An exchange of ideas that took place in the context of the preparations for the WSF-related meetings in Durban, South Africa, and in reaction to the article of Roberto Savio (IPS) "World Social forum : the cradle of global civil society".

Peter Waterman, 22 July 2006, social forum list

Heikki, Susan, Antonio and even Roberto Savio (if someone cares to forward this to him):

I appreciate both Heikki's critique of Communism and Social Democracy (tho Stalin, of course, preceded Hitler), as well as Susan's, well, Itinerary of Good Ideas. My personal itinerary in the labour movement has been 1) You don't exist, 2) You are a fucking academic masturbator (twice, once in a conference coffee-break, the other on an internet list) 3) We thought of it first, 4) Would you like to work for us (imaginary, they haven't really asked me)?.

Surely what brings together Communism, Fascism AND Social Democracy has to be statolatry - the belief (before post-modernism?) that power lies in the state, can be grasped by a political party and then used for emancipatory purposes?

However, I do not feel that either Heikki or Susan so far suggest a formula, methodology, ethic or principle that actually surpasses the limitations. And, unlike all three of the above, I guess, I fear that individual or group negotiation or consultation with the state-national or inter-state hegemons are going to end up like the Young Lady of Niger (Who went for a ride on a tiger; They finished the ride with the lady inside; And a smile on the face of the tiger).

Here two thoughts from feminism: 1) there is a necessary moment of excision in order to develop an autonomy of power and ideas; 2) feminists who want equality lack ambition. Me, I think the moment of separation from hegemonic politics has not been long enough nor is our autonomy sufficiently established, and whilst I can accept compromise with our friendly neighbourhood hegemons as a moment in time, this has to be functional to the increase of an autonomous emancipatory capacity.

Let me make clear that I am not opposed to a kinder, gentler capitalist globalisation. Hey, we used to have this in the Netherlands! And I appreciated every aspect and moment of its superiority - excepting its sense of self-satisfied superiority. But the very manner in which NL is sliding downhill in the direction of the UK-SA should warn us of the limitations of the state-capital-party nexus - from the local to the global.

I have, in my 1988/2001 book on globalisation and social movements, a diagram which is, of course, a simplification, yet none the less worthy, I think, of elaboration.

The diagram shows three overlapping circles - Capital, State, Civil Society. Through these runs a two-headed arrow of social movement, between Autonomy and Engagement. This allows both for an excess of autonomy (self-isolation, self-referentiality) and an excess of engagement (incorporation).

The WSF/GJ&SM could be conceived as either spread, in its multiple tendencies, along this axis, or as moving, over time, backward/forward between the extremes.

A couple of attempts to deal with this dilemma - from the socialist-autonomist tradition within which I would place myself - are those of Ezequiel Adamovsky (Argentina), http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/225244, and Nick Dwyer-Witheford (UK?), to be found at http://www.commoner.org.uk/.

I will try to post these separately.

In the meantime, it is a pleasure to exchange with you folks. And I hope such exchanges will continue if the newly proposed site can be initiated and kept going.

Hasta el dialogo siempre!