Weekly Worker 566 Thursday March 3 2005

Forwards, not backwards

Around 150 people attended the latest preparatory assembly in Athens, which finally took some decisions on the future of the ESF, having discussed the issues for almost four months.

Instructively, there were only half a dozen people from Britain present, reflecting perhaps the fraught nature of the preparations for the ESF London. After the London ESF in October 2004, the vast majority of participants complained that we had not really moved forward at all, either politically or in organisational terms. The undemocratic and exclusive shenanigans we witnessed courtesy of Ken Livingstone, his foot soldiers in Socialist Action and their uncritical supporters in the Socialist Workers Party had presented our forces with a stark choice: carry on as before and become an institutionalised, ineffective talking shop for the likes of Livingstone or Lula (witness last month’s World Social Forum in Brazil) - or agree to change.

As an aside, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) - by far the largest left organisation in Greece - still boycotts the ESF, because it sees it as a vehicle for social democracy to take over the anti-capitalist ‘movement’ (and an “imperialist plot”, in the mocking words of comrades from Greece who ridicule the KKE position). You could say the KKE comrades have a point, since the politics of social democracy (as refracted through the prism of the left) are dominant, but they would be far more effective if they participated and thereby influenced the direction of the forum, rather than shouting ‘ultra-leftist’ abuse from the sidelines.

Because of the composition of the ESF, the changes agreed over the weekend are therefore mainly cosmetic - even if they have been dressed up in a flurry of ‘ESF newspeak’ (for example, we will soon have to work out the details for the so-called “ESF social territory”, which is the silly phrase adopted for the practical side of the ESF itself - the food, translation equipment, recycle bins, etc). Two torturous days were spent discussing various proposals on the future of the ESF, until on Saturday night the usual procedure took place: an ‘international working group’ got together to work out a proposal for the next day’s assembly. Without an elected and accountable leadership, it is always the same 30 or so people who come together in this (officially non-existing) secretariat. The minute changes they proposed are:

• For the next two months, there will be a “consultation process”, during which “collectivities” (ie, groups or organisation) are to make proposals for the themes of the next ESF. Yet many speakers stressed that the decision on these themes ought to be made “politically, by the ESF assembly, not through an opinion poll”, as Raffaela Bollini (from the Italian left political institute Arci, linked to the Democratic Left) put it. In short, it is again the same people who will come together in a “small, international working group” in order to propose which subjects will be discussed. We predict that the themes will be pretty much identical to those of the London ESF: racism, war, social Europe, social justice and workers’ rights.
• Each theme will then be “facilitated by a group of coordinators” who will oversee the proposals for seminars and other meetings and organise the necessary merging process. So, at least here we will see a group of accountable and appointed people, rather than the vacuous ‘programme working group’.

Simply a space?
A range of speakers demanded that ESF networks and international campaigns should be given priority in the ESF process and that their work and efforts should be centrally supported by the ESF and its website. As the CPGB’s Tina Becker said, “What is the point of the ESF if we don’t put joint cooperation at the centre of our activities?” She was strongly opposed by two comrades from France. Pierre Barge from the League for the Rights of Men, and Jean-Michel Joubien from the CGT union centre insisted that “the ESF is a space, not a movement”. The two comrades - who are increasingly acting as a brake on the process - demanded that “networks should not become the main thing - we are simply organising a conference”. Disgracefully most comrades from France often support these two, presumably because they do not want to see their organisations leave. This includes a number of members of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and the Communist Party of France, who are shamefully covering for their rightwing/bureaucratic allies.

In our view, if these unions or organisations are not interested in furthering our cooperation, they should not be allowed to hold us back. In its current form, the ESF is clearly incapable of advancing our cooperation to a level where we could present a viable alternative to the EU.

The ESF’s problems cannot be explained by inadequate structures on how to propose seminars. If only the answer could be solved by tweaking or technicalities. No, most of the revolutionary organisations involved quite clearly lack the political will to present a radical alternative - be it out of fear of alienating the right, lack of faith in their own revolutionary programme or sheer opportunism. Rather than presenting solutions to some of the newly politicised sections in society, the current left chooses to repeat - almost step by step - the opportunist and populist mistakes of the left in the 20th century. First time tragedy ...

With the current undemocratic ‘consensus principle’, we are unfortunately being held hostage by the most conservative forces in the process: unions, NGOs and single-issue campaigns. Unfortunately, the CPGB’s proposals for decision-making through votes, the open participation of political parties and the election of an accountable ESF leadership have not been accepted - though about 10% of the participating organisations have supported our proposals or presented similar ideas.

SWP hypocrisy
One organisation that now supports such demands - at least on paper - is, of course, the Socialist Workers Party. Alex Callinicos (leader of their International Socialist Tendency) has in recent months been trying desperately to restore the SWP’s ‘leftwing image’ in the ESF, after having covered for the bureaucratic and rightwing dealings of Livingstone for over 18 months (see Weekly Worker February 17). But writing left is one thing - behaving like a revolutionary is another, as comrade Callinicos aptly proved over the weekend.

A number of speakers had criticised the prominent role that Brazil’s president Lula and his Workers Party (PT) played in the World Social Forum - despite the official ban on parties, as enforced by the PT itself. While he criticised the “hypocrisy of the WSF”, comrade Callinicos fell well short of supporting his own (written) demand for the open participation of parties.

In a discussion on the date of the next ESF assembly, Callinicos and the whole IST group of about 10 or so comrades played an extremely silly game: for almost a full hour, they stopped the meeting settling on May 22, making up all sorts of excuses. When one of their Greek comrades said that “the French referendum might take place on that weekend”, many participants started to smell a rat: not only did the French comrades themselves insist that they could still send a delegation - the IST has also been well known for showing no interest in Europe or the EU constitution whatsoever.

After a few more silly contributions, comrade Petros from Genoa 2001 finally admitted that there was “an important event in Greece on that weekend” - ie, a meeting of his own organisation. As Genoa 2001 has only a few dozen members, most participants felt rather unwilling to let this shambles continue. When comrade Becker suggested that “one political group cannot keep us here forever” and asked for a vote to be taken, Alex Callinicos rather lost his temper: “This is against the consensus principle,” he shouted. “Are you against consensus?”

We are against the right to veto. We are against paralysis. So, yes, we are against the so-called ‘consensus principle’. But, as opposed to the opportunists of the SWP, we have been openly arguing for democratic votes to be taken at ESF assemblies right from the beginning. Comrade Callinicos, however, is rather better at writing about such important changes - while in practical terms opportunistically attempting to exploit this ‘rule’.

Sensibly, the chair overruled him and his comrades, and the next assembly will therefore meet again on May 22, where the CPGB will again argue for the radical changes that are objectively necessary to advance our forces to a stage where we are more than an ineffective talking shop.

Ben Lewis/Tina Becker

Print this page