Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:45:41 +1100
Subject: Re: AUT: Porto Alegre - sectarianism and the left
From: Thiago Oppermann <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>


Well, I cannot see the difference between what you are arguing and what I
said. Basically the criticism is over the WSF's decision making structure,
which you don't like, perhaps for good reasons. In all other respects, you
and the person quoted seem to agree that the WSF is an overwhelmingly
positive event. 

About you being lazy: well, there are several reasons why the PT suck. A
minimal acquaintance with Brazilian politics would provide you with enough
ammunition to criticize them soundly. It would be worth knowing these rather
than to relying on third-hand reports from anarchists, who are, in my
opinion, very unreliable and bitchy. Basically, I find the account of the PT
being an insurmountable barrier to political organisation in Porto Alegre
extremely implausible.

Also on the story about breaking from the parade and being controlled by the
CUT marshals - that is not the whole story; Brazil Indymedia - a den of
middle class anarchists - had another take on it, which was that the
anarchists tried to face off with the incomparably larger multitude, then
joined in, didn't feel welcome and stormed off.  Furthermore, one may
question what the point of breaking a bank to pieces would have been... not
everyone likes that sort of protest; I don't see how this was the time for
it, and I would have also tried to discourage people from engaging in it. It
seems totally pointless, given that a major meeting was underway to work out
how to break the banks for good; it would simply alienate a society which
not so long ago was torturing and killing anarchists.

The MST's good behaviour:The MST is nothing if not militiant; they invade
farms every week, they carry redistribution mano a mano. Last year, they
occupied offices in Porto Alegre for two weeks in solidarity with their
mates who had taken over the President's farm in Minas Gerais (another
state). This didn't really win them many friends in the city; the PT and
them have a very uneasy relationship in this and in many other instances. I
imagine this had a lot to do with them not being so militant in this
specific instance. I am please to inform you that they are back to their
naughty ways now.

Andy, the conference in Melbourne went well; but you didn't really go out of
your way to embrace the trots did you? Did you give the ISO a "role in the
decision making structure"? Why not? Amplify that reason by about a million
and you have the reason why the FAG, a marginal group of maybe two thousand
people, were not involved in the WSF at the same level the PT (which has
millions of members) or the MST (250,000 _families_). Ie. there is an
intense difference of opinion coupled with an enormous difference of scale.

I honestly cannot see what is supposed to be wrong. If the core of the forum
is really doing what the FAG says it is doing, then, if we believe that of
the 60,000 people at the WSF there are a significant number of people that
are interested in anarchist ideas, we should organise parallel forums. It
has worked well for the last two forums. It is in my view a little ironic
that anarchists should be complaining about not being allowed into the
central organising committee of anything... why should the Forum have only
one organising committee? Where is the anarchist justification for that?

On the other hand, there is something more disturbing about the WSF which no
one has mentioned yet, which is the fact that such groups as ETA, Belgian
fascists and the FARC were excluded; this is not good. These people were
also in a position to complain about something, since they were not given
visas. Would a couple of fascists in a crowd of 60,000 unionists be a bad
thing? It was a paranoid move to exclude them. As for ETA and the FARC,
these are the actual cases of politically motivated control of the forum, as
opposed to the somewhat prima-dona-ish complaints of the FAG.



Thiago.



On 3/10/02 3:28 PM, "-AT-ndy" <andy-AT-xchange.anarki.net> wrote:

> Thiago Oppermann wrote:
> 
>> I also cannot see what alternative you are proposing. Let's see Scott and
>> Andy
>> organise a forum for 60,000 people and not have someone say they were left
>> out
>> - this is not to say that the FAG or whoever it is that is complaining should
>> put up and shut up, I just want to point out the colossal logistic and
>> political realities involved.
> 
> Huh? I've said nothing either for, against or a little to the side about the
> WSF. I thought your question was 'why did Jornadas Anarquistas take place in
> Porto Alegre at the same time as the WSF'? Well, according to one of the
> participants, this was because "the local organizing committee was dominated
> by
> the Workers Party and had refused local anarchists participation in
> its planning and execution". Was he wrong? I don't know, but I've no reason to
> think so.
> 
> In any case, as you yourself wrote, it's not "cut-and-dried". Further in the
> same article, Adams, adds that (based on an interview with the International
> Secretary of the FAG):
> 
> "One thing that has really helped to build the anarchist movement in Brazil is
> the political space that has been opened up by the World Social Forum. This
> massive event has shifted the center of debate in the country much farther to
> the left than it had been, and thus some of those who were already on the
> "left"
> have moved on to become anarchists. However, this process has not been easy;
> at
> WSF2001 there was a good deal of trouble that arose between the anarchists and
> the WSF. The FAG thought that it was going to be an open forum, in which they
> could directly participate, but it turned out that it wasnt like that at all.
> When they arrived at the opening meetings, everything had already been decided
> by people high in the ranks of ATTAC and the Workers Party. They then tried to
> give the FAG merely administrative jobs with no decision-making power. So
> during
> the opening march of the forum this year, the FAG decided to break off with
> other anarchists since the official march was going specifically where there
> were no banks, no multinational corporations or anything like that. At first
> the
> CUT parade marshals tried to stop them from leaving by pushing them and
> keeping
> them in. So the FAG members went under their legs and broke through. Some of
> the
> MST members had met with them previously, planning to break off as well, but
> were unfortunately thwarted by MST parade marshals. However, when they finally
> did break off, they all threw eggs and stones at the banks and at McDonalds.
> Despite all the problems however, the FAG in general feels that it is better
> to
> come to the WSF, take part, and attempt to change it, and make it more radical
> than it is to simply not come at all. Also, it is a good way to get to know
> other social movements from all over the world, to meet each other face to
> face.
> But they also think that it is time to make a new kind of World Social Forum
> that is based directly on the grassroots movements and is not controlled by
> the
> political parties. Such is the tradition of anarchospecifismo."
> 
> 'Jornadas Anarquistas: Anarchist Convergence in Porto Alegre, Brazil' by Jason
> Adams (February 12, 2002):
> 
> http://www.infoshop.org/news6/porto_alegre_adams.php
> 
> Adams goes on to advocate that anarchists from the 'North' also take part in
> further WSFs.
> 
> I agree that a skeptical attitude towards the WSF is warranted, but how is
> taking note of an anarchist account of this meeting "lazy" or otherwise
> irresponsible on my part? And while I (obviously) haven't personally organised
> a
> forum for 60,000 people (!), I have helped organise much smaller conferences
> from which - to the best of my knowledge - nobody was excluded.
> 
> -AT-ndy.
> 
> 
> 
>    --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---