Re: AUT: another view of the ESF

[david.graeber@xxxxxxxx]

Significantly, not even an acknowledgement here of the
existence of the issues that the "horizontals" were
so angry about: questions of democratic process and
trying to create a way of doing politics, of interacting
at least with one's fellow activists, which involves
something more than the pure cold-blooded pursuit
of power for its own sake. Kind of sad, really. The guy
doesn't seem to be able to even imagine the possibility.
   DG


Quoting 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 ---
>




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