We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
By Josep Maria Antentas
On our return from Porto Alegre we met many colleagues from the movement, very skeptical and distant from the World Social Forum, considering that it was already, or was condemned to be, a platform co-opted by the Social Democracy.
From Seattle to Genoa, the meetings and forums that have served as a point of reference for the anti-globalization movement (1) have generally received a positive assessment from all sectors of the movement. On the other hand, the World Social Forum, which held its second edition in Porto Alegre last January, has raised a strong controversy, in which very different points of view have been expressed about its meaning and about its future: thus, We have read these days, from the global disqualification of the former general secretary of the CGT, José María Olaizola, and of CNT militants, to very positive balances of people as different as Rafael Alegría, general secretary of Via Campesina, Christophe Aguiton or Susan George, from ATTAC, Michel Albert, from the Znet network, or José Vidal Beneyto, through those who, recognizing important positive aspects, foresee, and sympathize, with a rupture between the reformist sector and the radical sector, such as James Petras ... ( 2). Furthermore, upon our return from Porto Alegre we have met many colleagues from the movement, very skeptical and distant from the World Social Forum, considering that it was already, or was condemned to be, a platform co-opted by the Social Democracy.
These debates will be present in the development of the World Social Forum, including the European Social Forum (ESF), which will take place in Italy at the end of the year (3), in whose preparation we are already immersed. Thinking about this process, with which we feel very committed, we have written these notes, not as a chronicle, but as a working document, selecting some points that may be of greater interest for future activities and discussions.
1. The Charter of Principles. A few months after the First World Social Forum, which was held in Porto Alegre in January 2001, the International Council adopted a Charter of Principles that is its only political definition. It is a text of a very general nature, but quite clear in some central ideas.
For example: The World Social Forum is an open meeting space to deepen reflection, for a democratic debate of ideas, elaboration of proposals, free exchange of experiences and articulation of effective actions by entities and movements of civil society that oppose neoliberalism and the domination of the world by capital or by any form of imperialism and that they insist on the construction of a planetary society oriented towards a fruitful relationship between human beings and of these with the Earth. (…) The alternatives proposed by the World Social Forum are opposed to the globalization process commanded by large multinational corporations and by governments and institutions that serve their interests, with the complicity of national governments. (…) As a space for debates, it is a movement of ideas that stimulates reflection and transparent dissemination of the results of reflection on the mechanisms and instruments of domination of capital and on the means and actions of resistance and overcoming this domain (…).
The text admits moderate, reformist or radical readings. But it takes a notorious cynicism to, for example, support the Bush Administration's antiterrorist policy in any of its aspects and, at the same time, demonstrate in agreement with the WSF. The participation in Porto Alegre II of deputies of social democratic orientation who had voted in their parliaments in favor of the war in Afghanistan provoked justified and extensive indignation, which was expressed by the delegation of the Italian movement in a public censure against the deputies of the Left Democrats present in the Parliamentary Forum.
From here, an interesting debate on the Charter of Principles begins. Would it be necessary to modify it to introduce clear and forceful positions on such decisive issues as war? The problem transcends the text of the Charter as such and refers, in reality, to the characteristics of the Forum as a unitary space.
The WSF must have visible limits with its antagonist, symbolically represented by the World Economic Forum in Davos, (which this year was held in New York). Trying to establish catwalks, mutual invitations or other instances of common reflection, as recommended by various promoters of globalization with a human face, would seriously weaken the alternative character of the WSF and would open, without a doubt, an internal gap that is difficult to suture. But so far, this delimitation works, as has been verified by a representative of the World Bank and the Belgian prime minister who saw their request for accreditation rejected.
Guaranteed this, it is positive that the Forum defines a very broad political field, such as that established by the Charter of Principles, even if it is used by people with little shame. The important thing is that people and organizations that seriously reject neoliberalism, even if they are politically moderate, can be within the broad alliance that needs to be created. Because Porto Alegre, both I and II, have shown that, in this framework, the militant sector of the Forum (a term that we prefer to others, such as radical, alternative or social movements, for reasons that will be explained later) can work very well , take clear positions on current events and extend their influence, which is a goal of the first order.
Faced with issues of the utmost importance and today, such as war, what was lacking in Porto Alegre II was not, we think, the reopening of a constituent debate on the Charter of Principles, which would have consumed a lot of energy, without guaranteeing positive results, but the formal introduction of this topic in the Forum Conferences, with an open discussion between the different opinions present that could show in full light the game of those who speak in Porto Alegre that another world is possible, while supporting the old world in their countries.
2. The other Forums. In the context of the World Social Forum, but with autonomy from it, other activities are carried out, including a Parliamentary Forum and a Forum of Local Authorities. It is clear that these are accompaniment activities that should not interfere or compete with the WSF, which assumes the full role of the Porto Alegre initiative. This is also understood by many of those who participate in these forums with the aim of extending the struggle represented by the WSF, establishing networks of parliamentarians and local authorities, committed in practice to the principles of Porto Alegre.
But in reality, relations between the three forums are not going well. In Porto Alegre II, the Forum of Local Authorities was held before the WSF; It had a very discreet development, the presence of its participants in the WSF was hardly noticed and it was only made known by a final resolution that was not very interesting and of a very moderate tone (...) Intervening on the international scene for another globalization, which exceeds the current one financial dominance, accept international democratic bodies, be consistent with local, national and regional democratic decisions, and ensure sustainable development. (…) They decide to participate in the program proposed by the Secretary General of the United Nations to accompany the peace process in the world and they commit to develop the culture of peace in public policies for social inclusion, carrying out government diplomacy local and civil society so that cities and their institutions play an active role for peace); the most interesting decision adopted, if it were to be carried out, would be cooperation with Argentine cities (… a solidarity initiative with Argentine cities has been launched in this Forum, with the aim of contributing material support to the local health system) .
As for the Parliamentary Forum, its most visible expression was the landing of a large Social Democratic delegation, led by the French PS, who is responsible for the absurd but significant opposition to the appointment of Afghanistan in a resolution ... against the war (4). It also approved a dozen resolutions, some better and some worse, but whose little usefulness was diminished by the general discredit caused by all the incidents to which we have referred.
Does it make sense to hold parallel Forums in the context of the WSF? The advantage lies in maintaining the exclusively social character of the WSF (The World Social Forum gathers and articulates only entities and movements of civil society in all the countries of the world, says the Charter of Principles). The downside is to channel activities that are legitimized by reference to the WSF, but are in fact outside its activities and, in the worst case, they can pretend to speak on its behalf, or other forms of co-optation. In addition, there is a problem with the image of the WSF derived from this equivocal relationship with the parallel forums. From the outside, the differences are not clear, and that favors confusion about the real profile of the World Social Forum. Many of the globalization supporters with a human face, whose presence in Porto Alegre was aired with great fanfare, only participated in parallel forums, had a marginal relationship with the WSF, but their media projection made them appear as spokespersons for it.
The European Social Forum has decided to organize a single Forum with the idea of integrating all the debates into it, and thinking that this is the best option to avoid co-optation attempts and similar maneuvers; let's see how the experience goes.
In any case, you have to try to find a solution to these problems. Among social organizations, a distrust of institutions is widely perceived (5) and there are ample reasons for this. The effort to affirm the sovereignty of social organizations in everything that refers to the WSF is justified. But we should talk openly about what are the areas and the conditions for a useful collaboration with parliamentarians and parliamentarians and with local authorities (it is understood, that with those with whom this collaboration makes sense for the movement). So far, the parallel forums are not working well.
3. Organizational structures. The International Council (IC) directs the WSF and has very broad powers: The IC will be a permanent instance that will ensure the continuity of the WSF (it will play a leading role in guiding the political guidelines and in defining the strategic lines of the WSF. (…) The IC must exist as a space that is permanently and openly articulated with other movements and social struggles. The IC will not be an instance of power and will not have mechanisms for representation or vote struggles. The IC must contemplate in its composition a balance in relation to the regional diversity and of sectors of society and it will not be a bureaucratic structure that pretends to represent civil society. The representativeness of the IC will result from its successes, that is, from its ability to globalize, root , give organization and continuity to the WSF (6).
The composition of the IC was established by co-option from the initial nucleus from which the idea arose (basically, Le Monde Diplomatique and the Brazilian social organizations that formed the first Organizing Committee, particularly the CUT and the MST, with the support of the authorities of Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul. (7) As the meetings are open and the distinction between members and observers has not been clear, the IC has become a very broad structure (NGOs of various kinds, unions, communication networks, centers studies, religious solidarity organizations of different confessions, women's organizations, indigenous peoples, international campaigns, networks of the anti-globalization movement, small local groups ...) of diffuse composition, but with a decisive decision-making capacity, for example, especially the program acts of the WSF. The device transmits an opaque image, both open and inaccessible (reminiscent of the tyranny of the informal structures).
Probably a certain informality was inevitable, and even positive at first. But as the tasks diversify and become more complex, and the Forum acquires greater international weight and therefore a stronger attractiveness, this organizational nebula is a potential source of conflict. The problem is not working by consensus, which is logical in a process as broad as the WSF, but rather in who are the organizations and people that establish consensus, how they do it, what information they give about their agreements and what possible mechanisms They have participation, including the possibility of expressing disagreements and making counterproposals, for those who are not part of the decision-making bodies.
More than a wide catalog of standards, what is needed are good practices and good information. The easiest way to tackle these problems is from the bottom up and from the parts to the whole. For this reason, the European Social Forum should be an important experience, as well as the one carried out by the secretariat of social movements entrusted to the Via Campesina-MST and the CUT. At the first international ESF preparation meeting, held in Brussels on March 9, it was decided to opt for an organizational scheme and a more open and clear preparation process than that of the WSF itself: lack of an ESF European Council; creation of thematic working groups and periodic coordination meetings open to all those movements that want to participate in the process, etc. It is a step in the right direction, although it will be necessary to know how to materialize it.
4. The challenge of the 2nd Forum. On the eve of Porto Alegre II, the WSF had to respond to a challenge: to verify whether the anti-globalization movement had recovered from the very negative political impact of September 11th. Above all, it was about gauging the mood of the people, the determination to continue the struggle, the ability of the WSF to serve as a benchmark for organizations and movements against neoliberal globalization, its usefulness to articulate struggles against neoliberalism and war. … In the four months that have elapsed, the data that came from the international movement were contradictory: uneven development of the anti-war movement; very weak reactions to the WTO Assembly in Doha; Anyway, the consequences of two recent events were yet to be seen: the Enron case and the events in Argentina, the other two twin towers, in the words of Walden Bello.
The very capacity of convening the II WSF was a first conclusive and positive data: in Porto Alegre a large and representative sample of the movement met, although with imbalances and absences that we will see later. Furthermore, the general climate of hope and enthusiasm was not simply the effect of the liberated territory syndrome, of the possibility of living together for a few days sharing objectives and projects with thousands of people from all over the world: he also expressed, at least for a part Very considerable of the participants, the commitment to continue the fight against neoliberalism, militarism and war, according to the title of the Declaration of Social Movements.
But beyond this general assessment, it must be considered that considerable difficulties persist. For example, the link between the fight against neoliberalism and the fight against war has had a very positive response in Italy and also in Great Britain, but these are rather the exceptions.
The situation in the United States is an extreme case in the opposite direction: there 9/11 meant a rupture between the unions of the AFL-CIO, which came to support Bush, and the organizations that had the courage to denounce their own government. There were some signs of positive change in Porto Alegre: first, the presence of more than 400 people from US organizations, including some of those that had succumbed to jingoistic pressure a few months earlier. Even the AFL-CIO leader John Sweeny participated in the protest in front of the hotel where the World Economic Forum was meeting, transferred from Davos to New York and from there sent a cordial, albeit ambiguous, greeting to the Porto Forum Happy. Something is moving, but very slowly: not even the organizations linked to the trade union movement and located further to the left, such as Jobs with justice, still dare to call the protest actions against the IMF and World Bank Assembly on the 17th and 18th April and they limit themselves to announcing that their militants will attend individually.
These are expressions of a more general problem: the neo-imperialist global offensive after September 11 requires the movement to link its general anti-globalization struggle with the conflicts, crises and concrete gaps that occur in the international situation: from Argentina to Palestine, from the Enron al Plan Colombia case, from the new edition of the WTO Millennium Round officially launched on February 1 to the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas), which threatens to be established at accelerated rates in the immediate future.
How to maintain in these conditions, a broad unitary framework in the WSF and the necessary articulation of struggles, in which direct conflicts with international institutions and governments have to be faced, it is necessary to show the coherence between the Declaration signed in Porto Alegre and the actions and practical agreements in each country? This is the most complex task that has remained pending after the II WSF.
5. Reformists and radicals. In reality, the Forum was divided between reformists and radicals. (…) In the discussion of alternatives, the official organizers emphasized reformed imperialism and regulated capitalism, while radical social movements opened a debate and put the discussion about socialism on the table. The final Declaration of the social movements reflected a compromise between the reformists and the radicals. On the one hand, there was a radical diagnosis of the world's problems and a calendar full of mobilizations for the whole of 2002, and on the other hand, the final demands mostly reflected the reformists' inclination towards exchanges of crumbs, leaving aside any strategic demand for a participatory socialism and the defeat of imperialism. (…). This judgment by James Petras is representative of some of the criticism that Porto Alegre II has received. We will not enter to evaluate the Declaration, which we reproduce later; everyone can form their own opinion. On the other hand, we are interested in discussing the analysis of the political differences that exist in the WSF in terms of ideological blocs: reformists and radicals, because it does not seem like a good approach.
It is clear that there are reformists in the WSF. There are even those, like Susan George, who openly state it, which is welcome, for the clarity of the debates: It is extremely worrying that trust in mainstream politics is wearing thin so quickly. That is why I hope that I have managed to convey at least part of the urgency of dealing with the problems that the citizens' movement has presented: if they are not solved, and soon, we will witness an even more pronounced social division, a greater aversion to nominally democratic institutions, a hardening of positions, confrontation and an escalation of violence, especially state-owned. And then those who argue that the current world system is incapable of self-regulation and reform will be shown to be correct. The people who, like me, are fighting to avoid the path of repression, revolt, violence and chaos and are proposing practical solutions, the people who expect not an indefinable form of world revolution, but a kind of Universal Welfare State a perfectly viable goal in material terms, it will be marginalized or radicalized (8).
It would be very good if these ideas were expressed not only in articles but in debates within the WSF and there was the possibility of confronting them with revolutionary ideas explained by those who defend them, and therefore without the apocalyptic halo that Susan George imposes on them. But we do not believe that these are the priority debates in the WSF and in these times, nor that the most significant discrepancies are expressed in this way.
If what it is about is to articulate struggles, then the debates that should be prioritized are those that directly affect the struggles, both in their objectives and content, as well as in the way they are conceived and promoted. And here the problem is more complex. For example, we can consider Ricardo Petrella a reformist in his general positions; But in the fight against what he himself calls the global oligarchy that is taking over drinking water and in favor of de-commodifying this common good that should belong to all humanity, Petrella is radical.
Another example: in the fight to end the foreign debt, there are reformists who fully support the goal of forgiveness; On the other hand, other sectors, linked to the Jubilee 2000 campaign in the countries of the North, are proposing Independent International Tribunals that issue binding awards for creditors and debtors. Even without considering some of those proposed as possible presidents of this Tribunal project (Camdessus !!!), this idea, which is defended as realistic and viable in the face of unfeasible debt forgiveness proposals, tends to disorient and divide the public. movement and respond to the same logic of other debt relief initiatives that have proliferated in recent years (without demonstrating, by the way, their viability to achieve significant real improvements in the situation of indebted countries).
Here there is an important delimitation on the choice of action objectives, or according to the intended criterion of viability, or according to the criterion of strengthening social movements (a last example: the objective of food sovereignty is fundamental for the development of the movement, although it is not viable in the current relations of forces).
6. The role of social movements. Precisely because the WSF is a very broad and plural space in which very diverse organizations and currents coincide (for the moment, it is very exaggerated to speak of an alliance if any practical meaning is given to the term), it is essential to create grouping focuses that, respecting the unitary framework, they are characterized by their link to social struggles and their commitment to articulate them. In Porto Alegre II, the justified concern over the disembarkation of the social democracy and the attempts to co-opt the WSF created an additional pressure, in this sense, very visible from day one.
Via Campesina, with the outstanding collaboration of Focus on Global South, the CUT, the Italian movement, ATTAC-France ..., assumed a dynamic role with great skill and intelligence, directing the energy of the organizations convened in the sense of giving a radical imprint and mobilizing the whole of the WSF and trying to lose as little time and work as possible in power battles. Thus, it can be said that the Declaration of Social Movements, which is the most representative document of the WSF, even has serious support from organizations that are not particularly radical or alternative but that consider themselves committed, militant, with the process defined there. But, having said that, it must be recognized that much remains to be done.
The process of preparing the Declaration itself, although it was done in open meetings, with a great desire for consensus and led to a good result, cannot replace the exchange of ideas and experiences that is essential to consolidate the network. There has been very little time and space in the official WSF agenda for these tasks, which is already a problem in itself, because there is much to talk and discuss among the movement's own organizations.
It is worth remembering that apart from the big Conferences, the WSF was the scene of a multitude of meetings, workshops, and various events in the afternoons, organized by the different movements and groups present. It was there that some of the most interesting discussions and exchanges took place. Naomi Klein and Lucca Casarini call these spaces the seams of the Forum. The formula is good and these spaces are, without a doubt, very important. But you also have to enter the fabric as such.
Because there are already identified problems that require a general reflection. For example, those mutual ignorance that Michel Albert points out: (The left) of the United States is horribly isolated from the rest of the movements and projects of the world. It is not just that our knowledge of the rest of the world is deficient. It is that others have alliances and affiliations that transcend borders and we are not in them, we remain locked in our borders. Whatever the causes, this is a problem that requires urgent attention. The United States is the monster, the activists here are at the heart of the beast. And neither those of us who are here inside the monster, nor those who suffer the violence of the monster from outside, can achieve what must be achieved separately. (…) Just as the left in the US is isolated from much of what happens outside our borders, movements outside are not only isolated from what is happening in the US, but in many ways ignore what is ours situation. (9).
And, also, the more serious problems of invisibility highlighted by Pierre Rousset: But the visibility of the most exploited and needy is still too uneven. For example, the French organization DAL (Droit au logement, Right to housing), signs the Declaration of Social Movements, but points out how the homeless (without papers, homeless ...) have been little visible in its drafting. There is a serious image problem in this (some of the WSF participants stay in the best hotels in the city) and a fundamental problem. The greater the fusion carried out by the movement of specific social identities in the solidarity expression of a human community, the greater the risks that the sectors that naturally possess communication tools will monopolize the word. Without a voluntaristic policy, the most exploited and most needy will pay the price of invisibility for unity. And their specific demands will dissolve in a generalist and unanimist discourse.
Also in this sense, it is necessary to note the difficulties of the youth in having a leading and active role in the Forum as a whole. It is true that there has been remarkable progress between the first and second WSF in terms of the participation and presence of youth in it. In this second edition, there were more than 15,000 young people present at the Youth Camp. However, despite this quantitative progress, the role in the Forum of this new militant generation, which we have seen appear in Seattle or Genoa, is significantly less than its real weight in the movement as a whole. Many of the debates, discussions and concerns that have developed between the networks and movements encouraged by young people, had a limited presence in the Forum. In this field, we must highlight the Laboratory for Global Resistance, organized by some networks in the Youth Field, within the framework of which they discussed non-violent direct action strategies, the different forms of action and the diversity of tactics, campaigns against multinationals, the resurgence of student struggles in some countries, free software…. The contrast with the general focus of the Forum's lectures is striking.
Finally, the MST leader Joao Pedro Stédile expressed his concern that we were building a Western and Christian movement; It is true that the Forum had an essentially Latin American and European composition, with an acceptable presence of the North American movements, and a very limited presence of the Asian and African movements. And there are more borders that we will have to cross to achieve a greater participation of environmentalists, feminists, trade unionists, indigenous communities ...
It will not be easy, but we believe that he is on the right track. Marcos (whom we have missed for several months) explained it very well some time ago: No, we do not want to be avant-garde. Things are better produced and developed better if the same people who participate are making their own historical contribution and not if a new theoretical architecture is created that would oppose neoliberalism and presents Zapatismo as a new world dogmatism. We still need to learn, listen, observe. Let's create communication networks and let's meet, that's all. (10).
7. A symbol we need. The Porto Alegre initiative is a diamond in the rough, which is just beginning to carve facets. Several at the same time, with different orientations, some closer than others: symbolic referent; exchange of experiences and articulation of struggles; espacio de contaminación mutua, como dicen los colegas italianos; debate de alternativas al neoliberalismo; constitución de un movimiento de movimientos sociales o una nueva Internacional … Hay que considerarlas todas en sí mismas y en sus relaciones y contradicciones para hacernos una composición del lugar y de sus posibilidades. Veamos para finalizar, la faceta simbólica.
En enero del 2001, el Foro Social Mundial nació como una alternativa a un símbolo del neoliberalismo: el Foro Económico Mundial de Davos: reunión de líderes políticos, dirigentes del Banco Mundial, del FMI y de la OMC y la flor y nata de las grandes transnacionales frente a reunión de organizaciones y movimientos sociales; apología neoliberal frente a rechazo del neoliberalismo y el dominio del mundo por el capital y por cualquier forma de imperialismo; un elitista refugio en los Alpes suizos, lleno de dinero y muerto, frente a una ciudad del Sur abierta y llena de vida, dirigida por el PT, una de las poquísimas organizaciones de la izquierda política que sobrevive al desprestigio y al declive generalizado de la última década, creadora además de una herramienta de gobierno municipal y participación social, el presupuesto participativo , que se presenta como un ejemplo de las alternativas posibles a las reglas universales impuestas por el neoliberalismo.
Un año después, la nueva situación internacional creada tras el 11 de septiembre, sometió a prueba la capacidad del FSM para ser efectivamente el símbolo de la resistencia internacional frente a la ofensiva dirigida por la Administración norteamericana.
Se puede medir el resultado de la prueba desde muchos puntos de vista. El más visible, aunque no el más importante, es el impacto en los medios de comunicación. La primera impresión fue buena: se hablaba mucho de Porto Alegre; incluso, medios de comunicación muy influyentes daban una importancia similar a las informaciones del Foro Económico Mundial que se desarrollaba en Nueva York y a las de Porto Alegre. Pero los grandes medios seleccionaron los portavoces correctos del Foro Social Mundial: en su mayor parte, personalidades políticas o intelectuales con un discurso tipo otra globalización es posible. El problema se agravó porque, aunque se habló mucho en el Foro sobre la contra-información, en la práctica no funcionó bien la información alternativa. El tema merece una reflexión con calma porque está claro que es vital para el futuro del movimiento.
Es importante llegar a los grandes medios, pero con nuestra propia voz y en los momentos adecuados. Y siempre hay que tener garantizada una red alternativa. En Porto Alegre no faltaron las posibilidades técnicas: incluso se montó una web, con el apoyo entre otros de Le Monde Diplomatique, (www.portoalegre2002.org) y hasta una red llamada Ciranda que aspiraba a ser el referente de la información alternativa. Resultaron productos artificiales, sirvieron para muy poco y desaparecieron, sin pena ni gloria, poco después de la clausura del Foro. Esta vez, se echó en falta la presencia activa de los colegas de Indymedia, habitual en el trabajo de contra-información en todas movilizaciones internacionales… Por otra parte, muchos de los participantes enviaron crónicas a diversos medios, fueron entrevistados, etc. Pero organizar la contra-información requiere una coordinación de esfuerzos, que no se limite a confiar en la convergencia espontánea simbolizada en la célebre imagen de la nube de mosquitos. A fin de cuentas, mucha gente del movimiento terminó mirando a Porto Alegre a través de las gafas de los grandes medios. Tenemos que intentar evitar que esta situación se repita o, al menos, aminorar sus efectos.
En cualquier caso, el Foro Social Mundial es hoy la única instancia internacional con reconocimiento mediático y un apoyo social y político amplio, no subordinada a los EE UU.
En términos de relaciones de fuerzas, por supuesto, no hay comparación posible; en cambio, en términos simbólicos, es importantísimo (11). Un movimiento social internacional en esta época necesita referentes simbólicos que representen el rechazo del orden existente y la voluntad de construir un sistema alternativo.
Un símbolo así no ahorra la tarea de formular objetivos, articular luchas, ampliar la influencia las ideas y las propuestas alternativas o radicales, afrontar los conflictos internos sobre la orientación del movimiento, etc.
Pero crea las mejores condiciones posibles para que esas ideas y propuestas se desarrollen dentro de una alianza amplia capaz de acoger las voluntades que van despertando los estragos del neoimperialismo. Una Internacional sin dueño, como ha definido al FSM el revolucionario peruano Hugo Blanco. Sin Dios, ni dueño, decían los viejos anarquistas. Para que pueda ser de todas y de todos.
8. El paso adelante. Más allá de la cantidad y la calidad de los debates, de las ideas y las propuestas. Más allá de las relaciones creadas o fortalecidas entre las organizaciones y movimientos. Más allá del calendario de movilizaciones acordado. Más allá incluso de la moral, la energía y la voluntad de lucha que se ha renovado en Porto Alegre. Lo que de verdad importa es algo que parece mucho más modesto: el paso adelante del movimiento real.
Una de las frases más citadas de Marx dice: Cada paso del movimiento real vale más que una docena de programas. No se trata de devaluar a los programas (12), pero sí de reconocer dónde está el punto de referencia y la prueba de la verdad de todo lo que hacemos o nos proponemos hacer.
No sólo ha habido en Porto Alegre II más gente: hay ahora más movimiento, aunque no todo el movimiento; más proyectos de extenderlo; más conciencia de los problemas que tenemos por delante; compromisos más ambiciosos (como realizar y apoyar internacionalmente la campaña de los colegas latinoamericanos contra el ALCA); mejores herramientas para seguir trabajando, como el Foro Social Europeo; más posibilidades de incorporar a corrientes, sectores y países, que, por unas u otras razones, no están participando en el proceso.
Hemos dado un paso adelante. Podemos estar satisfechos. Pero sólo servirá si ahora somos capaces de dar el paso siguiente. Como en Barcelona.
1) Utilizamos este nombre, que no gusta ya a casi nadie, a falta de otro que obtenga suficiente adhesión lo que hasta ahora no ocurre, por ejemplo, con movimiento por la justicia global y evite ambigüedades indeseables como, por ejemplo, movimiento por otra globalización .
2) Estos textos han circulado ampliamente por la red. Pueden encontrarse en: www.rebelion.org www.sodepaz.org www.acsur.org www.zmag.org y en las entrevistas que publicamos en estas mismas páginas de Viento Sur ().
3) Ver más adelante la nota informativa sobre la preparación del FSE.
4) Puede encontrarse información amplia sobre este asunto en la entrevista que publicamos más adelante con Pierre Rousset.
5) Que incluye, también, la precaución ante posibles interferencias de las instituciones de la ciudad de Porto Alegre y del Estado de Río Grande del Sur gobernadas por el PT, aunque lo que predomina en este caso es una buena colaboración.
6) La composición del CI y su estatuto se encuentran en la web del Foro www.forumsocialmundial.org
7) En la web de Foro hay una crónica detallada del proceso que dio origen al FSM escrita por Francisco Whitaker.
8) Susan George. El movimiento global de ciudadanos. Foreign Affairs, Primavera 2002.
9) Michel Albert
10) Le Monde Diplomatique. Edición española. Nº 45-46. Julio-Agosto 1999. Pág. 5.
11) En realidad, los intentos de cooptación del Foro parten de aquí: la socialdemocracia, y quienes la acompañan en la maniobra, quiere apoderarse del símbolo para darse un lifting que tape la legitimidad perdida.
12) La frase se encuentra en una carta de introducción a uno de los textos programáticos fundamentales del marxismo (Crítica del Programa de Gotha, 1875) en el cual Marx no deja pasar, no ya una palabra, ni una coma, que pueda desvirtuar, desviar o confundir las ideas y los objetivos revolucionarios. *Josep Maria Antentas participa en el Movimiento de Resistencia Global (MRG) y en la Campaña Contra la Europa del Capital, de Barcelona
Josu Egireun es miembro de Hemen eta Munduam
Miguel Romero es redactor de Viento Sur
Publicado en Viento Sur nº 61