(For the first time, World Social Forum has moved out of Porto Alegre, for a sojourn to the warm waters of Arabian Sea. The six-day long programme in the financial capital of India, Mumbai, will be held in mid-January, 2004.

World Social Forum has been able to attract wide publicity due to its proximity to the powers of the present order, the array of forces it has been able to attract and due to these factors its wide reach in the media. It is neither possible nor desirable to ignore this formation. We have received a number of questions from comrades and readers regarding various aspects of WSF. We have forwarded these questions to the Editor who has endeavoured to answer in brief some of these questions. We shall welcome further questions on the subject and shall continue answering these in the next issue of New Democracy as well. We shall welcome further such questions from the readers and comrades and endeavour to answer them.)

Question: WSF is being projected as a response to World Economic Forum, as a continuation of anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999 and throughout 2000 and as an organizer of the anti-globalization and anti-war movements in western countries. How far is this correct?

Answer: Yes, the organizers of WSF and the international media sympathetic to it have been giving this projection. But these assertions are not correct. World Economic Forum, a gathering of Govt. and business leaders of capitalist world has been meeting in Davos, Switzerland annually since 1971. And now an initiative launched in 2001 is claiming itself to be in response to WEF. It is three decades too late. They are unnecessarily trying to ride roughshod over the questions being faced by the people’s movements against globalization by assuming such airs. It is not even opposed to WEF as Brazilian president Lula recently demonstrated. He addressed both WEF and WSF gatherings in 2003. It was not merely a courtesy to the leader of a host country as his party continues to be one of the main organizers of the WSF.

Regarding WSF being the organizer of the anti-globalization and anti-war protests in western countries, it is not that WSF alone organized these protests. While WSF and its constituents participated in such mobilizations many other organizations too participated and organized these protests. Moreover, these protests were a continuation of the earlier protests which had been continuing since much before the launching of WSF.

WSF is definitely not the continuation of anti-globalization protests which played a role in disrupting the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999 and the massive mobilizations in anti-globalization protests in western countries throughout 2000 before the launching of WSF. WSF on the other hand is a continuation of Social Summits which were continuously being held at the time of WTO, World Bank, IMF and European Union Summits. One such summit was held a day prior to opening of the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999.

But WSF definitely has some relation with anti-globalization protests in Seattle and elsewhere. It is a response of the certain major players in the international arena to prevent these protests from developing into the channels which former WTO Director General Renatto Ruggiero had warned could “turn to alternative solutions that could possibly destablize the entire architecture of the global economy.”

Seattle and other anti-globalization protests marked the disillusionment and opposition of the workers and other labouring sections of developed countries with the present offensive of imperialist capital against people of third world countries and labouring sections at home. They came out in large numbers against WTO, WB, IMF, NATO and imperialist summits. On the other hand people of third world countries have been fighting against IMF-World Bank diktats for globalizing their economies i.e., permitting imperialist MNCs unbridled rights to plunder their economies. The anti-globalization protests opened a possibility of the two streams of struggle- those of the people of third world countries for national liberation and those of workers of imperialist countries against offensive of capital, joining to challenge the present imperialist world order. It could give an international political and organizational contour to the anti-imperialist struggle which it had been lacking since the degeneration of China into a capitalist country.

And this had to be prevented. The rough edges of globalization, this offensive of imperialist capital, had to be smoothened, the framework of anti-globalization had to be strictly laid down so as to not oppose imperialism as such but to confine this opposition to reforming the present global economic system with superficial and marginal changes and most importantly to co-opt the protest movements the world over into this framework. The genuine anti-imperialist struggles could come together only gradually, overcoming their differences in the course of intensifying their struggles. But they were not to be given this opportunity.

The two loyal servants of imperialism, European Social-democracy and NGOs operating in third world countries were pressed into service. Large-scale resources in terms of funds and personnel were mobilized to monopolize the space created by anti-globalization protests and to block the opportunities opened up for world wide struggle against imperialism, particularly its present offensive. Intellectuals are being mobilized the world over with premium on progressive intellectuals. The movements are being co-opted, particularly those struggling against effects of the policies being implemented at the behest of international institutions dominated by imperialism. Another TINA (There Is No Alternative) is being created here of there being no alternative but to accept the anti-globalization movement as envisaged by WSF i.e., struggle for globalization with human face. This TINA is to supplement the TINA of imperialist powers that there is no alternative to the imperialist globalization.

Question: Can WSF not be used for coordinating anti-imperialist struggles? Can it have no role in growing anti-imperialist and anti-globalization struggles of the world people?

Answer: Here it is important to note that WSF cannot be a forum of struggle. It itself bars any such possibility. Its Charter prohibits any common declarations what to talk of formulating common tasks against imperialist exploitation. WSF Charter explicitly states:

“The meetings of the World Social Forum do not deliberate on behalf of the World Social Forum as a body. No one, therefore, will be authorized, on behalf of any of the editions of the Forum, to express positions claiming to be those of all its participants. The participants in the Forum shall not be called on to take decisions as a body, whether by vote or acclamation, on declarations or proposals for action that would commit all, or the majority, of them and that propose to be taken as establishing positions of the Forum as a body.”

Thus it is clear enough that WSF is not intended to be a forum of struggle.

Secondly, it is not even an open meeting place where different forces could interact and exchange their experiences though it claims to be such. WSF Charter states: “The World Social Forum is an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences ....”

“The World Social Forum is opposed to all authoritarian and reductionist views of history ....” Such an assertion in the Charter of WSF is quite unnecessary for a forum claiming to be an open meeting place. That it is not a superfluous provision should be clear to everyone concerned.

That it is not such a place is clear from the fact that it does not provide space for all the forces struggling against imperialist globalization. Its Charter bars participation of “political parties” and “military organizations”. That this bar is selective against the popular forces struggling against imperialism is clear from the stipulations of the Charter itself as well as from how it was applied in practice. The Charter intends “nor to exclude from the debates it promotes those in positions of political responsibility, mandated by their peoples ....” It does not bother the organizers that  many of “those in political responsibility, mandated by their peoples ...” head the military establishments of their countries. WSF’s bar is not intended to apply to them.

To whom it does apply is clear from the organizations which were excluded from participation in WSF Meets in 2002 and 2003. Representatives of FARC (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), Zaptistas from Mexico were excluded and also excluded from WSF were Madres de Palza de Mayo (Mothers of the Disappeared) of Argentina, an organization which is neither a “political party” nor a “military organization”.

From the list of participants, overwhelming among them NGOs, it is clear that it is not even an open place which it claims to be.

Naturally the question arises then, what is it and what purpose is it intended to serve? WSF is an organization intended to guide the anger against imperialist globalization and the miseries and privation it entails for the people of the world, into safe channels of the present system by dangling the bait of reforming this system through ‘people’s participation’. It is intended to co-opt the forces fighting against imperialism into such a venture. It is intended to lure the people’s movements into the trap of “globalization with human face”.

It does so by uniting the forces and movements which are arising the world over due to the impact of the policies of globalization, liberalization and privatization and which do not have the programme of overthrowing the imperialist system itself. It is intended to keep such forces within the overall ambit of the goal of reforming the present system. It seeks to engage and exert pressure on the forces fighting against imperialism to reorient their aims and objectives in accordance with the Charter and orientation of WSF i.e., of fighting for the reform of the system. Like the bourgeois parliaments do have and need ‘loyal’ opposition, imperialism too wants to have a ‘loyal’ anti-imperialist movement i.e., loyal to imperialist system as a whole. On the other hand it seeks to isolate the forces that are consistent and determined in their anti-imperialist orientation. It does not wish to provide space to them to canvass for their aims and objectives, rather it wishes them to accept the orientation of WSF.

While WSF does not claim to be nor it can be a forum for coordinating anti-imperialist struggles, it does a singular disservice to the anti-imperialist struggle of third world countries by making NGOs funded by imperialist institutions, imperialist governments and imperialist funding agencies as legitimate players in the anti-imperialist struggle. It is well known that such organizations i.e., NGOs are mushrooming in third world countries including India in a big way. These NGOs, with their connections with international imperialist institutions, with local governments and being supplied huge funds by imperialists, are no organs of struggle against imperialism. But WSF not only lends credibility to them but is dominated by them.

It is really alarming that many people’s organizations and even revolutionary forces are not displaying enough vigilance on this score. While routinely chanting about the dangers posed by NGOs they are prepared to join hands with the same NGOs under a number of pretexts. They ought to realise that all their voluminous writings will be of no avail if they do not translate them into practice. What is the use of branding them as instruments of imperialism and yet cooperating with them while Indian people are being daily ground down by the policies dictated by the imperialist powers? This is not a good situation and shows that much work needs to be done to make the people’s movements and particularly communist revolutionary organizations shed their illusions about NGOs.

Question: A number of organizations with whom we undertake joint actions are there in WSF. Why can WSF not be treated as a forum of joint actions?

Answer: It is true that a number of organizations with whom we take up joint actions on people’s issues will be attending the WSF. They had also been part of ASF held in Hyderabad. The purpose of the joint actions is to wage struggles on the specific issues of the people. Our Political Resolution states:

“We may build joint struggles with opposition parties of ruling class and revisionist parties on the specific issues of the people except in the states where they are ruling. We should carefully select concrete issues of the people for the very purpose of joint activity with them is to mobilize the people into struggle. We should not undertake joint action with them on issues which do not have such potential.”

What is envisaged is the struggle oriented joint actions on the concrete issues of the people. WSF can not be utilized as such a forum as it is not a struggle oriented forum as we have seen earlier.

On the other hand WSF is raising the slogan “Another world is possible”. It should not be lost sight of that WSF is not talking of another world system but only another world which is quite a vague and nebulous concept. While it taps the anger of the world people against horrors and oppression of imperialism, it does not even raise the issue of changing the imperialist system.

Moreover, WSF is a permanent process as the Policy Guidelines issued by WSF-India clearly state:

“With the Porto Alegre Proclamation that “another world is possible”, it becomes a permanent process of seeking and building alternatives, which cannot be reduced to the events supporting it.” (From the WSF-India, Bhopal, 19^th-20^th April, 2002)

From the above assertion it is quite clear that we are not dealing with specific or concrete issues of the people oppressed by imperialism. We are dealing with the vision of another world which is no vision at all.

From the foregoing it is clear that WSF process is part of the world wide effort to ensure what Renatto Ruggiero called to “achieve a consensus and cooperation with all the political actors” to build “the necessary support for trade liberalization and the global economy.”

As it is no forum for struggle against imperialism and imperialist globalization, there is obviously no question of its being utilized as such a forum.

Question: CPI(M) has been one the most ardent votaries and organizers of WSF in India. Have they changed their attitude towards NGOs and why?

Answer: It is correct that CPI(M) leaders are among the most ardent votaries of the WSF in India. The reasons are not far to seek. It is based on their own approach towards globalization i.e. “globalization with human face” and it embodies the class-collaboration which they have been practising since long, particularly since their suppression of revolutionary armed peasant struggle of Naxalbari.

You have correctly raised the question of change of their attitude towards NGOs. In 1988 Prakash Karat had written an article titled “Foreign Funding and the Philosophy of Voluntary Organizations” which was published in the Marxist. In that article he had commented about the link between voluntary organizations (now called NGOs) and imperialism in the following words, “By providing liberal funds to these groups, imperialism has created avenues to penetrate directly vital sections of Indian society and simultaneously use this movement as a vehicle to counter and disrupt the potential of the Left movement” and “CPI(M) and the Left forces have to take serious note of this arm of imperialist penetration while focusing on the instruments and tactics of imperialism.” (italics added)

Shri Prakash Karat had waxed eloquent about the pro-imperialist role of NGOs then. And now the same CPM has no qualms in joining hands with NGOs in WSF process. Obviously their stand has undergone definite change. One of their prominent leaders was quoted as saying: “You have got to realize that there are also NGOs and a large number of similar civil society formations that are essential ingredients of any social structure. Therefore, while being vigilant about the imperialist designs, we have to distinguish between civil society organizations that are pro-imperialist and pro-globalization and those that are not.” (CPM MLA and Former Member of State Planning Board, Dr. Thomas Issac, quoted in Aspects of India’s Economy, No. 35)

Or as CITU Secretary Vardarajan recently wrote, justifying their collaboration with NGOs in the following words: “You must have noticed that there is an upcoming trend, nationally as well as internationally, where NGOs claiming to represent the ‘civil society’, have been critical of political parties and traditional mass movements/organisations. Even in India, while the mass organisations have come together for united actions under the National Platform of Mass Organisation (NPMO), another outfit called National Alliance of ‘People’s Movements’ (NAPM) has also been active on various issues, in different parts of the country. The WSF, which is inclusive, diverse and open to pluralism, is participated by such NGOs as well. The terms ‘civil society’, ‘social movements’ etc. have to be viewed in this background.”

It is clear that CPI(M) has changed, or rather, has updated its understanding about NGOs like they updated their programme in Thiruananthapuram Conference. The real reason behind this change is the revision they have undertaken after collapse of Soviet Union and disintegration of the camp of social-imperialism. CPI(M) had formulated its earlier stand in the period of contention between two superpowers, USA and Soviet Union for world domination. Prakash Karat’s article had embodied that understanding. CPI(M) was obviously a supporter of Soviet domination of India whose exploitative investment in India they used to support. CPI(M) was not against total imperialism, they were against western imperialist powers then. Karat in that article had said: “The whole voluntary agencies / action groups network is maintained and nurtured by funds from western capitalist countries.”

After the disintegration of the camp of social-imperialism, there are no two world markets and Russian capital has become and is becoming part of imperialist world market dominated by western imperialist powers. In these conditions CPI(M) has had to revise its attitude towards western imperialist capital and now sees it as a harbinger of new technology and production methods and similarly their funded agencies have become apostles of anti-globalization and anti-imperialism and of service to the people. It is pertinent to note that CPI(M) had not been opposed to funded NGOs (though the funds for those schemes/projects might have originated from the same western capitalist countries) and their cadres have been actively associating with them.

While noting this change in the attitude of CPI(M) we should be clear that their earlier attitude towards NGOs funded by western capitalist countries was reflecting the struggle between two superpowers for world hegemony and was no principled position against NGOs as such and the danger posed by them to the people’s struggles and mass movements against imperialism and domestic reactionaries. It is clear from the fact that while danger from NGOs has grown manifold, CPI(M) has chosen to collaborate with them whom they once described as “arm of imperialist penetration”. They ought to know and be answerable that “The scale of funding and the vast amounts involved are so striking...” have grown many times in amount and become many times more striking. Why then has CPI(M) chosen to side with them; could the clue be in the growing funds and clout of NGOs?