Dear Francine and Azril Don't be surprised by this voice from the back, but not outside, of the tent. I sometimes contribute to Ciranda, and I must be equally puzzling to the Brazilians. I can only tremble at the emotional distress being felt by many involved in this cuurent review - I hope you two are OK. Montreal had to happen, warts and all. Have first-world WSF venues ever worked, with the political antagonisms (eg withheld visas) and costs? Montreal had to test this, on behalf of all other possible first-world venues, and the betterment of WSF/FSM as a whole. Hoping to see you in Barcelona, next June. 'Political/politics' seems to be an increasing discussion point, but I feel many are talking at cross-purposes. We should monitor/fix our language usage as 2020 approaches. Example: Green New Deal is an internal US Democratic Party construct in the leadup to their 2020 Presidential elections. What am I to make of an India-based activist who promotes GND as part of WSFTE2020? As a political construct, it doesn't work outside continental USA, unless WSF wishes to expand it into a 'world political construct'. Talk of rivalries must puzzle many who are not involved in the day-to-day, argy-bargy of IC. On the Left, our MO is solidarity. Rivalry implies extensive, wasted efforts to protect turf and/or ego, by the precious or the antagonistic. Toughen up. Enough said, in solidarity chris ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct 07, 2019 01:19 PM, Azril Bacal wrote: > Dear Francine, > Thank you very much for your reaction!!! > It is not me to "allow" your response. It was my aim to trigger dialogue, > and that why I copied the alluded mail to you. > Your reflections are valuable, valued and warmly welcomed in my humble eyes. > In other words, our dialogue has already began as intended with Erik's and > your feedback. > My preliminary answer is that irrespective of my views on ego-imperialism > and the role of the human factor in the ongoing debate on the future of the > social forum/the future social forum, "fundamental political conflict" is > managed in different ways, ranging from "confrontational" -vs- dialogical > ways, from Robespierre and Stalin's ways - to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, > Jr., César Chávez and Greta Thunberg. > While not able to attend the last IC sessions because of lack of funds or > hospitalization, I did read everything I could concerning the arguments and > disputes. > What I learned from the Montreal meeting made me glad not to attend it! I > understood then that if the human factor is nor dealt with and resolved the > whole WSF process goes kaput. > The success to bring together the "two" (maybe more) strands of thinking > concerning the WSF ultimately depends on each and all of us. > Even Mao distinguished between fundamental and non-fundamental > contradictions! > Should we do like king Salomon suggested and cut the baby in two forums to > please both contending "mothers"? 😁 > Should we throw the baby with the water? > I wished to be wrong concerning the role played by the "human factor" in > this conflict, I really do, dear Francine! > I wish Many Wallerstein, Aníbal Quijano, and Samir Amin were alive to > enrich our dialogue! > Abrazo > /Azril > > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 11:52 PM francine mestrum <mestrum@...> wrote: > > > Dear Azril, > > > > Allow me to react to your email to Jennifer (whom I do not know, my > > apologies). > > > > I more particularly want to react to this: > > > > “the impasse between a chorus of voices that endanger the survival and > > sustainability of the only existing Planetarian open space where organized > > civil society (social movements and NGOs) are able to meet, exchange > > views, learn from each other, support each other, articulate actions, > > and so on. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, at present time, differences of opinion have escalated to > > the level of rivalry and worse among key players in the WSF process. In my > > humble view, this situation owes more to ego-imperialism than to > > ideological or theoretical discrepancies. We, humans, are no easy stuff! “ > > > > > > > > The WSF, dear Azril, is endangered by a fundamental political conflict, > > not by ego-imperialism and only very marginally by ideology. > > > > I belong to a ‘chorus of voices’ that believes the WSF can only be > > relevant if it has a political voice, if it can give voice to worldwide > > resistances, and if it can start to shape alternatives. The other ‘chorus > > of voices’ believes it is enough to have an ‘open space’ where all can > > come and do their thing, go home and be happy about so many new contacts > > and about the feelings of solidarity. > > > > In a world with clearly emerging fascism, with declining multilateralism, > > democracy and human rights, we believe this cannot be sufficient. It is a > > conflict between those who believe that workshops on hiphop, the role of > > sports for the emancipation of women and local commons are witnesses of > > the vitality of local communities, and these local communities are the > > ‘new world’, while transnational finance and corporations continue to > > rule the world and shape the conditions in which local communities can > > live. They are faced with those who believe these local communities are > > important, but if they are to flourish, we will also have to tackle the > > global forces, we will have to change the framework in which local > > communities can organize themselves. > > > > It is a conflict between those who want to change the lives of people, and > > those who want to also change the world. The WSF should be, we think about > > ‘Another world is possible’, not only ‘another life is possible’. > > > > My ‘chorus of voices’ believes the ‘open market space’ of local > > initiatives should continue to exist, but next to it, there should be > > political debates and their should be a political voice that speaks to the > > world. The WSF is indeed the only gathering with a potential to do this. > > If not, the last intellectuals who come to the forum will also leave it, > > as have so many before them. We want the WSF to be politically relevant. > > > > Unfortunately, the other ‘chorus of voices’ is afraid of politics, > > believes the left right divide ceased to exist and hence does not see the > > need for the WSF to have a voice. They want a world unchanged, where > > activists are killed in silence, where local groups can whisper their > > resistance. > > > > You probably are not aware of these fundamental divergences, Azril, since > > it is several years now you have not been in an IC meeting. If you succeed > > in bringing together these two strands of thinking in Porto Alegre, you > > will have done a great job. > > > > But please do not present it as a struggle of ego’s, that is simply not > > correct. > > > > Warmly, > > > > Francine Mestrum > > > > Op 06/10/2019 om 19:59 schreef Azril Bacal: > > > > the impasse between a chorus of voices that endanger the survival and > > sustainability of the only existing Planetarian open space where organized > > civil society (social movements and NGOs) are able to meet, exchange > > views, learn from each other, support each other, articulate actions, > > and so on. > > > > Unfortunately, at present time, differences of opinion have escalated to > > the level of rivalry and worse among key players in the WSF process. In my > > humble view, this situation owes more to ego-imperialism than to > > ideological or theoretical discrepancies. We, humans, are no easy stuff! > > > > >