• wsfic icfuturecontribution 10 comments

last modified December 24, 2012 by facilitfsm

 see thread  - ver el hilo  - voir le fil  http://openfsm.net/projects/wsfic_fsmci/lists/wg-about-future


 Português abaixo

Gina, Chico, and friends of the WSF´s  future

I read the proposal to Chico and I confess that I was more concerned than enthusiastic  about the content.( Although  we are excited about
the disposition of Chico to face this debate in quite radical way) .
I am also awaiting news of the meeting from Tunis to express myself about the IC. I wish this report would come before the end of the
year, cause we have the opportunity to read it more calmly and start a 2013 with lots of energy. And inspiration for the future.
I also think that it is time to open the discussion on Agenda of IC in Tunis on the second working group, to assure adequate space and time for debate and decisions

Gina, Chico, e amigos(as) do futuro do FSM

Li a proposta de Chico e confesso que fiquei com mais preocupações do que entusiasmo quanto ao conteúdo. (Embora animada com a disposição de
Chico de enfrentar esse debate de forma bastante radical.)
Também aguardo notícias do encontro de Tunis para me manifestar a respeito.  Gostaria que esse relato viesse antes do final do ano, pq
teremos a oportunidade de ler tudo com mais calma e iniciar um 2013 com muita energia. E inspiração quanto ao futuro.
Penso igualmente que está na hora de abrir a discussão sobre a Agenda do CI em Tunis, no segundo grupo de trabalho, para assegurarmos o espaço e tempo adequados ao debate e encaminhamentos.



Dear Chico, Gina, Rita and all the others,

Many thanks Chico for your contribution. It shows there still are people who care about the IC and its future. I think this is a very important discussion and we should try to intensify it.

Gina is glad, Rita is worried, or so I understood, I have mainly questions. I’ve read the text in French, English and Portuguese, each time hoping to find the answers in another language version, but I did not.

So please Chico, allow me to ask for clarifications.

I totally agree with you on one point: if the IC has no clear objective  and not enough really committed members, it can as well be dissolved. But in what way will the ‘new movement’ be different?

Why would it be possible to have a strategy(p. 5) if the IC cannot have one (p. 3)?

Who would be the members of such a movement?

Why would the need of an ‘assembly of assemblies’ disappear?

Why would the ‘horizontalism’ of the ‘new movement’ have less damaging results as the one of the IC? (See also below)

Why would it be possible to develop a ‘new political culture’ in the ‘new movement’ if it was not possible in the IC? (see also below)

Why would the WSF as ‘space’ disappear and why can there not be a transformative action if there is only space (p. 5)?

If I understand correctly, it would be a loose movement, with decentralized secretariats, and the General assembly of the movement would meet in let us say Tunis, after the WSF, and take decisions on the next WSF in, let us say, the US or India or Latin America? But if it is all decentralized, with own funding, will there not be a majority of people from the Maghreb taking decisions on a forum in the US, India or latin America?  Is that a desirable situation?

All these things are not clear to me.

Allow me also to spell out a couple of my ‘convictions’:

1)      I think we are too much focusing on definitions: space or action; space or movement; facilitators or coordinators. As a linguist, I know the importance of words and what they can ‘do’, but I also know it is people who give their meaning to words, and it is what we do or want to do that is most important. And whether we call it ‘IC’ or ‘new movement’ will not change anything if we have no clear objective and or strategy;

2)      I think this is the greatest deficit of our ‘IC’ and WSF: what is our objective? ‘Surpass neoliberalism’ is far too abstract to be practical. Do we want to make one global movement? (but then we should not decentralize); Do we want to have one ideology? (but then we should focus on convergence); do we want to have common actions? (but then we should organize more discussions on our agendas). I strongly believe that as long as we have no clear objective, we can indeed have no strategy, and then our meetings of the past have been useful but the potential of the WSF formula is now exhausted.

3)      I have serious doubts about the horizontality: it either means that nothing happens, since no one feels responsible for organizing anything; or it means hidden power relations and undemocratic decision-making. If things in the past have worked well, from IC to LC, it was because one or more persons did feel responsible and took things into their hands. That is what we need, in a democratic and participative way.

4)      We do indeed need a new political culture, and we still do not have it: it means democracy and transparency, gender equality, responsibility …

5)      And we need committed people, ready to do practical work in a responsible and open way. This is also what is now missing.

6)      As I have been able to say before: the ‘process may be going well’, but this can only be satisfactory for people who think the action is more important than the results. And while, at the theoretical level, neoliberalism already lost the battle, at the practical level, politically, we are losing … this makes me sad.

Hope my questions are not seen as undemocratic or as aggressive. I do my best.






Dear felows, 

I’ve readed attentionly Chico’s proposal and I’m increasely worried about the future of the IC of WSF. I have to tell you that I’m extreamelly incomfortable with the proposition of imploding the IC.

I think that the questions presented in the document wrote by Gina and Francine indicates some paths to walk through, in a positive way of construction.

On the other hand, Chico’s proposal, in my point of view, needs special attention since it doesn’t aim at the rising of the IC, but it’s destruction, while it aim at the creation of “New Movement”... And I’m even not already clear about it at all… Because it seems to me something to untied …

I remember that Pierre, Demian and I builded up a working group that refreshed the Guide of Principles and now is it been suggested the creation of a new Guide? I can’t understand…

I would like tu suggest that entities that integrates the IC, and who has its head offices in Brazil, could put together to discuss this proposal more deeply.

I’ve propose it yet at our last meeting, but it doesn’t happened…

How can we get in Tunis with a proposal of imploding the IC without a previous collective discussion about it?

I agree with Rita that the working group has been builded up to work the Agenda of Tunis, and would have Helio to help us, articulating it with the points definied at the meeting occurred recently in Tunis.

Best regards,

Liège Rocha.

Li com atenção a proposta de Chico e aumentaram as minhas preocupações com o futuro do CI e do FSM e confesso que fiquei extremamente incomodada com a proposta de implodir o CI.
Penso que as questões apresentadas no documento elaborado por Gina e Francice apontam caminhos a percorrer numa perspectiva de construção positiva.
Já a proposta de Chico, no meu entender, merece uma atenção mais cuidadosa pois não aponta caminhos de fortalecimento do CI, mas sua destruição. Apontando como alternativa a criação de "Novo Movimento", confesso que não compreendi a eficácia dessa alternativa ainda.....pois me pareceu de uma esttutura muito fluída....
Lembro que Pierre, Demian e eu constituimos um GT que atualizou o Guia de Princípios e agora está sendo proposto a criação de um novo Guia?
Gostaria que as entidades integrantes do CI, que tem sede no Brasil, se reunissem para debater melhor esta proposta de Chico. Já havia proposto esta nossa reunião, mas não se concretizou...
Como vamos chegar em Tunis com uma proposta de implodir o CI sem que isto tenha sido discutido anteriormente com todos?
Concordo com Rita que o GT que tinha sido constituido para trabalhar a Agenda de Tunis, que teria como facilitador Hélio, devesse trabalhar articulado com o que se definiu na reunião realizada agora em Tunis.
Um abraço




English bellow 

Querid@s, nuevamente celebro la “provocación” de Chico porque, como ven,  dio un impulso importante a una discusión que no ha llegado a cuajar, a pesar de los esfuerzos hechos hasta hoy.


En el documento de Chico hay una evaluación clara de las tremendas deficiencias del CI y su estructura e comisiones o grupos de trabajo, Esa evaluación la comparto plenamente. Es además la misma que evidenciamos en el documento escrito con Francine: la estructura del CI y la forma de participación en el CI arrastra vicios, ausencias, estilos burocráticos, ineficiencias, falta de objetivos claros, etc.


-          Sin embargo, para mi no es claro aun las funciones del “nuevo movimiento” en relación al Foro ni quiénes lo integraran. Es claro que asumirá algunas de las funciones del actual CI: discusión política, ratificación de la sede, además de las tareas que asumen –aunque débilmente hoy- las comisiones y grupos de trabajo. Donde estaría la diferencia?  Si es un movimiento amplio donde todos caben, todo el CI puede incorporarse a el y quizá arrastrar la misma lógica de funcionamiento (o de no funcionamiento).


-          en relación a la  “nueva asamblea general” de este nuevo movimiento, en ella (asamblea) participan militantes del movimiento, con dos momentos de incidencia en el FSM: al inicio, organizando reflexión   sobre la realidad socio política y económica, durante el Foro, y allí pueden incorporarse  participantes del foro mismo. Y después del Foro, la asamblea discute y avala la decisión sobre la realización del siguiente Foro.  En ambas discusiones todas las personas que quieran pueden participar, aunque, según entiendo,  el movimiento no necesariamente los incorpore. Lo cual lo puede volver inefectivo, por la masividad de una participación con funciones poco claras.


-          este nuevo movimiento se arroga no solo algunas de las funciones del CI, incluso formación de grupos de trabajo en relación a las tareas del FSM; tendrá además núcleos de apoyo en diferentes países, etc.  Todo esto en un espíritu de horizontalidad. Sin embargo, horizontalidad ha sido también un criterio del CI, que no siempre se ha cumplido. Es mas, un cierto nivel de división de trabajo es fundamental para poder realmente avanzar en relación a las tareas que surgen entre foro y foro y en relación al foro mismo.


-          Asumo también la pregunta de Francine sobre la poca claridad en las decisiones alrededor del Foro, quien las toma, como se toman. . 


-          Me preocupa el que este nuevo movimiento se convierta en el “movimiento de movimientos” que nunca quisimos que fuera el Foro.


Sin embargo, sigo pensando que es una propuesta que nos obliga a pensar y, en el horizonte, ponernos en una posición extrema (de disolución del CI)  que nos ayude a remover la inercia en la reflexión.


Mi propuesta no es asumir esta drástica decisión antes del Foro, es decir para el CI de Túnez, pues una decisión de este tipo requiere de una discusión mucho más profunda y preparada. Pero si poner a discusión esta, u otras posibilidades también radicales, en relación al funcionamiento del CI,  para que nos alimente la discusión en los próximos meses ya no solo en este grupo de trabajo sino en las comisiones y  en el mismo CI. De esta forma podemos ir profundizando y comenzar a llegar a algunas decisiones, ya sea sobre la radical transformación de la dinámica del CI o su radical desaparición.



-Dear friends,  again I welcome the "provocation" of Chico because, you see, has given major boost to a discussion that has not come to fruition, despite the efforts made to date.


In Chico ´s document there  is a clear assessment of the tremendous shortcomings of the IC and its structure and committees or working groups:This assessment I fully share. It is also the same as we show in the paper written with Francine: CI structure and form of participation in the CI draw alterations, absences,  bureaucratic styles, inefficiencies, lack of clear objectives, etc..


- However, for me it is not even clear the functions "new movement" in relation to the Forum or who integrate it. It clearly assumes some of the functions of the current CI: political discussion, ratification of the headquarters, as well as the tasks that take today-albeit weakly-committees and working groups. Where would be the difference? If a broad movement where all fit, all the IC can join and maybe drag the same operating logic that have been developed till now.


- In relation to the "new general assembly" of this new movement, militannts have to moments of  incidence in the FSM:  initially, organizing reflection on the socio political and economic reality during the Forum, where participants of  the forum itself can join. And after the Forum, the assembly discusses and endorses the decision on holding the next forum. This both moments develop the old functions of the IC and in both discussions  all people who want to participate can do it.  And this can reutrn to be  ineffective by the massiveness of involvement with unclear functions.


-  So, this new movement assumes not only some of the functions of the IC, including formation of working groups in relation to the tasks of the WSF, and will also support cores in different countries, etc. All this in a spirit of horizontality. However, horizontality is also a criterion of actual CI, which is not always fulfilled. Moreover, a certain level of division of labor is essential to really move forward in relation to the tasks that arise between forum and forum and on the forum itself.


- I assume also the questions of Francine on the lack of clarity in the decisions around the Forum, who takes them as they are taken. .


- I am afraid that this new movement will become the "movement of movements" that we  never wanted to be the Forum.


However, I still think it is a proposal that forces us to think and, on the horizon, put us  in an extreme position (dissolution of CI) to help us remove the inertia in the reflection.


My proposal is not to take this drastic decision in the next IC in Tunisia; because a decision of this type requires a much deeper and prepared discussion. But it is important to put  this discussion, or other also radical possibilities in relation to the operation of the IC, that can  feed the discussion in the coming months in the whole IC and not only  in this working group,  to go deeper and begin to reach some decisions, whether about the radical transformation of the dynamics of CI or its radical disappearance.