One step forward, how many back?

To asses the 3rd ESF we must take into account that the two elements of which the ESF consists had drifted apart. If we look at the London ESF as a process it is not hard to agree that it was a European success. 25,000 anti-neoliberal-antiwar activists assembled in London , debated, exchanged experiences, built or strengthened networks, organized campaigns and had a good time. The Autonomous Spaces were better than ever. The Preparatory Meetings worked all year round guaranteeing in hard conditions enough transparency and democracy, the expansion of collective intellect networks like BABELS, NOMAD and the Memory Project, things are in a way getting less national and more collective.

But speaking of the ESF as an event connected to “internal relations” and balances of power we can't say the same. First of all the aim that was put down last year in Bobigny – to use the ESF to build a broad spectrum of anti-neoliberal powers inside the UK based on the antiwar movement – has failed. Anti-neoliberal forces are split between what was called the horizontal and the verticals. The event itself was organized under the influence of the Market: closed doors, a lack of transparency, a close relation to neoliberal powers, exclusions, “managerial” logistics, expensive, not collective and a close relation to the metropolitan police. It followed the “No Money, no honey” politics of the Mayor of London and, because he was the only one with the money, he could influence the way it was organized. And he never felt that he had to be accountable to anybody and especially to the European organizers – and he was helped for this by the left dominating powers of London . Things were so bad that activists thought that a specific seminar was a not a space to debate but a public relations operation of the Mayor.

Of course all these problems can't be forced through by the small groups that dominated the British Organizing Committee unless the situation allows it to happen. We must point out (first to ourselves) that bureaucracy was not invented at the London ESF. Our Preparatory Meetings reproduce it when they function more as a coordinating Committee not always reflecting the Movements in each country.

Hijacking the Sunday Demo comes as a result of the lack of real discussion on the priorities of the Movement and behind that stand the lack of a methodology, the lack of discussion after the defeat of the antiwar movement, and a lack of theoretical practice from one hand and understanding and working with differences on the other. British politics may not be very inclusive but this is a European problem for most of our counties. And because inclusiveness is one of our core problems we must absolutely not repeat the British way.

The dominating left parties of course tried to use the ESF (mostly because of their own politics and not because they are just a party) to use and gain power inside the process, because some political parties still believe that they are the avant-garde of a defeated Left.

Today we see a crisis that is first of all a crisis due to the under-representation of the social elements and social struggle in the movement. Especially the most organized ones -that is the political parties- see this crisis continuing on for more than 10 years but still want to represent the new movement.

Because of these problems we think that the ESF must be held every year. We must admit that our arguments are not very convincing. London was tiring to prepare but most of all we see that our networks are having big problems to survive next to this huge event. We must not slow down, so the one and half-year agreement must be let to show its abilities. Especially when the Networks aren't ready yet and we think that –mostly- parties will not allow them easily to grow. We must find ways to cut down power gained by national quota, change the way plennaries are organized but not by eradicating public political debate on the needs and priorities of the movement, work harder expanding to the East and Balkans but more important than all we must be more inclusive with the social issue of Europe, with the working people that produce the wealth of society, with immigrants that seek their right to escape from poverty and not be discriminated in Europe, with the socially excluded.

Campaigning against the war and inventing International Days Against the War, hoping (and praying) that people will come out in the same way of 15th of February is just not doing politics and is far away from the needs of the societies.

The 19th of March was decided to be a day against European neoliberal politics. We support an international march that day in Brussels and wouldn't like to watch another attempt of forcing the Movement to demonstrate under slogans it did not choose and in ways against direct democracy that it does not live by.