this morning instead of writing up that report that is due in two days, i did some research on whether i was going to attend the world social forum in kenya . the world social forum first met in 2001 in the city of porto alegre, brazil, as a challenge to the world economic forum (WEF) and 'claimed to organize an alternative to capitalist neo-liberal globalisation.' lofty mission right? i have been lukewarm about the forum for a few months because such transformative discourse is not always met by such transformative politics and action. and also, i like to investigate a bit before i invest $600 in a plane ticket.

before i go into what i found, i am going to call on audre lorde for a quote that frames the critiques that i was able to find: 'the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. they may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.'


i poked around to find critiques of the forum's format, purpose and general epistemology and came across this article at we write entitled ' the wsf revisted: back to the basics' by rodha d'souza (it was actually rejected for publication for znet). he critiques the world forum as one which advocates discourses which run counter to the tagline 'another world is possible.' he interrogates this notion of 'civil society' which the world social forum harps on (the world social forum as ;an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulations of proposals, free exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society.') he looks at civil society historically not as a democratic space for the development of counter-hegeomonic activity but as a incubator for the domestication of the possibly explosive elements of society. (you can find a seemingly promising narrative which blends a close reading of hegel+marx with an analysis of the concept of civil society to argue that civil society now buttresses neoliberalism; or check ehrenberg's article beyond civil society). in gramsci, polanyi and impressions from africa on the social forum phenomenon.' patrick bond writes the 'dichotomous reading of civil society' (and thus by extension the world social forum) is rooted in the opposing (?) arguments of hungarian social scientist karl polanyi's (see 'the great transformation, 1944) construction of civil society as the ‘new social movement challenge to neoliberalism
' and italian political theorist antonio gramsci's (see prison notebooks, 1930s) construction of civil society as a 'stabilizing, conservative force.'

i digressed, but in so many words, d'souza argues that the wsf advocates for a more 'sustainable exploitation of society.' (pg. 3) as such d'souza is not surprised by the wsf support for debt cancellation in the global south as it only reifies the state. i'll share a bit of this analysis here, because it is quite spot-on in my opinion.

let us take Third World debt, an issue that has the sympathy of a wide cross section of western (also capitalist) societies. The wsf would like third world debt to be cancelled. evidently, this is because of the poverty in the third world. however, the idea of cancellation is based on forgiveness and compassion. it overlooks a small detail, namely, that what is called debt is in fact expropriation of the Third World and a means of continued appropriation of their land, labour and natural resources in a new form euphemistically termed 'development' in the post-war era. in that sense it is not a 'debt' at all. not surprisingly, the churches throughout the jubilee year were most vocal in advocating cancellation of third world debt based on the christian idea of plenary indulgence and absolution so that the slate is cleaned and the old ties resumed. every good banker too knows that periodically bad debts must be written off for banking to continue to be business as usual. for the 'Third World' then, debt cancellation will undoubtedly bring some respite, but whether it will end their continued exploitation, the continued decimation of their social and cultural life, is another matter. did the end of slavery end the exploitation of black people? Or, the advent of western democracies the colonisation of indigenous peoples? or, did national independence end poverty and degradation? already, the world bank is saying some Third World debts will be written off if countries agree to restructure to conform to conditions of 'globalisation'.

*tamiur rahman on the world social forum: taimur rahman also has some interesting analysis in his article 'world social forum karachi: a left critique' in which he looks at the charter of principles, specifically clauses 6, 9,10 and 11.

clause 6 reads ' participants in the forum will not be called upon to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or by acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that propose to be taken as establishing positions of the forum as a body.' so is the world social forum just what rahman calls a 'glorified discussion group'?

clause 9 reads 'neither party representatives nor military organizations shall participate in the forum. government leaders and members of legislatures who accept the commitments of this charter may be invited to participate in a personal capacity.' so is the wsf not the forum for discussing the quest for state power? how is this new world possible without politics and the capturing of state power? is civil society the legitimate entity to bring about this new world? in patrick bond's article 'gramsci, polanyi and impressions from africa on the social forum phenomenon' he quotes 'johannesburg's anti-privatisation forum secretary trevor ngwane explain[ing] the limits of ‘autonomist’ strategies: ‘some people attack the idea of targeting state power. the argument that globalisation undermines the role of the nation state gets translated into an excuse for avoiding the fight with your own national bourgeoisie. but we in South Africa cannot [fail to] confront the ANC and mbeki. american activists can’t [fail to] confront bush’.

clause 10 reads 'the wsf is opposed to all totalitarian and reductionist views of economy, development and history and to the use of violence as a means of social control by the state.' the old logical fallacy of equating fascism with communism. in a bit of a zinger rahman writes: 'one does not have to be a marxist to appreciate that states exist for no other reason than ‘social control’ through a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. the statement is an absurdity for if one is opposed to ‘social control’ through ‘violence’, then one should be opposed to the very concept and existence of the state (as the anarchists or libertarians are). and if one is merely opposed to the ‘use’ of violence by the state, as opposed to the use of the ‘threat of violence’ by the state, then one would have to ask the purpose of spending billions to maintain a coercive apparatus that will not be used.'

clause 11 reads 'the meetings of the wsf are always open to all those who wish to take part in them, except organizations that seek to take people's lives as a method of political action. this one is interesting mostly because it excludes many in the global south who have and may continue to engage in wars of liberation

there are quite a plethora of background documents and debate papers over at the centre for civil society site.

*anti-world social forum?: as a note, i am not leading a digital movement against the world social forum; rather through my own thought process i hope to open up dialogue instead of simply jumping in bed with a movement+discourse because they are rhetorically seductive. there are a lot of other issues at work, that i don't have the time and space (or energy) to explore here.

while i'd like not to return from the world social forum with the sentiment of 'i could have had a V8,' it is important for those who critique to actually attend these forums. patrick bond writes a critical piece, but promoted the forum at last week's book launch. if we are to actually change the way the forum operates and critically interrogate notions of civil society and state power we need to actually attend these forums and bring from the margins this discourse.

so maybe i will go just to have a first hand account. though, i must say attending this forum is a bit expensive with flight+hotel costs+etc. and no visible offer of assistance.