T
he planning committee of
the World Social Forum (WSF) 2005 decided that 2006 would be a year
of “polycentric” (decentralized) meetings around the world.
Gatherings were to be held in Africa, South America, Pakistan, and
Thailand. Michael Albert and I, representing Z, attended the Social
Forum of the Americas in Caracas from January 24-29, 2006—he
was there to speak at a few of the sessions, I was there to film
several events.
The World Social Forum—with the theme “another world is
possible”—was first held in January 2001 as an alternative
to the World Economic Forum, which is sponsored by such global capitalist
institutions as the World Bank and the IMF. Since 2001, the WSF
has been attended each year by close to 100,000 progressives who
come to participate in “an open meeting place where social
movements, networks, NGOs, and other civil society organizations
opposed to neoliberalism and a world dominated by capital or by
any form of imperialism come together to pursue their thinking,
to debate ideas democratically, to formulate proposals, share their
experiences freely, and network for effective action” (from
the WSF Charter).
Approximately 80,000 were registered for the event in Caracas—
with the largest delegations coming from Venezuela, Brazil, and
Colombia. The six day event began with a wild ride from the airport
over roads through mist-covered mountains surrounding Caracas. A
key bridge was out on the main road so what was usually a thirty
minute trip took anywhere from an hour and a half to five hours.
We made it to the downtown Hilton Hotel where we were staying in
just over two hair-raising hours. At the hotel, the lobby was filled
with arrivals checking in and reuniting with old friends. We ran
into friends from prior Social Forums, many of whom now write for
Z, as well as a few graduates from Z Media Institute.
The first day began with a 4:00 PM march of tens of thousands through
the streets of Caracas. The march is an especially important event
because the sessions are held in many different venues, often spread
across the host city, so the march is almost the only chance to
get a sense of the size and mood of the participants. The Caracas
march was lively and noisy. It was also anti-Bush (as were most
of the sessions). The banners were mainly from organizations, unions,
and left parties and reflected those groups’ particular issues
and cultural clothing and colors, lending diversity to the event.
However, it would be nice one day to see some unifying positive
slogans, beyond “another world is possible.”
The next five days were filled with a total of 2,000 sessions that
began at 8:30 AM and continued until 9:00 PM. Activities by topic
were:
-
Power, politics, and struggles for social emancipation: 493 -
Imperial strategies and peoples’ resistance: 314 -
Alternatives to the predatory model of civilization: 272 -
Diversities, identities, and worldviews in movement: 132 -
Work, exploitation, and reproduction of life: 183 -
Communication, culture, and education: 389
A quick survey of the 20 or so panels being held at the Hilton indicated
that attendance was generally fewer than 100 people per session.
We figured that number was pretty much the case at the 20 or so
other venues. We did hear of sessions with a few thousand, but they
were rare. While the numbers seemed small to us, relative to some
of the sessions at the World Social Forums in Porto Alegre, Brazil
and Mumbai, India, we observed a great deal of enthusiasm among
the majority of attendees.
Meanwhile hundreds of participants were wandering halls and streets,
enjoying just being there and talking with like-minded people. Interestingly,
this distribution between sessions, private meetings, and just hanging
out is reflected in a survey taken at the WSF 2005, which showed
that 49.8 percent of participants in the Social Forum movement were
there to exchange experiences with other participants; 47.8 percent
wanted to contribute to a better society; 42.4 percent came for
democratic debate; and 20.6 percent came to formulate proposals
for alternatives to the neoliberal model.
On
the morning of the fourth day, word of mouth indicated that Hugo
Chavez was going to speak that evening, even though the program
listed him as apearing two days later. We were hustled onto a bus
of “important guests” for a 30-minute ride to an indoor
stadium. There we were split into more “important guests”
who were taken to a room to wait for a quick meeting with Chavez
and the “less important guests” (us) who were taken to
a special section on the stadium floor.
For the next three hours, we filmed the crowd in the stadium as
they cheered, drummed, chanted, and danced. Finally, there was some
entertainment, followed by the arrival on stage of the “more
important guests” (including Che Guevara’s daughter and
Cindy Sheehan). After some additional security checks, Chavez arrived.
While the hierarchical “important guest” business was
annoying, Hugo Chavez was impressive. He spoke to the crowd as if
chatting with old friends. He boldly urged solidarity with Cuba,
which, until Chavez, had been isolated—even condemned—by
Latin Americans, right and left.
He quoted and/or referred to Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, and Noam Chomsky,
among others (we’re told he’s a avid reader). It was amusing
to compare his reading material with what we imagined our president’s
was. He made a hopeful and inspiring case for a unified Latin America—a
Bolivarian Revolution—that could serve as a progressive model
throughout the world, as well as a challenge to U.S. domination.
He revealed that he had met with a few of the WSF organizers behind
the scenes (some of whom were onstage). In that meeting he had told
them that it was fine to have discussions, but if the Forum didn’t
result in conclusions and actions, then it was a waste of time.
The debate between those who want to keep the WSF a forum and those
who want it to move toward a global movement organization with common
goals and strategies has been going on since 2003. Answers to the
aforementioned questionnaire are revealing in this respect. When
asked where they considered themselves on the political map, 60.1
percent thought of themselves as left, 19.8 percent were center-left,
4.5 percent were center, 0.6 percent center right, and 1.6 percent
was right (13.4 percent had no opinion).
When asked what process should be used for building “the other
possible world,” 90.4 percent said the road should include
“strengthening the mobilization of civil society on a global,
continental, national, and local level”; 72.3 percent said
the path should include “the democratization of governments”;
59.3 percent said it should include direct action; 59.2 percent
said it should include “the democratization of multilateral
organizations (UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF)”; and 13.5 percent
believed it should include “direct action with the use of force.”
The direction the WSF should take is a difficult issue, but it’s
not clear why organizing a movement and continuing a forum structure
can’t both be done. We’ve suggested in these pages that
a portion of the WSF could be dedicated to discussion and decision-making
leading to the founding of a movement organization or network that
could aggressively promote common visions and values for “another
world.”
Regardless of what happens, it is extremely important for activists
from the U.S. to become part of this growing global left. It would
show the rest of the world that there is a left in the U.S. that
is resisting the empire from within. It would remind those of us
who feel isolated, and often discouraged, that there are other people
in the world who want a revolution in values and institutions.
Lydia
Sargent is a co-founder of South End Press and Z. She has been on
the staff of Z since its founding in 1988.
