World Forum Movement: Abandon or Contaminate December 19

World Forum Movement: Abandon or Contaminate
by Linden Farrer
December 19

November 2002 saw 60,000 activists from all over Europe converge on
Florence for the European Social Forum (ESF) at the same time as the
neoliberal elite met at the TABD in Chicago1. In opposition to
neo-liberalism that sees increasing inequality of wealth, environmental
destruction, rolling-back of 'civil liberties' and a perpetuation of
wars of aggression as central to its operation, the ESF promised to be a
meeting space for 'in-depth reflection, democratic debate, free exchange
of experience and planning of effective action among movements of civil
society engaged in building a planetary society centred on the human
being'2.

Preparatory meetings in Brussels, Vienna and Thessaloniki led to the
involvement of more than 600 organisations that resulted in 40,000 more
participants turning up than expected. The final day saw an anti-war
march that attracted a million Italians from all over Italy to Florence
(Florence has a population of just 400,000). The ESF was clearly one in
the eye for the Berlusconi regime, particularly so since none of the
promised violence and damage to monuments publicised in the right-wing
media actually occurred. The eventual crackdown on dissent took place
fairly quickly, with up to 40 'No-Global' activists arrested or held
under house-arrest3.

The ESF's 'parent' organisation is the World Social Forum (WSF) which
first
anticipated the creation of a European forum and other regional forums in
2002. The WSF was itself proposed by a coalition of Brazilian civil
society groups with much of the organisation undertaken by the Workers
Party that controls Porto Alegre and the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The
WSF sees itself not only as a meeting-place for discussion of
alternatives to neoliberalism, but also as a counterpoint to the World
Economic Forum (WEF) which meets at the same time as the WSF4. Whilst
the WEF met in Davos (Switzerland) in 2001, in 2002 it was forced to
meet in New York. This was not a powerful statement by the neoliberal
elite standing firm against its opponents but due to the costs of
protecting the 2001 WEF conference from protestors. The security
operation for the 2001 conference was the Swiss governments most
expensive since the Second World War, provoking cries of protest from
within Switzerland. While the WSF has risen in status the WEF has
steadily fallen having lost its prime-magnet for corporate and financial
heads - the serene mountain top location it has met at since 1971, and
now describes itself as a gathering to 'discuss how to maintain hegemony
over the rest of us'5.

The power of the anti-capitalist movement has been felt not only by the
WEF, but also by other organs of world neoliberal government. The World
Trade Organisation in Seattle (1999) was disrupted by workers and 'fair
trade' protestors and trade unionists, the World Bank and IMF in Prague
(2000) abandoned meetings a day early as protestors scaled and
surrounded delegates at their conference centre, and world leaders had
trouble declaring benevolent intentions over the thick tear gas, savage
beating of protestors and the murder of activist Carlo Guiliani by the
police at the G8 meeting in Genoa (2001)6. The legitimacy of world
leaders and their organisations have been put into question and the
"violence of some of the actions - as well as the violence of the sate -
has led the mainstream media to focus on what the 'anti-capitalists'
have been saying and doing, rather than on the communiqués issued by the
summits themselves"7. But disrupting the conferences is not nearly
enough, particularly when they can be moved to inaccessible locations
and violent means used to suppress protest. This is where the WSF and its
continental (and local) offshoots offer the liberal anti-globalisation
and radical anti-capitalist movement a summit of their own, able to
devise alternative strategies of globalisation, or in the WSF's own
words, to make 'another world possible'.

However, the contradictions inherent in (what has loosely been termed)
the anti-globalisation movement are all too apparent at protestor
summits, and has led to conflict and uncertainty by some sections of the
movement as to where it is being led. While the actions of activists
engaged in direct action and militants on the street have captured the
headlines and brought about concrete - but arguably short lived -
results, others such as liberal-reformists (who want to reform
capitalism), Non-Governmental Organisations (who want money to carry out
their activities and are often happy to enter into negotiations with
big-business and government), and authoritarian leftists (who want to
enter government to affect reform or build a mass party for revolution,)
enter into a dynamic push-and-shove to hash out a way forward in the
form of the Social Forums. Unfortunately this vocal leadership which has
the money and experience to organise are moving the forums away from the
direction initiated by radicals, and into the self-destructive orbit of
conventional politics. This article examines the WSF and ESF, how they
have operated in the past, analyses what problems they pose to
anti-capitalists and what direction these organisations need to be moved
in to effect real change.

The anti-capitalist movement, the WSF and the ESF are all direct
responses
to declining involvement in party politics. This is due to a neoliberal
consensus that stifles opportunity for change, resulting in growing
radicalism. Nick Dearden puts it succinctly stating that 'it is acute
political and economic disempowerment, the violent death dance of a tiny
global elite hell bent on turning a majority of the world's population to
the margins in a push towards war, blood, starvation, and unending
inequality and impoverishment that has brought these diverse groups and
individuals together into what is surely the largest movement in
history'8. According to Hilary Wainwright, the concerns of participants
at the ESF included the democratic autonomy of nations, regions, cities
and communities; the social right to health, housing, asylum and a
'high-quality' environment, "and the desire to live in something other
than a shopping mall for the big corporations". At the top of the list,
a demilitarised Europe at peace with itself and the world, taking a high
moral stance against US imperialism. High on the list too was a radical
rethink or complete rejection of predatory capitalism, conceiving a
Europe that rejected crude market ideology with fully accountable
institutions. There were specifics too: Europe, should have open
borders, and people within it have the right to work and to have a home;
there should be a Tobin tax on financial markets and regulation of
corporations; there should be no GM foods, no privatisation of public
services; the media should be in the hands of the many not the few and
racism should be driven out. Wainwright stated that the ESF's task is to
create a "much more vigorous, more democratic control over the
quasi-state institutions of the EU than the ones the European Parliament
currently provides"9.

But while these demands sound progressive - even radical - they the beg
question as to whose agenda Wainwright is describing - that of the
grassroots, or that of the organisers and their selected speakers? This
question harks back to the foundation of the WSF as an idea conceived by
the Workers Party (PT) of Brazil. Noam Chomsky stated in a keynote
address to the 2002 WSF that it offered the beginnings of a sketch of
what a 21st Century International might look like, but warned that in
order to avoid the destructive fractures of previous internationals
(that caused a split between Karl Marx who headed the statist faction,
and Bakunin who headed the anti-state anarchists,) the WSF had to
organize on an anti-hegemonic basis. This lesson has gone unheeded, and
as Jason Adams writes, the PT "jealously controlled the organizing
committee of the WSF" with the result that one anarchist spokesperson
remarked "with all of the rhetoric that has gone around, we thought the
WSF was going to be an open event, but then when we attempted to get
involved and take part it was made clear to us that we would be given no
decision making power at all...we were given menial tasks and were
excluded from the actual planning and execution of the event". At the
World Social Forum of 2001, anarchists and ecologists loosely affiliated
with People's Global Action protested against this exclusion and in 2002
their protests led to the Workers Party calling in riot police; as
Indymedia posters pointed out, "Porto Alegre isn't the social democratic
paradise that the PT makes it out to be"10.

Likewise at the ESF, certain sections of a widely defined
anti-globalisation movement were more active - or more able - to
undertake organisation of the forum11. The first decisions of the ESF in
Italy were taken by a group of six people meeting at the Rimini congress
of the Rifondazione Comunista. This group included Tom Benetollo (the
national president of the ARCI,) a cultural association closely linked
to the old Italian Communist Party and now seen as a front for the Left
Democrats - the equivalent of New Labour - who control the Tuscan
regional government and Florence city. Although the Left Democrats
helped set up and arrange the ESF, their policies in regional government
have included privatisation of local services and entailed environmental
destruction. Also from a parliamentary left background is Peppe De
Cristofaro (of Giovani Comunisti - the youth organisation of the
Rifondazione Comunista which got 5 percent of the vote in the 2001
elections and now has an opinion poll rating of 8 or 9 percent); their
leader Fausto Bertinotti urged all Italians to come to Genoa the day
after Carlo Giuliani was murdered at the anti-G8 demonstrations in 2001
to 'defend democracy'. Also present were Pierluigi Sullo (Carta), Alfio
Nicotra (a representative for the Italian Social Forums), Bruno Paladini
of Cobas (an anarcho-syndicalist union that had a prominent presence at
the anti-G8 demonstrations) and Marco Bersani of ATTAC Italia that
helped set up the WSF and calls for a tax on financial speculation
amongst other demands, but was linked closely to the French Parti
Socialiste, especially when Lionel Jospin was prime minister. These six
individuals took important decisions about the ESF's structure,
ultimately deciding who spoke in Florence, at what time, and on what
subject. All the main speakers were chosen in advance by the organisers
- anyone else got a maximum of three minutes speaking time and
international NGOs such as Amnesty International had priority. The
inevitable result were meetings with the celebrity names you would
expect such as José Bové, Johan Galtung, Cees Hamelink, Jacek Kuron,
Tony Bunyan, Alex Callinicos, Susan George, Wolfgang Sachs, Riccardo
Petrella, Tariq Ali) and the organisations you would expect (SOS
Racisme, ATTAC, Amnesty International, European trade union federations,
Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, Le Monde Diplomatique, Statewatch, Pax
Christi, Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung)12.

In addition to the leaderships ability to define the ESF's agenda, their
choice of speakers led to much of the initiative and organisation coming
from NGOs who rely on lobbying politicians and parliament to achieve
change - quite the opposite of putting grassroots resistance into
action. The liberal anti-globalisation movement's call for a tax on
financial speculation might explain the presence of NGOs since the
revenues raised by this tax are to be distributed to the NGOs
themselves. Some of the funding for the WSF and ESF even comes from
government organisations, such as the Norwegian Foreign Ministry and
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In addition, the involvement of
the 'old guard' of political parties such as the PT, the RC and even
Blair's equivalent - the Left Democrats - should be seen as a key test
of the integrity of the ESF. In Britain the main organising group was
Globalise Resistance, who are considered a front-group for the Socialist
Workers Party (SWP). Chris Nineham of Globalise Resistance doesn't shy
away from his position in regard to political parties, stating that
"left wing parties are already central to the movement"13, mirroring a
recent spate of SWP propaganda proclaiming the party to be 'at the heart
of the
anti-capitalist movement'. So while the Socialist Workers Party was
officially not there the much more 'movement' sounding Globalise
Resistance was present, though not surprisingly GR's 'star' speaker was
SWP Central Committee member Alex Callinicos. The Alliance for Workers
Liberty came as the anti-sweatshop group No Sweat, Workers Power came in
their psuedo-anarcho (but ultimately Trotskyist) 'Revo' outfit and the
Socialist Party adopted the unimaginative titled 'International
Socialist Resistance' façade. Although these organisations are involved
either as a source of funding or in an attempt to grasp hegemonic
control over the disparate anti-capitalist movement, the fact that these
hierarchical and authoritarian organisations are involved at all should
ring alarm bells for activists.

Not surprisingly, the involvement of establishment, hierarchical,
organisations and parties led to bureaucratic control over the
proceedings, disliked by many participants - mirroring the experiences
of some activists at the WSF. Boris Kagarlitsky claims that
organisational difficulties - quite impossible to avoid considering the
numbers that turned up - would have been minor annoyances if the
organisational muddle had been redeemed by interesting or substantial
discussion. In fact, he claims that discussion at the forum never
happened and that people who gathered in Florence to talk about the
prospects for the movement found that they had come to a three-day rally
instead. General statements were delivered from the podiums, successive
speakers voiced delight at how many of there were, and how young and
good-looking everyone was, and that "initiating serious debate in the
halls full of thousands of people, warmed up by mass-meeting rhetoric,
was impossible"14; Wainwright echoes this when she writes that the
"Florence forum certainly achieved diversity, but often failed to
establish real dialogue in the formal sessions"15. So whilst the WEF
meets in what it terms a 'unique club atmosphere', it could be expected
that the ESF and WSF would organise in a form quite distinct from these
organisations - after all, the kind of world we want to create can only
arise out of organisational structures that mimic and set a blueprint
for future society. Instead, we see that hierarchical and authoritarian
means of organisation have been employed, preventing direct grassroots
democracy within the forums. More positively, the sheer scale of a forum
with simultaneous translation in five languages for 1000 speakers at 30
conference sessions, and over 200 workshops, 150 seminars and 25
campaign meetings in addition to a range of cultural and fringe events,
show that authoritarian control from above was nigh impossible for the
majority of sessions.

More worryingly however, the liberal-establishment that controlled the
ESF
managed the agenda with radical questions such as the legitimacy of the
'war on terror' and 'anti-terrorist legislation' excluded as this was
seen as too provocative to the government. Other discussions, such as
the legitimacy of the nation state and parliamentary democracy that
allows post-fascists (or even fascists on occasion) to enter government
- like in Italy today under Berlusconi - were also left off the
agenda16. Instead, the main theme of the forum was the war on Iraq; one
of the main proposals to come out of the ESF was a call for national
demonstrations against a war on Iraq (or whatever the next target
happens to be) in every European capital city on February 15th 2002,
which will pose a symbolic show of strength and unity by the
anti-war/globalisation movement that will be hard to ignore completely17.
Unfortunately, a war with Iraq must be seen within the wider context of
capitalism and imperialism, and the effort and time concentrated on
discussing the war is explained by the accommodation afforded to it
through the support of the liberals opposing it.
In addition, the limelight ensured to establishment speakers by the
leadership of the ESF led to dangerous assertions being made in regard to
the EU and the world economic system. One theme that emerged for
example, was the need for 'widespread and conscious participation by
citizens in the European political process', a call that ignores the
very reasons for the growth of the movement. The fact that 60,000 people
turned up to the forum rather than join a political party or meet their
parliamentary representative show that the movement has grown out of a
recognition of the fallacy of parliamentary democracy and liberal
reform. A demand that the EU's constitution include 'provisions to
safeguard labour, environmental, health and education rights' is in
effect demanding (without threat) that the master of capitalism in the
EU reform itself - of course, it can't. Wainwright's desire that the ESF
hold the EU to 'account' masks the truth that the EU is the friend of
the capitalist system that demands the destruction of the earth, our
rights, our liberties and freedoms. There is no way for the EU to be
reformed, it's undemocratic, anti-grassroots, authoritarian and
centralised nature are directly opposed to all the demands of the
anti-capitalist movement, even if some EU departments work towards
progressive ends. Even more naively, Sosa Santos stated that the only
way to achieve a 'true and independent European identity was for the EU
to clearly differentiate its socio-economic system from the US
neo-liberal model', urging the rehabilitation of the state in economic
affairs. As if pre-World War One colonialism and the laissez-faire
capitalism of nineteenth century European nation states were ultimately
different from those of the US today, and that non-neoliberal capitalism
was a solution to the problems of neoliberalism! The danger inherent in
this approach is that it is self-destructive, ignoring the reasons that
made the Forum possible in the first place.

Potentially more troulbesome tendencies within the liberal leadership of
the
ESF are indicated by the symbolic dates for the meetings of the forums -
the same dates as the self-appointed global elite meet; this points to
an even more impotent and self-destructive direction. When Pascal Lamy
(EU Trade Commissioner ) stated at a TABD dinner speech that the TABD
"continue to put forward recommendations to which governments on both
sides of the Atlantic do well listen carefully"18, and US Vice President
Al Gore stated that of over a hundred recommendations put forward by the
TABD over half had been implemented into law, wishing that the Senate
was as effective as this in drawing up legislation19, the most dangerous
route that the leadership of the ESF can take is to see the forums as
potential stronger negotiating partners for government than the TABD or
WEF20. Instead, the ESF and WSF should see themselves as an embryonic
form of direct, grassroots democracy, capable of forging ahead in
gaining power through undermining the legitimacy of existing structures
of power, distributing this power as widely and diffusely as possible.

Despite this, attendance at the ESF - three times that expected -, and
the
anti-war march that shocked Italy in its size, show that discontent is
strong for a different order. The ESF is a chance for the Trade Union
movement and anti-capitalist movement to create permanent links without
the go-between of a political party, and to help people from all over
the world with experience of different struggles to come together and
share ideas, tactics and strategy for change. The stale bureaucracy
displayed in some sections of the leadership, and those who would divert
the anti-capitalist movement to further their own aims looked out of
touch with the grassroots composition of the ESF. Jonathan Neale, of
Globalise Resistance (also a member of the SWP) told me that the
leadership had been wholly reluctant to call an anti-war demonstration
from the start - because it would upset Berlusconi - and was far too
timid in its demands and rigid in organisational framework; the
grassroots he said, were forcing the leadership into more radical
positions as it saw itself superceded by a groundswell of radicalism.
Perhaps the next ESF could see a complete removal of those who want to
create a hierarchical, old-fashioned party-type forum, replacing it with
representatives of grassroots struggle from below instead.

For the anti-capitalist movement to achieve real change it will have to
do
so through a confrontational approach to liberal democracy. This could
involve the setting up of social forums throughout Europe, at local
levels, creating direct links with local communities in struggle. These,
organised in a federal structure - but respecting local autonomy - would
undermine and ultimately make obsolete the earth-destroying,
authoritarian and oppressive governmental structures that currently
control the planet. Activists have the opportunity to wrest the ESF from
its current 'leadership' and steer it in a truly progressive direction,
rather than seeing it become a negotiating partner on a par with the
TABD, or able to lobby the EU more effectively. The vision that minds
can have without the experience of years of political deadlock,
sectarianism and cynicism, arising from the failure of party and
parliamentary politics is definitely a bonus for the movement despite
Kagarlitsky's lament about the lack of middle-aged 'leaders' who have a
better historical perspective. He writes that real power lies in military
headquarters, ministries and, in the best case, elected assemblies that
have developed an immunity to pressure from the streets unless, as
happened in Buenos Aires in December 2001, the events unfolding on the
streets directly threaten the stability of the institutions
themselves21. Confrontation with the state or world government cannot,
ultimately, be won by force, and this is where the ESF and regional
forums have the potential strength to bypass existing structures which
are part of the old order and create grassroots associations of free
individuals, linked locally and worldwide, making existing structures
obsolete.

Instead of a grassroots approach, which takes some time to build up, the

organisers of the social forums appear at present to be rushing the
process, attempting to establish themselves as the leadership of a
movement that has developed without their participation in the first
place. In a series of letters made public on Indymedia UK between
Proffessor Nanjundaswamy of the Karnataka Indian farmers' Union (KRRS)
and Bernard Cassen of ATTAC, Nanjundaswamy makes it clear that the KRRS
cannot participate in the Asian Social Forum (ASF) because it 'expresses
its dissatisfaction about the way in which ASF is being launched by
NGO's little known by the people of India,approaching mass based
grassroots movements in December 2002 to have the ASF in January 2003'.
Additionally he asks why 'ATTAC never apologised for the death of Carlo
Giovani, where instead of looking at the violence of the fascist police
which torture in police stations, declarations focused on the violence
of the black block?'22; surely a gross example of liberal leadership out
of touch with the radical anti-capitalism that has helped build the
movement to the position it occupies today.

The next meeting of the ESF takes place in Paris in November 2003; it
will
have to consist of a more representative cross-section of activists (up
to 90% of the delegates were Italian) and as stated on an article on
Indymedia UK, needs to be "more diverse and less bureaucratic" for it to
be considered a step forward23. People's Global Action (PGA), a network
of grassroots organisations that have organised 'Global Days of Action'
against capitalism (and are overtly anti-capitalist rather than
anti-neoliberal) feel particularly strongly about the WSF process,
seeing it (in 2000) as 'an attempt by sectors of the traditional left,
the old established and bureaucratic left, to take over the struggle
against capitalist
'globalisation' within the perspective of national development... a left
which desires a 'humanized' capitalism; which wants to 'socialize' the
market; which wants to govern the State'. They also observe that the
"Forum is hierarchical, verticalised, like the events of the
bureaucratic left...speakers/ conferences at one hand, and, at the
other, public spectators"24. At this years ESF meeting they organised an
autonomous space, 'not in competition' and 'not anti ESF' to facilitate
networking between groups and individuals and to 'contaminate by
association the ESF with non-hierarchical practices'; they noted that
the ESF had many young activists and held potential to develop existing
anti-capitalist networks25. This is the best way of working with the
ESF; being constructive in criticism, attempting to change the
organisation from inside and outside, preventing liberals from tending
towards their self-destructive habits of strengthening existing
structures of government through voting and lobbying. Rather than
abolishing the ESF because it had a shaky - but ultimately successful -
start, we should work to make the ESF a truly revolutionary force to
change society from below, not of lobbying those above26. Florence was a
beginning, the "site where the foundations for an alternative Europe
were laid" 27; as Noam Chomsky has noted, the WSF and its continental
offspring 'potentially offer the best hopes of the left for a true
international'28.

References

1 The TABD's purpose is to offer "an effective framework for enhanced
cooperation between the transatlantic business community and the
governments of the European Union (EU) and United States (US)" (
http://www.tabd.org). Its agenda is pro-business and anti-environment;
one priority has been to block efforts made to phase out
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), one of the most potent greenhouse gasses used
in refrigerators. The Danish government had decided to implement a ban
on these that was to take effect in 2006, but the TABD described it as a
potential trade barrier that would restrict free flow of trade and
established a special working group to obstruct or at least postpone the
decision. Another priority has been to demonstrate to EU and US
officials its concerns over plans to limit corporate tax evasion (see
http://www.corporateeurope.org/observer10/tabd.html).
2 See ESF website at http://www.fse-esf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=1.
3 This led to an immediate response from civil society throughout Italy,
with demonstrations of 30,000 in Rome, 20,000 in Naples and
demonstrations in 28 other cities throughout Italy. See
.http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos10442.html and
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=47220&group=webcast. 4 The
WEF is an annual gathering of 1,000 business leaders, 250 political
leaders, 250 academic leaders, 250 media leaders along with token labor,
social justice, and entertainment leaders. They aren't leaders "because
an electorate or the public says so but by virtue of their wealth,
influence, and power, and their farsightedness in being able to maintain
all three" (Milstein C at http://struggle.ws/global/issues/wsf.html).
This is reflected in the composition of the membership of the WEF (which
numbers around a thousand corporations), 68% being based in North
America and Europe, and less than 1% in Africa
(http://www.geocities.com/pwdyson/wef_orgs.htm lists WEF member
organisations).
5 Bello W at http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2002-01/31bello.cfm .
6 Numerous other 'days of action' have taken place, all over the world;
the ones listed here are the movements best known successes. Reports
from these days of action can be found at
http://www.pcworks.demon.co.uk/magazine/campaign/zzgda.htm.
7 Aufheben, #10 (2002), p2.
8 Dearden N at
http://www.resist.org.uk/reports/archive/esf/esfdearden.html. 9
Wainwright H - Keynote; Red Pepper (December 2002), p5.
10 Adams J at http://www.zmag.org/content/VisionStrategy/AdamsWSF.cfm.
11 Questions have even been asked as to who compromises the
'International Council' of the WSF that decided that the ESF should be
set up.
12 Socialist Review (Nov 2002), p17 and Treanor P
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/esf.html.
13 Socialist Review (Nov 2002), p19.
14 Kagarlitsky B at
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-11/21kagarlitsky.cfm. 15
Wainwright H, Ibid.
16 Treanor P, Ibid.
17 See http://www.resist.org.uk/reports/archive/esf/esfantiwarcall.html.
18 Quote from http://www.tabd.org/media/2001/lamy060502.html.
19 See http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/tabd/troubled.html.
20 It is also possible that these symbolic dates have been chosen because
corporations are seen as the enemy rather than elected national or world
government, or that the capitalist system itself is perceived to be more
powerful force than nation states and government apparatus; either way,
these dangers remain.
21 Kagarlitsky B, Ibid.
22 Letters at
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=48336&group=webcast. 23
From an article advertising preporatory meetings for the 2003 ESF at
http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=47814&group=webcast. 24
From http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/wsf/nowsf.htm. 25 See
the text of the 'final plenary' of the autonomous space at
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/space/finalplenary.htm.
26 Paul Treanor, Ibid, argues that the ESF should be abolished. Peter
Waterman notes in regard to the Treanor piece that "abolishing something
that has hardly begun - and that is capable of assembling massive
numbers of young people, old people, workers, and women from all over
Europe - seems both hasty and extreme...whilst much of his alternative
agenda is eccentric (in the sense of representing a personalized
wish-list, hallmarked by impossibilism, and unarticulated with any
familiar group, worldview or utopia), his challenges, concerning what I
have elsewhere called the political-economy of the Forum (Waterman
2002b), are surely reasonable. In the case of the Amin-Houtart book, for
example, the financial sponsors of the World Forum of Alternatives are
actually identified as including not only European NGO funding agencies
(themselves mostly state dependent) but the General Commission of
International Relations of the French Community in Belgium - presumably
a sub- or quasi-state body. Treanor is also, admittedly, a
'funding-mentalist' - someone who believes that ideas and behaviour are
totally determined by funders. In so far as most critique of capitalism
has come from universities funded by capital and state, and in so far as
even Marx' Capital was funded out of the surplus value of Engels'
textile mill, this assumption does not meet the evidence of either
actually-existing or historical radicalism" - see
http://hubproject.org/news/2002/11/44.php. 27 Longhi V, Red Pepper
(December 2002), p15.
28 Adams J, Ibid.

***************************************