The ESF 2004 was an extremely contradictory event and
process. Thousands of people found ways to use this space in the spirit
of the WSF principles. They debated strategies for the anti-capitalist
movement, while developing Europe-wide activist networks which could
act together more effectively. Some devised alternative methods and
capacities which could make another world possible. All this happened
because activist gatherings generally find ways to make things happen
according to the means that are available and despite the obstacles
present.
The available means at the London ESF featured especially
the numerous autonomous spaces, which attracted approx. 5000 people,
many overlapping with those who registered for the official ESF. Many
events and spaces encompassed broad themes which linked apparently ‘single’
issues, thus spanning the foci of existing political campaigns and coalitions.
Perhaps the most notable example was the Assemby of the Precariat (and
its declaration), situating precarity within an entire exploitative
system which potentially threatens everyone but likewise which potentially
links their struggles, depending upon the shape of capitalist strategies
and our counter-strategies.
The call for Europe-wide days of action was also positive.
However, it is all too easy for enthusiasts to make such calls. Their
political effectiveness will depend upon creative activist networks
making several kinds of links: between local, national and European
dimensions; between movements and mainstream organisations (beyond a
formal coalition model); and likewise between apparently separate issues.
Positive aspects of the ESF 2004 faced serious obstacles.
UK activists highlighted these from the start of the process in autumn
2003, when we rightly tried to head off an ESF in London in 2004. Those
negative aspects deepened – despite our warnings, and despite
our support from activists throughout Europe, e.g. at the preparatory
assemblies. Those assemblies lost control of the event and the preparatory
process, which remained under control of a state-party nexus operating
along managerial-entrepreneurial lines. Several features effectively
structure the official ESF as a spectacle for mass consumption.
Indeed, we can speak of the official ESF as a privatised
space, in several senses of the word. Key tasks were contracted out
on terms set by the GLA. More generally, financial control bought political
control, partly because party members used the opportunity to do so,
often using blackmail arguments to dismiss alternative proposals. As
an obvious case of privatisation, the monopoly of mal bouffe excluded
the alternative culinary delights and migrant cultures of London. The
food catering symbolised how the entire structure precluded the use
– much less the development – of alternative capacities
within social movements. (See my previous article, ‘Making Another
World Possible?’, www.londonsocialforum.org/wiki/agenda28november2004)
Moreover, the programme structure reproduced the categories
of bourgeois society. For example, the thematic structure fragmented
practical reality: the ‘war on terror’ was nearly lost through
its separation into three themes (war, civil liberties, migrants). Party
activists in the programme group narrowly defined those issues according
to their party agendas, sometimes even acting as if their own agendas
represented all the relevant movements. At many sessions, speakers harangued
the audience with cliched slogans, aimed mainly to elicit applause and
preclude debate.
‘The war’ was given great prominence in
a way that trivialised its political meaning, which was reduced mainly
to high-profile military operations. Of course we all oppose the occupation
of Iraq, though this focus easily diverts us from related issues (see
below). For example, a focus on ‘the American Empire’ evades
difficult issues here, especially Europe’s role in promoting ‘the
war on terror’ at home and abroad.
Future options
To make another world possible, the ESF preparatory
process should follow the spirit of the WSF principles – especially
by building activist networks and practical alternatives to capitalist
domination. In particular:
• European assemblies as a political process.
These events should include an opportunity for exchanging experiences
of struggles, discussing strategic implications and building networks
which could act together. Perhaps plan these as a mini-ESF, back-to-back
with the organisational meeting. For activists unable to attend, the
internet could provide opportunities to participate.
• Representation. Delegates should be seen (and
see themselves) as representing activities. In that regard, it would
be regressive to impose a formal delegate structure, e.g. representing
‘organisations’; such a move would worsen our real problems,
while privileging the political agenda of some NGOs. When individuals
speak, they should mention their relevant activities and affiliations,
especially their party roles – or else be seen as dishonest.
• Infrastructure as alternative capacities. All
the necessary facilities should be discussed as responsibilities and
opportunities for developing alternative capacities. Any contractual
outsourcing should be the eventual outcome of such discussions. ESF
funds should support social movements rather than capitalist services.
Examples: simultaneous translation equipment, food, creche, etc.
• Themes linking issues. Key themes/issues should
be developed through a process much broader than a programme group.
Issues should also be framed as inherently linked.
In particular, we could take up a perspective which was prominent at
the Florence 2002 ESF: namely, ‘the war’ as a totalising
capitalist agenda with three strands:
1) military war including various forms of physical repression throughout
the world, though mainly ignored by the mass media;
2) economic war including privatisation, marketisation, precarity, etc.
3) social war including ‘the war on terror’ as a systematic
attack on human rights, civil liberties, refugees, migrant communities
and their global links.
We are weakened by any agenda which fragments these issues and are strengthened
by agendas which link them.
Les Levidow