---

part0   |   part1   |   part2  |  part3

 

The World Social Forum strategy  (Xavier)

 

June 2013

The current predicament

I believe that the current situation is characterised by a two-fold process, firstly consisting of an acceleration of globalisation, which is to be understood as the uttermost integration of the operational systems and flows which make up the structure of capitalist production. The second element of the process is the destructive headlong rush of the current system. In the space of ten years, the world economy and the extent to which it is interconnected has developed considerably. However, this integration meets the principal need of Western economies – that of guaranteeing their own levels of profit to the backdrop of a stagnation in productivity growth and a saturation of the market. If all things remain equal, the marginal profitability of Western economies would be too low to allow for them to continue to prosper, given the need to uphold systems of production while maintaining social stability. Emerging and low-income countries have made up for this structural weakness by taking up the baton of economic growth. This has been done firstly by handing back profit margins to companies which outsource or subcontract production and secondly by allowing them to rake in high earnings thanks to the system of transferring prices from the subsidiary, or supplier, to the parent company. In this sense, transfer pricing is essentially a system which rewards Western economies for the historically dominant positions they have held, which could also be viewed as their ‘social desirability’ (the brand) and the share of ‘expertise’ that they still hold a monopoly over.

 

As a result of this, the balance of power between the West and ‘emerging’ countries has been modified, with the former having to reckon with the demands of the latter, given that, contrary to what occured during the colonial period, the consent of the ‘emerging’ countries is required in order for the Western powers to reach their ambitions. Their geostrategic power (particularly in the case of China, a permanent member of the Security Council) prevents Western powers from taking a belittling stance.

 

Therefore, we face the threat of a confrontation between the Western bloc on the one hand, which is structurally constrained by a development model which is only viable if the bloc maintains its dominant position and, on the other hand, countries which have drawn the benefits from the internal contradictions of this model (and the neoliberal doxa that was seen as one which would surpass these contradictions). This has modified the balance of power, with countries seeking any way possible to free themselves from the belittling approach of the West in order to replace it with a ‘neo-Westphalian’ world, organised around a new geostrategic balance which would leave no place for the notion of an ‘international community’.

 

 

The state of play regarding the Social Forum process and the objectives which it should be given

 

On the other hand, the very reason for the existence of the WSF is precisely to bestow the notion of ‘international community’ with a social nature as opposed to a purely diplomatic or legal one. The WSF process thus falls into a historical dynamic which is entirely in contrast with, and antithetical to, the dynamic outlined above.

 

Therefore, should one speak of successive ‘cycles’ of social struggles on a global level, interspersed with dates acting as milestones along the way, such as the 2001 Porto Alegre WSF, or the 2011 Dakar WSF which took place at the outbreak of the Arab Spring? In other words, is the WSF an assembly point for social struggles which settle into a rythm and a working pattern for their international alliances thanks to the regularity of the forums? Is this the method undertaken in a combat which pits the movements against a formidably protean adversary which may not necessarily come in the form of the large powers (which themselves are deeply divided), but rather in the form of the underlying rationale of a form of globalisation which is organised by and for the market, destroying all in its wake?

 

In my view this is not so, given that the WSF process has not entirely managed to impose the alterglobalisation agenda, neither in public debate nor among its very own participants, an agenda which sought to add a positive form of discourse to the anti-globalisation of Seattle. With the exception of a handful of flagship measures (financial transaction tax, the cancelling of odious or illegitimate debt) or principles (a participatory approach, consensus-based democracy, interculturality, ‘living together’ and ‘living well’) alterglobalisation struggles to put together a coherent world vision. Too many opposing trends therein clash – the most radical feminist currents are to be found alongside large trade union confederations inspired by Marxism, indigenous groups rub shoulders with colonials and landless small-scale farmers, etc. The WSF charter has somewhat evaded the issue of coherence by putting together a ‘marketplace’ forum – an open space which all are invited to join – while making ‘enlargement’ the strategic priority of the process.

 

Alterglobalisation struggles to pull itself away from antiglobalisation. Human Rights (civil and political as well as ESC rights) would not alone constitute a WSF programme, since the effective implementation of these rights (particularly ESCR) would require economic and social structural changes. However, the only gathering of social movements and civil society actors, no matter how frequent it may be, will not be able to give rise to such an all-embracing political programme. Such a wide-reaching programme can only be produced by contradictory interests coming together, mediated by a ‘universal’ third party, more specifically a world state, which is representative and legitimate, the contradictions of which would be pieced apart and overcome. The building of such a world state should be the fundamental strategic objective of the international social movement[1].

 

While waiting for this moment to come about, the international social movement should ensure that the WSF is an opportunity for testing out ‘internal’ contradictions in one way or another, with the minimum aim of preparing possible future conditions, if not bringing about real agreement regarding a programme for moving forward.

 

 

The issue of methodology at the WSF:

 

From a methodological perspective, the 2013 WSF came to a close in a similar way to previous editions. The convergence and thematic assemblies did not reach shared conclusions regarding an action plan. Such an ambition would be rather too broad, anyway: time is short, participants are from such varied backgrounds (both individuals and groups, all with diverse analyses), meaning that strategic questions cannot be addressed, a necessary precondition for mobilising towards any form of action.

As opposed to aiming at all costs to make the WSF an incubator for global actions, would it not be better to envisage the ‘thematic spaces’ as arenas for progressing in collective intelligence by focusing efforts on the contradictory debate, an element of utmost importance? No real, effective convergence is possible without a debate in which contradictions arise. By definition, the very coming together of ‘peers’ (the very principle at the heart of the WSF) does not allow for such a debate unless a shared strategic reflection takes place.

Following this line of thought, the thematic spaces could set aside their plenary sessions (intermediary or final assemblies) for debates on a particular analysis or proposal which is to be found at the crossroads, so to speak, of the conclusions reached in the workshops. This could be proposed by the workshop coordinators who would come together in a group to facilitate the process. The convergence assemblies would have the sole aim of providing a framework to this contradictory debate, which would be led by a moderator appointed by the workshop coordinators / rapporteurs. The convergence assemblies would therefore be working areas at the crossroads between the work done in the preparatory workshops, the aim of which would be to overcome or go beyond the contradictions, specifying content for our proposals.

This proposal works on the presupposition that the thematic spaces, which predate the WSF editions, are the main ‘convergence’ framework. This would entail at the very least the need to promote their active role within the WSF, or even to encourage building links between the large thematic/advocacy networks which already exist, by setting up points for coming together, or to carry out joint reflections between networks or between thematic spaces during the WSF: links between

·         global agricultural governance (the Civil Society Mechanism at the Committee on World Food Security)-Via Campesina and,

·         tax justice (TJN) and transparency (PWYP) and,

·         the social and solidarity economy and,

·         the regulation of trade (OWINFS) and,

·         the accountability of multinationals (as of yet no existing global network but rather regional networks) and,

·         etc.

 

The role of the IC: two options

One could indeed go further (option 1), and grant the IC the role of ‘bringing together’ the thematic spaces, with a view to favouring debate between them. In this way, the thematic spaces (linked or separate to the thematic ‘forums’) could send delegate representatives to the International Council (which would thus become an area for linking the thematic spaces), with the function of guaranteeing the conditions for dialogue to take place between the different spaces during the forum. Thus, via a number of different methods (cross-cutting workshops, presentations, etc.), the coming together of the different spaces could take place. A convergence could be brought about whereby the analyses and proposals from the thematic spaces would they themselves be the result of true internal debate.

According to this hypothesis, the current IC would reach an agreement on the thematic spaces that truly exist (this would be based on objective criteria) and would grant them the mandate of assigning representatives in order to make up a new IC. Any enlargement of the IC at a later stage, bringing in new members, would be based around co-option, in line with criteria that the founding members of the new IC would agree on through consensus. It is worth insisting that participating in this new IC would in no way carry a special form of privilege, since the IC would have the sole function of proposing a form of methodology at the time of a new WSF edition, which would allow the thematic spaces to work with crossover points. All other aspects could be dealt with by the local organising committee, including the grouping together of self-managed activities, which the organising committee could recommend be attached to one thematic space or another, or alternatively, bringing about a merger so that there would be similarities between the different thematic spaces. This would mean that each forum would have a place reserved to ‘non-thematic space’ activities.

 

&&&&

 

Nevertheless, a thoroughly opposing stance could be taken (option 2), on account of the fact that if we consider solely the organisation of the WSF editions in its strictest sense, the responsibility for this falls on the organising committee, which is not a compulsory member of the WSF International Council (IC), (see the example of Tunis). At this point, a trial period could be carried out whereby the IC is simply done away with for a probationary period of 3 years, at the end of which an assessment of this experience could be carried out, with the IC being reinstated if necessary.

According to this scenario, the local organisation committee would commit in writing to respecting the WSF charter as well as the key methodology components, and would prepare the WSF gathering and in particular the aspects linked to mobilisation in the country and the sub-region, while continuing to manage the secretariat (especially dealing with management of the website and mailing list), up until the point at which the next organisation committee would take over to organise the following edition.

In parallel, a committee for promoting social forums could be put together in each country. This would group together all the organisations which would have taken part in at least one WSF, and would be given the responsibility of promoting the participation of the civil society stakeholders from the country where the next WSF will be held.

Finally, the choice of host country for future WSF editions could be a decision made either by the organisation committees of the last three WSFs, the organisers of the regional and thematic social forums or the WSF promotion committees.