(We are reproducing here a major part of Alan Benjamin’s article on World Social Forum (WSF) and the motive forces behind it. This article was written after programmes in Nice and before the first WSF meet in Porto Alegre, Brazil.          – Editor)

In order to impose the lowering of labour costs and the destruction of the labour force the world over, the international capitalist class is resorting more and more to “neo-corporatist” structures and institutions to co-opt the labour and social protest movements and to destroy the trade unions.

In Seattle in December 1999, the WTO hosted a parallel Social Summit the day before the opening of the WTO Conference with the goal of bringing all the “opposition” forces on board the bandwagon of “globalization with a human face.” The objective was to lure the unions and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) into the WTO process by holding out the promise of introducing labour and environmental standards into the core treaties and “free trade” pacts promoted by the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.

In his keynote address to the Seattle Social Summit, new ILO Director-General Juan Somavia put it this way. “What we need today is a more fruitful collaboration between the ILO, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank with the objective of creating a Social Chapter within the incipient structures of world governance. ... We need to create structures where the fears and anxieties of civil society can be fully aired and addressed.”

Former WTO Director General Renatto Ruggiero was more to the point. He warned the gathering that “if all actors in today’s global economy are not included to address the widening range of public concerns within this global system ... they may turn to alternative solutions that could possibly destabilize the entire architecture of the global economy.” And he concluded, “Certainly we must continue to advance trade liberalization within the multilateral system. But unless we achieve a consensus and cooperation with all the political actors, we cannot build the necessary support for trade liberalization and the global economy.”

The Social Summit in Seattle collapsed as a result of the mounting frictions between the industrialized countries and the countries of the “Third World,” which feared – with great reason – that the introduction of labour and environmental standards within the WTO treaty would be wielded for protectionist reasons against their countries. But the drive to get the trade unions internationally to swallow the bitter pill of the “free trade” agenda has not halted. Far from it.

In fact, this “neo-corporatist” drive has been given a big impulse by two current events: one staged in Nice, France, on 6^th-8^th December, 2000; the other to be held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, at the end of January, 2001. Both these events should send a warning to all unionists and activists genuinely concerned about waging a struggle to put a halt to the “globalization” onslaught promoted by the WTO, IMF and World Bank. The warning is simple: If you want to roll back the attacks of the globalizers, don’t fall prey to the trap of “globalization with a human face.”

Forging a European “Social Dimension

In France, a whole array of NGOs joined the European Confederation of Trade Unions (ETUC) in organizing a large demonstration and numerous “counter-summits” in the city of Nice on 6^th-8^th December, 2000. The largest action was a “March For a Social Europe” on 6^th December sponsored by the ETUC, an organization which, despite its name, has nothing to do with the trade union movement but rather is a direct construct of the European Union.

One week earlier, on 30^th November to 2^nd December, a series of NGOs (ATTAC, Friends of L’Humanité, Friends of Le Monde Diplomatique, etc.) had sponsored in Paris an Alternative Social Forum titled “One Year After Seattle.” The event was aimed at building the protest at the European Union’s Summit in Nice and putting forward the “movement’s” proposal for a European Union with a “social dimension.” According to the forum appeal issued by the organizers, the “European Union has the economic means to forge a social dimension, on the basis of a Third Way, that could implement policies against unemployment, insecurity, and the undermining of workers’ rights.”

Consistent with this Forum Appeal, keynote speakers from the ruling Socialist and Communist parties, as well as from the “far left” – including the LCR, the French section of the United Secretariat – spoke of “reorienting certain international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO ... so as to create a globalization from below.” They spoke of “building an international citizen’s movement, not to destroy the IMF but to reorient its missions.”

Needless to say, all these proposals mirror almost word for word the proposals made in recent months by all the proponents of “trade liberalization” – from the top officialdom of the WTO on down.

As projected, these demands for a “globalization from below” and for a “reorientation of the IMF” were the central demands of virtually all wings of the “protest” demonstrations in Nice on 6^th-9^th December.

The 6^th December demonstration in Nice called by the ETUC and joined by scores of NGOs and “far left” organizations from across Europe pushed for a “Social Europe” – that is, a European Union with a “Social Charter.” Keynotes speakers from the ETUC and NGOs pointed out in unison that this was the first time that all the proponents of a “Social Europe” had united around a “common agenda.”

But what is this common agenda?

One of the keynote speakers at the various rallies and “counter-summits” was Walter Veltroni, general secretary of the Italian PDS (formerly the Italian Communist Party). Veltroni told a “counter-summit” that “after the great success of the Euro [the new European currency], it is now necessary to construct a European “social model” with a “social agenda.” And he went on to make clear what this agenda entailed. “What is needed,” Veltroni said, “is dialogue and cooperation among all social actors. Only this way can we institute social peace, which is a powerful factor to ensure economic growth.”

In other words, according to Veltroni, the trade unions should cease to function as trade unions defending the specific interests of their members, and instead dissolve into the fray of the NGOs with the aim of upholding the common interests of all civil society – including those of the multinational corporations and the governments in their service.

Emilio Gabaglio, general secretary of the ETUC, echoed this theme in his keynote address to the 6^th December rally. “I am glad to be here,” he said, “because all components of civil society must play a major role in the construction of the European Union. The message of our demonstration is unmistakable: There needs to be the incorporation of the trade unions and NGOs into the decision-making structures in Brussels. ... We agree that Europe must become more competitive, yes. But the new Europe must also contain a dignified quality of life for all its citizens.” (Ibid.)

... the second event that illustrates the dangerous trap of “globalization with a human face” – and that is the World Social Forum of Porto Alegre, Brazil, slated to take place 25^th-30^th January, 2001.

The World Social Forum of Porto Alegre

The World Social Forum has been convened by scores of NGOs throughout the world. US sponsors include 50 Years is Enough, Public Citizen, Global Exchange, Labour Notes, and many others

The World Social Forum presents itself as a grouping of “social institutions and movements,” NGOs, and trade unions. It claims to represent the continuity of the “mobilizations in Seattle and the April 2000 actions in Washington” – all of which “signalled the emergence of a cross-border, citizens’ movement ... that is slated to become an international citizens’ countervailing power.”

The World Social Forum describes itself as the counter-summit to the World Economic Forum held yearly in Davos, Switzerland: “Since 1971,” according to the Manifesto issued by the Forum’s organizing committee, “the World Economic Forum in Davos has played a strategic role in formulating the thinking of all those who promote and implement neo-liberal policies the world over. Its basis of organization is a Swiss foundation that has been granted advisory status in the UN and that is financed by more than 1000 multinational corporations.”

Hence the proposal that the World Social Forum should meet “every year in Porto Alegre, the capital of the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, during the same dates as the Davos Forum” with the purpose of “formulating general perspectives, exchanging experiences and setting up coordinating tactics and strategies among NGOs, social movements, trade unions, associations and citizen groups.”

What is the World Social Forum’s political orientation? The answer is contained in the Manifesto of the Forum: The purpose is to promote “international trade with justice” and a “new trade structure that is just and acceptable.” The purpose is to “democratize” the institutions of globalization, to ensure that the “decision-making process of the international institutions will be democratic and transparent.”

Like the many “Social Summits” that preceded it (notably the Copenhagen Social Summit of 1995) – all organized in tandem with the major international or European summits of the WTO, UN, IMF or the European Union – this new World Social Forum does not represent a challenge to global capitalism. It is therefore not surprising that the World Bank web site is promoting the World Social Forum, reprinting its documents for the information of all its readers and referring to the event positively as “a new organizational perspective launched in June, 2000 in Geneva by the major organizations of civil society.”

The choice of Porto Alegre, Brazil, as the location for the World Social Forum says a lot in itself. This choice was in fact determined, say the initiators in their own words, by the “rich experience” and “example” of this city and state, which have been governed by the “left wing” of the Brazilian Workers Party (PT), primarily by the Brazilian section of the United Secretariat.

Ignacio Ramonet, editor of the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique and one of the initiators of the WSF, referred to the choice of Porto Alegre as follows: “Over the past few years, Porto Alegre has become a model city, ... a sort of social laboratory that all international observers are looking to with great fascination.” Among these international observers, as we noted earlier, is the World Bank itself.

But what is the “rich experience” of Porto Alegre and Rio Grande do Sul, which the organizers of the World Social Forum believe should be emulated the world over as an example of how to fight back against globalization? In what way are this city and state a model of a “countervailing citizen’s movement”?

To begin to answer this question one needs to examine the centrepiece of the Porto Alegre “model” – and that is the city’s “Participatory Budget”.

The “Participatory Budget”

Each year the state government of Rio Grande do Sul decides its annual budget. The first thing they do is earmark a big chunk of the budget – 17% in the year 2000 – to repaying their portion of the country’s $225 billion foreign debt.

The decision to continue paying the debt is hard and fast; it is not up for discussion – given that the state has faithfully pledged to the federal government that it will pay back its share of the national debt to the international creditors – as stipulated by the federal government’s “Law on Fiscal Responsibility.”

It should be pointed out that the repayment of the debt is in itself a violation of the mandate of the people, who elected the Workers Party to head the government of the state of Rio Grande do Sul in 1999 with the demand that their social services be fully funded. Obviously, to the extent that the state and municipal governments agree to pay their portion of the federal debt, an amount that can reach the sum of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, they must reduce the amount of money allocated to schools, housing, healthcare and municipal services.

Then, once the foreign debt allocation is taken care of, all the “grassroots organizations” – that is, the associations (including the employers’ associations), the NGOs, and the trade unions – are invited to “participate” in a marathon assembly to determine the priorities of the budget. This is the “Participatory Budget,” which was first introduced many years ago by the PT-led City Council of Porto Alegre and which today serves as the model for the state government of Rio Grande do Sul.

Public sector workers, teachers, school administrators, shantytown dwellers, and police officers are among the hundreds of “participants” who are given time to argue why their particular project or wage increase should be funded by the budget. Every speaker with a request for funds is given a number. After all presentations are made, the gathering proceeds to a vote. Each person in the room is allowed to vote for one – and only one – priority. The funding request with the largest number of votes is thus considered the top priority. The other requests are ranked in decreasing order of priority, though only the top three have any chance of being funded.

A trade union official who participated in a Participatory Budget Assembly of the Rio Grande do Sul state government last October was aghast at the way in which the workers were being pitted against each other and against the community over an ever-shrinking portion of the budget pie. “The inhabitants of the Vila Dique favella (or shantytown) in Porto Alegre,” the unionist stated, “pleaded with the assembly to fund the titles to their lands to avoid their eviction. They mobilized the entire community and hence outnumbered everyone else. A large number of trade unionists with legitimate demands for funding didn’t even vote for their own request, out of fear of seeing the shantytown dwellers forced off their lands and into the ranks of the homeless.”

Following the vote of the assembly, the elected officials are then joined by delegates from the assembly (apportioned according to the selected priorities) in a subsequent phase of the “Participatory Budget.”

There they must choose between repairing the sewage system (whose collapse regularly results in deadly catastrophes in the favellas) and paying the civil servants (who sometimes are not paid for up to eight months). They must choose between closing the emergency rescue centres in the neighbourhoods (which are sometimes the only place where tens of thousands of working families can receive minimum health care) and putting off again until next year the installation of a running water system.

At the end of the day, however, none of the priorities selected by the assembly may be funded. All this depends on the amount of money available, the feasibility of the project, and a series of other factors.

But regardless of what budget item is finally funded, what is clear is that the World Bank and IMF’s dirty work has been carried out: The cuts in wages and social services demanded by the IMF and World Bank have been imposed with the full “democratic participation” of the workers and community, who were lured into a trap by their misleaders.

This, in a nutshell, is “globalization from below.”