AUT: another view of the ESF

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

[this is from James Heartfield, an alumnus of the RCP (UK) and Living Marxism]

The WEEK
ending 24 October 2004

THE ESF LOOKS IN THE MIRROR

Leftist Hilary Wainwright called the World Social Forum the 'people's
UN'. But as the festival of the anti-capitalist movement developed it
has fragmented along regional and now national lines, and lost its
collegiate style and optimism. Gathering in London, the European
Social Forum last weekend drew anti-globalization activists from many
countries, but could not disguise the loss of momentum. A
demonstration against the occupation of Iraq did follow, but the more
lively actions were taken against the platform - when assorted
'Wombles' and anarchists sought to prevent first an Iraqi 'trade
unionist' and then London Mayor Ken Livingstone from speaking. Across
London, meetings were held with the title of 'Alternative Social
Forum' or 'Beyond the Social Forum', before the London ESF had even
begun.

Long-in-the-tooth environmentalists like Paul Kingsworth point the
finger at the organisational domination of the Socialist Workers'
Party and its supposed 'Leninist' style of leadership, and the dull
uniformity of the speakers' panels ('two boring trade unionists and a
trot'). Others pointed the finger at Mayor Livingstone's sponsorship
and dominance of the event, leading to excessive entry prices, mass
commercial catering, and bouncers. But these are symptoms of the
events' decline, not its cause.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is to Lenin's revolution in 1917
what the Quaker Church is to Cromwell's revolution in 1649. It pays
lip service to Lenin's vanguard party of the working class, just as
the Quakers do to the light of inner conscience, but in circumstances
so different that it cannot help but be a different kind of
organisation altogether. The SWP owes its origins to the more recent
disintegration of the Stalinist movement from the 1960s onwards. Its
founders adopted a method of adopting the most militant demands of
the day, and repeating them back to an uncertain working class. But
as the militant working class movement ebbed away, the SWP was
momentarily lost - only to be saved by the emergence of the
'anti-globalization' movement since the riots in Seattle against the
World Trade Organisation in 1999 (see James Heartfield, 'Capitalism
and Anti-Capitalism', interventions 5:2, 2003). Without the trade
union movement to follow after, the SWP adopted the nom de guerre of
'Globalise Resistance' and trailed after the militant
environmentalists of the anti-capitalist movement.

The anti-capitalist movement itself, though, blossomed precisely
because of the defeats of organised labour in the 1980s. It was only
once the middle class activists felt no threat from the working
class, that they turned their polemical fervour against capitalism.
The organisational underpinning of the movement was provided by the
non-governmental organisations: charities working in the Third World,
environmental pressure groups, welfare advocates. The movement was
characterised by extremist posturing and decidedly piecemeal
practice. 'Abolish capitalism', in one breath, and 'reform the World
Trade Organisation' in the next. Ironically, it was the capitalists'
own self doubts that gave the movement legs. Instead of dismissing
the protests out of hand, leaders at the World Bank and G8 flattered
the protestors as people with something important to contribute.

The organisational openness of the anti-capitalist movement was
always a myth. In the flux, charismatic leadership held sway, and the
floor was dominated by those who shouted loudest, and stayed longest.
Organisational meetings to assemble platforms were always stitched up
beforehand. But as the movement has ebbed, the dominance of political
parties is felt as imposition. The criticisms of the SWP are unfair -
they have only adopted the same organisational standards of the
supposedly less formal, but actually cliquish, WSF.

In keeping with its organisational metier, the SWP simply held up a
mirror to the anti-globalisation movement, and relayed back to them
what they were already saying: the romantic anti-capitalism, the
militant environmentalism, the identification of Israel with
apartheid, the posturing ('behead Blair!' chanted the rally on Iraq).
But strangely, the anti-capitalists did not like what they saw in the
mirror.


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---