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".

Susan George (TNI), 22 July 2006 and 7 August 2006, social forums e-list and to others

Dear Heikki,

Thank you for this lucid explanation and your deep historical knowledge. I am never able to find all the theoretical or historical reasons for people behaving as they do, I suppose this is my American pragmatism and empricisim even though I've spent far more of my life in [theoretical] Europe than in the [pragmatic] US. For whatever reasons, I have successfully avoided Leninism, Stalinism and other party 'isms' and have just tried to get on with contributing in some small way to human emancipation. Given all the baggage you speak about, it seems it is now up to us to ask each other : What is most important? our fears--coming from history and past diappointments--or our hopes? Do we really want to succeed? or is another failure finally more comfortable in a Schadenfreude sort of way?. Psychiatrists probably have a name for the observable compulsion to sabotage one's own possibilities and make sure one's best promises don't come true.

I also go along with the theory of self-delusion of which we have a perfect example in the Iraq war: the invasion is planned by a small group of ideologues working in secret who *make no plans* for any scenario other than their own. Massive bungling, looting, the destruction of Iraq's cultural treasures and catastrophic loss of life ensue. Let me make a plea for realism and planning on our side.

I would just like to tell all the wonderful young people out there, from the lofty height of my 72 years: Whatever you may think now, you don't have all the time in the world. Movements can die, just like people. I've seen it happen. Carpe diem. Don't wait for the perfect--which will never come along--while neglecting the possible. Let's get out there and--quite possibly--make some mistakes if we have to, but we might have a good chance to get it right, especially if there are a lot of us. Don't sit back in the comfort of not even trying and living within the cocoon of the movement people who agree with us. I do not want to leave the mass encounters and the mass imagination to the BoB Geldofs and other rock stars who love Tony Blair and George Bush, I want *us* to orchestrate them.

Anecdote: Monday I'm leaving for a quasi-official seminar in Brazil; people in positions of some power and influence are coming around to some of our ways of thinking faster than we could have imagined. The historical span of the social forums--about 6 years--is nothing, the blink of history's eye. We have excellent dossiers, we need to get them out there is myriad forms. We can be more convincing than we have been up to now.
The way things go is: [1] they laugh at you or ignore you [2] they denounce you [3] they tell you it's maybe a good idea but it will never work [4] they start working themselves on how to make it work [5] they become the ones who invented the idea to begin with and sometimes take the credit. For some questions like international taxation, we are at stage 4, impossible to imagine even five years ago. I fully understand this is not the destruction of capitalism tomorrow morning, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have an extra 150 billion or so for the world's poor, cancel [really, for once] the debt and so on.

Think about it, comrades, think also about a day we can feel ourselves together and show others what we stand for,

All good wishes to all,
Susan

Addition in August because NIGD wants to circulate this debate.

Dear Friends: I did not address Heikki's issue of a Global Political Party. I have to say I am not in favour. The only example is the Italian Radicals around Panella and Bonino [the latter a Berlusconi MP in her next to latest incarnation]. But even had there been an encouraging example, I would prefer the avenue of forcing existing parties to take on board our ideas. The moment you start in the electoral mode, you alienate everyone on the left who could be an ally but who experiences your existence as competition. Here we are back in the neo-liberal world of "free and undistorted competition" as they never tired of sayhing in the proposed European Constitution which we rejected. We won with no thanks to any of the major parties [the CP and the decent Trots of the LCR contributed]. That was done through popular organisation and the web, often at the micro-local level. If Heikki's 'global political party' is not about getting elected and trying to take State power, then he should tell us what it is.

I also have a thing against 'purity' and trying to be separate from the larger society. In a world thoroughly permeated by capitalism, you can't and the sooner you stop worrying about it, the better and the more energy you will have for *real* fights. And while I'm on the subject of my own idiosyncracies and frequent subjects of disagreement with others on the left, let me cite 'communatariansim' or 'identity politics'. I did a chapter on this in the Lugano Report, trying to show just how great this fragmentation was for our adversaries. In my fake report, they planned to support all sexual identity, racial, religious, ethnic etc etc minorities to keep them focused on who they *are* [or think they are] instead of on what they can *do* if they get together in a larger cause. Please don't misunderstand--I will fight for justice for all, but not special laws and exceptions for some because of past wrongs. Everyone gets the same laws. No sharia, because I don't want anyone trying to apply canon law to me. The State has to be secular. There is still much injustice and discrimination and work to be done so I don't suggest either that militant groups should stop working for equality before the law and an end to discrimination against whoever. What I support is the French concept of laicite, which doesn't really translate as 'secularism' which seems to me the best invention in this department. Do as you please in your private affairs and the law will protect you, so long as you don't interfere with others doing the same, but don't bring your private affairs into the public sphere. Much misunderstood, but I think ultimately the most realistic system.