• dibco1 2021 discusionfsm input95 en

last modified May 15, 2021 by facilitfsm

DIBCO1 initiative FSM/WSF >>         

Discussion 2021EN  |  Index  |       


ContactEN  |  @-1   @+1        


Dibco-seul-mini.png   EN - ES - FR - PT 

T95 Where are anti-globalization and the WSF at? February 17, 2021


https://vimeo.com/515398346 intro gus christophe @ 001 - @ 002

https://vimeo.com/515394453  Chico @ 003

https://vimeo.com/515392299 Boaventura  @ 004

https://vimeo.com/515393459 Carminda  @ 005

https://vimeo.com/515395666 Chat  @ 006 - @ 017


@ 001 GUS Hello everyone. thank you for being with us. This debate is organized by the six foundations representing different currents say of the radical left in France and ecology also obviously

And so we are organizing the seminar today around the issue of the World Social Forum which took place from 23 to 31 January 2021

And so this is a very important debate. @ 1 In reality we would not want to summarize this debate at the World Social Forum, we want this debate to focus on the future of alter-globalization because, as you know, alter-globalization is not limited to the World Social Forum.

The World Social Forum is the current form of alter-globalization , but alter-globalization began with neoliberalism in 1980.The first phase of alter-globalization is against debt and structural adjustment. It took place in the south from 1980 to 1989.

1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, from 1989 to 1999, there were major anti-globalization demonstrations around the word order “international law must not be subordinated to business law”. And from 1999, from 2000, in fact it was the time of the world social forums.

@ 2 And today we are in this question: how to renew, continue and renew alter-globalization? 

And so this is the question we are going to ask our three speakers, whom we thank very much for having agreed to come and join us. So will begin 

Chico whitaker , whom many of you know, Chico was one of the founders, one of the main founders of the World Social Forum, and he is currently, he obviously continues to work there, and he is also very invested in the struggles against the nuclear.

And so the speakers will have a quarter of an hour. Chico will speak precisely on what he thinks of the possible future of alter-globalization and world social forums.

Then we will welcome Boaventura de Sousa Santos, he is obviously very well known. he is one of the most recognized intellectuals today. He is also a member of the International Council (of the WSF). He works a lot on the questions of international evolution, but he also works, in particular on discrimination, on the question of Post colonization and decolonialism. And Boaventura who is also very invested with in the International Council will give us an update. of view in a quarter of an hour on what are the possibilities of evolution of the World Social Forum.

So the third speaker will be Carminda McLorin . So Carminda is really a part, and we are happy that she is with us, Carminda was one of the organizers of the Montreal World Social Forum, and she was one of the main organizers of the Virtual Social Forum, notably through the communication group, and the finalization group, and so Carminda will also intervene, from his point of view. She is also invested in the ecological movement, and therefore she really represents the future of the World Social Forum, as we would all like to do.


Here. So we are going to organize the session in two periods. The first period, it will be Christophe Aguiton, whom you all know, member of Attac, and one of the founder of the World Social Forum, who will animate the first hour, and I will animate the second hour, which will be especially an hour of debate around your questions, with the interventions of the speakers. 

@ 002 CHRISTOPHE: Thank you very much Gus. So I'm going to lead the first hour, I wanted to add two little things about the speakers.

First of all, to say that Chico is one of the two activists who proposed the birth and the existence of the World Social Forum, the second being Oded Grajew , of whom I am happy to tell you that he is one of those who are listening to us now. Hello Oded, nice to see you today.

Boaventura Dos Santos is a well-known sociologist, but especially in the Spanish-speaking Portuguese-speaking and English-speaking world, little has been translated into French of his writings. I would simply like to point out to you a somewhat dated book which is “a sociology of law”, one of Boaventura's first subjects of interest. If you want more recent texts from boaventura that talk about phase two of the alterglobalist forum and social forums , you will find several of these texts in a book which is a big block but really interesting which is “the lefts of the 21st century”, in which you will find several of the very good Boaventura texts, for those who want to continue the reflection on his interventions and his thought.

Before giving the floor to Chico, I would like to add questions a little more precise than the one asked by Gus but in the same vein.

It is clear to everyone that there has been a weakening of the impact of social forums, and more generally of the alter-globalization movement compared to what it was ten years ago.

The first thought that should be had is: why this weakening? From my point of view, I will give 2 possible causes, but I would like to have your opinion. 

A reason which is quite obvious which is the transformation of the geopolitical situation: when the alter-globalization movement was born 20 years ago, there was still a phase of pronounced multilateralism, @ 1 with International institutions which were in a certain way the enemies in quotes, the adversaries against whom we were mobilizing, and who made it possible to create the major mobilizations which allowed the emergence of the alter-globalization movement. 

I am thinking of Davos, which was the subject that allowed the emergence of the Social Forum, as a counterpoint to Davos in Porto Alegre. I also think of the World Bank and the IMF allowed the demonstrations in Prague and Washington, the World Trade Organization, Seattle; which was the starting point of an alter-globalization dynamic, Cancun Hong Kong, to name some of the major meetings that mobilized us. The G7 with Genoa and for the French Evian.

In short, we have this first reason for weakening, which is the fact that, having less visible adversaries, since today multilateralism has disappeared, and even if neoliberal globalization continues to exist everywhere, we no longer have instances against which to mobilize easily.

I will perhaps add a second cause of this difficulty: @ 2 it is the fact that 20 years ago, the forum was built like a forum of organizations. In Brazil, we found the CUT union, the large union close to the workers' party, the landless movement, the world march of women. A whole series of ecological movements, many NGOs, in France, movements like Crid, animated by Gus among others, ATTAC and many others, and that today, we have a very important wave of mobilizations in the last decade. 

The year 2019 has been known as the year of the uprising internationally. 

a wave of mobilization started with the Arab uprisings, then the Occupy movement, then a lot of movement in different countries, the red squares in Quebec, Night standing in France, in Brazil a whole series of movements around the “passe livre”, but these movements were based on individuals. 

And that makes things much more difficult to have a common organization, a common voice of these movements, because they are much more based on individuals than what we knew ten years ago. my second question to understand the weakening

And then after the weakening, you have to understand what to do today. And in this regard, I will not give any clues, it is really up to you to tell us what you think is useful to do, for the months and years to come, 

I would simply say that our collective responsibility is very strong, since @ 3 the covid crisis brought to the fore the idea that we had to coordinate internationally


To both understand what was happening in our different countries, different continents, but also to understand that we were at a bifurcation of the world, and that in a way, we had to get out of this bifurcation with alternatives, with proposals, and for that, we absolutely need the international framework. 

So @ 4 the reflection on the solutions to this weakening, to have a second wave or breath of the alter-globalization movement in a certain way, is absolutely crucial at this particular moment in history, in which the covid is recreated in a certain way. way the conditions for an internationalization of fights, struggles and movements

This is what I wanted to add to what Gus said, which of course I share, and I give the floor to Chico for a maximum of 15 minutes, and I will have the same rigor for the other two speakers.


@ 003 CHICO I received the invitation for this seminar, and besides I would like to thank a lot for this invitation. 

I prepared a little diagram so as not to get lost in rantings, and so that it follows. I must be among you here, and also among many of those who are listening to us, one of the oldest, I am turning 90 this year . I'm afraid my thoughts are a little pessimistic because of that, and not because of the pandemic that's raging around the world, or the future of alter-globalization and the World Social Forum.

My pessimism is about the future of the world , for which we want it to be different. 

@ 0 For alter - globalization, I can talk a little about the WSF, for alter - globalization it is Gus who can talk about it with a lot of “ownership” -, and to reflect with you on the crossroads, on which we are now again .

I will summarize it here in a few words. The history of the WSF, with its first three years with 20,000 people for the first in 2001 which surprised us all, 50,000 in the second, 100,000 in the third, then in India 120,000 people including 20,000 who were Dalits, and who have for the first time held their national congress, during the forum. Then there was the Belém forum which was somewhat, with 150,000 participants, in the middle of the Amazon. 

After that we experienced, as Gus has already spoken, and also Christophe, ups and downs, right? There have been some exciting editions, like the one in Tunis in 2013, in the middle of the Arab Spring, and others with fewer people, but still very interesting, like the one in Montreal, which Carminda can talk about better than me. there, we had dared to do the WSF in the north of the planet. 

Then, 2018 Salvador de Bahia which again 80,000 participants, which also explains the overwhelming presence of Brazilians among the 10,000 registered for the virtual forum that has just been held. This forum (in Salvador) was especially shaken by the news of a murder in Rio de Janeiro of a young parliamentarian from the Left Party, black and lesbian. It was also already with us the foreshadowing of the violence that is raging among us. 

But I have prospects: 2021 as we have seen, because of the pandemic, virtual format, but in the end it was announced that the next forum will be in January 2022 in principle, in Mexico, and which could be combined face-to-face and virtual .

So the first current challenge facing the WSF is the methodology of organizing the forum itself. Because in the face-to-face forum, many and varied personal exchanges were possible, over several days, at several different times.

Now in Virtual Meetings it is almost impossible to debate, questions are not always answered, and there is the risk that there was already in the forum: large conferences in auditoriums sometimes empty and vast, and also sometimes in the Internet, without many people listening to them .

Our typical challenge what has already been cited: is the pandemic still acceptable to bring people together with long air trips? It's a question. we will see.

New technologies, on the other hand, make it possible to go further, to go to all corners of the world, and to involve people who could not make these long journeys.

@ 1 Anyway, the big challenge is that we will have to invent a lot, methodologically, for them to be real forums, virtual, but as they always were .

There are other challenges of other types, like that of the International Council of the forum, which has not yet found its identity and its role in the process , and besides, dangerously, there is now a lot of talk of “governance”. ”, (The IC) as a @ 2 instrument of governance, which can mean abandoning the non-directivity which has always been one of the characteristics of the forum.

And it is more complicated now the role of council, because of the multiplication of thematic, autonomous forums, and which sometimes created other instruments, like the world assemblies (Amazon) What is the role of the IC in this respect?

It will also be necessary to overcome specific differences, which are starting to appear very strongly, it is the decision of the IC: by consensus or by vote . It's a question, 

but I will not dwell on this why?

Because @ 3 for me the biggest challenge that the WSF is currently facing is the decision to be taken on its own character: it must remain an open space, or become a movement structured around common objectives, as its own political force ?

In other words, should @ 4, as such, as WSF, move from the rearguard, where it is now, to the front line , where the social movements are, while knowing that the medals will go to those of the front line, and not to those of the rear guard.

Anyway, this need to make a decision on this matter is clearly stated in the WSF, for the third time . This is the crossroads where we are.

This is a discussion that has stuck with the WSF since 2001. It was explicitly explained for the first time in an article by the Philippine sociologist Walden Bello in 2007. It was “the WSF at a crossroads”. Without mince words, he said: open space must disappear.

He asks the question: “is not this the time for the WSF to dismantle its tents, and to make room for new forms of world organization, for resistance and transformation?

These proposals were born a little as if the WSF were a great experience, but we had to accept that it was over. He said that his thinking was stimulated by the WSF in Caracas (2006) and also by that in Nairobi (2007) which he found disappointing, because he seemed to be backing down instead of moving forward. Moreover, I found an article by Gus at that time, which said exactly the opposite: “Nairobi 2007: An excellent World Social Forum”

In any case, this text by Bello provoked a controversy. Myself, I wrote “the crossroads does not always show the way”, where I said that the effective and profound change of the world is still a long way, and that the forum did not have to disappear but to continue. to clarify oppressions (?) 

Bello quoted, to clarify what he was saying, to go forward, what Hugo Chavez said, who was on the alert, let's say, of the risk that the WSF would simply become a forum of ideas, without an agenda for the action. He said “we must have a strategy of checks and balances, we must be able to occupy spaces of power at all levels”. 

When Bello quoted that, he was careful to say that it does not necessarily mean that we are falling back into the old mode of hierarchical and centralized organization, characteristic of the old left. Good. 

But, Anyway, I could not find other texts that were written in this controversy (from 2007). Only that of Thomas Ponniah and that of Boaventura.

Ponniah reflected on the 2007 US Social Forum where he said the richness of the idea of ​​the WSF as an open space received strong confirmation: “for the first time various activists from many countries were able to interact in a horizontal and non-hierarchical way, which favored mutual recognition, leaving aside differences to focus on common objectives ” .

That of Boaventura is a good text, resting on solid foundations, like the good academic articles he writes. He made a long and detailed analysis, it's a long text, of the paths and crises of the left in the world. I will read for you several extracts from this article, to which I could subscribe for the most part, but since we do not have time, I will send the full text to those who are interested.

But now, the WSF for Boaventura, he was “a new social and political phenomenon” and a reason for the success, he analyzed the reasons for the success of the forum, comparing to the failures of the conventional left, and the contributions that the forum made to the reinvention of the left, but also the question of the sustainability of this success.

Boaventura agreed with many of the criticisms made by Bello, but, while Bello, by these criticisms, pronounced the death sentence of the forum, he saw just an additional opportunity for self-reform.

When he quotes my article he says for example, he completes by saying ”it is important to continue to give support to the struggles that still need it, and also to reduce the impact, and also the frustration, caused by the eventual defeat. of the most advanced struggles. 

And when he quotes Ponniah, he makes @ 5 a more strategic observation of the open space of the forum.

“If we think it is the weakness or backwardness of the American left that has made FSM Format fit so well into the American forum, this would only confirm the continued usefulness of the WSF. It is crucial to strengthen the American left, in order to end US imperialism ”.

He also said that “if it is important that the different contributions of the reinvention of the WSF are important, we must understand that the end of the WSF will be fully justified if and when these contributions have been totally internalized by the left all over the world, and, in view of this criterion, - it is there that he completely disagrees with Bello-, the task of the forum is far from being completed ”.

But, it is a reflection that I also made at the end of my article on the text of Bello. All the positive effects of the WSF have been felt in the four corners of the planet, and spaces have been created everywhere, for civil society to become stronger and more articulated, in order to take its place as a political actor. Are all social movements now fully convinced that they need each other in the struggle against global capitalism , and are they able to build meetings, instead of continuing to divide and clash? one another?.


There is a second time when the question of the end of the WSF took shape, in an article this time almost 10 years by Pierre Beaudet in 2016, just before the Montreal forum

 He is very sympathetic to the forum, he has an interesting sentence he said that it is “a great permanent storm of ideas, which expresses itself in a generally creative self-organized and festive chaos”.

Before concluding, despite all my agreements with Boaventura, one thing bothered me in its text: @ 6 Boaventura always refers to the decisions to the options for the WSF, as if they were adopted “by the WSF” and not “in the FSM ” . That is to say, he does not see a numerous, diverse process (with participants) which have collective impulses. He saw the WSF as a subject that thinks, reflects, decides, and does.

On the other side, he sees the real WSF, when he describes, for example, the discussions on the future of the forum. He refers to those which took place in Nairobi where there were discussions of this type in the 2007 forum. @ 7 These discussions (on the future of the forum) rarely leave the places where it is and become subjects conversation among activists

He gives reasons for this forum: the peasants of Tanzania and Uganda of Kenya who discovered that they all shared the same problems, caused by the same factors, or the women of the whole world, manifesto project, the sensitivity African feminists, or the inhabitants who work on the issue of forced evictions, or African water networks, or the more complete fight against AIDS

Anyway, what's interesting about this, and what's going on right now, is a bit like that too. The virtual forum had 10,000 registered 800 self-organized activities, leading to 150 mobilization initiatives.

And in all of this, only one debate focused on the future of the forum.

To conclude, I address the issue of my pessimism, which I also started to raise in my article.

CHRISTOPHE Christophe you just spent the quarter of an hour, concluded really briefly

@ 003B CHICO This pessimism is increasing with what we are experiencing in Brazil now, I will not talk about that. We fail to remove the power from criminals who continue to benefit part of the population, and a similar case is happening around the world.

I realize, more and more deeply, that we can quickly approach what is called 'the extinction of our species itself '.

Because capitalism has become a system of organizing human activities all over the planet, the left has failed to create a new order and, meanwhile, capitalism has created a gigantic world machine for the production of money. and insatiable, impersonal consumption, which is in the process of overexploiting the planet's resources.

Last more real paragraph of my article. I say that it is necessary to stop this machine, to reorient the production and the consumption, to change the modes and the objectives of life.

And it becomes more and more difficult, faced with the infernal force of the machine, why?

Because the system that dominates the world is also based on a logic and a culture in which capitalism is only a pretext to earn and consume money, in a selfish and competitive way, and this logic and this culture have penetrated deep into the minds and hearts of the overwhelming majority of human beings. 

@ 7 That's why I cling to the continuity of open spaces where we can concretely and happily experience other values .

“I said that we must manage to bring to everyone's ears“ the constellation of the rich and diversified internal struggles which can be read in the forum ”, it is a phrase of Boaventura in his text. 

@ 8 I don't know if, ultimately, we will manage to prevent the forum, as an instrument of political action that we have invented, from being absorbed and destroyed by the logic of power, of counter-power, and of domination. 

And if we are going to succeed in @ 9 ensuring the place of civil society, essential because it is capable of reaching all corners of our society, with more transformative power than that which a single global political subject would have, which claimed to replace it, or to substitute it, in competition with many others . Here I stop here



It is a pleasure to be here. I apologize because my French is not very good, I do not speak French often, but I will speak in French, because a sign of respect and solidarity with my friends from France, who organized in language French this debate 

@ 0 It is a pleasure to be here to discuss things which are not personal, which are substantial political differences, which exist within the World Social Forum.

@ 1 The first thing to see is that the world has changed for 20 years, and we haven't changed, and since we haven't changed, we have become irrelevant

And the World Social Forum is an inertia at that time, we know that very well. For example, the virtual forum there were 10,000 people and half of the participants were Brazilian and 70% were from Latin America. It was not a global forum in the sense that we can understand it.


So, I think the fact that we have changed, we had a lot of opinions, and Chico, - I thank Chico for reading my text - certainly I totally agree with my text, so what- what happened?

What happened was the world was a lot more optimistic 20 years ago , when we started, for the reason Christophe mentioned, and even September 11, 2001 did not change the optimism. of the time. 

And so it was an optimism that was present, @ 2 but there was an ambiguity from the start. : some of us were against capitalism, and others were against neoliberalism, not against capitalism, only neoliberalism. 

And that ambiguity was also the ambiguity between the grassroots social movements that were there, and the non-governmental organizations that were there too, and now, what we've seen, and that's for some reason we have to analyze, the movements abandoned the World Social Forum. The landless movement was very fundamental at the start of the World Social Forum, and it abandoned the process. 

The tension was there: even though there was this ambiguity, there was tension from the start

You know that I was with the WSF from the first moment. I was very active with my participations from the start. And I vividly remember a dinner at the house of the mayor of Porto Alegre, Tarso Genro. I think Oded was there too. I was there, Bernard Cassen was there, and also Fausto Bertinotti from rifondazione comunista, and I remember very well that the conversation was about “what are we going to do with our success?” 

Are we going to do something and there were already ten debates, whether we are going to stay as an open space, or whether we should do something else. We didn't know very well

There were people who became convinced that open space was fine, for the start, because there was no knowledge between social movements even within Brazil. I remember very well. 

So it's very important this reciprocal knowledge, but after that there were people who thought that we had to do something to change, to give a more active presence. Because we knew that in the first meeting of the World Social Forum we were the alternative to the World Economic Forum in Davos, we even participated in a direct session with George Soros on the other side. 

So there was the idea that we were an alternative, counter-hegemonic globalization. So what to do with it? The forum had opinions, had people, had surveys and what could we have? That was the debate,

@ 2 and a lot of people gave up from the start, because they saw that it was not possible to have a conversation in the World Social Forum, because there was an idea to depoliticize the WSF , in a sense that everything was decided by consensus

But the consensus is not unanimity we know that, but it has become a veto power for any dissenting opinion whatsoever, so Bernard Cassen gave up, very dedicated people to the World Social Forum. Candido Grzybowski, who was the most serious for us, because he was the president of Ibase, and he was very active in the early years of the World Social Forum. 

They gave up because they saw that nothing could change the mentality of the people who dominated the World Social Forum. 

So I think I stayed, with a lot of people, because I thought we could change inwardly, gradually, and see things from a different perspective. And now I think we need this, we need it because the world , when there is ..., that we see today in the world, it is the growing far right. . 

The country of the World Social Forum in Brazil is on the verge of a terrible democratic crisis, and @ 3 if you see the people of the World Social Forum, are not present in the struggle, because the forum is not renewed. the people are young, they are in the streets; in protest; in the neighborhoods, the favelas and all that, it's not the World Social Forum

So the question now is: The tension was still around two questions.

The first question is the thought, plural obviously, but a strategic thought on the world. The world that has become more unequal, more authoritarian, which can now, with a conservative religion that dominates the world, with government of words in countries. @ 4 We do not have a thought, a strategic thinking .

If you have been in the meetings of the International Council are organizer, as Chico said, methodological organizer, there is no plural thought on the world. Where is the world going? Do we have something to say about the future of the world? We had to, as in a way we can say the World Economic Forum is doing it, we have to do it another way. Do we have to do this?

The second question concerns the question of governance, the governance of the forum because it is not democratic, the International Council is not representative in any way. Obviously it is not democratic as a structure of government. 

So the tension was very present, and now I think it's a divergence, and a substantial divergence, and which is a divergence that had to be decided. 

We have arguments Chicco has made arguments, eloquently as always, and we have our arguments. 

Not myself, I am a member of a group, with people from the board and outside the board, who are discussing, and we are strongly discussing the renovation of the World Social Forum in the forum, it is not apart from the forum. It creates a tension of substantial difference, strategic thinking and organization, the two subjects so how to resolve?


@ 6 So there is only one solution: it is not to avoid debate, it is to have a democratic and open debate, and we thought that the opportunity for this debate is in the Mexico, in 2022, which is virtual face-to-face

@ 7 It is always much better to have the forum divided into two parts: the first two days of discussion, and the last two days of deliberation: an organized democratic assembly, well organized, because all the organizations and movements present can present their ideas, and then decide .

@ 8 We have always mentioned that, at that point, if the World Social Forum does nothing, it will disappear. It will disappear, because it is not impossible to renew. We know there are others, we don't want to be the only global political subject, there are others.

For example, we are in the virtual social forum, and I was with a debate with Yanis varoufakis, and Yanis says “we are a subject, we the“ progressive internacional ”, we are a subject”.

I have nothing to say: we (the forum) are not a global political subject, fine, but I think the potential of the World Social Forum, to be a plural democratic subject, which shows the world that there is has alternatives to war, to distribution, to hate speech, to the demonization of the other, it is in the forum, 

And it is in the social movements, probably with the parties, because we have decided not to call the parties, but now we see that we are in a pre-fascist situation. The democratic left parties, can they stay outside or be with us? 

@ 9 We are in our time, we only have to analyze the difference in time, and think strategically, how we are going to continue to offer it . There is a new Social Forum renewal page, we have proposed, we discuss every month, and we will discuss with someone, with everyone these proposals. 

@ 10 For example: we proposed that we could have in the World Social Forum a deliberation with a majority and minority position 

We can assume for example that we are against the colonial occupation of Palestine, you now have with the vaccines, what is happening in the Gaza Strip that the vast majority may be against that, and there is a statement from the World Social Forum as a forum as a global political subject

It is the majority position, there is another minority position which has people who have arguments, which they think in another way. They must have the opportunity to speak not only of one person but of a minority group. 

So it is possible to find a democratic solution without voting, by other mechanisms that the indigenous peoples have indicated to us. 

@ 11 For example that we can have the forums for democratic deliberation at the regional thematic forum to organize positions to discuss in the global WSF forum. We could innovate, it is above all innovation, there is no possibility of doing it. 

@ 12 We are always in the idea that consensus is unanimity because the forum cannot have a political position .

It was possible and good to think that in 2000, it is not possible now. It is morally and politically wrong. 

@ 13 And I saw that in 2016, when we wanted to approve in the forum, in the international council on behalf of the forum, a declaration against the coup d'état in Brazil, against President Dilma.

It was not possible because one person, two people said “no cannot decide and since there is unanimous consensus I am against it. finished ”, and it was over 

So it is impossible that people do not give up or do not renew, because @ 14 there is no possibility of having the consensus perverted in a veto power 

It is a power of veto, it is not the construction of a unanimity of a consensus because the majority position has found a way to accommodate to integrate the minority positions, it is not by demonization, it is not the veto power authority.

There are two designs. I respect the conception of Chico, not only of Chico and a lot of other people, and we have our position, and I see no other possibility than to discuss this democratically in the forum, and the occasion will be Mexico. 

@ 15 But for that, Mexicans must be in good faith, organize a forum giving the possibility of a discussion, and a deliberation can have 

Because it is very important in our opinion, 

For example what is the opinion of the World Social Forum on this subject. For example a topic that is very ... ... on vaccines, as a global public good, we know it's war, because the new liquid gold isn't oil, it's vaccines; and we know that the “big pharm” want to control the world, for that. we know that africa cannot vaccines, that if there is no patent of production right and intellectual property. 

The forum should be things that are absolutely consensual, on the public good the defense of democracy, the public nature is universal of vaccines, 

The forum must have a position. We have people, we can decide that vaccines should be a universal public good. @ 14 We have great, extraordinary people who are with us, for example Ricardo Petrella: he can write a document and this is the position of the World Social Forum, as we have seen the position of the World Economic Forum no going to seek l opinion of the World Social Forum, @ 16 because the World Forum does not want to have an opinion .

In a democracy you might think it was possible, but @ 14

 in the pre-fascist situation in which we find ourselves, it is very dangerous and can lead to the destruction and elimination of the World Social Forum. And I know very well that there are people like we are going to hear for another conception, but the general division and division there is a democratic division, which must be decided democratically. This is only what we want.

Forgive me my French, I murdered the language, but I hope you understood what I said, it's not very often that I do this, but with you with love and solidarity I have been very happy to speak a language which is not mine of course.



 @ 005 CARMINDA 

Thank you once again for this invitation. I am delighted to be with you, and to address this question, which is central, on alter-globalization and the forum today. 

Thank you very much for this invitation. 

As you may know, I have been active in the dynamics of the WSF since around 2007 , I consider to be a daughter of the WSF. I have just finished my doctorate in applied human sciences, at the University of MOntréal, focusing on transnational spaces of mobilization, by leading among other things a reflection on the WSF.

I was also active in Quebec social forums in 2007 in 2009 I was immersed head first in the dynamics of the indignant, of the occupy in 2011, and in other transnational activist networks since, and as we have seen. also mentioned, I was in the general co-coordination of the World Social Forum in 2016. And I was the first to immerse myself in the virtual forum that has just ended, and I am the general director of an international NGO called Katalyzo.

So the WSF appeared 20 years ago as a promise to another possible world. But 20 years later, we can clearly see that the world is not doing much better, and quite the contrary, and the world has changed, evolved, and therefore I indeed consider that it is important to take stock, after this last WSF virtual which was completely new.

So the question that was asked very precisely “where are the alter-globalization and the WSF“ so here it is a little bit to what I would like to answer, and therefore I would like to present my answers in two parts.

On the one hand, I would like to say that anti-globalization and the WSF are at the heart of many hopes was fueled by the holding of a first virtual WSF, 

So even if obviously the mobilization could have been much greater, we managed to mobilize the registration of about 10,000 people from 144 countries from January 23 to 31, So we can say that the WSF is alive and well, even so obviously much remains to be done. 

I also think that we have to put these figures into perspective a little because there are a lot of people who have attended broadcasts, who are not counted in the 10,000 people. I think these numbers are multiplying. Even if they were multiplied by 10 it would not be enough yet @ 1. We agree that the WSF is alive, but there is still a lot to do .

 So I had the chance to be able to act within the facilitation group of this last WSF which was in charge of the organization.

And obviously, I am as surprised as the majority of us to note that indeed we were able to organize a WSF in 2 months, a WSF which was in a new online context, strewn with technological challenges, but which saw well the day, despite the probability of the thing.

There are transnational teams who have mobilized, who have carried out monumental work, I am well placed to know that, and other people who are present today, are also well placed. So a monumental job, involved in organizing an event of such magnitude.

In addition, the WSF also carries the hopes of seeing stronger articulations within the aforesaid world civil society and social movements. 

And I believe that the process leading to the WSF 2021 has been rich in this sense, I am personally convinced of it, in particular through the year 2020, the IC called for several enlarged meetings, inviting several organizations of the movements, as well as regional and local thematic forums to express themselves, to exchange online, @ 2 once again, with facilitation methodology, meetings which are probably to be revised, to be reviewed .

But I believe that we must nevertheless welcome this effort of openness, which in my opinion is renewed, because I think that the IC, - I am also part of the IC -, as an organizer of a WSF, but I think the IC always has a will, stated by several people, to want to open up, and it was concretely implemented through these extended meetings . I think we have to continue on this path, which is reinforced by the potential of online activities, even if obviously there are a lot of things that are challenges in online contexts obviously.

So I believe that this initiative of the IC had the positive effect of a mobilization large enough to allow the setting up of an organizational team which went beyond the borders of the IC. So that too was a new challenge. Normally, WSFs are organized by local groups, but in this context, what is local when you are online? @ 3 So it's like a new local that was created in this context, a transnational organization group that emerged for the organization of this WSF

So I consider that the WSF which has just ended has been a stage rich in articulations. There are several dynamics of confluence already existing, and others emerging that have crossed the WSF, through thematic spaces that have been put forward by the facilitation group. we saw them social justice, first people, feminism and diversity, environment, media and culture education, and many other networks that crossed paths, such as one in which I was very involved which was the social forum world of transformative economies, and which had an articulation meeting, which in my opinion was very promising for the future

The opening march was also a kind of metaphor, I believe, of the rapprochement of diversity which is at the base of alter-globalization hopes . It was a 24 hour marathon, where people from all over the world were able to meet their perspectives, their struggles, their dreams and their challenges.

So we had people from the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, India, Mali, Togo, France, Portugal, Brazil, and so on. They were able to present as much the videos that they had presented, but also live their words, and they were able to exchange live, and I believe, - having contributed to the animation of this opening march, that he There were indeed exchanges which were really very rich and which were completely improbable, between people in Mexico, others in the Marshall Islands, and in any case brief, exchanges which in my opinion really inspiring.

So I also believe that the self-governing assemblies encouraged articulations. I know that there are several people who are present here who could speak at length about this, so there are the self-managed assemblies which presented very very interesting articulations.


The Agora of Futures which came at the end of the session was a methodological innovation which in my opinion also gives hope for this potential of dynamic articulations which cross the WSF. 

Indeed on January 31, we opened a sort of virtual village square, giving visibility to many action initiatives, which were registered with the WSF and defined as struggles and campaigns for action, and which propose concrete action initiatives which are written in a calendar, which will follow the WSF and which will pave the way until the next WSF which will take place in Mexico.

 So promoters and promoters of the initiatives were present in rooms, a bit like this one, to welcome and inform interested people, who walked from room to room, and learned a little more about the actions resulting from the WSF or who have crossed the WSF.

And we no longer broadcast these initiatives in live stream, live, in an interactive way in several languages, which was a rather hallucinating experiment at the technological level but nevertheless very real.

It just goes to show that it is possible to do new things in the context in which we find ourselves.

So these initiatives are included in an action calendar. who should inquire in the coming year, and who also gives me a lot of hope for future joints

So, as I have just stated briefly, the WSF is at the heart, many hopes and anti-globalization further than the WSF.

However, I believe that they are at the heart of many tensions, contradictions with paradoxical appearances as well, and I will cite two which seem fundamental to me.

On the one hand, the paradox that I see between ideals and practice , and which I think , in my experience at least, crosses all the transnational spaces of mobilization in which I have been involved. 

Even if it seems to be obvious, there is an inevitable distance that remains between the ideals that drive the actors and actresses of the WSF and of alter-globalization in general, and the practices that develop in the implementation. work of the WSF and within the IC, and this distance between ideals and practice is exacerbated in the event context of the WSF, by what I call the paradox of urgency.


@ 3The paradox of urgency what is it? Achievements that would have seemed impossible are emerging, thanks to an approaching deadline , in our case the WSF which was to be held from January 23 to 31 -, therefore achievements: mobilizing 10,000 people from 144 countries in just over 2 month.

But, and there the paradox arrives, in the urgency and the stress imposed by the coming date, it also forces the people who find themselves in the heat of the action to make concessions, which are sometimes in contradiction with their values. . 


This is how we see the emergence of decisions taken in haste and without a democratic deliberation or dialogue process, and that everyone would have hoped to see also in a WSF.

Like, for example, a decision that was criticized by some organizations which was to invite Yanis Varoufakis to the opening panel, without wanting to say that it was a good idea or a bad idea, the fact is that it is a decision that was not necessarily in my opinion and in the sense of the methodology group, which met yesterday, should have been a little more in-depth discussion, but unfortunately the pressing time did not allow it. So it was obviously based on the goodwill of several people, but this discussion should have been deeper.

there is another: for example the decision to prohibit the registration of activities in the slots that corresponded to the thematic panels, it was therefore to close the registration of other activities during that slot. It was a discussion which, - for better or for worse, without necessarily giving an opinion in the debate -, but I believe that it would have been a discussion which would have deserved a little more debate. 

And it is these two examples that were named yesterday in the evaluation meeting of the methodology working group of the WSF 2021 in which I was present.

During the last 20 years of my life as an activist, the years of the forum, I have known too many people who have completely demobilized, and who have even moved away from activism, facing the cruel observation of the distance between their political ideals and the reality on the ground. So for me, it's absolutely necessary that we talk about this difference, and that we think about what we do.

Another tension that remains within alter-globalization and the WSF is that of the apparent antagonism between the diversity that constitutes them and the need for unity to face the destructive system that characterizes our time.

This tension emerges clearly in the liveliest debate within the IC on the character of the WSF, as it was named a little earlier, and the main tenets of which are here with me today.

I also welcome this initiative, it advances the dialogue between these perspectives.

I therefore believe that these tensions between ideals and practices, and between diversity and units, are intrinsic to the WSF, and @ 5 for me, one way to fight against the demobilization that these apparent contradictions can cause is to recognize their transcendence in the context of the WSF, and in the context of alter-globalization, and therefore move in a direction of dialogue and debate, as Boaventura also mentioned a little earlier.

I listen also noted in my experience within the WSF that these tensions can be the source of a great creativity and of a political and methodological innovation that I hope to see deepen in the future.

I'm almost done

So I believe that it is above all necessary to recognize the need to act together in a world where the challenges are far too great

This is why I welcome once again this dialogue and this debate, and as Boaventura said a little earlier, I think everyone agrees on the importance of a renewal of the WSF.

I believe after that maybe there are different perspectives on this renovation.

The world is different, we agree I also believe; and I think we also agree on the importance of the debate.

Personally, I cultivate the hope of a transnational cultural turn which sharpens our potential for transformation, and which I believe can be nurtured thanks to the WSF @ 6 a shift towards the transformation towards listening, humility, the recognition of the road as a transnational collective learning journey that is necessary and urgent. thank you so much

@ 006 GUS I believe you have listened to a lot of things that are very important, because in fact this is the current debate. @ 0 I believe that the current debate in the World Social Forum has been very well laid out, and that is what we have before us for the period to come.

So what I am suggesting to you is that the 3 speakers will have 5 minutes at the end to react. They can also react during questions without taking too much time, and we open for half an hour in any case already, the discussion at room level.

So you can ask your questions in “questions and answers”, and you can also ask for the floor.

Indeed, there are 3 questions which are asked on “questions and answers” 

there is one that says: 

@ 1 What place of the struggles for peace, in particular for disarmament , in the evolution of the World Social Forum. Let us point out that the colossal sums swallowed up on a world scale by nuclear deterrence, that is to say 72 billion dollars in the world, must be used for health and education. Roland

Marc says but it has already been said that the lefts of the 21st century with the two texts of Boaventura; were included in the book edited by Jean louis and José Luis 

Olivier to all parties: @ 2 if the forum took positions on such and such a subject, it could have, it seems to me, two consequences : on the one hand, a good part of the activity of the forum would be turned towards the internal struggle , to influence the positions that the forum will take, to the detriment of exchanges, and the strengthening of articulations between participants, and on the other hand, those and those who do not agree with the decision taken risk turning away from the forum.

Don't you think there is a great risk of losing an irreplaceable space then, while International wrestling movements also exist on different subjects? 

it is Marie-Paule who asks this question

No further questions?

If the speakers want to react to these questions already to start the debate

@ 007 BOAVENTURA I will stay on this question, because there are many things that have been said and very well and also by Carminda, which indeed express the crisis of the WSF, and also the need for renovation. 

We know that, in an organization, @ 1 people who are closer to the organization always tend to be very satisfied with the work produced , because they have dedicated several hundred hours, with enthusiasm, to organize a session, a meeting, and then it is normal that they are very satisfied, and that we must thank for that.


@ 2 The problem is who are the people who participate? what are the struggles they have? what is the scale that we can establish? and I saw a lot of things from people who are not… .. There are activists without activism indeed, because there is no movement out there doing the things we need to do at this. time. to answer 

For example, the themes that were mentioned: peace ah for example there was a wonderful statement on the issue of peace and disarmament.

My friend Léo Gabriel was very active in this project, and many people, and particularly in Eastern Europe, very active in the struggle for peace and disarmament. And they are going to organize an activity in May. @ 3 For me it was a unique opportunity to what these declarations were to be on behalf of the World Social Forum, and to talk to everyone in the world, what is the position of the World Social Forum on peace, on disarmament . It was absolutely consensual. But not at all. 

We have a declaration, and at the end there are organizations @ 4 And who has the patience to verify organizations ? Who are the organizations? And the statement disappears. No political effect of this process. 

Precisely to the forum we dedicate a lot of time a lot of energy, but the profitability to give visibility to a fundamental struggle as we know from the struggle for peace in armaments which is the only sector of the budget of the States which goes in permanent growth, the repressive state.

So I think it would be a wonderful opportunity to get the World Social Forum to adopt this declaration, like the declaration of the World Social Forum, and with the communication group, we will distribute to everyone, and see what the people who can speak on this topic there, especially they are recognized activists, and they could speak on behalf of the World Social Forum because there was a statement.


This is a good example of what we could do. I completely agree. I saw in the questions answer the question “but then the forum will be a subject for an internal topic” No not at all! We have other work if you want it is a suggestion * to see our web page on the new World Social Forum.

@ 5 We have a lot of themes where we know there is a consensus, because we know the people , who are with us in social justice, disarmament, the feminist question, the question of the peasants, and food sovereignty , the ecological question, all that we have a lot of accumulated knowledge, of positions that could be distributed to the world, like the position of the World Social Forum, with plurality.

There can be differences, and nuances, @ 6 I even suggested to this group that we could have in the Forum: World Forum majority position, World Social Forum minority position . And it should be broadcast, and people can see that the World Social Forum is a subject, there are certainly others, but it is a plural, democratic subject, anchored in the grassroots movements.

Finally Gus because I will not intervene afterwards but it is the internal struggle, @ 7 I am completely concerned with the question of the internal struggle, but you know there is an internal struggle: the internal struggle is that people give up.

Why do they want to fight? as we can see we speak only of methodology, because there is no strategy, there is no substantial thought on the world, we only speak of methodology only. Who does not agree give up, a lot of people have given up, they have organized other things, and I think the forum in a year could be renovated in Mexico. Thank you.

@ 008 CHICO I actually have a problem, because you all greeted each other in me and in Boaventura to speak in other languages, We manage to speak more or less, but the problem is to understand when we speak in these other languages, and I am now reading the “questions and answers”, because I did not understand exactly the questions that were asked by Gus. I'm looking here and rereading in the chat to find out a bit what I'll take as an answer. So if you can move on to Carminda, and then I'll take the question.

GUS with pleasure if you don't mind

@ 009 CARMINDA It's a bit complex to be here anyway, but I'm happy to be here. Thanks again.

I think indeed that it is extremely complex as a debate , I clearly agree with this need to have concrete, strong, unified impacts, in the face of the problems which are terrible today, and which are affecting populations all over the world.

I have a reflection in fact which would go in the direction @ 1 to try to also understand what this dichotomy that we see there is. I wonder if there is not something in the temporality of the change , So there are two temporalities in my opinion, for me anyway, as important as the other.

On the one hand, to act today for people who are in a situation of violence, of war today, for women who have their rights violated, for the environment which needs action today and not tomorrow. , therefore a temporality of change which is short 

 and on the other hand a need for long change as well. 

The two are not opposed, are absolutely complementary, I wonder if there is not a line of thought to have with these two temporalities of change. Me personally, and I share it with a lot of people of my generation, at least the people around me, @ 2 we also want to see the militant activist culture change, towards more listening, towards more respect between us .

To tell the truth, beyond the framework in which we are today, I see it in the left more broadly of the people who are banging on each other violently 

we see him Chico knows a little more than me, in the midst of people who absolutely want things to change tomorrow, we have to get out of nuclear tomorrow, immediately, and others who say “well there is a process that can be carried out to change and get out of nuclear power in 20 years ” and these people will come to positions that are antagonistic ,

 and I tell myself that it would be interesting to think about how to make complementary This vision of changes which are, it is really reflections that I bring, and I would like to hear to my friends Boaventura, Chico, for yourself Gus , Christophe and other people who are in the room above. 

Because I tell myself, I dream of a generational cultural change, in which we can listen to each other, and it is in this that @ 3 I find that there is also something interesting in the forum space, in the sense that it is perhaps this culture of collaboration and openness that is precious, and which does not necessarily exist, and which is a learning process.

So me, I find myself a little bit in how to make these visions complementary: of the need for change today , and the need for strong global actors who can act on the problems that are taking place today, and not in a week, and this need for openness and time to get to know each other on a transnational level. 

In an environment where we do not speak the same languages not only French, English, but also, as Boaventura says, need for translation between different political perspectives, and also people who are younger, have to have terms that won't necessarily match, my terms won't match what other people will use, people who are going to speak faster because they're younger, and we're going to try to get them to speak slower , but who will feel shocked because they are cut off, because they speak too fast. So this is all a reflection that I think we should continue to dig into.

GUS Thank you so there are two other questions which have arrived and you have questions answer: Daniel “@ 1 how do you explain the paradox of the difficulties of the WSF, while the accumulation of 2008 covid 19 crises and the multiplication of movements popular social in the world for democracy, and against neoliberal policies or their very political effects, raises the concrete question of social transformation until the overcoming of capitalism.

Another question from Aziz “bravo for the efforts of renovation: the eminently political character of the original foundations of the forum imposes an alignment on an internationalism open on the Global progressive stakes in a transversal way. Social movements take a positive view of the initiative as the international of workers and peoples, or even actively participate in it, @ 2The activism in cyclical fair and the continuation of the crisis threatens the WSF in the long run. implosion and cooptation by some influential NGOs.

And besides Roland tells us that @ 3 he was not found in the three speeches. Okay then, but it's very difficult to give the floor, because we do not master that well at the zoom level, but if he wants put a message on the chat “questions and answers” ​​we can pass it. And Chico have you now found if you can intervene ?.

@ 010 CHICO yes I can speak at least of one of the questions which were asked and which in my opinion touches a problem: @ 1 the question of the positions taken you see of the forum which is it is the great question of necessity that poses Boaventura .

The question says that it seems to me that this would have two consequences: on the one hand, a good part of the activity of the forum would be turned towards the internal struggle, to influence the positions that the forum will take, it is a little history when you see Congresses, things like that, which must take positions. 

And even personal experiences; in the first meeting that we had as organizer of the forum, at that time in 2000, it was again there was an assembly of anti-globalization movements at the time it was after Seattle in Geneva, and we came, a small commission of the WSF, including the vice governor of the state to show that the state (of Rio Grande do Sul) could well support the WSF initiative, and we came a small group with Oded and several others, and we presented to this assembly the idea of ​​the forum, to know if - it was a great assembly of world movements -, to know if it is supported supported this initiative. it went well it was well accepted and so on.

But that meeting of the Assembly proper - it ended with a statement As always, And they took the whole afternoon to discuss the terms of that statement, because there was one that said there, the comma completely changes the meaning, a saying there is not that word that is essential for any statement. They came to such a difficulty in solving this that they decided “there you go. Now, we no longer accept individual proposals, each amendment proposal to the declaration must be made by an organization so that we reduce the number of amendments ”But they did not succeed. I do not even know if at the end, I did not follow until the end, if the next day they managed to complete this declaration.

It's a bit of a problem with voting. Voting is essential in democracy, it is a conquest of humanity: each person has a voice etcetera, @ 2 But when people have worked in the same field, on the same side, it is not irreconcilable interests , as in the Parliament for example , and we must try to reach an agreement by which ends who want to be verified by a notation that gives that: the difficulty of arriving at the end, and then there are those who do not do not agree with the decision taken, they risk turning away from the forum. that's what is happening at that time. 

This question touches on a problem it is the problem that @ 3 the objective of the open space forum in addition to everything we have talked about exetera, is to help build the Union , and to overcome the almost permanent tendency of parties and left movement of dividing, separating, and clashing which includes taking the wrong enemies

That is, the enemy is no longer the one the two were fighting, but the other, and it is those who are fighting together who become enemies. Moreover, sometimes, in the general political struggle, not only in social movements, for another possible world, in the political struggle in general in the experience of left-wing political parties in general, sometimes the internal struggle between the parties is fiercer harder more cruel than with the enemy.

So that's kind of what carminda just said for @ 4 the open space occasion, as long as there is no need to come up with a final joint declaration voted on or not, it's is to allow the experience of understanding what the other is saying . Can't we find ourselves in a common point that can unite us?

It's a bit like that: the person who wrote this comment, she hit the spot . This is the point that makes, that makes us say @ 5 “ what is more worth the trouble? a movement which takes positions, or * something which did not exist and which will no longer exist (the space forum) if we become a movement, or a space where we can practice a re-education of listening. I stop here.

@ 011 GUS there are only 24 minutes left, and if I want to give the floor to all three of you, it becomes… ..good.

There is another question: Gérard says world military spending: $ 1,750 billion in 2020, 90% of which represents G20 military spending, these questions are not sufficiently addressed in the WSF.

But here I think we have to tackle them. In any case, the issues that people tackle are addressed in the WSF 


So Marc said to us “Does @ 1 the WSF work for its participants who have the pleasure of exchanging, listening to each other, debating, and recharging their batteries to nourish their ideas, and to be stronger by returning home to their own? combat, where the WSF works to advance beyond improving the capacity of the participating movements, that is to say effectively to help stop the machine that has continued to dominate and crush since 2001 which brings economic domination and also the 'fascist illiberalism.

Francine gives us the website of the renovation group, which you can copy there, in any case everything will be recorded 

Patrick "as it seems to me that the WSF must pass a course, deepen the debate and move to concrete @ 2 so it can not be useful if it was only coordination or dice juxtaposition mobilizations it Seems -it a dynamic created on the power to make on a world level a production of revolutionary thought.

Christian: alter-globalization means another world it seems, that is to say a non-capitalist world, but more than denouncing capitalism, @ 3 is to have exchanges on all the experiences that are clearly in a non-capitalist perspective . It is fundamental to have attended several interventions, it did not always seem obvious to me, and progressivism is not oriented towards a post-capitalist economy, I do not see where the progress is. Agree with Boaventura: internal functioning must be exemplary democratic and horizontal, like civil society organizations, which is not always the case.

So Roland: “France is currently spending 4 billion euros on nuclear deterrence, at a time when it is unable to produce a vaccine against covid for common sense people, that's all considered, I think @ 4 that there is an abyss between the concrete aspirations of the peoples, and the WSF as it exists today ”.

Teresa also sends us, but you can have her @ 5 a proposal from the multi convergence of global social networks who wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations to advocate for the construction of a planetary citizenship assembly in 2045 so that it is the obligation of states to take this into account for the subsequent decision.

@ 012 GUS I am going to offer you a reflection, precisely on the basis of what we heard and what happened at the level of the World Social Forum , on the 8 challenges of the World Social Forum to come, for which it new proposals will have to be found. 

Then we have 3 speakers to conclude 5 minutes each, that will give us the 20 minutes that remain before 8 p.m. if you don't mind.

So what I wanted to say is that, indeed, we are up against the wall, we are up against the wall, it's not only because we played, it's because the situation has changed globally. . Besides, no proposal, no network can say that he succeeded . Well.

@ 0 So we have to invent something new. We need to invent a new stage, starting from questions that are asked

The questions put to us, I summarize them as follows:

@ 1 / The new situation with the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic and climate crisis. And so the question we have is that the response to a global phenomenon has been national, and state . The last virtual World Social Forum showed that there are new international networks, and that anti-globalization can still exist but must be renewed . Here is the first challenge.

@ 2 / The second challenge we encountered is the relationship between the National, the local, and the global. the local, being according to a very beautiful formula “the local is the universal minus the walls, National it is what is essential in particular compared to the States, and the Global is to be invented.

But with something very important that we see in what happened in this virtual world social forum, it is the definition of new geocultural regions, and the construction of an alterglobalism around the 16 geocultural regions that make up the world today.

@ 3 The third challenge is the contradictions which are still, as we have already defined them, but which must be redefined: the social, the ecology, the democratic, the geopolitical, and therefore they are a little, c ' as we have seen, it is a bit around that that the World Social Forum was organized.

@ 4 The fourth contradiction, the fourth challenge, is the question of movements. Indeed the three movements on which the forum was culturally built, it was the workers' social movement, which nevertheless met and which is still present, but which is in crisis, it is the peasant movement and the via Campesina, was very little present in the forum it is a real question, it is the movement of the national liberation struggles, because the decolonization is not finished.

The new movements are the indigenous peoples movement, the women's movement is the climate movement, and it is the discrimination and racism movement, they are the ones who are currently pushing anti-globalization to come.

@ 5 The fifth challenge is open space or space for action . Indeed, we have to invent something, we have to invent something, in particular perhaps, by seeking how we can build a consensus which is not unanimous, as Boaventura proposed at one point. 

 Something has to be invented, because indeed open space has the advantage of allowing alliances, but the space of action allows all the same to affirm a certain number, at a certain moment, of positions, which are necessary in the global political battle , and therefore we must work on it, and Mexico City must allow us to invent new ways of doing it.

@ 6 The sixth challenge is the question of transition . Is it the crisis of neoliberalism or of capitalism? And what are the alternatives ?.

@ 7 The seventh contradiction is the question of resistance to neoliberal fascism in the process of building.

@ 8 The eighth question is a new question which seems very important to me 

Currently, we have to reinvent a form of articulation between movement forms and party forms, because the party form was built on a strategic idea, we have to build a party, that's what Wallerstein said, we have to build a party to conquer the State and to change society. 

This equation needs to be changed, but the party form must be renewed, and we must look at how to reinvent the political and the forum perhaps the place in which we reinvent new articulation between movement form and party form .

 Here from my point of view, and at nearly a lot of cost, @ 9 what are some of the questions which are posed to us, and which we must try to solve, not for the forums, but to invent a new alter-globalization, and to allow the movement to build new forms of convergence, 

Well, I suggest that you each take the floor for 5 minutes to conclude. Who what wants to start? Carminda maybe you want to start.

@ 013 CARMINDA okay thank you Gus

So I think I would pick up on that last question you asked “how to reinvent the political” that seems to me a very big question that we are addressing here and that a lot of people are obviously addressing is the one we have to face, given the extremely serious state of the world, and the different paradoxes that run through alter-globalization and the WSF “how to reinvent politics”.

@ 1How to reinvent the political in the complementarity of our perspectives, because indeed, we are not as said Chico a little earlier, we have a common objective which is to have an incidence and concrete impacts, so obviously we must continue this reflection we can not get out of a final conclusion.

For me, I think that this effort, to see one of the tracks, would be to see what we have in common, @ 2 and also in this actor space perspective, another track for me is to recognize the political aspect of the two perspectives. 

Because I think, obviously the political aspect is clear from the actor space aspect, but I have the impression that, @ 3 rd in any case from my perspective, the space forum is a political position too , and I think it's important whether you agree or disagree with the perspective, I think it's fundamental for me to recognize that it's a political perspective. 

In any case, in the environment in which I have evolved, it is a political perspective, @ 4 afterwards I believe that it is important to make these perspectives complementary. As I said I believe that the objective is the same at the end of the day , and I believe that we are on the right track, when we open debates like this one, so very much the next debate Thank you.

GUS thank you Carminda Chico or boaventura who wants to go ?.

@ 014 CHICO I'll take what Carminda said now; this question of space is, a political option, open space, moreover, the idea that there is a strategy. 

@ 1 Open space is a strategy in the face of the struggle that we have before us , it is a way Apart from open space there is the way social movements, the ways political party exetera, the open space is a way that must, when we say we must reinvent the forum to invent the left, we must reinvent anti-globalization, regionalization all that. 

But in this reinvention, we must not exclude the space option, we must reinvent it with I think that is the question for me.

Because space really has a role to play @ 2 This is the role it plays, moreover, with consensus-type practices to build the Union. 

I wanted to say something to conclude @ 3 that there are differences between what we want to do and how we are going to do it. We must not have a kind of bias, in reaction to the word methodology; the methodology corresponds to the how. When we plan an action we first define the objectives, then we choose the way the strategy, and in fact we organize the action of the organization of the action is the how. 

@ 4 If we stop in the definition; even in the goal statement; nothing is achieved, it's the how, the organization of the action, which will really make it possible to act on reality .

And a third point that I wanted to make in the few minutes that we have, is to insist on the idea that @ 4 the forum is not him, - he can become if we have chosen this path there can become a subject but it is not a subject because it has no condition to conclude decisions of a unanimous fraction by votes anyhow. 

@ 5 For example, is it possible to imagine an assembly of 150,000 people there is space so far it is impossible to grasp it with old methods and it cannot be seen as the WSF .

Besides, I wanted to make a small mention there, if you will allow it. @ 6 When Boaventura perhaps says that the situation in Brazil is so hard and we don't see the WSF taking action. 

The WSF is not a subject, it acts by means of everyone who has passed through the WSF, and who is acting like crazy We are fighting like crazy against this terrible madness which fell on us. it is not necessary, a position of the WSF it is not necessary, because we are multiplying on initiatives because we are .... the WSF is in the rear guard, the front is that of the social moments, groups, parties, it is the front of the struggle, and all those who have gone through the WSF are in these fronts of struggle, which are multiple in Brazil today.

GUs thanks so there's a lot of, as we're nearing the end, there's a lot of talk coming in on “question and answer and chat.

CHICO @ is exactly on the method. we realize how difficult it is to debate in a virtual system, there is an incredible reinvention to be made so that the people who have asked questions can debate with us what they have asked there they will stay in thirst .

GUS bon Aventura you have the last five minutes.

@ 015 BOAVENTURA Gus my congratulations I totally agree with your very systematic very good position in my opinion, @ 1and I think we indeed need to politicize the World Social Forum. It has been depoliticized, we don't want to see it, but it is depoliticized by the type of movement that is in it, and by the discussions we have.

So, the principle is very simple: the domination is articulated: colonial capitalism and patriarchy and the resistance is fragmented and there are movements that go for one subject for a topic another theme we must try to combine diversity with unity first point.


Second point. @ 2 There is a prejudice against democracy. democracy is demanding, voting to discuss, to lead a democratic discussion, it is possible, it is demanding . because it is quite a way to dialogue horizontally with difference, and people do not want to see, that would in my opinion be a demonstration of the possibilities of forums, to demonstrate that it is possible in a forum face-to-face to have, with a face-to-face and virtual combination, it is technologically and politically possible, if there is a political will, to organize it.

Third point This is what you are going to say about the change of the world, the geopolitical change The World Social Forum seen from Asia is a non-existent entity, and a necessity, as we have seen with the organizations around Ashish Kothari, who are organizations that are making a presence in the world, and @ 3 that I think in my opinion they have the potential to be the voice of the World Social Forum for 4 themes, and that is why I think always a plural subject, aware of the plurality, it is not chaotic to be aware of the plurality.

We do not know what is the quality of our diversity or plurality.

The last. point: I am, and this is a new one, I talked about this, but I am very happy that you Gus mentioned this idea, it is very demanding, to act like that the parties that were excluded At the beginning and I was okay with that, but now the situation is different.

Do we want to unite the democratic forces and Gus I can tell you that the unions and the workers were not very present in the first forum, because we know that the great struggle and the other movements that of women, peasants and natives was not very serious. 

@ 4 Now they must be present and very present, and I see the possibility of parties as well, but all that takes time, political will, knowledge of the world, strategic thinking, and not just methodology

@ 5 Methodologies are important, but “methodologize” for whom and why? for an objective and the objective must be political and the political is a plural world subject with other plural subjects but .the single world forum has an identity

 I conclude Gus with this idea that I have worked with @ 6 a lot of movements that have abandoned the World Social Forum “what are they saying we can't go there to chat for 4 days and afterwards there is no political decision ”.

It is very difficult to travel. we have seen the visas that Canada has refused to the movements and the cost @ 7 we have seen that the large organizations or that of the church and invite their movements they are owners of small movements that cannot travel to the Social Forum it protects them but these are the people who speak like the organizations. 

So there is a whole work of democratization, of deepening of the World Social Forum that, with the young generation will be possible if there is something that they want to do by themselves, @ 8 because the forum is from the young generation. we are part of the past and we are in the process of shifting our experience to what they can do what they think is most useful for their generation. Thank you

GUS s to conclude I give the floor to Carminda.

@ 16 CARMINDA Thank you in fact I would just like two quick points to conclude. 

I found it interesting the comment of @ 1Claude who names the construction of fruitful disagreements as an interesting contribution to deepen and to go in the right direction for this discussion. 

But I will go one like what I just said Boaventura I think that indeed it is necessary to democratize the forum I agree that there are many structures of power which are indeed there, me as a young woman relatively young I see it. 

I also see that there is another generation that comes with great force, and to which I no longer belong, and which I actively support, and people who are 20 years old today are coming with a force that is really very inspiring

And I think that we have to work in the sense of being able to bring them closer to our milieus, @ 4 we have to work in the sense of indeed bringing out the structures of power as a way to move away from them; therefore to be able to make them visible the patriarchy colonialism and other major issues that also cross alter-globalization and the WSF

I also think that it is necessary that, perhaps, we leave each other today by emphasizing this need for youth, this need for creativity, far from the divisions that have marked politics since Antiquity.

@ 3 How we can try to make ourselves complementary in our visions, to make ourselves even stronger and stronger through our actions which are an alloy between this necessary unity and this diversity which seems to me also necessary. 

This is the question of the renewal of politics, the question of polis et civis how to strengthen this link there at the heart of our debates towards a renewed democracy in which we participate.

@ 017 GUS I would like to thank Tania Louise and Patrice and Benoit a lot, they ensured the organization behind the screen and thank all those who were there, thank our three speakers. te and s and thank you all for this debate. Goodbye.