space not only to argue, but
> if they don’t prevail, to continue developing their views and trying
> to establish their merit or to discover their inadequacies.
>
> * agree that the idea of a political or programmatic line that
> everyone follows would be foreign to the culture and process of this
> type of new International.
>
> 5. Members of the new International would be political parties,
> movements, organizations, or even projects, where:
>
> * members, employees, staff, etc., of each new International
> member organization would in turn gain membership in the
> International.
>
> * individuals who want to be members of the International,
> therefore, but who have no member group that they belong too, would
> have to hook up with one.
>
> * every member group would have its own agenda for its own
> separate operations which would be inviolable
>
> * at the same time, each member group would presumably be strongly
> urged to make its own operations consistent with the norm,
> practices, and shared programmatic agendas of the International so
> that there would be solidarity but also autonomy.
>
> * member groups would have wildly different sizes, no doubt - so
> in the future there could be a group with a handful of members in
> the International, and another group with thousands, or even
> millions of members.
>
> * since the International’s decisions would not bind groups other
> than regarding the collective International agenda, a good way to
> arrive at decisions might be serious discussion and exploration,
> followed by polls of the whole International membership to see
> peoples’ leanings, followed by refinements of proposals to seek even
> greater support and to allow dissidents to make their case,
> culminating in final votes of the membership seeking to convey
> democratic influence to all parties.
>
> 5. Programmaticallly:
>
> * a new International might call for international events and days
> of dissent, support campaigns for existing struggles by member
> organizations, support member organizations against repression,
> undertake widespread debates and campaigns to advance understanding
> and mutual knowledge... and...
>
> * more ambitiously, an International might also decide on
> campaigns and projects of its own, financed via its membership. It
> might settle, for example, on a massive international focus on
> immigration, on ending a war, on shortening the work week all over
> the planet, and/or on averting climatic catastrophe. It might then
> prepare materials, undertake education, pursue activist campaigns,
> carry out boycotts, support local efforts, etc.
>
> * general programs, would be up to member organizations to decide
> how to relate to, yet there would be considerable collective
> momentum for each member organization to participate and contribute
> as best it can in light of the obvious insight that clearly one
> reason to have an International is to help organizations, movements,
> and projects escape single issue loneliness by becoming part of a
> larger process encompassing diverse focuses and united by agreements
> on various major shared endeavors.
>
> Initial Endorsers - who we hope you will join
>
>
> Argentina
>
> Ezequiel Adamovsky <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/ezequieladamovsky
> >
> Marie Trigona<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/marietrigona>
>
>
> Australia
>
> Justin George<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/justingeorge>
> John Pilger
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/johnpilger>George Burchett<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/georgeburchett
> >
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/johnpilger>
>
> Canada
>
> Chris Dixon<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/chrisdixon>
> Dave Markland<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/davemarkland>
> Justin Podur
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/justinpodur>Marla Renn<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/marlarenn
> >
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/justinpodur>
>
> Czechoslavakia
>
> Andre Vltchek
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/andrevltchek>
>
> France
>
> Francois Houtart<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/francoishoutart
> >
> Peter Hall Jones<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/
> peterhalljones>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/francoishoutart>Michael Lowy<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/michaellowy
> >
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/richardhalljones>
>
> Greece
>
> Nikos Raptis
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/nikosraptis>
>
> India
>
> Xavier Dias<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/xavierdias>
> Badri Raina
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/badriraina>Vandana Shiva<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/vandanashiva
> >
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/badriraina>
>
> Italy
>
> Bruno Gulli
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/brunogulli>
>
> Netherlands
>
> Daniel Chavez
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/danielchavez>
>
> Pakistan
>
> Pervez Hoodbhoy
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/pervezhoodbhoy>
>
> Palestine
>
> Omar Barghouti<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/omarbarghouti>
> Haidar Eid<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/haidarrid>
>
>
> South Africa
>
> Patrick Bond
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/patrickbond>Caragh Iles<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/caraghiles
> >
> Mandisi Majavu<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/mandisimajavu>
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/patrickbond>
>
> Soviet Union
>
> Boris Kagarlitsky<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/boriskagarlitski
> >
>
>
> United Kingdom
>
> Milan Rai<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/milanrai>
>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/nikosraptis>
>
> United States
>
> Michael Albert
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/michaelalbert><http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/michaelalbert
> >Ronnie Almonte<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/ronniealmonte>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/michaelalbert>Carl Boggs<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/carlboggs
> >
> Peter Bohmer<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/peterbohmer>
> Leslie Cagan<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/lesliecagan>
> Noam Chomsky<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky>
> John Cronan<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/johncronin>
> Marcus Denton<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/marcusdenton>
> Chris Dixon<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/chrisdixon>
> Jill Soffiyah Elijah<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/jillsoffiyahelijah
> >
> Ann Ferguson<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/annferguson>
> Richard Franke<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/richardfranke>
> John Kane<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/johnkane>
> Brian Kelly<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/briankelly>
> Saul Landau<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/saullandau>
> Gar Lipow<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/garlipow>
> Cynthia Peters<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/cynthiapeters>
> Michael Ratner<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/michaelratner>
> Lydia Sargent<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/lydiasargent>
> Stephen Shalom<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/stephenshalom>
> Keith Harmon Snow<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/keithharmonsnow
> >
> Chris Spannos<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/chrisspannos>
> Peter Waterman<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/peterwaterman>
>
>
> Venezuela
>
> James Suggett<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/jamessuggett>
> <http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/fernandovegas>Fernando Vegas<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/fernandovegas
> >
> Greg Wilpert<http://ruby.zcommunications.org/zspace/gregwilpert>
>
> ______________________________
> Jai Sen
> jai.sen at cacim.net<mailto:jai.sen at cacim.net>
> CACIM, A-3 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024, India
> www.cacim.net<http://www.cacim.net>
> Ph : +91-11-4155 1521, +91-98189 11325
>
> DELETION OF OLD EMAIL IDs : Please note that I am no longer using my
> earlier email ids, jai.sen at vsnl.com<mailto:jai.sen at vsnl.com> and jai_sen2000 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:jai_sen2000 at yahoo.com>. PLEASE KINDLY DELETE THESE FROM YOUR
> RECORDS ! Thanks.
>
> NEW :
> ‘On open space : Explorations towards a vocabulary of a more open
> politics’, @ http://cacim.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=Publications
> (May 20 2009)
>
> Check out both CACIM @ www.cacim.net<http://www.cacim.net> and
> OpenSpaceForum @ www.openspaceforum.net<http://www.openspaceforum.net>
>
> Subscribe to WSFDiscuss, an open and unmoderated forum on the World
> Social Forum and on related social and political movements and
> issues. Simply send an empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
> <mailto:worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net>
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> Note : In case you are having problems opening any Word attachments
> I have sent you, you could try one of the following : (a) Put your
> cursor on the icon, do a right click, see ‘Open With’, and open with
> Word…; or (b), try saving the document onto your desktop or hard
> disc, and then opening it. With apologies in advance if this advice
> seems to question your technological literacy…
>
______________________________
Jai Sen
jai.sen at cacim.net
CACIM, A-3 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024, India
www.cacim.net
Ph : +91-11-4155 1521, +91-98189 11325
DELETION OF OLD EMAIL IDs : Please note that I am no longer using my
earlier email ids, jai.sen at vsnl.com and jai_sen2000 at yahoo.com. PLEASE
KINDLY DELETE THESE FROM YOUR RECORDS ! Thanks.
NEW :
‘On open space : Explorations towards a vocabulary of a more open
politics’, @ http://cacim.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=Publications
(May 20 2009)
Check out both CACIM @ www.cacim.net and OpenSpaceForum @ www.openspaceforum.net
Subscribe to WSFDiscuss, an open and unmoderated forum on the World
Social Forum and on related social and political movements and issues.
Simply send an empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Note : In case you are having problems opening any Word attachments I
have sent you, you could try one of the following : (a) Put your
cursor on the icon, do a right click, see ‘Open With’, and open with
Word…; or (b), try saving the document onto your desktop or hard disc,
and then opening it. With apologies in advance if this advice seems
to question your technological literacy…
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20100210/b35620c2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WorldSocialForum-Discuss
mailing list