By Thomas Ponniah
comments by Hanna Laako, Manuel Ignacio Martínez Espinoza, Petri Minkinen and Peter Waterman.

Introduction

Gramsci once wrote that everyone is an intellectual however a few have the role of being intellectuals. To reformulate Gramsci in terms of the dynamics at the World Social Forum (WSF) one could say that all political activists have the impulse to write but for some of us writing is our primary contribution. Writing is one mode of activism though not necessarily the least or most important. What then is the role of a writer in the contemporary search for global justice? Or to put it another way, what do movements at the World Social Forum need from its writers?

" I see your point in Gramsci's "intellectuals", I would prefer calling them the "theoretical community" in comparison with the "communities in action". Or as Manuel (Manuel Ignacio Martínez Espinoza ed.) points out, the writers are always activists creating PERCEPCTIONS OF REALITY. In any case, as he argues, where the movements and the writers of the movements often coincide, is the desire for world change." Hanna Laako

Back in 2001, as an activist and as a doctoral student, it seemed obvious to me that the activists at the WSF needed a picture of the variety of alternatives to globalization that were being expressed around the world. So I contacted the Forum's Secretariat and suggested to them that I would come to Brazil, volunteer to work with them, and put together a book of the proposals presented at the WSF. Clearly, the Forum's goals, to create a space where activists could come together, educate each other, and propose alternatives to contemporary globalization, necessitated a compilation of the proposals.

Before I went, one question that concerned me was whether a book of alternatives should highlight the writing of well-known theorists or should it highlight what social movements themselves were saying. There were obvious reasons for focusing on theorists: the Forum brought together some of the greatest minds in the world. Their analysis of the global situation was one that I had learned from over the years. They were the minds that had first inspired me to become a political activist.  However as a critical writer, what struck me was that academic literature tended to frame social movements as objects of intellectual research. Scholars often described activists as instruments of broader social processes. I did not want to replicate this traditional hierarchy of the philosophers being the mind of the emancipation and the activists being its vehicle. I saw, and continue to see, social movements as subjects, as producers of society and therefore of knowledge. I decided that the book would focus on the proposals made by movements at the Forum.

"I myself find it difficult to generalise about the 'role of the intellectual' with respect to the WSF/Movement, particularly given the variety of such and the manner in which - as you suggest - reflection, writing, strategising are generalised from top to bottom of the movement. One thus finds intellectuals/writers or whatever occupying many different 'subject positions' in relation to the WSF/Movementt - for example as organisers, possibly as rank-and-file activists, often as academic observers or participant-observers, journalists. And then coming from the variety of theoretical backgrounds or concerns, such as feminism(s), ecology, religion(s) (Goddess bless them!), and a range of political parties. This suggests the necessity to differentiate amongst them/us." Peter Waterman

Alternatives

I worked with the Secretariat for five months and then in collaboration with William Fisher edited the first book of proposals from the WSF, titled, Another World is Possible: popular alternatives to globalization at the World Social Forum. The book contains proposals as well as summaries of the discussions that took place at the second World Social Forum. It provides the reader with an overview of what global justice activists were proposing and continue to propose. As well as compiling the alternatives, Bill and I also searched for overlapping threads amongst the proposals: the reader always needs a map to navigate through the plethora. We suggested, and I continue to argue, that what unifies the movements is that they are all searching for new radical forms of democracy. By radical democracy I mean that social movements propose that every sector of society: economic production, ecological sustainability, cultural articulation and political governance, should be determined by direct public decision-making. Democracy should be participatory and even self-organized.The movements' recurring criticism of corporations and governments focuses on the system's vertical forms of decision-making.

“The discussion on self-organization is of course interesting and it should also, possibly, be analysed in terms of who, what, where and how is/are self-organizing. For example, should indigenous self-organization, say in Southern Mexico, take place in the in the strictly local context by themselves or in the broader national context, macro-regional context, or perhaps global context and if so, by whom, how and in what kind of co-operation (if any, though in these cases probably yes) should the self-organization take place.”Petri Minkkinen

For example when activists criticize institutions such as the International Monetary Fund for the poverty that they have perpetuated, the movements' solutions are not simply focused on alleviating indigence but more significantly on democratizing the process of eliminating immiseration. Those who are affected by poverty should be at the decision-making table determining how to end poverty. This new emphasis on radically democratizing decision-making is the thread that weaves through all of the movements' proposals. We wrote this back in 2002 and it has become clearer over the years that the call for new forms of democracy is the common substance that informs the diversity of our global justice movements.

As mentioned it seemed obvious then that movements needed a picture of the variety of alternatives to globalization. We continue to need these frameworks. Along with mine, there are numerous books that have addressed the question of alternatives, such as Heikki Patomaki and Teivo Teivainen's, A Possible World (Zed as well as Jai Sen, Madhuresh Kumar, Patrick Bond and Peter Waterman's, fine recent compilation of articles reflecting on the Bamako Appeal). Along with foregrounding alternatives, activist writers need to also contribute additional forms of knowledge.

Strategies

At this stage, we activists need an overview of the strategies that are being used around the world to implement alternatives. The central question that social movements at the Forum have confronted since 2003 is "what are the strategies we need to employ in order to achieve a new society?" There are a number of fine writers working on this, for example, Erik Olin Wright's "Real Utopias" project in which he compiles rigorous research on how alternatives such as those found in Porto Alegre are being implemented, or Greg Wilpert's new book explaining the Bolivarian process in Venezuela. We need many more writers working on this project of compiling, evaluating and refining strategies for implementing our visions.

Challenges

Next, activists need an explanation of how the global system dominates us. We cannot formulate strategies without a clear picture of the challenge that we face. In 2001, pre-911, the dominant theme of many activists- writers, such as Naomi Klein, was that the key enemy was the transnational corporation . Corporations ruled the world. The multinationals were the essence of imperial globalization. So it was no surprise that the World Social Forum first articulated itself as a space that was essentially against neoliberalism. Since then, of course the problem has mutated. US hegemony has come to be perceived as the central challenge faced by activists around the world. As historical reality has evolved, our perception of our adversary has evolved with it. So for example, Judith Blau of Sociologists Without Borders is now working on a great project focused on the belligerence of the US state. This is exactly what committed writers today should focus on. Within the last ten years we have had a major shift in how we evaluate the problem: from neoliberalism to American imperialism. Undoubtedly over the next decade, we will need to re-evaluate the problem. Writers must continue to analyze the evolving nature of domination.

“This can be conceived in terms of a shift from neo-liberal political program towards new imperialist political program and the light and hard forms of integral fascism they involve, respectively. There has been an attempt to reconstruct a new hegemonic consensus in relation to the latte,r but as I have suggested this project is facing tremendous difficulties around the world despite a certain attraction to it within the ruling and governing sectors.” Petri Minkkinnen

What is becoming clearer is that we are moving towards a new, multipolar world. Since 1989 we have lived within a unipolar system dominated by US hegemony. That is changing, the rise of countries such as China, Russia, and Iran prefigure the outline of a new, future order. On my flight back from Nairobi, I read that the dominant theme of the WSF's evil twin, the World Economic Forum, was "the shifting power equation": the political-economic elite have recognized that American rule is in decline. The emergent multipolarity is going to introduce unexpected challenges for activists at the Forum. Writers need to examine the dangers arising from the new pluralism. It is unfortunately not the pluralism, the multipolarity, that many of us have hoped for. Instead, we are seeing the rise of new powers that will not only hinder US imperialism but also, from the other side, hinder us. Neither the old king nor the new ones are great lovers of radical democracy. We need to research the future ways in which Empire will reconstitute itself.

“Here you got it right, in a sense that there is a visible shift toward macro-regionalism, or multipolarism if you wish. On the other hand, despite the triumphalism of the 1990's there has never existed in strict terms, US hegemony (Gramscian or if fact any other meaning of the word), during the 1990's even if the US or certain of its ruling sectors was/were able temporarily enhance its/their position during that era. It is also true that we have no certainty that the emerging new poles would in themselves represent more emancipative alternatives though there may be shifts in emphasis, which calls for thought and action also on macro-regional level, as well as all other 'levels'.” Petri Minkkinen

In sum, writers can advance global justice in a number of ways. We need to continue to publicize the alternatives that movements around the world are proposing. We should research the strategies that activists are using to implement their visions. Perhaps most importantly, we must dissect the forms of domination emerging on the horizon. Writers have always had a significant role to play in social struggle. The mobilizations articulating themselves at the World Social Forum constitute the most important political process in the world. It is crucial that activist-writers contribute our particular skills to our movements' most pressing needs.

"We think that the major contribution of writers of the social movements is the “naming”- “naming the phenomena to make them alive”.  I think the theoretical community is important precisely in translating the experiences of the movements, or the excluded etc.

However, the dilemma arises from the sectarianism, from which we believe the WSF process is not free either. Occasionally you see texts produced by this theoretical community whereby they pretend to analyse the movements but actually seem to put forward their own agenda/cosmovision. Here, it should be highlighted that the writer should be responsible for GIVING VOICE to the movements instead of re-producing “transformation is a collective task- that is why one has to unite coincidences.” I have recently finished an article on what I call the Critical Enquiry of Latin America. What I discovered whilst being involved with this theme, was that often the movements were over-run at some point when each writer wanted to offer his/her own perception of the reality- often being contradictory with the movement’s arguments (a good example being the role of the state). At the same time, there was an extensive literature on description of the “repressive world” we live in, and the “success” of various movements, without an explication how these successful movements were able to arise in such a repressive world… You probably get the point. In this sense, I believe it is important to acknowledge that the writers are constantly PRODUCING something as they go on writing…

In any case, I believe the strengths of the writers are in the following angles: in raising absences, especially in the academic field, in reconsidering the historical time and place in which we live and the perceptions of reality, in making visible experiences previously hidden or ignored.

I could also add that it would be useful if the writers could engage in a dialogue with the rest of the world… This has to do with the previously mentioned sectarianism. Sometimes the writers just create a nice echo among each other whereas the rest of the world can go on doing what it likes. Would it not be more sensible to try to communicate all our thoughts outside, not just among on another" Hanna Laako & Manuel Ignacio Martínez Espinoza